Loading...
2009 10-01Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting October 1, 2009 Meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission of October 1, 2009, was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Vice-Chairman. Members Present: Chairman David Moe, Commissioner Joe Marshall, Commissioner Tom O'Brien and Commissioner Wendy Newton-Huckabay and Commissioner Michael Rohm. Members Absent: Chairman David Moe. Others Present: Bill Nary, Machelle Hill, Pete Friedman, Sonya Wafters, Bill Parsons, Scott Steckline and Dean Willis. Item 1: Roll-Call Attendance: Roll-call X Wendy Newton-Huckabay X Tom O'Brien X Michael Rohm -Vice Chairman X Joe Marshall David Moe -Chairman Newton-Huckabay: Okay. We are going to go ahead and call this meeting to order and the clerk will call roll. Item 2: Adoption of the Agenda: Newton-Huckabay: Okay. We will start with -- I want to mention some changes to the agenda before we get going, in case there is anyone here in relation to those hearings. Item No. 6 will be opened with the sole purpose of continuing that to November 5th. And Item No. 8 related to JJA Land will be opened for the sole purpose of continuing it to October 15th. So, we will do that as we get to them in order on the agenda. I'd like a motion to adopt the agenda. Rohm: So moved. Marshall: Second. Newton-Huckabay: All those in favor? Motion carried. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. Item 3: Consent Agenda: A. Approve Minutes of September 17, 2009 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting: Meridian Planning & Zoning October 1, 2009 Page 2 of 32 B. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: MCU 09-001 Request to modify the building elevations with the Conditional Use Permit for Locust Grove Plaza for Locust Grove Plaza Assisted Living Facility by Wes Edwards -1695 S. Locust Grove Road: C. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: CUP 09-008 Request for Conditional Use Permit for 48 multi-family dwelling units on approximately 3.17 acres in an existing R-15 zoning district for Gramercy Apartments by Sagecrest Development, LLC - 2549 E. Blue Tick Street Newton-Huckabay: I'd like a motion to accept the Consent Agenda or are there any changes? Rohm: I have none. Marshall: None. Rohm: I move that we accept the Consent Agenda. Newton-Huckabay: All those in favor? Hill: Need a second. Marshall: Second. Newton-Huckabay: Second. Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. Newton-Huckabay: Work with me, gentlemen. Okay. For those of you who don't usually come to a Planning and Zoning Commission meeting, I want to go over a little bit what you can expect tonight and some of the rules of a public hearing. Procedurally we start with the staff and they will give a presentation on the hearing that will be before us and the staff is reviewing those based on the adherence to the Comprehensive Plan and city ordinance and their testimony is not intended to sell the project to the Commission. Once the staff has had an opportunity to give their presentation, the applicant will have 15 minutes to present their data on the project to us and respond to any of the staff comments. At the end of that time, if you'd like to testify on the public hearing that we have open, you will have three minutes that you can come up and speak. You do have to speak from the microphone, you can't speak from the audience, and we do have a timer here that's next to Commissioner Rohm that has a green light, amber light, and a red light and when the amber light goes off you have about 15, 20 Meridian Planning & Zoning October 1, 2009 Page 3 of 32 seconds left before your three minutes are up. If you're here to testify for a larger group of people, say a homeowners association, we will give you ten minutes to give your presentation. It is our intent to hear everyone speak and we ask that only one person speak at a time. This isn't a large audience, so I don't anticipate any problems there. And when you do come up to testify, if you've not done so in the past, you need to state your name and address for the record prior to starting your testimony. And once we have gotten all staff and public testimony, as well as the applicant, we will offer the applicant one last time to come up and comment towards any questions or comments that were posed either by the Commission or the public during the hearing. At the conclusion of the public testimony we will close the hearing and make our recommendations to City Council. Item 4: Continued Public Hearing from September 17, 2009: RZ 08-005 Request for Rezone of 91.09 acres from an R-4 to an R-8 zone for Cavanaugh Ridge by Affinity Bank -located at 4275 S. Locust Grove Road, east of S. Meridian Road and south of E. Victory Road: Item 5: Continued Public Hearing from September 17, 2009: PP 08-010 Request for Preliminary Plat approval for 252 residential building lots and 29 common area lots on 91.09 acres in a proposed R-8 zoning district for Cavanaugh Ridge by Affinity Bank -located at 4275 S. Locust Grove Road, east of S. Meridian Road and south of E. Victory Road: Newton-Huckabay: With that said I will turn it over to staff. Wafters: Thank you, Chairman Newton-Huckabay, Members of the Commission. The first item before you is -- Newton-Huckabay: I guess I have to open it, don't I? Wafters: Ah, yes, you do. Newton-Huckabay: I don't usually do this, so I apologize if it's a little bit -- anyway. I'd like to open the public hearing for RZ 08-005 and PP 08-010 for Cavenaugh Ridge. Wafters: Thank you. Chairman Newton-Huckabay, Members of the Commission. The subject property is located at 4275 South Locust Grove Road, east of South Meridian Road, and south of East Victory Road. The property consists of 91.09 acres and is currently zoned R-4. You can see the zoning vicinity map. It's the property here on your left. And an aerial view of the property on your right. The applicant is requesting a rezone of 91.09 acres from R-4 to R-8. Preliminary plat consisting of 252 single family residential building lots and 29 common area lots and a modification to the existing development agreement approved with Reflection Ridge Subdivision to include updated project information. And the development modification does not require Commission action. History of previous actions on this site. This property received annexation and zoning approval with an R-4 zoning district in 2006. A preliminary plat was approved for Meridian Planning & Zoning October 1, 2009 Page 4 of 32 Reflection Ridge Subdivision, which consisted of 255 single family residential building lots and 29 common area lots. A Conditional Use Permit was approved for a planned development with reductions to lot size, lot frontage, building setbacks, and exceeding the maximum block length allowed in residential districts for two of the blocks. The preliminary plat and Conditional Use Permit planned development approvals have expired. Only the zoning of R-4 and development agreement remains in effect at this time. Approximately 80 to 90 percent of the first phase -- show you a phasing plan here. It's this portion on the east side of the property that abuts Locust Grove Road. Approximately 80 to 90 percent of the first phase improvements have been completed on this site. However, some vandalism has occurred that has reduced this percentage. This is a site layout. Shows the plat and landscape plan for the property. The applicant is proposing, essentially, the same preliminary plat as previously approved for Reflection Ridge in 2005. However, some conditions affecting development of the site have changed as follows: Since the property was annexed the dimensional standards for the R-4 zoning district have changed. The old project was reviewed under the old Meridian City Code and the Unified Development Code was adopted in 2005 right after this project came through. Thus the lots in the previously approved plat no longer meet the dimensional standards of the R-4 district. The applicant is requesting a rezone to R- 8 to comply with dimensional standards. A 40 foot wide access easement exists along the west boundary of the site that was not accounted for with the original preliminary plat. You can see here as noted on this plan. This easement benefits the land locked property to the southwest of this site that is currently a gravel pit. As such, gravel trucks and other large trucks frequent this road. Additionally, the land use designation of the adjacent property changed from medium density residential to mixed use nonresidential last year, which allows a mix of uses with up to 50 percent of retail uses, office, food service, restaurant, industry, flex buildings, storage facilities or warehouse uses. For these reasons staff recommends the building lots shown along the west boundary be relocated. It's these seven lots right here, if you can see there along the west boundary -- recommending those be relocated and common area be placed in this area instead. Further, staff recommends a ten foot wide street buffer be constructed within the recommended common area adjacent to the access road. The pathways plan in effect in 2005 did not require a pathway along the Farr Lateral. The Farr