Loading...
2009 06-04Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting June 4, 2009 Meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission of June 4, 2009, was called to order at 7:05 p.m. by Chairman David Moe. Members Present: Chairman David Moe, Commissioner Wendy Newton-Huckabay, and Commissioner Joe Marshall. Members Absent: Commissioner Tom O'Brien and Commissioner Michael Rohm. Others Present: Machelle Hill, Bill Nary, Anna Canning, Sonya Watters, Bill Parsons, Scott Steckline, Terri Ricks and Dean Willis. Item 1: Roll-Call Attendance: Roll-call X Wendy Newton-Huckabay Tom O'Brien Michael Rohm -Vice Chairman X Joe Marshall X David Moe -Chairman Moe: Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. I'd like to welcome you to the regularly scheduled meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission for June 4th. At this time I'd like to open the meeting and ask the clerk to call roll, please. Item 2: Adoption of the Agenda: Moe: Thank you very much. Next item on the agenda is the adoption of the agenda. There are a couple of items on there I want to go over. Items No. 4, 5 and 6 will be continued to other hearings. Item No. 4, which is CUP 09-005 for Willow Creek Elementary, will be continued to our meeting of July the 2nd. And five and six are for Cavanaugh Ridge. Both those hearings will be continued to the meeting of August the 6th. We will continue those when we get into the order. Also on the agenda Item No. 8, there will be an additional 8-A, which will be the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for approval of that CUP 09-006 and we will do that. Therefore, with all those changes can I get a motion to accept the revised agenda. Marshall: So moved. Newton-Huckabay: Second. Moe: It's been moved and seconded. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. TWO ABSENT. Meridian Planning & Zoning June 4, 2009 Page 2 of 33 Item 3: Consent Agenda: A. Approve Minutes of May 7, 2009 Planning and Zoning Commission Regular Meeting: B. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: CUP 09-004 Request for Conditional Use Permit for a daycare center in an R-4 zoning district for Pitter Patter Club by Pitter Patter Club, LLC - 2371 N. Monaco Way: Moe: Next item on the agenda is the Consent Agenda. We have items -- the approval of meeting minutes from our May 7th, Planning and Zoning Commission meeting, and, then, Item No. B is the Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, for approval of CUP 09- 004 for Pitter Patter Club. Can I get a motion to approve the Consent Agenda? Marshall: So moved. Newton-Huckabay: Second. Moe: It's been moved and seconded to approve the Consent Agenda. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? That motion carries. Thank you. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. TWO ABSENT. Item 4: Public Hearing: CUP 09-005 Request for Conditional Use Permit for a Public Education Institution in an R-4 zoning district for Willowcreek Elementary by Joint School District No. 2 - 2500 W. Tango Creek Drive: Moe: Next item is -- I want to open the public hearing for CUP 09-005 for the Willow Creek Elementary School for the sole purpose of continuing it to the regularly scheduled meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission for July 2nd. Can I get a motion to -- Newton-Huckabay: So moved. Marshall: Second. Moe: It's been moved and seconded to continue public hearing CUP 09-005 for Willow Creek Elementary to the regularly scheduled meeting of the Planning and Zoning for July 2nd. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? That motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. TWO ABSENT. Item 5: Continued Public Hearing from November 20, 2008: RZ 08-005 Request for Rezone of 26.58 acres from an R-4 to an R-8 zone for Cavanaugh Ridge by Kastera Development, LLC -east of S. Meridian Road and south of E. Victory Road: Meridian Planning & Zoning June 4, 2009 Page 3 of 33 Item 6: Continued Public Hearing from November 20, 2008: PP 08-010 Request for Preliminary Plat approval for 255 residential building lots and 26 common area Tots on 91.08 acres in an R-4 and proposed R-8 zoning district for Cavanaugh Ridge by Kastera Development, LLC -east of S. Meridian Road and south of E. Victory Road: Moe: I would now like to open the continued public hearings for RZ 08-005 and PP 08- 010 for Cavanaugh Ridge for the sole purpose of continuing those hearings to the regularly scheduled Planning and Zoning meeting of August the 5th. Can I get a motion? Newton-Huckabay: So moved. Marshall: Second. Moe: It's been moved and seconded to continue RZ 08-005 and PP 08-010 for Cavanaugh Ridge to the regularly scheduled meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission for August the 6th. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? That motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. TWO ABSENT. Moe: Okay, everybody, now we are going to do something now we can do here. At this time I'd like to open the -- well, before I open the public hearings, I pretty much think everybody's been here before, but if you have not been here before I want to just kind of go through a few things as far as the format for the Planning and Zoning. I will .open the public hearing, at which time the planning staff will give an overview of the project. After they are done the applicant will come forward and the applicant will have 15 minutes to express their opinions and questions and whatnot in regards to the hearing. After that period is up there are sign-up sheets in the back. If you have signed up you will be given three minutes to ask your questions and comments in regards to the project. After all the names have been read I will ask one more time if there is anyone else in the audience that would like to speak on behalf of the project. If none, then, I will, then, ask the applicant to come back up and spend some time rebutting any information that was asked during the public hearing phase. Item 7: Public Hearing: RZ 09-002 Request for Rezone of 10.13 acres from R-8 (medium density residential) to TN-R (traditional neighborhood residential) zone for Crossfield by Pride, LLC -south side of W. Ustick Road and west of N. Blairmore Way: Moe: So, having said that, I would now like to open the public hearing on RZ 09-002 for Crossfield and start with the staff report, please. Meridian Planning & Zoning June 4, 2009 Page 4 of 33 Wafters: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. The next item before you is a rezone request of 10.13 acres of land from R-8, medium density residential, to TN-R, traditional neighborhood residential. The property is located on the southwest corner of Ustick Road and Venable Lane. The map on the left there shows the zoning and the location of the property. The one on the right shows an aerial view of the property. This site consists of vacant platted land in Crossfield Subdivision. Surrounding uses are platted undeveloped single family residential lots in Crossfield Subdivision to the south and west. Rural residential property in Ada County to the east and vacant undeveloped commercial property to the north and developed commercial property to the northeast of the site. The applicant has submitted a conceptual development plan showing how the site may develop in the future with five 16 unit multi- family structures consisting of a total of 80 dwelling units, a pool, club house, common area, 12 -- or, excuse me -- 20 alley-loaded single family residential lots, two attached single family residential lots and three detached single family residential lots. The overall gross density for this site is estimated at 10.37 dwelling units per acre and the net density is 12.34 units per acre, which is consistent with the MUC land use designation and TN-R zoning. Conceptual building elevations were also submitted for the multi-family structures. Building materials consist of asphalt shingles, wood facia and trim, and hard board siding with stone accents. The subject property is designated as mixed use community within a neighborhood center on the Comprehensive Plan future land use map. Staff believes the requested TN-R district is consistent with this designation. The diagram on the right is included in the Comp Plan as the -- one concept layout for a neighborhood center. This plan reflects an urban environment. although the proposed concept plan includes a range of medium to high density residential use as desired, a commercial component is not included on the site. There are, however, commercial uses northeast of this site and undeveloped commercial property directly across Ustick that contribute to the variety of uses within the neighborhood center. There is also undeveloped property to the east across Venable Lane that may include commercial uses upon development. Because the site lies within a neighborhood center designated area, the design guidelines for residential and urban developments apply to development of the multi-family portion of this site. The design guidelines for residential developments apply to the single family portion of the site. Staff has reviewed these guidelines and found the proposed concept plan is not consistent with the majority of the criteria, mainly because the multi-family portion does not have an urban character as desired for neighborhood centers. Therefore, staff is recommended as a development agreement provision that future development of the site comply with the aforementioned design guidelines in the city's design manual. Staff is also recommending that a public stub street be provided to the east property boundary for future connection to Venable Lane upon development of the Simunich property, consistent with the block length requirement in UDC 11-6C-3F.2 and the Comprehensive Plan. In regard to the DA provision requiring public or private streets to be provided for addressing purposes within the multi-family portion of the site, planning and fire department staff have agreed that these units can be addressed off of Parkstone Street and private streets are not necessary. Therefore, staff is requesting DA provision 1.2D and comment 3.12 be removed, provided that an address identification is provided to each driveway entrance to the multi-family development. No Meridian Planning & Zoning June 4, 2009 Page 5 of 33 written testimony has been received on this application. Staff is recommending approval of the rezone to TN-R with a development agreement, but is not supportive of the proposed concept plan as stated in the staff report. Staff will stand for any questions