Lateral exists in this green area along the southwest boundary here and, then, I believe it's actually to the west of this green area shown here and this is an access road right there that's depicted. The master pathways plan adopted as part of the Comprehensive Plan in 2007 now requires a pathway connection between the future Ridenbaugh pathway along Meridian Road and Mary McPhearson Elementary School to the south. I'll show you a copy of the vicinity map here.. This green line here depicts the location of the pathway. We would like it, eventually, to come adjacent to Rumple Lane here and along the west and southwest boundary of this site. Because of the topography of the land in this area, staff recommends the pathway be located on this site along the Farr Lateral, as detailed in condition 1.2.10. Mary McPhearson School I guess you can see here is to the south on Amity Road there. Two of the blocks, Block 7 and 18, right here along the Ridenbaugh Canal and also along the southwest boundary here, exceed the maximum block length required by UDC. Previously these lots were allowed to exceed the maximum block length, along with other reductions to dimensional standards in the Meridian Planning & Zoning October 1, 2009 Page 5 of 32 R-4 district through the planned development under the old City Code. Now, the UDC requires a variance to exceed these block lengths. Additional requirements by staff. A ten foot wide multi-use pathway along the north boundary adjacent to the Ridenbaugh Canal you see here needs to be realigned to drop down through the common area in Lot 1. This is this area here. Block 3 to the intersection of Wrightwood and Locust Grove to connect to the existing pathway on the east side of Locust Grove. So, I don't know if you can see my pointer here. We'd like it to come down along the Ridenbaugh and drop through the common area and, then, just go along the road here onto the intersection. From the intersection the pathway would extend to the north along Locust Grove Road and cross the Ridenbaugh and connect to the future location of the sidewalk in Normandy -- planned Normandy Subdivision. This is a copy of the proposed phasing plan for the plat. I should mention here that the first phase has -- I don't have the exact numbers -- 70 some -- 78, I believe, building lots in this phase. The fire department has conditioned this application that the first 50 building lots will be allowed off the current access. Anything beyond 50 will require a secondary access to the site. And the applicant has agreed to the fire department's terms on that matter. These are the elevations that were approved with Reflection Ridge Subdivision. They are still in effect. No changes are proposed. The development agreement requires future development to substantially comply with these elevations. A letter in response to the staff report was submitted by the applicant Ashley Ford. And I just want to note that the original staff report that went out had an error in it. Staff has revised the error. It was a development agreement provision noted as 1.4.4, which required the land to be designated for future right of way along the west boundary of the site for construction of a public street. Staff is not requiring a public street along the west boundary and this development agreement provision has been deleted from the staff report, so, please, note that if you do have a copy of the old staff report on hand. Staff is recommending approval of the requested applications with the conditions and development agreement provisions stated in the staff report. That's all I have, unless Pete has anything to add to that. Friedman: Not at this time. Watters: He's saying no. Staff will stand for any questions the Commission may have at this time. Newton-Huckabay: Any questions? O'Brien: I have a -- Sonya. Madam Chair. The homes that you suggested here that you have just shown, are those the ones that are being recommended for phase one? Watters: Chairman Newton-Huckabay and Commissioner O'Brien, Commissioners, all of these elevations were proposed to be constructed within this entire property within this subdivision. O'Brien: Those will be mixed throughout, is that what you're saying? Meridian Planning & Zoning October 1, 2009 Page 6 of 32 Wafters: Yes. If you will notice on two elevations -- actually, four elevations, the two sets on your right are the alley loaded units and the ones on your left are just the regular classic homes. O'Brien: Okay. Thank you. Newton-Huckabay: Any other questions? Would the applicant like to come forward? Ford: Good evening, Commissioners. It's been a long time. For the record, my name is Ashley Ford, I'm the principal land use planner for Rose Law Group Borton. My office address is 6223 North Discovery Way in Boise, Suite 200. I'm here tonight on behalf of our client Affinity Bank. Sonya gave a really good site history. I'm going to fill it in just a little bit more. M&H Development is the developer who obtained the original approval for Reflection Ridge in 2006. Corinthian Homes, then, purchased the project after that and began construction of what was phase one, 78 lots. Unfortunately, Corinthian was unable to finish the construction of that and let the approvals lapse and so we are kind of here where we are today. We did estimate at one point that probably 80 to 90 percent of the project had been completed. There has been quite a bit of vandalism on the property, which is unfortunate in these times, but it is what it is and so we are not sure where that is at this point, but we do know there is a lot of rework that will need to happen with that phase one. The property ultimately went into foreclosure and Kastera Homes came back and optioned the property and in July 2008 submitted an application to the city for -- for review and, unfortunately, never got to the hearing process. Affinity Bank has taken the property back and is the applicant on this matter this evening and it is our client's intent to reinstate the approvals for the project. It is now known as Cavenaugh Ridge and we would really like to move forward. So, that's the overall intent. And the property was annexed as R-4 in 2006 and since we are trying to keep the same flavor and the same layout as much as possibly, unfortunately, the R-4 standards in 2006 are very different from the 2009 version, so staff made the recommendation that in order to try to keep the integrity of the work that's been done, that we submit an application for a rezone to R-8, basically, to allow, essentially, the same preliminary plat and final plat to be approved and generally we are in agreement with the conditions of approval. There are just a couple that we need to talk about, unfortunately. First item of concern has to do with conditions 1.2.3 and 1.2.13. These conditions in question require our client to, one, revise the preliminary plat to include common area along the northwest boundary of the subdivision immediately -- directly adjacent to the 40 foot wide access easement in place of the seven residential lots and we have the choice of either just completely doing away with them or relocating them elsewhere in the plat. And, number two, construct a street buffer within the common area adjacent to the 40 foot wide access easement along this western boundary. Over the last few months, Commissioners, we have had three pre-application meetings with staff and, generally, we felt we were in agreement with the current layout and that this was, indeed, accessible given the fact that we were going to do this rezone to R-8 to make everything compatible again. The one thing that they did mention again that we needed to do was to go back and add the 40 foot wide access easement that had been missed with Reflection Ridge. Our concern is that up until receiving the staff report on Meridian Planning & Zoning October 1, 2009 Page 7 of 32 Tuesday, at no time were there any discussions regarding the truck traffic that they had concerns with going by these residential lots. The requirements for the additional ten foot landscape buffer, the needed mixed use pathway at this location, and the desire to relocate these lots. There was also not any communication in regards to the Comprehensive Plan land use map amendment that had just occurred to the west of us that was designated mixed use, nonresidential uses. So, while we can understand and we can appreciate the city's concerns and I'm certainly not trying to throw anyone under the bus tonight, there was a lack of communication, apparently, between us and city staff and so we were a bit taken aback a couple of days ago. So, while we can appreciate their concerns, we do have the following concerns and the first one is Cavenaugh Ridge was a fully approved preliminary plat that has always anticipated residential lots up and to the western boundary. This was even when there was the existing gravel pit. So, we always knew there was going to be that -- that potential conflict to some degree. And while we do understand that our approval has expired, with the almost completion of construction pertaining to phase one and the fact that the layout really is a carbon copy, including the 40 foot access easement, we don't