the Commission may have at this time. Moe: Any questions of staff? Newton-Huckabay: I just have one. Sonya, can you -- I have 1.2D. I wanted to mark the other one while it was fresh in mind. Wafters: Yes. 3.12. Newton-Huckabay: Thank you. Moe: Any other questions? Okay. Would the applicant like to come forward, please. Please state your name and address for the record, please. McKay: Becky McKay, Engineering Solutions, 1029 North Rosario, Meridian. We are representing the applicant on this application. Just to kind of give you guys a little bit of history of what transpired, the request for the TN-R rezone is part of the original Crossfield project that we brought through the city for approval back in October of 2005. Phase one has been constructed and recorded. Phrase two has been constructed, with the exception of paving, and it's recorded. Phase three is constructed and we are on the verge of recording our plat. Phase four is what you see -- the proposed apartment complex and back in 2005 the Council had asked us to delay development on that 5.83 acres up there in the northeast corner of the Crossfield project for at least two years. Their thought was since the property to the east, which is approximately 15 acres, was undeveloped, the Ward property, that if it were to start developing, then, we could coordinate with them and kind of integrate our plan with theirs and possibly get Venable Lane constructed when that project to the east went through. We have waited three and a half years. The Ward property never did come in for any applications or development. Quite a few developers did approach the owners, but nothing ever transpired. Since, then, our initial plan was that we would have some patio homes, alley load, and so forth consistent with some of the other single family residential units that we had within the other portion of Crossfield, .but with the changing market conditions, this 5.83 acres was sold to another developer and in looking at that he believed that the apartments made more sense. And so we went through the neighborhood center section of the Comprehensive Plan, we looked at it, it promoted a diversity in residential type development, promoted multi-family and it allowed up to 15 dwelling units per acre within either like a TN-R or an R-15 zone. So, we thought that this made good sense and I received a phone call from the developer on the north side of Ustick who had Settlers Square, Mr. Runyan, and he indicated -- his first question was I hope you're not doing commercial, because I have a commercial project to the north, we haven't constructed it, we are waiting for the market conditions to change and there to be more demand and more people within this area. He indicated that the Cedar Springs commercial was struggling. The Fast Eddy's Chevron I guess does very well, because Meridian Planning & Zoning June 4, 2009 Page 6 of 33 it has a lot of capture of the traffic going up and down Ustick, but as far as ,the shells that they have built out there, one is completely vacant and some of the others just have one or two tenants. So, he was concerned that we didn't create anything that would compete against his proposed project. At our neighborhood meeting one of the comments we received from a resident within Crossfield was I hope you're not proposing any commercial and I said, no, we are looking at doing some nice apartments and she said she did not object to that. In order to meet the criteria of the TN-R it states that you have to have at least two housing types. So, that is why the request before you includes not only the 5.83 acres multi-family portion, but it lops into the Crossfield two and that was in order to meet that criteria. So, technically the application before you is ten -- a little over ten acres from R-8 to TN-R. We are proposing 80 apartment units in five buildings. There is 20 alley load single family detached residential units, three single family residential units, and two attached single family units within the TN-R district. We believe that the higher densities in this area will help support future development retail and, obviously, create the need for service-related industries across the street, which is what has been established. It is our intent that the multi-family development will have its own club house, it's own pool, and it will be constructing pathways that intersect with the existing pathways, our own pocket park, large fountain, park benches. We have got about 23 percent open space if you include everything. If we exclude our buffers, we are looking at about 13.55 percent. The overall design of the project was intended to meet that neighborhood center. We had shorter blocks, interconnected open space, good street connectivity. We connected to the multi-use pathway down at Five Mile. We also constructed a second multi-use pathway along the Creason Lateral. We had traditional single family, alley load, attached, accessory dwelling units and we also incorporated the radiating pattern of densities. As you recall in the traditional -- or the neighborhood center, it says that -- that you had lower densities within the interior and as we radiate towards the arterial that those densities increase. So, obviously, our highest density would be the apartment complex and that is adjacent to Ustick Road, which is an arterial. We think that multi-family dwellings will create a nice buffer from the arterial with the commercial across the street. We also intend to orient the buildings in a north-south direction within the interior and I toured through a project that had done that very same design and they did an excellent job with the site elevation and landscaping and you had to walk around to the front of the building to see that they were multi-family. Going down the street, as you looked at just -- it just looked like you had another single family type dwelling or an attached single family unit, but as far as the bulk that we typically see, it kind of buffers that. We have gone through the staff report -- oh. First I want to touch on traffic. We did have an overall traffic study for this project. We did have the traffic engineer take a second look at it, what will the impact be with the apartments. The original traffic generation was about 1,828 vehicles per day at build out. The 80 unit apartments adds 162 vehicles per day. So, 1,990 I think was what he estimated. Based on that analysis there would be no new traffic impacts and we would not exceed, obviously, the capacity of the roadways within the interior of this development. We have looked at the staff report. think Sonya indicated that they were modifying the requirement under the DA. We met with the fire and got the issue of the addressing worked out. 1 guess one thing -- we are in agreement with 1.2 A, B, E and F. D has been eliminated by the staff. I'd like to talk Meridian Planning & Zoning June 4, 2009 Page 7 of 33 a little bit about C. I believe -- could you put up like the vicinity map, Sonya? That's not it. Wafters: Do you want yours or mine? McKay: Yeah. Can you put up mine? Wafters: The aerial or the -- McKay: Either one. I just want to show that stub street. Technical difficulties. Sorry. When we -- when we initially platted the -- and designed the subdivision, this is a platted street right here and one of the thoughts wasn't -- we worked with Anna and Ada County Highway District was that we provide some type of a stub street connection to the east in the event that Venable ever were to be constructed as a public street, because at this time there is 20 feet right of way adjoining the Ward property. On the west side there is 20 feet of flag lot that goes down to Mr. Simunich's property here, which is approximately seven acres, and he utilizes that as his private driveway. So, this point was agreed upon, because it made the most sense. We have got a collector coming in and, then, we had this east-west street come clear across. So, that would give the interconnectivity. We also stubbed to Mr. Simunich here. We coordinated with him and Mrs. Simunich, they constructed a new home, we wanted to make sure that that street was in a proper location, so that if he chose to subdivide in the future that would work for him, because it was for his benefit. Staff asked in -- in 1.2C that we provide another stub street. There is no way for me to provide another public stub street. This is already constructed. There is sewer, water, curb, gutter, sidewalk, storm drainage facilities, and joint trench. The only thing we have remaining to do is pave and it's already recorded. So, these lots already exist and they are platted. I have no ability to create another stub. And the staff quoted a section in the ordinance talking about block length not to exceed 500 feet. I did evaluate our block length and looked at them. This block here is between 450 and 460 feet. And, then, I have got a nice grid pattern here. It's 420 feet from here to here, 560 from here, so I'm trying to figure out what block would it break up, what face of block. It can't be done and it doesn't make any sense. was puzzled when I read it. So, I would ask that the Commission remove 1.2C. I also went back through the Ada County Highway District comments and this stub street here was the location that they had asked for. That was also the location that we -- was agreed to by the staff in 2005. Any other stubs there would be redundant, in my opinion. And I don't know where they are coming from. Do you have any questions? Moe: Any questions of the applicant, Commissioners? Newton-Huckabay: I just have one. Moe: Commissioner Newton-Huckabay. Newton-Huckabay: You didn't comment on the design guidelines that the staff discussed -- the design guidelines, not meeting them? Meridian Planning & Zoning June 4, 2009 Page 8 of 33 McKay: Yes, Commissioner Huckaberry, we have been working with the staff. We have had a couple of pre-application conferences. Sonya, could you put up the elevation there? The architect -- that's still a work in progress as far as the building exterior design. Staff has made some suggestions. I think we have met with them on at least two different occasions. So, they are still trying to incorporate some of the ideas that Will had as far as the new design review standards. As far as the site plan is concerned, we got some suggestions on that. This was, basically, a concept an architect came up with and, then, we kind of refined it and put it on CAD and we will be working with the staff to try to get closer to what they think the design standards request. We -- one of the things