understand why this issue is just being brought up now. So, that is a concern. And that's -- and, honestly, we could have accommodated this had we known prior to submitting in July, too, if we had just had these conversations. And we do recognize that there will be some truck traffic along this access easement to the existing gravel operation. But this operation will eventually cease as this property was part of what the new Comp Plan amendment land use designation took over. So, as proposed, these seven lots are in our fourth phase, which is at the very end of the project. So, most likely the gravel operations will have ceased prior to these lots being built out. Otherwise, we -- if the gravel operation is still in effect we will put forth full disclosure in our CC&Rs and ACCs and just make sure everybody knows exactly what's going on. And while the city recently approved the Comp Plan amendment for the property to the west, Cavenaugh Subdivision -- Cavenaugh Ridge is a mix of low density and medium density residential land uses per the Comp Plan. Cavenaugh Subdivision, which to the north of this property that was just redesignated, is medium density residential and each of these projects either has or has had residential lots approved up and to their boundaries, which is immediately adjacent to this new Comp Plan designation. And as the adjacent property has only had a Comprehensive Plan land use designation amendment and no preliminary plat approved, this recent amendment, in our opinion, should not create hardship for us, for those further along in the planning processes and it would make sense for when that property developed to the west that they would adequately transition to us and our land use designations have not changed. So, based on these reasons we would respectfully request that the Commission not require the removal of the seven lots and not require the additional pathway and landscaping. The second area of concern that we have is conditions 1.2.10 and 1.2.11 and this is regarding the pathway requirement that's along the Farr Lateral and the Ridenbaugh to the Farr Lateral. In our July 2009 pre-application meeting we were informed that the pathways were actually planned for the south side of the Farr lateral and this is also supported in the Meridian master plan for your pathways on page 4-18 and I can leave a copy of that for you if you do not have -- and this clearly shows that the pathway for the Farr Lateral along our frontage is to be on the south and the west side of the lateral. Meridian Planning & Zoning October 1, 2009 Page 8 of 32 In order for our project to accommodate the lateral -- the pathway and the additional landscaping that's being requested, this is an additional 20 feet. These are of larger lots along this lateral and would certainly create some hardship for the lot sizes and the product that we anticipated for this portion of the project. So, we would, therefore, request that the pathway be placed on the south side of the lateral given the adopted master plan. The original approval of this project and the pathways and the fact that the property to the west and to the south has yet to develop and there is a great opportunity to make those connections at that time. The third item I wish to address -- and this really is not a concern anymore, but I just wanted to put on the record what our conversation was today -- was in regard to condition 3.9 in regards to the emergency access and this is actually what Sonya and Joe Silva -- we just wanted some clarification as to the wording of the condition and what we came to an agreement as to the intent of the condition is that Cavenaugh Ridge Subdivision may have one single point of access until building permit number 50 and between building permit number 50 -- 51 and 79, which is, essentially, what our phase one final plat incorporates, the Cavenaugh Ridge Subdivision will be required to have two points of access. However, one access may be an approved all weather surface, 20 feet wide, that meets all requirements of the Meridian Fire Department and at that point an access is locked or has bollards, it will be done so with the approval of the fire department. So, we will have to get all approvals prior to doing that. Sonya did mention that we do have to put in a request for a variance for the block length. We will be doing so prior to the City Council hearing. We do not have a problem doing that either. The Commissioners -- while it's unfortunate that we are before you this evening with an expired plat, fortunately, this is through no fault of our client Affinity Bank and, you know, the client is just attempting to make the project whole again and to get some good things happening, rather than having a quarter finished site with vandalism. We are trying to make things right out there. The project has the same amenities. We have ten amenities over the course of the 252 lots. It's the general layout that was approved before. We just ask that you consider our concerns regarding these conditions of approval as for their changes have significant costs, especially in these times, you know, that can make or break a project. So, with that respectfully request your recommendation of approval this evening to City Council and with the condition -- modifications to the conditions as I have discussed. If we -- if I need to answer any further questions, happy to do so. Newton-Huckabay: Any questions from the Commission? Rohm: I have none. Marshall: No. O'Brien: I will wait. Thanks. Newton-Huckabay: Okay. Thank you. Ford: Thank you. Meridian Planning & Zoning October 1, 2009 Page 9 of 32 Newton-Huckabay: Ms. Ford was the only one signed up to testify to this application. Is there anyone else who would like to come forward? Okay. Seeing none, we will have no need, then, for applicant rebuttal to public testimony. Would we like to have discussion? Close the public hearing? Rohm: Let's close the public hearing. Madam Chairman, I move that we close the public hearing on RZ 08-005 and PP 08-010. Newton-Huckabay: All in favor? Second. Where is the seconders this evening? Marshall: Second. Newton-Huckabay: Opposed? Marshall: I have a few questions for staff that I'd like to have -- Rohm: Well, we can have -- we can have that discussion. Marshall: Even with a closed public hearing? Rohm: Yes. Marshall: Okay. Nary: Madam Chair, Members of the Commission, if you close the public hearing and you want to hear back from the applicant, then, you have to reopen. So, you may want to have the discussion now before you close your hearing, because you won't be able to have the applicant come back and respond. Newton-Huckabay: Do you want to rescind your motion to close the public hearing or -- all those in favor of closing the public hearing? Opposed. The hearing will remain open. MOTION FAILED: FOUR NAYS. ONE ABSENT. Newton-Huckabay: Discussion? Rohm: Madam Chairman? Newton-Huckabay: Commissioner Rohm. Rohm: After having heard the testimony of both staff and the applicant, my personal opinion is that there is some unfinished business that needs to take place between the applicant and staff before we render a decision. I think that there is too much on the table here for us to try and wade through that this evening and come up with something that's both fair to the applicant and with respect to the city at this time and I don't think Meridian Planning & Zoning October 1, 2009 Page 10 of 32 that I'm -- I don't think I would like to render a decision this evening based upon what I have heard from both applicants and the city. Newton-Huckabay: Are you saying you'd like to -- give a list of open items and continue the hearing? Rohm: Well, I think maybe if the balance of the Commission has questions that -- that are germane that they want to get out on the table tonight, that's fine, but I just think that there is -- there is some fundamental differences between the applicants request and staffs recommendation and quite honestly I want to give them an opportunity to work those out between the applicant and the staff, rather than have us come up with a solution tonight. I don't feel comfortable with that. O'Brien: Madam Chair, I agree. That's where I was going to go with that, too. It seems like the applicant wants to, basically, grandfather the things that were proposed originally with the original applicants and -- and now I really don't like surprises to come up between the applicant and the staff that we only heard about this a few days ago and it has truly took us aback. So, I agree with you, Commissioner Rohm, about that. I think there needs to be some discussion between the applicant and staff to iron out these differences, whatever they might be, so there is no surprises when they come before us. End of statement. Marshall: Madam Chair? Newton-Huckabay: Commissioner Marshall. Marshall: I have a vast number of concerns with this. My first comment is that the preliminary plat that was approved expired. It's gone. This is like a new application. I'm sorry, but no idea when it was going to come back, no idea if it would develop, no idea who would own it when developed. Therefore, when we move forward with the property to the west it seemed appropriate at that time, not knowing what would go to this site. Therefore, this has to -- has to take into account that that property has moved on. I also am concerned about the access to the property to the south and I don't know what other options there are. I am concerned about access to the elementary school on a pedestrian pathway getting the children that are going to be using that school from this subdivision, how do we get them there away from a street, preferably. I understand that the pathway was originally planned for the south side, but who knows when it will develop. It has -- we have had a master plan change, but we don't know when that will develop. It could be in process right now, but, then, again, with the economy it may be ten years from now. So, in the meantime how do we get the children from this subdivision that is intended to be built out, if we approve it how do we get them to that -- that school? I think there needs to be a pathway in place, whether it was originally planned for the south side or not. You know, when we -- when we put that pathways plan in place we didn't know which side would develop first and we didn't know exactly how it would develop. We tried to lay some guidelines out. And that's exactly what they are is guidelines. They are not hard and fast rules, but attempts to try to guide this that Meridian Planning & Zoning October 1, 2009 Page 11 of 32 we knew we need some pathways through there. The fact that it was originally planned for the south is meaningless to me. I do think there is a vast chasm between staff and the applicant. I feel it's very unfortunate that the applicant feels there has been a lack of communication or communication failure, but, unfortunately I cannot correct that, nor do I have any -- I can't do anything about that. What I see is a large number of issues that need to be ironed out and, to be honest, I'm in agreement with everyone else here, in that I think it probably ought to be continued to work this out and I'm sorry it's been in the works so long -- I know it -- economically it's very difficult. I have sympathy for that. But with the thought that we need to make this the best we can for the city, meaning that we want it to develop and develop soon and properly, but, again, considering the fact that we have changed our guidelines, we have changed the UDC, we have changed our requirements since that was originally passed, because we are trying to make things better and we have made other decisions and recommendations based on the fact that those have expired and that times have changed and we didn't know what's going to go in here. Those are my comments. O'Brien: Madam Chair? Newton-Huckabay: Yes, sir. O'Brien: Question for staff. Sonya, is it -- was it the intention of staff to build a pathway to Mary McPhearson School? Wafters: Chairman Newton-Huckabay, Commissioner Marshall -- or, excuse me, Commissioner O'Brien, Commissioners, the master pathways plan that was adopted in 2007 as part of the Comprehensive Plan, does call out a pathway connection from the Ridenbaugh pathway, which is proposed to extend from the north from the Ridenbaugh along Meridian Road and provide a pathway connection between the school and that Ridenbaugh pathway. O'Brien: Well, I can see it having a pathway possibly to the school, but not for the reasons for having kids walk the pathway to the school, since we have buses to do that for them in designated areas. It's much safer in the wintertime. All my kids have gone to Mary McPhearson and in the wintertime it's very -- and it's rural, very very dark when they go to school in the -- in the mornings. They have kids walk along the pathway to get to school and it's a slope. Icy. I don't know who is going to maintain that. So, I wouldn't recommend that be used to have children go to school along the pathway like that. It's just not a good idea. Wafters: This is a segment of the multi-use pathway system in the city. It's not just for the school children. I'm not sure what the school district's requirements are. I know in different areas of the city I believe if you live within one -- one and a half miles of the school kids are required to walk. I'm not sure if it is for this particular school or not, being a little more rural in nature probably may not be, but -- but this is just part of the city's multi-use pathway system. Meridian Planning & Zoning October 1, 2009 Page 12 of 32 O'Brien: Okay. Yeah. I don't know about that designated perimeter, if you will. But all the children I know, including my own, were bused there even though we live within eye shot across the valley about a quarter mile, so -- and they were always bused. I just don't understand. Maybe there is not a really clear understanding about what the criteria is. So, that was- just one of the concerns I had. Thank you. Marshall: Madam Chair? Newton-Huckabay: Commissioner Marshall. Marshall: I'd like to respond to Commissioner O'Brien here. It's my understanding that if there is not a safe pathway, that the school system does what's called safe busing and they bus the children because of safety reasons and they are not allowed to work -- walk. Preferably, children within a mile, plus or minus, prefer to walk, we prefer that they walk, the school district prefers that they walk, busing is expensive and you and I pay for it out of our tax dollars and it's -- it's intended that it's good physical -- that they get out and exercise, things like that, and that a pathway removed from the streets is typically safer than a sidewalk next to a street and that not only this pathway -- would provide access to the school, but it's also part of the interconnection of pathways that allows everybody to ride bikes and walk and traverse the entire city. So, I -- personally, I see that pathway serving two purposes. One, vitally important to children to the school, especially those that live close by, as well as an interconnectivity pathway for the rest of the city. O'Brien: Commissioner Marshall, I agree with the latter part to what he's saying, but not the first part about having to obtain access for children -- Newton-Huckabay: Commissioners, I think this is probably a debate that would be better served at a pathways -- O'Brien: I think it's an important dialogue. Newton-Huckabay: It is important dialogue, Commissioner O'Brien. I don't want to discount that. I think what we need to keep focused on is whether or not it's appropriate for us to put the requirement on this development to put the pathway as proposed by staff. A pathway has been determined to be part of the plan in that area and whether or not we agree with that would -- certainly could impact -- impact how you choose to vote, I suppose, but whether or not the safety and who should or shouldn't be able to use it is I think a different conversation. O'Brien: I agree with that. Newton-Huckabay: That doesn't impact this applicant. O'Brien: I'd love to be a part of that conversation whenever it comes up. Meridian Planning & Zoning October 1, 2009 Page 13 of 32 Newton-Huckabay: Okay. There you go. I'd like to make a couple comments if I may in the spirit of moving this -- moving this forward. As I see it, we have the issue on the table of the applicant wants the seven -- seven lots on the west side of the property next to the 40 foot access that goes into the gravel pit, the city does not. Access easement needs to be recognized there, which it wasn't in the original Reflection Ridge and the city would like to see a common area and buffer there. The applicant would not. A pathway on the west, the city would like to see that come down -- down that western and southwestern property line, the applicant would not. A street variance, we have a couple blocks that are too long. The street variance needs to be applied for. The applicant seems to be okay with that, as does the city. And the city has also asked for a -- some changes to the pathway system on the east side of the property and according to the applicant's response 1.2.9, her response is we will comply. So, that issue -- of course the staff report would be acceptable to -- to the applicant. So, as I see it we have this one issue on the west and if the applicant is willing to -- would like to -- I'd like to know if the applicant wants to continue this public hearing or if she has an alternative or compromise to offer here or if they would prefer to continue the public hearing. So, if the applicant would like to come forward. Ford: For the record, Ashley Ford, Rose Law Group. I think what we would request is a recommendation from the Planning and Zoning Commission this evening that we continue to work with staff prior to the City Council hearing. With all due respect we would like to continue moving forward. Newton-Huckabay: So, I want to clarify that that you would like arecommendation -- Ford: Yes. Newton-Huckabay: -- from the Commission and, then, you would like to present to City Council. Ford: Correct. That's the direction I have been given. Newton-Huckabay: I can appreciate that, but that -- if we did that on a regular basis that would negate the need for a Planning and Zoning Commission in the City of Meridian and so we would like to -- if