they talked about was, you know, rotating some of the buildings, talking about the pedestrian interconnectivity, so those are -- those are things that we will have to do when we go into that design review process. I guess if we can't agree upon those things, then, we end up here on appeal. This design review process is new here in Meridian, so I think we have all got to get our feet wet and figure out exactly what -- you know, what direction that's going to take, you know, depending on whether they look at it from a purest perspective or look at it as -- you know, it's an evolutionary thing and a compromise and so forth, like we have at Boise city. But I think, you know, we can get there. We wanted the Commission to see how this project would integrate into the existing development and so that's why we came up with a site plan. One of the things that staff -- Will indicated he wanted me to rotate the buildings east-west, which to me, then, you have the bulk exposed to the subdivision and I like the idea, I wanted to take some -- bring some pictures to him to look at as far as the project I toured through where that works so slick, because I'm going to have alley loaded, attached single family, with accessory dwelling units across the street, so I want it all to mesh together. Moe: Okay. McKay: So, like I said, it's new ground that we are going through here. Moe: Absolutely. Any other questions of the applicant at this time? Okay. Thank you very much. McKay: Thank you. Moe: On the sign-up sheet the first one would be Joe Simunich. And I do note your point that you may need more than three minutes. Come forward, let's get started. I will give you a little bit of leeway there, but I'm not going to let you talk all night. I would anticipate five minutes at the most. Name and address for the record, please. Simunich: My name is Joe Simunich and I reside at 2715 Venable Lane, Meridian, Idaho. Moe: Thank you. Meridian Planning & Zoning June 4, 2009 Page 9 of 33 Simunich: We did own the Crossfield property and we sold the farm to the Crossfield development in 2005 for residential. Basically residential. That's what we were told by the buyers. This property was platted for 250 homes, plus or minus, at a Planning and Zoning meeting. And Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission asked the developer not to proceed with houses on this approximately five and a half acres that's in question now for these apartments. And the developer agreed and now is determined it was not needed for commercial, so a new developer wants to put apartments in this -- in this area. So, apparently, the commercial is not needed in this area at this time. If this would have been commercial where would the accesses to Ustick Road been if this had been commercial? Just something to think about. Now, before this body there is a request to rezone the area for apartments. I am concerned about this property, because it is adjacent to our 20 foot private road, which is called Venable Lane. I purchased it some years ago, because when Valen Court wanted to develop they needed to cross Venable Lane and it was owned by people that held it as a spite strip. So, then, apparently that didn't -- they couldn't get that road across to the property we own now, so I purchased the property, that Venable Lane, the full length of it, about -- oh, Ithink it's 1,800 feet long and 20 feet wide. The county has 20 feet on the west side -- on the east side of the property that we own -- or the Venable Lane that we own. COMPASS states that they would like to see the south portion of Venable Lane become a collector. Now, Becky has said we have a street there -- does this marker work on this? Canning: Yes, it does. Simunich: Right here this -- this street here, Becky said that it's to be extended in the future. I wondered by who and when and to where. Apparently there is no interest in developing Venable Lane for an access from these apartments. So, all the traffic from the apartments will have to rotate and come out through Blairmore Street. It would be logical to put -- to develop Venable Lane to Ustick. There is Stanhope or even Parkstone to relieve that -- to relieve that traffic to keep it from going through Blairmore. So, I believe that this Venable Lane should be utilized as a collector street. Who would build this -- Becky said that when the Ward property develops it may develop Venable Lane into a collector. Why not do it now? Now is the time to do it. I have offered this property to -- to the Ada County Highway District free of charge. We have access, which Crossfield has provided for our seven acres, so we will not eventually need this Venable Lane access. We have built a new house on this seven acres. We even faced it so it would fit a new eventual street. So, we do not need Venable Lane as -- will not need Venable Lane as an access. If it's not used or something done with it, it will become a 20 foot weed strip, possibly a 40 foot weed strip that goes nowhere. Another question I have is how long is it going to take to build these apartments? Are we going to have another five year project and nothing gets done? Build one and leave it -- leave it until somebody wants to build another one. I know the developer or Becky has proposed a two rail fence between the property of the apartments and Venable Lane. Right now we have all kinds of people coming from Crossfield, they cut across that open ground now going to that convenience store. Put these apartments in there with 80 units and a two rail -- two rail plastic fence, it's not going to hold the kids out of there. Meridian Planning & Zoning June 4, 2009 Page 10 of 33 They go to the convenience store, by the time they get across the street and stuff they have drank their Cokes or whatever and they pitch them into the ditch. So, I think if Venable Lane is not used as a collector -- built as a collector or part of it, the west half, then, I believe we should have a six foot plastic fence full length of the east side of the Crossfield property, the Crossfield development, and this -- and this apartment complex. So, does the Commission have any questions forme? Moe: Any questions? Newton-Huckabay: I have none at this time. Thank you. Marshall: I'm curious as to how far are you asking Venable Lane to be developed? Are you talking down to an entrance into the apartments or down to the stub street or down to your house or how far are you wanting Venable Lane to be developed? Simunich: Logically at this time it would -- it should be, I think built to that stub street. When Valen Court was being designed the Planning and Zoning Commission put an approach into the Ward property and from that property there was discussion that we would turn west and join Venable Lane and they would also come out at Venable Lane and Ustick, which would work very good for the Ward property, the Jackson property, and the Crossfield property. It would just be a hell of a good place for an access road. I just don't understand everybody not wanting to do that. People keep telling me -- engineers -- I don't know where they get their information -- but they say that Venable Lane to the north does not line up to Venable Lane at the south, it can't be built. Well, I got maps right here that show the center lines are in perfect alignment. Right here is a recording from Ada County Highway District that says they do line up. There is no problem connecting South Venable Lane to North Venable Lane. So, it's kind of frustrating when you come to these meetings and it seems like sometimes it falls on deaf ears, but -- Moe: Well, Mr. Simunich, I'm kind of curious, you said that you have offered Venable Lane to the county already? Simunich: Oh, yes. In 2005. Moe: And their decision was what? Simunich: They say they can't accept undeveloped right of way. Moe: Okay. Simunich: All right. Now, if this 20 feet were owned by -- by Crossfield, they would probably have to do it. They didn't buy it, now I'm giving it to them free and nobody wants to improve the community in that area. Everybody wants save their own dollars and they could care less about some community of the items. Meridian Planning & Zoning June 4, 2009 Page 11 of 33 Moe: Thank you very much. Any other questions? Newton-Huckabay: No. Marshall: One last question. Moe: Commissioner Marshall. Marshall: You're saying if Venable Lane is not developed you'd like to see a fence along there? Simunich: Pardon? Marshall: If Venable Lane is not developed you'd like to see a fence along there? Simunich: Well, if it's not developed we should have a six foot fence there. If you have a two feet -- a two rail plastic fence you can imagine what traffic will go through there to that convenience store across the street. Be much better if we had a road access there and a sidewalk along that west property line to feed into Ustick Road. Marshall: Thank you. Moe: Thank you. Simunich: Thank you. Moe: Next on the sign-up sheet would be Lori -- Lori Luke and Carol's right next to it, so I guess you're both coming up together. Luke: We are kind of a package. Moe: That will work and just both names and addresses, please, for the record. Luke: I'm Lori Luke. I reside at 2934 Fairglen Avenue in Crossfield and when I purchased the home in March of '08 it was presented to me that Crossfield had certain structural guidelines that were to be adhered to, so one of -- one of our main concerns here tonight is what the design is going to be on the single family dwellings, along with the apartments. We came here to gather information and voice our concerns, but we are protecting our property values and our quality of life in Crossfield. Moe: Well, I'm going to make a statement here and the staff can correct me if I'm wrong, but tonight's hearing is for a rezoning of the property and that is, basically, what we are going to be acting on this evening. As far as design and whatnot, as per the application and whatnot, there has already been notation that they are going to have to come back before -- before the city showing, you know, the designs to, basically, meet criteria that is with the city that they have not met yet, so -- Meridian Planning & Zoning June 4, 2009 Page 12 of 33 Luke: Okay. Any other questions that -- Devers: Can we ask some questions about this proposed plan? Moe: Certainly. Newton-Huckabay: Name and address. Moe: For designwise you mean? Devers: Well, I have some statements and some questions. Moe: Please name and address for the record. Devers: 2934 North Fairglen. Carol Devers. The first point was -- Lori already -- we didn't buy there to have