we are making a recommendation tonight, we would be making recommendation for specific changes and nothing beyond that -- and/or an approval of denial. Ford: And I believe my client is -- recognizes that. Newton-Huckabay: Okay. All right. Ford: Thank you. Newton-Huckabay: Well, Commissioners, it will be up to you whether or not you want to accommodate that application. Meridian Planning & Zoning October 1, 2009 Page 14 of 32 Marshall: Madam Chair, I suggest, then, we move forward on this. If we are going to, then, we need to address each one of these items one at a time as you list them. Rohm: Alternatively to that maybe we just go to the staff report as presented and let them -- and make our recommendation to move forward based on it and if they want to do battle at City Council, they can do it there. But I don't feel comfortable making those kind of changes and that's why I made the statement prior to this discussion is I think that the best way to do it is to have staff and the applicant sit down together and iron out their differences. But not taking that route, I think we are better off going with the recommendations of staff as written, because I don't feel comfortable making those changes to the staff report without any additional information. So, kind of where I'm at. Friedman: Madam Chairman, Commissioners, if I may, without trying to influence your direction one way or another, just a couple of items, I think, for consideration. Really -- Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Friedman, let me make my one last comment before -- Friedman: Yes, ma'am. Newton-Huckabay: -- you make yours, in case there is some influence that. might come through. Friedman: Okay. Newton-Huckabay: We do have the option, as the Planning and Zoning Commission to continue it to another Planning and Zoning Commission hearing, if we so choose. So, just because the applicant would like to move it forward doesn't mean that we have to feel compelled to move it forward. So, we do have that -- that choice. Mr. Friedman. Friedman: There was just a couple points of clarification that want to point out about -- particularly as it affects the seven lots -- the western portion of the plat and it affects the pathway. The previous plat that no longer exists -- the access easement we keep talking about was actually located on the rear portion of some residential lots, so for whatever reason that kind of went through the process that way. We picked it up when we went back through this in our evaluation of that, so the intent was, you know, recognizing that there is this -- this vehicular access there. With regard to the pathway location on the Farr -- parts of the pathway plan that were adopted by the city in 2007 are reasonably specific in where that pathway goes and as we recognized that area, it's not very specific, because we don't know what's going to happen there and I think the pathway plan in this case says that -- indicates that the pathway will be developer driven as a private connection to the Ridenbaugh pathway and to Mary McPhearson Elementary School. That's about as specific as the pathway gets -- plan gets at this time with regard to -- to the location on this particular park piece of property. And other than that I think I'd be able to -- if you want to move forward with questions, we would be Meridian Planning & Zoning October 1, 2009 Page 15 of 32 happy to answer those. But I just wanted to get those couple points of clarification out for you. Newton-Huckabay: Thank you. Marshall: Madam Chair? Newton-Huckabay: Any last comments? Yes. Marshall: 1 do have a quick question for Pete. Pete? Friedman: Yes. Marshall: Or was it Sonya. Sonya was presenting. Sonya, you were saying that the gravel pit to the south is land locked without that easement? Wafters: Chairman -- or, excuse me, Chairman Newton-Huckabay, Commissioner Marshall, Commissioners, it is land locked. If you see here on the map on the left-hand side, it's that triangular piece of property. It is land locked. It's just right in the middle there. Marshall: Thank you. O'Brien: Madam Chair, I recommend we close the public hearing RZ 08-005 and PP 08-010. Rohm: Second. Newton-Huckabay: All those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. Newton-Huckabay: Do we have additional discussion or is someone ready to make a motion? As I see it, our options are continue this public hearing to another Planning and Zoning Commission meeting, recommend approval or denied to City Council, make -- and make or not make any suggested changes to the staff report. O'Brien: Well, Madam Chairman, I'm kind of torn between both. I'd like to see the difference worked out if that's possible within the current Comprehensive Plan as Commissioner Marshall had noted. And, then, in the same token t sure would like to see if there is a possibility of working out any particular issues that the applicant might have that would be detrimental to the success of the business. If it's going to be adding a whole lot of cost that's a consideration, but I don't know how much a consideration we have to really provide. With that, though, I could go either way. I could go with a continuation for whatever is recommended -- I don't know how long it takes to get with the -- with their -- with their applicant, their client, or -- again, I think I agree with -- with Meridian Planning & Zoning October 1, 2009 Page 16 of 32 Commissioner Rohm about letting the City Council kind of hash this around with the current positions that the staff has and let it go as it may. Rohm: Madam Chair? Newton-Huckabay: Commissioner Rohm. Rohm: I -- even though I made the statement, if we were to make a motion to forward this onto City Council without any changes to the staff report, I still don't think that's the right answer. I think the right answer is to remand it back to staff and the applicant to work out some of these differences and, then, move forward with a package that -- that has blessings of from both to the best of their ability of them to work out those differences and so with that being said -- Marshall: 1 would -- Madam Chair? Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Marshall. Marshall: I would agree with Commissioner Rohm in that I believe if we recommend approval as it is, as written in the staff report, that we are simply advocating our role in this and that I don't think any of this is going to be worked out. Personally, it's my preference to continue. Newton-Huckabay: Okay. I want to make acomment -- I'm going to make a comment. I, myself, feel like the -- the issues are with one very small portion of this project that -- and we, really, only have two -- two issues to be resolved and by making a motion to City Council to accept the -- the staff report as is, with removal or relocation of the seven lots on the west, addressing the access and easement buffer on the west side and I certainly endorse pathways any opportunity that we can. I would feel comfortable that -- I would not make any changes or additional changes to this -- this plat myself, beyond what's recommended in the staff report. So, I would be in favor of moving it on to City Council as recommended by staff. But I will leave the motion making to you. O'Brien: Madam Chair? Newton-Huckabay: Yes, sir. O'Brien: A question on this trucking issue relative to truck traffic and I -- I don't remember if there was a reflection on that, but with staff about changes that, but I know the applicant had some concerns about having to deal with truck or construction traffic and I don't think -- I don't think that should be an issue at all, if that did come up with staff about changing the route of where the truck traffic is going to be for further development, construction traffic is construction traffic and shouldn't be treated any different than what they -- we did on Overland Road near the freeway when they -- they worked out the issues with truck traffic and construction traffic with the residents in the Meridian Planning & Zoning October 1, 2009 Page 17 of 32 area with traffic control, dust, and noise, et cetera. So, I just wanted to make a point on that. That should be anon-issue. Newton-Huckabay: I think one thing I would like to point out that we probably want to consider -- or I would like us to consider as a Commission is you have an easement here, you don't actually have a public road and I encourage you to think of all the opportunities that we have had in the rest of the city to come up with private roads and an easement having not been properly handled at the time of a project developing and you end up with these strange little out streets or -- O'Brien: I hear you. Newton-Huckabay: -- that -- that type of thing and I think this is one of those opportunities that if we can avoid one of those infamous opportunities for another lane, as I would refer to them in the city, I would like us to do that. O'Brien: Good point. Marshall: Madam Chair? Newton-Huckabay: Commissioner Marshall. Marshall: Again, due to the nature of that -- and I hope the applicant fully understands that I think we are in support of staffs recommendations for the most part, that potentially they may want to make some adjustments to