neighborhood diversity. We didn't buy there to have neighborhood diversity. They are using that sort of as a selling point, but we don't feel this plan is compatible with the existing development. I'm really concerned with where the proposed inlets and outlets to the proposed high density neighborhood would be. Blairmore is an unacceptable alternative. This man so generously offered Venable Lane. That seems like win-win if this plan really goes forward. That would be amazing and wonderful and it just seems like a real good plan there. So, again, is there any proposed inlet and outlet at this time? Is it off Blairmore currently? That's unacceptable. I mean that's -- anyway -- and she was mentioning that the pedestrian connectivity would intersect with the existing walkways. Does that mean in the portion of -- of Crossfield where we currently reside? Is this going to be partitioned off unto itself or is this -- when we are talking pedestrian connectivity are we talking about right into our pool area and our walkways? Moe: I will have to ask her when she comes up to do the rebuttals. Devers: Okay. And, then, also she had referenced something about additional traffic would only be a count of approximately -- if I got her numbers right -- 170 additional -- I find that hard to believe, because there are going to be 105 residences, most residences have at least two cars each. So, at least it would be another 210 cars on Meridian, Ustick, and Linder on a daily basis in and out of there and that's a conservative number. So, I find that of a lot of concern. Also I notice that on page two of the written narrative to -- it says written narrative, Crossfield multi-family, request for rezone. It stated here in the first paragraph on that page two: It is obvious that additional commercial development in this area does not make good economic sense, because it would compete with the existing empty retail. I think they are referring to Bob Runyan's undeveloped Settlers Square and, then, by that reasoning why are more residential units being added that will compete with existing empty housing all around here? I don't understand a need for this development at all and especially a high Meridian Planning & Zoning June 4, 2009 Page 13 of 33 density apartment complex. And, lastly, I wanted to know what our available remedies are if we find this proposed development unacceptable as presented. Thank you Moe: Thank you. That was all that was signed up. If there is anyone else that would like to come forward, you're more than welcome. Would the applicant like to come back up, please. McKay: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. On this project, since Mr. Simunich sold the property to my client when we did our initial master plan, we worked with Mr. Simunich closely and at that particular time he had indicated that he purchased that 20 foot flag with -- attached to the seven acres. He had no interest in providing it as any right of way and he wanted a driveway. He did go on the record -- these are the Council minutes -- saying that -- that he didn't want another stub street to his property, that they have one here where we are building our residence. We put the street where it accommodates this residence without any problem and Ada County says one access is enough for our seven acres. And Mr. Rountree asked him at the build out of the subdivision with all the surface streets that will provide, would you continue to access your property on Venable Lane or through the paved streets in the sub. He said, no, we will still plan to access through Venable Lane until we subdivide that piece of property. Then, the road right in front of our residence is the one the street will be connected to. So, you know, there was a lot of debate with the staff, with ACHD, and ACHD, you know, came to the conclusion that it was going to have to take place, if Venable were to happen, when the property -- the Ward property developed. I have a January 29th, '09, letter from Ada County Highway District signed by Christy Little that she wrote to Mr. Simunich when he asked her if they would accept his 20 feet for some right of way and she said should you decide to develop your property in the future or should the Ward property east of Venable Lane develop, ACHD will, again, examine the need for Venable Lane to be dedicated and converted to a public street. However, because ACHD required the adjacent development to construct stub streets to your parcel and the Ward parcel, the need to construct Venable as a public street has diminished and that is a benefit to the future development of these two parcels, meaning his and the Ward property. Venable targeted to be a collector. There is only 20 feet of right of way there. He only has 20 feet. typically the right of way for a collector is between 50 and 60 feet. Usually it's 60. It has to be a minimum of 36 back to back. Meridian requires detached sidewalks. If a signal is ever installed along Ustick Road, it would most likely be at the Venable location, because it is at the half mile. It would have to meet the warrant. At this time it doesn't meet the warrant. You have to have at least 4,000 vehicle trips from either the north or the south leg to meet that warrant. This has been debated and debated I don't know how many times and one of the problems was kind of the sins of the past when Waterbury Park and those subdivisions south of us went in years ago, Meridian did not plan for a continuouos collector to go through, which is what use kind of the neighborhood centers intended, that you would have a continuous collector running from one arterial to the next, carrying a substantial amount of traffic, six, eight thousand vehicle trips a day, you'd have a nice signalized intersection and, then, we'd have these neighborhood commercial centers serving the neighborhoods that adjoined it and capturing that traffic without people going out on the arterials. That Meridian Planning & Zoning June 4, 2009 Page 14 of 33 was how it was intended, but, unfortunately, that's not how that area developed and it's still in the Comprehensive Plan showing Venable as a future collector. But it is all keyed on the Ward property. My clients never owned the 20 feet. The 20 feet -- Mr. Simunich bought it from -- I think he told me Mr. Venable. It was a flag access down to his seven acres. So, I think it's going to depend on when the Ward property develops and at that time I think if he's willing to donate it to the highway district to give it to the Wards or the developer of the Ward property, they will say yea, let's rock and roll and at that time it will take place. As far as the fence, the only reason I went with like some type of a shorter two rail fence was Mr. Simunich had made the comment to me when he was in my office that he would prefer we not wall him -- his driveway in and create like this, you know, wall effect and he said it would be nice if he had some landscaping -- you know, I'd like to look at some landscaping. So, I thought that that got closer to what he wanted, but, obviously, if he wants a six foot fence we do not object to that. You know, it's up to him. I was just trying to accommodate him. As far as the pathway to Ustick and the kids going across, you're, obviously, going to get some pedestrian -- people -- pedestrians walking across Ustick to the C store. There will be children. We have included a pedestrian connection within the sidewalks in the interior and it runs west of the landscaping, west of the fence to keep it -- I don't see any reason why they'd want to walk over onto his driveway when we've got a nice pedestrian connection there. To answer Lori and Carol's questions real quick, there are architectural guidelines for the Crossfield Subdivision. It was intended to be like more of a neo-traditional type development and we did under our original planned unit development submit colored elevations of the homes and I have driven out there, looked at what's been constructed. What's been constructed is consistent and looks almost identical to a lot of those elevations that we have submitted. As far as trying to maintain that consistency, I would except the staff, because it was approved initially, the project and annexed with -- this was the style of the homes that would go in here and I think that -- you know, that style has to also been looked at when designing these multi-family buildings. I think Carol indicated that she doesn't want neighborhood diversity, but that's what this area is designated for, a diverse residential development to provide different densities for different lifestyles, different homes, and in order to support the commercial that's out there you've got to have the higher densities and that's why there is a floor density for neighborhood centers of eight dwelling units, so that that will take place. Blairmore, there is concern about Blairmore. Blairmore is a collector roadway. There is no parking. There is no access with the exception of a loop drive to the day care, which we planned with our initial development that's right there at the corner and we ended up doing a nice drive-thru, so that there wouldn't be any conflict with stacking. We will create 162 additional trips above and beyond what was initially intended, which is very few, and as far as how long will this take, our client intends to construct the whole facility this year and he's not building it -- he's going to be building the apartment buildings keeping them. That is the information that I have received. There is a concern about competing with empty single family dwellings or the lots that are out there. Apartments don't compete with single family dwellings, because these would be rentals. So, as far as that impact on whatever inventory that's left in the development, that would not take place. When I had -- had our neighborhood meeting I recommended that some of the neighbors talk with Bill Parsons and get some copies of Meridian Planning & Zoning June 4, 2009 Page 15 of 33 those elevations and, you know, get with the new developer. Some of these projects are getting sold and, obviously, I do my best to make sure that the integrity of the development continues on and that what was envisioned, you know, is what's built. Everybody has their different opinions, but, like I said, I do my best. I gave as much information to the neighbors as I could. They wanted to know who had purchased it and I told them who to talk to at the city. I spent a lot of time answering questions and I'd be glad to answer questions after this and get them with Mr. Campbell, who is working with Mr. Honeymiller to hopefully maybe set something up and try to get everybody on the same page. Or at least incorporate some of their thoughts and concerns. Thank you. Moe: Any questions? Marshall: Before you step down, I have got a real quick question for staff. Several times in the staff report you mentioned that you'd like to see a more urban environment. What specifically are we referring to when we ask for a more urban design or site? Canning: The Comprehensive Plan for the neighborhood centers gives a very specific concept diagram that includes some core commercial and, then, like a transit stop and some radiating densities as shown here on the right side of the page. We have had difficulty communicating the vision behind those neighborhood centers and that was one of the driving forces for the design guidelines. As we had the Ten Mile plan developed where it came up with some very urban residential ideas, .similar to like the City Loft that you see as you go into Boise, you know, not the Aspen condos, but, you know, the lower scale City Loft type things and some of the other new residential developments you see in Boise. Those are really kind of urban residential and that's -- when we did the Ten Mile we said, yeah, we want these images, we want this to be the genesis of our future design guidelines, so we can communicate that vision for the neighborhood centers. So, we are talking, you know, walk-ups with individual entrances on the streets, you know, kind of that Brownstone feel. And I think that those are a lot of the provisions that Sonya actually pulled out and requested be included in the development agreement. Marshall: And that would specifically affect the layout of the lots and the buildings, because they would be a completely different designed building; right? Canning: Correct. Marshall: So, what is your response to that as in -- does the developer just want to do what we have typically seen in more of the suburban architectural design or is he open to this more urban walk-up design that you would see in say the City Lofts or something like that? McKay: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Marshall, the City Lofts, you know, that's more a downtown Boise look. This -- I think the new City Hall is more of an urban look. If you look at the homes that are built out there, the elevations submitted with the original annexation and PUD, they are more what they call a neo-traditional kind of look, a lot of Meridian Planning & Zoning June 4, 2009 Page 16 of 33 rock, they have got like little porches, they have a very distinct look. And so I think if you took the City Lofts and stuck it in here it would look like a duck out of water. So, I think that's why I talk about we need to find some middle -- middle ground and incorporate some of those thoughts, but, yet, still make sure that this fits into this neighborhood. As far as the site plan is concerned, you know, this is -- this is just a representation of how it could develop. As far as, you know, some shifting, adjusting the amenities or pathways, you know, that we have to work with staff. But I wanted the Commission not just to look at a blank piece of paper and say, well, you know, you to rezone this -- well, what do you have in mind? And, like I said, this design review process is a whole new deal, you know, just passed in February, so we are all getting our feet wet, we are all trying to figure out, okay, where are we going with this and it's just going to take us awhile to get through that. But, like I said, we are open -- you know, we are not just digging our heels in and say this is it, take it or leave it. No, sir. Marshall: Thank you. Moe: Okay. Canning: Chairman Moe, may I address a couple comments that were made? Moe: Please. Canning: I did want to first talk about the block length for the TN-R district as required by city code. That diagram I showed you before, this one, it actually talked about 300 foot block lengths being the norm, very neo-traditional, very broken up block length. When we went to codify it we did compromise and we said, okay, 500 streets, if you've got to go a little over 500, that's okay, but if you get up to 600 you at least have to have a pedestrian break, but, really, they didn't -- we didn't anticipate blocks greater than -- than 600 feet long. The question was raised during the testimony, well, what's the block length. Well, obviously, the Venable length is -- the collector street is the block length that we are concerned about. And this was raised when Crossfield went through the first time, because this was kind of left blank for now, we -- as staff I guess we just kind of resigned ourselves to we would be asking for it again later, but there was a lot of discussion about extending this street as a stub street as well. That could still be done. You would have to swag it up and over a little bit, but it's still a possibility. But this is clearly the block length that we need another public street on. It's 770 feet long. So, that's where we were talking about the -- the public street entrance or stub. There has been discussion tonight about Venable Lane, the extra 20 feet that could be added onto Venable not being available when Crossfield originally went through. That very well may be the case, but you have a new application before you tonight and it is -- it is a rezone. So, there you have the ability to ask for additional items if you so choose. With regard to the 40 feet, typically what happens is one developer, if they are not building the whole street, ACHD will ask for a half plus 12 and 40 feet is probably sufficient right of way for a half plus 12 for a collector street in this area. I came up with 38 feet as being necessary. So, it looks like you have the opportunity to look at that issue certainly and, then, I -- with regard to the opportunities by the neighbors, if they want to contact Meridian Planning & Zoning June 4, 2009 Page 17 of 33 my office we can try and let them know when the project is going through design review and let them know the results of that design review and there is -- because it's an administrative approval, you will have the opportunity to ask for City Council review of that, although it is a -- there is a process in the applications associated with that and we may be going through that on both sides. Who knows, so -- but I wanted to address those issues. I think those were the outstanding ones that I had heard. Moe: You beat me to asking you for that, so thank you very much. Canning: Thank you. Moe: Any questions of staff? Newton-Huckabay: Not at this time. Moe: None. Okay. Yes. Go ahead. McKay: Mr. Chairman, could I address that issue of the stub street? There is no way I can make that jog. I either have to align with that street or we have got to have 125 foot separation in order to meet ACHD policy and you can't jog -- just jog -- you just can't jog over. Do you follow me? Nary: Probably pull the mike down. Canning: Don't lift it up, Becky, just keep it on the -- McKay: Oh. Keep in on there? That's what switches it? Canning: Yeah. McKay: I just kept it on there. Canning: Wait. Wait. Wait. Hold on. McKay: This technology. Oh, cool. This single family lot, which is constructed, is not -- we make them wider at the ends of blocks in order to accommodate the flanking setback. So, one, it's not wide enough. So, that we'd have to widen that out and, then, the street would have to be over here. I have got to have 125 foot center line to center line offset, which, then, puts the street here. Then, this would have to be public and coming back -- I mean it just -- it doesn't make any sense. You can't have a public street with a backing motion from any type of a parking lot, except in a downtown environment like with the diagonal parking or parallel parking. But they don't allow that. I mean it just doesn't make any sense and what -- what is the benefit. This is the street that goes clear to the west. So, the intent was it could capture traffic from the subdivision that developed west, which there is one to the west of us and that traffic could come this way and go up in that direction. This would be just redundant to break Meridian Planning & Zoning June 4, 2009 Page 18 of 33 the block length for -- I don't understand for what purpose within an apartment development. That puzzles me. Secondly, I'd like to reaffirm this is not part of our project. Never has been. It's not existing right of way. Has never been part of this project. ACHD, they have said on the record that it will develop when the Ward property develops, whenever that may be. All we have done is try to make sure that we provided for the interconnection to the east and west, so that if it did develop and Venable were to be constructed, that this development would have access to Venable Lane in the future, if it were ever to develop and be signalized. We have already constructed Blairmore as our collector right through here and that is built to handle 6,000 vehicle trips a day, like any other non-continuous collector. And it comes clear down to here. So, I guess -- I guess my point is that is offsite improvement, it's not right of way, never was intended to. We have done our part out here I want to mention as far as right of way. All the right of way on Ustick was donated by the previous applicant and this applicant it's shown as a donation on the plat where we just reflect the additional right of way and it's just -- when it's recorded it's given to ACHD at no charge to them. Moe: Okay. Any questions, comments? Marshall: How far down from Ustick could we come -- if there was a stub to the east, if there was -- okay. I see what you're saying coming up 125 foot from intersection to intersection. That's in code. But how far down from Ustick intersection could we come for a stub? Could that 125 foot move up? McKay: If you moved it -- you mean up to a location like here? Marshall: Yes. McKay: I -- I can't build a stub street that doesn't connect to anything. We would have to -- you would have to build a public street that went like this. Marshall: Yes, you would. McKay: The linkage like that. Marshall: Yes. That's correct. McKay: But for what I guess I'm trying -- I'm trying to figure out the benefit of it. If you look at the neighborhood center, that diagram, it said this is just conceptual and representation. We -- with our original PUD we had approval for deviation in block length and so forth to try to, you know, come up with this more unique design within this neighborhood center. Marshall: The original design for this called for