that preliminary plat before we recommend approval as per the staff report and I think continuing allows them that opportunity to do so, because removing seven lots, adding the additional pathway where it is and whatnot, they may choose to offer access to that gravel pit from another place, I don't know, but somehow we have got to get access to that. Personally I would not want to see it in somebody's backyard, even though there was full disclosure, because no matter what, somebody buys that property they are going to be very upset with the city for having allowed it, even though they knew it was there. And, personally, I don't want to see that happen and that's why we have changed our -- our recommendations for development over time, our codes, because even though people have full disclosure, do you really want to live next to Walmart in your backyard or have trucks driving through your backyard, even though you know it's going in there. Sometimes -- and let's say there is a lot of truck traffic there and what happens, those houses never sell, they just sit there, and we have an eye sore and we have more vandalism and things like that. I think we need to protect against that and the idea for the codes is just that. I think the city has it right, that if there is going to be an easement we are going to have a bunch of truck traffic there that we need to get rid of those seven lots. Are there other options? I think that needs to be explored and that's the reason I think that a continuance is in order. Newton-Huckabay: Okay. I'm going to ask one more question and, of course, we can't -- I guess the applicant could nod yes or no, if a continuance to the 15th meeting would Meridian Planning & Zoning October 1, 2009 Page 18 of 32 be sufficient time. From the audience the applicant is nodding that the 15th would be sufficient time to work with staff. With that said, I think we are probably at a point we can wrap up our comments and one of you can -- Rohm: Madam Chairman? Newton-Huckabay: I'm sorry. Marshall: Sorry, Pete. I thought you were going to say something. Friedman: No. That's all right. I thought you were asking me a question, so -- Rohm: Madam Chairman? Newton-Huckabay: Commissioner Rohm. Rohm: I move that we continue the public hearings on Items No. RZ 08-005 and PP 08- 010, to the regularly scheduled meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission of October 15th, 2009. Marshall: I'll second. Newton-Huckabay: All those in favor? Nary: Madam Chairman, before you vote on that, I think you have moved to close the public hearing, so you want to move to open it and continue it. Rohm: So moved. Newton-Huckabay: All those in favor? Marshall: Do we have to vote in separate motions? Do we have to -- Newton-Huckabay: Yes. Marshall: -- make a motion to open the public meeting? Nary: You can do them together. You can do them together. Newton-Huckabay: Okay. Marshall: He moved and I'll second. Newton-Huckabay: Okay. All those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. Meridian Planning & Zoning October 1, 2009 Page 19 of 32 Newton-Huckabay: And that's all motions combined. We have reopened, rescheduled and close and continued. Rohm: October 15th. Oh, we do have to -- no, we'd have to close it, too. Nary: No. No. Newton-Huckabay: It's open, because we continued it. O'Brien: I'm sorry. Madam Chair, I just have aquestion -- it's probably too late for it. Should we be distinct on what we are going to be looking at the continuation of the hearings -- we are not going to be looking at the big pie, but maybe a couple little pieces that we had concerns with? Rohm: Oh, I think -- Marshall: We were pretty clear on it. O'Brien: Okay. Rohm: It's pretty clear. O'Brien: Okay. Newton-Huckabay: Well, I think you have to consider, too, the nature of the development may change enough that you would think -- Rohm: I did like your comment, though, about wanting to see a revised plat move forward to the City Council. 1 really did appreciate those. Newton-Huckabay: Okay. So, we will hear the Cavenaugh Ridge development again on October 15th. Newton-Huckabay: I'd like to open the public hearing for AZ 09-006 for 61 and we will start with the staff report. Marshall: Madam Chair, were we going to continue that -- Newton-Huckabay: Oh, shoot. Marshall: -- to November 5th? Item 6: Public Hearing: MCU 09-002 Request to modify the building elevations approved with the Conditional Use Permit for Avendale (fka Silver Oaks) by Engineering Solutions -north side of W. Franklin Road, approximately Meridian Planning & Zoning October 1, 2009 Page 20 of 32 '/ mile west of N. Ten Mile Road: Newton-Huckabay: My apologies. I'd like to open public hearing MCU 09-002 for the sole purpose of moving it to November 5th, 2009. It's the Avondale development. Rohm: So moved. Marshall: Second. Newton-Huckabay: All those in favor? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. Item 7: Public Hearing: AZ 09-006 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 5.02 acres from RUT (Ada County) to R-4 (Medium Low Density Residential) zoning district by for B1 by B1, LLC -east of Jericho Road,'/ mile south of Chinden Boulevard, approximately 650 feet west of Locust Grove Road: Newton-Huckabay: Now, I will open AZ 09-006 for the 5.2 acre of RUT to an annexation of R-4 by B1 Development and I apologize, in my enthusiasm to get through the agenda I skipped an item. Parsons: Thank you, Madam Chair Person, Members of the Commission. The application before you tonight is -- is just what you said, an annexation of 5.03 acres of RUT zoned land in Ada County to an R-4 zone designation within the city. Currently the site is a vacant parcel with a contractor's yard on it. If you look at that map in front of you there you can see in the northwest corner of that contractor's yard that's construction equipment that's being stored on the property at this time. Surrounding the property is Central Academy High School, zoned R-4, and some residential lots zoned R-2 that's part of the Westborough Subdivision. To the west is Arcadia Subdivision, zoned R-8. To the east is the Reserve Subdivision, zoned R-4. And to the south is undeveloped Ada County parcels, zoned RUT. One thing I do want to mention before we get started, there is really nothing to review tonight. The applicant just simply wants to proceed with constructing a single family home on the site. If you can see my arrow here, the applicant is proposing to construct that home right here in the northeast corner. This is a real simple sketch of what he's proposing to do. The DA doesn't tie him to this concept at all, it just -- basically, staff wanted to see how this property could lay out if and when a plat is proposed for the property. You can see the applicant has depicted East Commander Street being extended through the property and connecting to Jericho Road. As part of a development agreement staff has also conditioned or included a DA provision that that happen. The applicant will also have to comply with -- with afuture plat, will have to comply with the open space requirements and the amenity requirements. The hash mark here on the property that you see is, again, where the location of the future home is going to go. You can see this arrow here shows some of the other streets that are stubbed to this property as well. ACHD has also commented that with a future plat submittal they would be looking for this street to be punched Meridian Planning & Zoning October 1, 2009 Page 21 of 32 through and connect to Jericho, as staff has recommended. Now, the Comprehensive Plan for this site is designated medium density residential, so the zoning that the applicant is proposing is consistent with that. In your handout that I provided you tonight I have put on -- placed some DA -- pertinent DA provisions that will be subject to this property. There are some italicized and underlined comments or DA provisions that you should review. The way I have them -- the way that you see them before you is the way that it is in the staff report. Staff did receive written comments from the applicant. He wants to possibly change -- make some recommendations and changes to those DA provisions. The first one being the requirement for elevation and complying with the design manual. He, basically, wants that to be stricken and that any future plat comply with the residential guidelines in the UDC. The second is to -- number four in that would be he wants to have the option, either that condition -- or DA provision to say either extend it to Jericho or have the ability to extend East Commander through and, then, possibly stub to the southern boundary, rather than going to Jericho. So, we want that accessibility. As I mentioned, the applicant does not have any plans to plat this subdivision at this time, so we aren't really sure and I don't think they are really sure as to when this thing would be platted and homes would be proposed on the site. Staff is also recommending tonight that you modify DA provision number one and, basically, staff would like you to add that future home should not be placed -- the future home on the site shall not be placed to impede the extension of East Commander Street