public streets in that area anyway, didn't it? Meridian Planning & Zoning June 4, 2009 Page 19 of 33 McKay: The original design had some public streets that looped through and an alley. I think there was some alley load in there. Marshall: Right. McKay: But it looped -- it looped back this way. Marshall: Right. McKay: But it didn't go out this way. Now, as far as -- Marshall: I understand. McKay: If this were to be signalized -- if you're going to make a free right you're probably going to go this way. If you're going to do a left-hand turn, you may come this way to get to the signal. I mean this is only one, two, three, four, five lots down. And these lots are about 40 feet wide -- between 40 and 50 distance. We also have to be concerned about the stacking, too. We have to allow enough stacking room. That's why I like to have these nice collectors come in -- this one comes in about 460 feet, then, we don't have conflict versus -- if you have ever been in a subdivision where the first entrance or local street is right off the entrance, then, you get stacking -- Marshall: Stacking. McKay: -- in front of it. So, we try to keep those back a ways. Marshall: Right. And that's -- but looking at how much is actually seeing -- the Stanfield could be significant if that -- if Venable is filled out, Stanfield goes clear across and the intersection becomes signalized, I can see why you might want that down a bit, because of stacking. But at the same time looking -- the idea is that interconnectivity, you're getting a lot better flow -- many ways in and many ways out and that's part of the idea behind these town centers or urban environment is to get a better traffic flow, especially if people are wanting to turn left and on Ustick in the morning it's going to be tough coming out of there going left. McKay: In the morning most of the traffic is going to be eastbound. Marshall: Right. Until you get that one or two in a row that have to turn left and backs everybody up that's turning right. And those are the people that are going to want to go out over there and back up to the signal. That backs everybody up when you got one or two going left. McKay: We have got alert-hand lane here. As they come in they slot into there. So, you got a free right and, then, you've got a left hand. We also widen those -- those entrances out to provide for that. Meridian Planning & Zoning June 4, 2009 Page 20 of 33 Marshall: Okay. Got you. But you don't have a lot of stacking for left. I mean when you get two cars in there before you start backing up, too. McKay: That's correct. Yes, sir. Marshall: Thank you. Moe: Thank you. Simunich: Mr. Chairman, can I have one minute more? Moe: No, sir. You have had your time. I'm sorry. Simunich: Mr. Chairman, can I address you again with letters? Moe: Do you have some in your possession you want to give is that what you're saying? Simunich: Pardon? Moe: I'm sorry. What do you mean? Do you have a letter that you want to submit? Simunich: To allow more testimony. Moe: Oh. I'm sorry, you had your time in the public forum and I gave you extra time already. Nary: Sir, we can't continue to have an off-the-record discussion, Mr. Simunich. You had your time. The Chairman has already ruled on that. We can't continue to have you talking from the audience. Moe: That is not going to happen. Commissioners, comments? Questions? Staff? Where do we go from here? Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair? Moe: Commissioner Newton-Huckabay. Newton-Huckabay: I would like more information and clarification for my benefit of requiring the off-site improvement of Venable Lane, how that could be required by us at this time. Moe: Can staff give us some information? Wafters: Sorry, can you, please, repeat that question? Meridian Planning & Zoning June 4, 2009 Page 21 of 33 Newton-Huckabay: Anna had made the comment that the Venable Lane wasn't necessarily -- that it -- this was a rezone application, so we could ask for various things, which could include Venable Lane and I'm not really exactly clear on that. Off-site improvements aren't something that come up very often and they are usually negotiated prior to Planning and Zoning Commission hearing. I -- so, I just need to understand that a little bit better. Can -- are you saying, Anna, that we could require the Crossfield development to negotiate with Mr. Simunich to improve Venable Lane? Canning: It's a good thing we have attorneys in the office. By my understanding is that because it's a discretionary approval with annexations and rezones your ability to ask for things is much broader than it is for things like just a subdivision. So, this is a discretionary decision on the part of the city and you have -- I think you have the ability to ask for some off-site improvements that are commensurate with the development if they are -- if there is a nexus to the project. Moe: Okay. Nary: Mr. Chair? And I would concur. I think the key issue in the finding that you would need to make, if you're wanting an off-site improvement, is the last thing Mrs. Canning said, the nexus between why that's necessary in relation to this rezone. In the -- very briefly, in annexing any property into the city, the standard is best interest of -- what's in the best interest of the city at that particular time. There is a great deal of flexibility as to how that relates to the project. When the property is already annexed like this one, the nexus has to be much more -- I guess must -- it has to be much more defined by you or by this Commission or the Council ultimately as to why that -- this rezone would require that additional type of improvement to make it necessary to, then, rezone it or allow the rezone to happen. So, if -- I guess it's just a tighter standard that we have to make sure it's clear what that relationship is. Newton-Huckabay: Okay. Thank you. I just wanted to make one comment to the public. We are only recommending approval tonight, so there will be a second opportunity to testify at City Council with additional information gathered tonight. So, there will be opportunity to testify again, if we recommend approval. Or denial, I guess. So, private streets like this are absolutely the biggest -- it never works out well. I keep thinking of Wipswitch or whatever the one is that -- Wingate Lane and the mess that we have over there with that one. I would like to take the opportunity, if we have it, to request something with Venable Lane. Should have happened in the first place, based on the testimony that Becky read to us of Mr. Simunich at that hearing, that apparently wasn't on the table, for whatever reason there has been a change of heart. I think if we have an opportunity it is in the best interest of the city to put it back on the table. Any opportunity in my mind and my experience to reclaim some of these private roads for public streets seems to make sense and we have spent many an hour -- I know Commissioner Moe and Ihave -- listening to very passionate debate related to public streets. I think that in this case this is an opportunity to hopefully resolve that in the best interest of the city. I'd like to see another public stub street to Venable. Becky, I have to say, I understand your challenges here, but I also know that you're probably one of the Meridian Planning & Zoning June 4, 2009 Page 22 of 33 most talented planners that comes before us and I don't think that it's something you couldn't overcome. I also want to comment that I really do like the north-south facing units as well. I would hope that in the design guidelines that would be considered. I have also seen these type of developments that way and I do think for those who live inside of the community where they are next to and from the street, they do look better and you get -- I just -- I do like that look. I agree with you 110 percent there. I think if Venable Lane were to come into the project I think that would mute the fence idea, so I would leave that -- the fence at six foot if it didn't, but if it did -- and, then, Ijust -- beings the design review is new, all design reviews happen at staff level; is that correct? Canning: Yes, they do, Commissioner Newton-Huckabay. Newton-Huckabay: Okay. Canning: But there is a process to, basically, challenge the design review. If the applicant is unsatisfied with the -- the staff decision, I convene a group of architects and they review it and, then, they make a recommendation to me and I make a final decision and, then, the applicant has the opportunity to ask for City Council review of that decision. Newton-Huckabay: Okay. And this is -- Canning: Or any other interested party. Newton-Huckabay: This is based on that new matrix -- Canning: Yes. Newton-Huckabay: -- process. Canning: Well, the process is in code. The context is in the matrix. Newton-Huckabay: Yes. I have nothing else to add. Moe: Mr. Marshall, any further comments? Marshall: I, too, am wanting to see Venable Lane finished out there. I don't -- I wish it had been done originally and I don't like asking for it now, but I think it's necessary for the connectivity, for -- and I do believe things are developing to the east and more and more people will be turning east. Right now there is not a lot, but I can tell you I have just started turning east recently, as have some of my neighbors, and I think more and more people will be and I think eventually Venable Lane -- that will be a signalized intersection eventually and that will be the opportunity to turn east and I think more connectivity over to there and I think it needs to be developed out. Who knows when the Ward property will be developed, I just don't know, but right now feeding a lot of cars in there and Stanmore coming in from east-west there, has a considerable feed to it and Meridian Planning & Zoning June 4, 2009 Page 23 of 33 if there were an intersection up there that will eventually be signalized, I can see a lot of feed to that and I think that's in the city's best interest to ask for that. I guess that's where I'm at. Moe: Thank you very much. I guess I -- Newton-Huckabay: May I ask one question? Moe: Yes, you may. Newton-Huckabay: Commissioner Marshall, do you mean Stanhope? Are you talking about the collector that runs east-west? Marshall: Stanhope. Yes. I'm trying to read it underneath the red ink. Newton-Huckabay: Yeah. Okay. Stanhope. Marshall: Thank you. Newton-Huckabay: I was looking for Stanmore or Stan -- earlier. Thank you. Moe: Okay. Well, Commissioners, now what? Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair? Moe: Commissioner Newton-Huckabay. Newton-Huckabay: I recommend we close the public hearing on 09-002. Marshall: Second. Moe: It's been moved and seconded to close the public hearing on RZ 09-002. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? That motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. TWO ABSENT. Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair, I would just ask for a little bit of assistance from the Commission and possibly staff on some wording related to asking for improvements of Venable Lane at the maximum capacity possible, given -- or would that do it? As I see it only the 20 feet is available if negotiation would have to take place with -- Marshall: ACHD I think. Newton-Huckabay: Well, the property owner. The owner of the 20 foot. Meridian Planning & Zoning June 4, 2009 Page 24 of 33 Moe: I would anticipate it's just the 20 feet, you know, the boundaries of the project itself. Newton-Huckabay: Uh-huh. Yes. I wouldn't go beyond that stub street at the -- on Stanhope. Moe: Uh-huh. Canning: Commissioner Newton-Huckabay, perhaps the language would be to the effect of applicant shall work with staff and ACHD staff to develop acollector -- a partial collector roadway that meets ACHD standards, utilizing the Simunich 20 feet as offered during the hearing and the existing 20 feet of ACHD right of way. Moe: That's noted as a donated street. Canning: Yes. Moe: Yes. Canning: Yes. Newton-Huckabay: I have one other question of the Commissioners. Would you be comfortable with the potential compromise of that developed to -- if a new stub street is included farther north, only going to that stub street, or down to Stanhope -- so, the whole 750 feet or let's say at 120 feet or 200 feet or whatever we'd put another stub street. I mean is there room in your opinions for some compromise along those lines? Marshall: Would that be included in the preliminary plat when it comes through? Because right now there is a conceptual plan that -- are we in agreement with the conceptual plan? Are we accepting that? I mean -- Newton-Huckabay: Well, I don't believe we are accepting the conceptual plan in the -- Moe: No, we are not. Newton-Huckabay: -- fact that we are asking for another stub street. Marshall: Okay. Moe: I don't know that we really need -- I don't know that we really need to designate it as to length and whatnot, we just want to make sure that the stub street is provided out to the east. Marshall: Depending on how this is developed. Meridian Planning & Zoning June 4, 2009 Page 25 of 33 Newton-Huckabay: Yes. We want the stub street provided, but when we are talking about work with staff and ACHD to develop partial collector roadway utilizing this -- Marshall: Venable Lane. Newton-Huckabay: -- the Simunich 20 foot property as offered for donation in the hearing, are we asking for Venable to be constructed to that additional stub street that we are requesting or are we asking that Venable be constructed to Stanhope? Marshall: Stanhope. Moe: I'm going to be looking for it to be constructed to the property line. Marshall: Goes down to this -- goes down to Stanhope. Newton-Huckabay: To Stanhope. Moe: Right. Newton-Huckabay: Okay. I just want to make sure that we all have that same definition. Okay. And we had a couple of items to strike from the motion as well and I just want to verify with Sonya that we are striking 1.2D, either public or private street shall be provided for addressing purposes, we are striking that whole comment? Wafters: Yes. Newton-Huckabay: And we are striking on Exhibit B, 3.12, the fire department has concerns about the ability to address the project, we are striking that whole comment as well? Moe: Yes. Newton-Huckabay: And those are the only staff requested changes? Wafters: Yes. Moe: Yes. Wafters: Actually, may I interrupt you -- Newton-Huckabay: Yes. Wafters: -- Commissioner Newton-Huckabay? I'm sorry. That was -- striking those two items were contingent upon the applicant providing an address identification sign at each entrance to the multi-family development. That would be beneficial to add that as a DA provision. Meridian Planning & Zoning June 4, 2009 Page 26 of 33 Newton-Huckabay: Sign at each -- Wafters: To replace the -- Newton-Huckaby: -- entrance? Wafters: Yes, please. Thank you. Newton-Huckabay: Okay. I will replace 1.2D with that comment. After considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move to recommend approval to the City Council of file number RZ 09-002 as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of June 4, 2009, with the following modifications: That comment 1.2D be removed from the staff report and replaced that the applicant will provide address identification signage at each -- at each entrance to the development and requirement 3.12 will be removed from the staff report. In addition to that, the Commission would like for the applicant to work with staff and ACHD to develop a partial collector road running from Ustick to Stanhope along the -- utilizing the right of way offered by Mr. Simunich for donation in the public hearing. Was I clear enough there? And that would be my -- end of motion. Moe: I think that took care of it. Newton-Huckabay: Do I need to add that the Commission feels that -- oh, the stub. Did I forget the stub? Marshall: An additional stub. Yes. Newton-Huckabay: Oh, that's in the staff report. Marshall: Yes. You're right. Newton-Huckabay: As a basis for requiring that development of Venable Lane, the Commission feels that this is a good opportunity to improve on a situation that has created a lack of connectivity that doesn't currently meet with the intent of the Comprehensive Plan and would improve traffic flow in that area and in that neighborhood center. End of motion again. Marshall: Second. Moe: It's been moved and seconded to approve RZ 09-002 -- Nary: Mr. Chairman? Moe: -- with the aforementioned changes. All those in favor say aye. Meridian Planning & Zoning June 4, 2009 Page 27 of 33 Nary: Mr. Chairman, before you vote, one of the things I noticed in Commissioner Newton-Huckabay's motion -- and although Commissioner Marshall talked about it a number of times, I didn't hear it in her motion, but in addition to the connectivity you talked about, I think Commissioner Marshall talked about safety of the traffic and the public in that particular area of why Venable Lane connection was important. If that's something the Commission thinks is important, it should be part of your motion as well. Moe: Thank you. Newton-Huckabay: I will make an addendum to my motion. Safety would be improved in this area by, one, allowing potential access to a stoplight at the Venable intersection and reducing traffic in the neighborhood. Any other -- Marshall: I will second the addendum. Moe: All those in favor say aye. Opposed? That motion carries. MOTION CARRIED; THREE AYES. TWO ABSENT. Moe: Therefore -- now, I'm all screwed up here. It's been approved -- City Council approving RZ 09-002. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? That motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. TWO ABSENT. Item 8: Public Hearing: CUP 09-006 Request for Conditional Use Permit to operate aDrive-thru establishment from an existing building within 300 feet of a residential zoning district for Mason Creek Pad ADrive-Thru by BRS Architects - 2959 N. Eagle Road: Item 8-A: Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: CUP 09-006 Request for Conditional Use Permit to operate aDrive-thru establishment from an existing building within 300 feet of a residential zoning district for Mason Creek Pad ADrive-Thru by BRS Architects - 2959 N. Eagle Road: Moe: Okay. I would now like to open the public hearing on CUP 09-006, as well as A, being the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for approval of CUP 09-006 and start with the staff report, please. Parsons: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. The application before you tonight is for a Conditional Use Permit approval to operate adrive-thru facility within 300 feet of a residential zoning district. Here is the zoning map before you. I have highlighted the site and with my arrow here you can see that it is, indeed, to the west of this site is R-15 zoned property. Here is the aerial. Most of the property around this site is either vacant or currently being developed, zoned C-G, to the south, north, and across Eagle Road as well. All the site plan, the landscaping plan, and the Meridian Planning & Zoning June 4, 2009 Page 28 of 33 elevations that will be before you tonight have already been approved at the staff level. The use itself is just what's being proposed in front of you tonight. So, as you can see here is the site plan that staff has approved. Access has been provided from Eagle Road via approval of a variance from City Council. This is a private lane that has been constructed that adds -- or also provides access to this site. There are two entranceways into this lot. This is a one way access point here and further to the west you have a two way access to have patrons come in and use the rear parking as well. As you can see on the submitted site plan, the applicant has shown the stacking lanes how for vehicles could possibly stack on this. A specific user has not been identified to move into this tenant space. You can see here there is some potential for cars to block the stacking lane at peak hours. Staff feels there is a -- because the applicant has provided a 25 foot drive aisle adjacent to that stacking lane that there is sufficient lane enough for these folks here to at least back out and go around the stacking -- the cars that are stacking here and exit the site using the western drive aisle that access the private street. Here is the submitted landscape plan before you. This for the internal site development. One thing I would point out to the Commission tonight is this developer or this development is apparently under economic distress and when this landscape buffer wasn't installed, the irrigation system was not in place and because the applicant had to move. and develop this site, a portion of the ten foot pathway was removed from that landscape buffer adjacent to Eagle Road. A variance was also granted to allow a reduction in width for that buffer from 35 feet, as required by code, down to 20 feet. So, because this lot was created as an easement per the plat, the applicant who currently owns the property is going to be responsible for reinstalling that ten foot pathway and making sure that that landscape is maintained in accordance with the UDC. One other issue that came up before we -- or to be heard, we were informed by the Nampa-Meridian Irrigation District that a portion of the drive aisle, the seepage bed and the trees and that pathway are located within their 30 foot easement. And if you look at my arrow here, the easement runs approximately north and south along the drive aisle here and it goes all the way to Eagle Road. So, what -- Nampa-Meridian Irrigation District has requested that the applicant enter into a license agreement to allow for those improvements to happen. The other thing that has happened is the required trees have to be removed, because of the the ditch there and so that they don't allow trees within their easement, so the applicant will have to come back to staff, amend that CZC and the alternative compliance that we approved already to make sure that these improvements happen within that buffer and that we get a signed license agreement from Nampa-Meridian Irrigation District. Staff will not -- has conditioned the project not to release C of O until those improvements and that signed license agreement has been added to the file. Staff did receive comments from the applicant, they are in agreement with those conditions of approval as stated in the staff report and I'd be happy to answer any questions Commission has at this time. Moe: Any questions of staff? Okay. Would the applicant like to come forward? Thompson: Good evening, Commissioners. My name is Joe Thompson. I am with BRS Architects. We are representing the client Sam Walker. Our address is 1010 Meridian Planning & Zoning June 4, 2009 Page 29 of 33 South Allante Place, Suite 100, Boise, Idaho. We -- as staff stated, we are in agreement with the conditions of approval in the staff report and I'll stand for questions. Moe: Any questions of the applicant? Thank you very much. Newton-Huckabay: And I don't have any. Moe: You weren't responding, so I figured you must not have. Newton-Huckabay: I was thinking. Moe: On the sign-up sheet Walt Mott. From the audience he's -- he's fine. And that's the audience, so, thereafter, Commissioners? Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair, I recommend we close the public hearing on CUP 09- 006. Marshall: Second. Moe: It's been moved and seconded to close the public hearing on CUP 09-006. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? That motion carries. MOTION CARRIES: THREE AYES. TWO ABSENT. Moe: I did not see any real concerns with this one, but in your motion make sure that you do understand that we are open with the -- 8A as well, so -- in regard to the Findings. So, you would be responding to both. Newton-Huckabay: Okay. Nary: Mr. Chairman, since putting the findings on the -- since it's not our normal course, I'd recommend you do separate motions for -- if -- whatever your decision is on the CU and, then, on the Findings. Moe: Okay. Newton-Huckabay: Commissioner Marshall, in the spirit of sharing -- Marshall: Okay. Mr. Chair, after considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, move to approve file number CUP 09-006 as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of June 4th, 2009, with no modifications. Newton-Huckabay: Second. Moe: It's been moved and seconded to approve CUP 09-006 for Mason Creek. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? That motion carries. Meridian Planning & Zoning June 4, 2009 Page 30 of 33 MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. TWO ABSENT. Marshall: Mr. Chair? Moe: Mr. Marshall. Marshall: I move that we approve the Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law for approval for CUP 09-006. Newton-Huckabay: Second. Moe: It's been moved and seconded to approve the Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law for approval of CUP 09-006. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? That motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. TWO ABSENT. Item 9: Public Hearing: Request for Street Name Change from East Addison Drive to East Adelaide Drive located in Estancia Subdivision Moe: At this time I'd like to open the public hearing for the request of street name change from East Addison Drive to East Adelaide Drive, located in the Estancia Subdivision. Canning: Chairman Moe, before Ms. Ricks gets up, I wanted to explain why you're hearing this item tonight. Some of you may recall when the UDC first came out how I -- Istripped you of all your authority, or so we thought at the time, and we had to cancel one of the hearings and give those authorities back to you. Well, low and behold you still had one authority hidden within the traffic issues and that is deciding on roadway -- changes to roadway names. So, it's not in the UDC, it's in other portions of the city code, but it specifically calls -- gives this duty to the Planning and Zoning Commission and that's why you're hearing this item tonight. Moe: So, why are we not just calling it Moe Drive? Nary: That's still an option. Moe: I got a feeling I might be out voted there. Well, thank you for that information. Ricks: Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Members of the Commission. In early March we were notified by the Meridian Police Department of a recent emergency call being dispatched to an incorrect address. This was due to the sound alike street names of East Addison Drive, spelled A-d-d-i-s-o-n, located in the Estancia Subdivision, and East Addeson Street, spelled A-d-d-e-s-o-n, in the Bedford Place Subdivision phases one and four. While in this particular instance a major delay was averted because the Meridian Planning & Zoning June 4, 2009 Page 31 of 33 responding officer happened to live in one of those subdivisions and knew the dispatched information to be incorrect, we are concerned that response time for future emergency service calls to these areas could be delayed over the confusion surrounding the similar street names. It is staffs recommendation that along with that and along with that of Ada County street naming committee, that East Addison Drive located in the Estancia Subdivision be changed to East Adelaide Drive. The recommendations to change East Addison Drive, as opposed to East Addeson Street, comes after taking into consideration how many residents would be affected by each change, as well as when the particular subdivision was recorded. Twenty-eight existing homes are located along East Addeson Street running through Bedford Place, phases one and four of Bedford Place were recorded in 1995 and 1997 respectively. Nine existing homes are located along East Addison Drive and Estancia was recorded in 2007. So, the staff recommendation, then, in order to create the least possible inconvenience to the fewest number of residents and homeowners in the area, we change East Addison Drive in Estancia. Earlier in March we contacted Estancia's homeowners association and the developer Hubble Homes to let them know of the situation and our intent to recommend the change. They, in turn, proposed the name of East Adelaide Drive as replacement. To date we have received one objection from a resident living in the affected area. Thank you for your time. Moe: Thank you. Well, you know, for ease of not having any problems, I really do believe Moe Drive would have been a fairly easy way to go, because there is just not a lot of names out there like that. However, I think the reason for the change is definitely warranted and so, Commissioners, any other comments? Marshall: Because of public safety, I think it's absolutely necessary to change one of them. I appreciate the forethought that went into the choosing, because, I'll tell you, having in the not distant past having gone through a move and changing address and checkbooks and magazine subscriptions and everything in my life and changing my address, it's not an easy thing to do. There is a lot of work involved. And I feel for those people that have to change their address, but I think it's absolutely in their best interest to have this change. Moe: Thank you. Marshall: And Commissioner Newton-Huckabay's deep in thought right now. Moe: Do you have any comments, ma'am? Newton-Huckabay: I was just re-reading over the letter from Kathy Bonham in regards to the distress that a street name change would cause. Moe: I did not talk to her. Marshall: Pretty significant work to change -- it is. Meridian Planning & Zoning June 4, 2009 Page 32 of 33 Moe: Uh-huh. Newton-Huckabay: I have no -- no concerns with this, other than to people like the Bonhams that will have to take the brunt of changing their address, but I do believe that for safety sake that I agree that that was an oversight. Hopefully we won't have that happen again, so -- Nary: Mr. Chairman, Member of the Commission. Ms. Ricks, were you able to contact the postmaster? Do they make any accommodation for the change or grant some time? Ricks: I was. He e-mailed me. I was under the impression that there would be like a seven to ten day delay in time. He e-mailed me and said that there would -- you know, after -- after the change is made it would just be maybe a possible one to two day delay. So, there really should be no problem with mail delivery. Moe: Well, then, Commissioners, could I get a motion? Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair, I propose we close the public hearing on the request for street name change from East Addison Drive to East Adelaide Drive, located in Estancia Subdivision. Marshall: Second. Moe: It's been moved and seconded to close the public hearing on the street naming change. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? That motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. TWO ABSENT. Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair? Moe: Commissioner Newton-Huckabay. Newton-Huckabay: I recommend that the Planning and Zoning Commission approve the request for a street name change from East Addison Drive to East Adelaide Drive located in the Estancia Subdivision. Marshall: Second. Moe: It's been moved and seconded to approve the name change. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. TWO ABSENT. Moe: One more motion, folks. Marshall: Chairman, I move that we adjourn. Meridian Planning & Zoning June 4, 2009 Page 33 of 33 Newton-Huckabay: Second. Moe: It's been moved and seconded to adjourn. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. TWO ABSENT. Moe: We adjourn at 8:47 p.m. MEETING ADJOURNED AT 8:47 P.M. (AUDIO RECORDING ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS.) ROVED: ~i~.~i~1 - CHAI AN DATE APPROVED ATTEST: ~V ~~'C'i~~ JAYCEE L. HOLMAN, CITY ~°! ~G,`~,p~ooaPORgr ~~ gp.~,o "°° Fp G AL o ~. ti . ~ ~~~ \o~ Sr isti' ~