through the property and the applicant shall obtain certificate of zoning compliance for the future home prior to the issuance of a building permit. So, basically, staff wants to insure that when the applicant proposes a home for the site that the home will be constructed in this area and will not be located on the site to block the construction of Commander Street being punched through when a plat is proposed. Staff is recommending approval with the DA provisions as stated in the staff report and with that I'll stand for any questions Commission may have. Newton-Huckabay: Any questions for staff? Marshall: I do. Bill -- excuse me. Madam Chair. Bill, you mentioned that the applicant is requesting on the -- I'm trying to find -- under design review to actually eliminate the requirement for these elevations should be consistent with the architectural character, objectives, and guidelines listed in Section E, residential guidelines, referencing Meridian design manual and, instead, replace that with just who meets the development -- the residential development in place -- objectives and guidelines of the residential development in place by the UDC at time of submittal. Is it part of -- does just the UDC encompass the Meridian design manual? Parsons; Members of the Commission, it does. Basically, design review is primarily required for conditional use permits and concurrent with CZC applications and so what staff has done is looked at that design manual. realizing that the applicant doesn't realize what is going to happen to the property. However, we wanted to have some provision in the DA that would allow him to develop that subdivision in a fashion that would be consistent with the design manual. So, as far as -- as far as preliminary plat Meridian Planning & Zoning October 1, 2009 Page 22 of 32 would go, the UDC does not require design review with that -- submission of that application. If that answers your question. Marshall: So, it would be just by requiring -- I'm just trying to clarify here. So, if we were to state it to say that the staff recommends the applicant develop the site consistent with the objectives and guidelines for residential development under -- place under -- in place under the UDC at the time of submittal, that would not require design review and meets the design guidelines referenced in the Meridian design manual. Friedman: Madam Chairman, Commissioners, if I may. The design manual, when it was adopted as an element of the Comprehensive Plan, it cross-referenced in the UDC, so it cross-polinates, if you will. It's not only a policy document, it's aquasi-regulatory document, a set of guidelines and what the UDC did -- what we did in the UDC, previous to adoption of the manual that's all the guidelines we had were in the UDC. So, what we have done is we have expanded them and they are generally focused on commercial institutional, industrial, multi-family and so forth. There is a general chapter in there, as Bill said, that addressed residential development. So, really, the meat, if you will, of the guidelines as it pertains to actually any development, but in this case particularly residential development, is contained in the design manual, as opposed to the UDC and as Bill indicated, typically on a subdivision we don't have an opportunity to -- you know, there is the normal conditions and so forth that are, you know, compliant with the UDC, there is our open space standards, our amenity standards, our pathways and so forth. But because this is an annexation, the city has the ability to attach additional conditions and what sort of the genesis of this recommendation is is that at some point in the future when a subdivision is proposed, that that subdivision include elevations that would be based on the guidelines contained in the design manual, because up until now -- up until, actually, the adoption of the design manual, it's been very consistent for the city to require those elevations as part of an annexation, but in this sense we are feeling it. We have the design guidelines. We have guidelines that are institutionalized in the manual that we are comfortable sort of putting off that decision until such time as a subdivision might be presented to the city. So, I hope that shines a little more light on your question, Commissioner. Marshall: Yes, it does. Thank you. Newton-Huckabay: Any other questions? Would the applicant like to come forward, please. Conger: Good evening, Madam Chair, Members of the Commission. My name is Jim Conger at 1627 South Orchard Street, Boise. We appreciate the opportunity to come in front of you. We just have this little small annexation is all we are trying to put forth. We appreciate everything staff has done with us. I think the easiest way to address is just to go through the -- the couple issues we have with the DR, 1 guess, restrictions or conditions of approval. Item one with the city -- city adding their addition to -- city staff adding the addition to Item 1, we don't have any issue with that. Our intent is clearly to put the house in a potential future, basically, if it ever is developed. So, no issue with Meridian Planning & Zoning October 1, 2009 Page 23 of 32 that modification. Item 3 was the -- with this being an annexation, we just wanted any -- if is there any future development, to be treated like any other typical preliminary plat coming through. We didn't have the intention of, basically, kind of stirring up a bigger deal that came out of this with the elevations. So, we will concede to the city condition and back off not submitting the elevations. It wasn't that big of an issue to us. It, obviously, became a big issue and that's our intent. So, Item 3 we will leave -- we will leave as is. Item 4, however, we believe Commander Street should be extended in the future, connected either to the west boundary at Arcadia or the south boundary, which would ultimately end up going towards Madelynn Estates -- I think -- could we go back, please, Mr. Parsons, to that one? We still struggle fundamentally -- if this is -- I mean this won't be in two years, it could be in two years, but it could be in 25 years. We don't know when this -- when this property would develop, if it develops. We have never been a giant fan of -- of the road system and how it would tie into Jericho. Obviously, it can be done. There is a right of way there. We believe ACHD's policy -- or ACHD's letter requesting it to connect to Jericho has more of an issue, much like the city, that it needs to connect somewhere. We don't necessarily believe Jericho is the correct roadway. We are fearful that -- that your city leaders in 25 years are going to read your condition that say it must connect to Jericho and possibly Madelynn Estates. Those two parcels to the south have developed. That stub road is now into this property and, really, the property should go to the south, any stub road. It seems a little short-sighted on -- on our thought process to tie it to one specific point, when it could go either west or south. Period. And that's how we have written -- written it, that we know it's going to be stubbed. I don't know why we don't leave it a little more flexible for the future. The city doesn't lose anything. You still have the option to go west and ACHD has given a generic comment to an annexation. When an actual preliminary plat comes in we will have already had numerous meetings with them, as well as they will have a chance to comment to a very specific preliminary plat. That is our -- you know, basically, conclusion of Item 4. We don't have any other issues. You know, we are cleaning up the -- the existing contractor yard that's been ran in Ada County and that will remove the equipment from it. With -- with that I -- you know, I'll close and stand for any questions and respect the time that I was able to have with you. Newton-Huckabay: Any questions for Mr. Conger? Conger: Oh. I apologize, Madam Commissioner. Madam Chair, Members of the Commission, the last item is Section 2 of Public Works. That was in our letter. We were asking all those conditions to be stricken. We have met -- met with staff of Public Works and they don't necessarily need to be stricken, they just need to have clarification. Those are all written as if we were submitting a preliminary plat. So, I think as long as it's on the record and we understand that it is future conditions or could be future conditions of a preliminary plat. They don't apply at the moment. And I think we stand fine with that. So, I do close. Thank you. Newton-Huckabay: Okay. Great. Thank you. Any questions of Mr. Conger? Meridian Planning & Zoning October 1, 2009 Page 24 of 32 Rohm: Yes. I have one. Are you folks in control of the property to the south of these proposed lots that you see on -- you know, rather than tying into Jericho, tying into the south. Are you in control of that property or is -- or would that have to be developed in order to tie to the south? Conger: Yes. Madam Chair, Commissioner Rohm and Members of the Commission, we are not in control of any of the south -- south parcels, so if we were to develop today we would -- we would have an issue and have no choice but to go to the west boundary. But our intent -- my client's intent is to build -- built a house on it and not subdivide it at this juncture. Rohm: Well, the only issue that I have is -- is there has to be egress from this parcel of ground going either west to Jericho or to a known location to the south and if, in fact, you're not in control of that parcel to the south, then, there is no way that we can know that by turning the road to the south it will ever go to anything and I think that that's what the staffs concern was. Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Marshall. Marshall: Madam Chair. Commissioner Rohm, I think the idea is that they are not going to develop now, but when they do, if that property to the south is developed, that would provide them another option if it were to stub north. Rohm: If it is -- Marshall: Right. And that's why I believe it's recommended wording is to the south or to the west, as opposed to just the west, but to add: Or the south, depending on what is available at the time. Newton-Huckabay: Go ahead. Conger: Yes. Madam Chair, Members of the Commission and Commissioner Rohm especially, we will have a fire requirement to have a secondary access. If this were to bring -- bring forth a preliminary plat, it would not be able to be built without going south or west. It's not an option for us to build our plat, stub it south, and never have the south develop. We would not pull it -- we would not be able to pull a building permit. So, if this land were to develop, it has to go south or west or it won't develop. Rohm: Okay. Newton-Huckabay: Any other questions? Marshall: I do of staff at this point, Madam Chair. Newton-Huckabay: Thank you. Meridian Planning & Zoning October 1, 2009 Page 25 of 32 Marshall: Thank you. Bill, what say you to the recommendation of requiring connectivity to existing opportunities, either be it Jericho or Dehaw's Avenue is eventually built through and stubbed there. Friedman: Madam Chairman, Commissioners, Commissioner Marshall, I think our preference would still be the western connection, because we have an existing road in Jericho. Really, this is the same recommendation that we had some years ago when this property was proposed to be platted. We are going off ACHD's recommendation. As Mr. Conger said, obviously, they recognize that this is an annexation, so their comments are based on the predication of a future plat. So, at this time, with the existence of the existing Jericho Road and the comments from ACHD, we would see that the western connection would be the preferable one at this time. Because as indicated, you don't know when the property to the south will develop and have another road in place there, where we know we have Jericho Road to the west. Marshall: If I could, Pete. Madam Chair. Is it a traffic design issue suggesting that it connect to the west only or is it because -- just because the west exists? Could it not be phrased that they -- if and when this piece of property develops they must connect to an existing opportunity. Friedman: Madam Chair, Commissioners, Commissioner Marshall, I'm not going to pretend I'm a traffic engineer, because I'm not. So, again, I think primarily the -- the concern has always been to take the opportunistic approach of the existing road to the west. If one really wanted to fully access the property, you know, you might have access both directions. But, again, because Jericho Road does exist there and initially there was a narrow strip of property that had precluded access to Jericho the way the property was laid out, but we had that property included in the annexation legal description, so that, therefore, the physicality -- or the physical ability of connecting to the west -- the limitations that had previously existed will no longer exist. Marshall: Thank you. Parsons: Commissioner Marshall, I'd like to just add one more comment for the Commission and the applicant. Certainly staff is in agreement that this is just an annexation and a plat is not proposed and these are -- this is a DA and it can be changed at a future date. Keep that in mind when the applicant 25 years from now comes in and wants to plat this property, he can always put the road to the south, if it makes for a better connection, he can certainly come in and modify that development agreement and change that condition or propose something different. So, at this point we are just looking at now and getting DA provisions in, but as we don't have -- we don't have a crystal ball, they don't have a crystal ball, these have just been staff recommending. Certainly as a Commission you can also propose something different as well, as a recommendation, but just something to put out there to have you weigh in on. Meridian Planning & Zoning October 1, 2009 Page 26 of 32 Newton-Huckabay: Thank you, Bill. Would the Commission like to get comments, while it's fresh in our mind, from Public Works Department before we take the public testimony to kind of clarify -- to clarify Mr. Conger's statement regarding whether or not they actually apply? Steckline: Madam Chair, Members of the Commission, thank you for that opportunity. As the applicant has said, I have met with Mr. Conger and those comments are geared more towards the subdivision preliminary plat, as is Planning and Zoning's comments. So, we feel comfortable that we can keep them in the staff report. When a preliminary plat does come through in the future that's when those requirements will be upheld. Newton-Huckabay: Okay. Great. Thanks. Okay. I want to move onto public testimony, if we have no further comments from the Commission. I have four folks signed up on the -- to testify. I believe it is Marcel Goldberg. If you'd like to come forward and testify. If you want to give your name and address for the record, please. Goldberg: Commissioner and Commission, my name is Marcel Goldberg, I live at 1556 East Commander Street. I really came here tonight to find out what was going on in that lot. We had just moved into that location about a month ago and we were told that that existing property was a future continuation of the development that we live in, which right now only has nine homes in it. We were led to believe that our CC&Rs would extend through the entire development and I guess our concern is being surprised by the fact that this is no longer going to be a continuation of our development and what are the houses there going to look like, what are the standards going to be for size and external appearance and stuff like that. So, those were my concerns. I think the rest of us that are here have similar concerns, although I can't speak for them, I will let them do that. Newton-Huckabay: Okay. Mr. Goldberg, we will address that prior to closing the hearing for you. Goldberg: Thank you. Newton-Huckabay: Judy Goldberg, would you like to testify? From the audience she's okay. Nichole Goose? Gus? From the audience she does not want to testify. And this is either Lisa, Liz, or Leo, Sakomen. I'm so sorry. Okay. Lisa, Liz, or Leo from the audience does not want to testify, so thank you. I apologize for butchering your name. Okay. Would anyone else like to come forward on this application, you could do so now. Rountree: Commissioners, my name is Tyler Rountree. I live at 1098 Pasacana, which is in the Arcadia Subdivision. I guess I'll speak on two different hats that I wear, both as a homeowner and as a member of the HOA in there. Really just as a point of clarification that I would like to know tonight, I have no problems at all with extending that subdivision by one lot. That's truly the way I look at what's going on here, is they are just adding another home in there. As far as the CC&R requirements and all that Meridian Planning & Zoning October 1, 2009 Page 27 of 32 stuff, I don't know about that. My question is is I don't think that the development needs to be limited to hook the street to Jericho. And so just as a point of clarification, I want to make sure that that doesn't happen tonight. It would make more sense to me as a homeowner in there that the street would go to the south. Just simply the way Madelynn Estates, which is now Saguaro Springs, and the two narrow five acre parcels to the south of that are laid out, as long as the development going through can have the option to go south and it's not specifically tied to that it has to connect to Jericho, I'm fine. Rohm: I think that's, basically, what staff stated. Rountree: Okay. Rohm: Is at the time -- Rountree: So long as it's there? Rohm: Well, at the time the development occurs if, in fact, they want to change the development agreement they can make the application at that time. Friedman: Madam Chairman, Commissioners, yeah, point of clarification. Right now our recommendation is to connect with Jericho. As Bill pointed out, if at some point in the future when they are ready to actually develop the property and they want to propose a design that shows a stub to the south or stub to the west and the south, they can always come back and request a development agreement modification. That is if you forward a recommendation to the City Council and the City Council follows the recommendation through to the end where right now the provisions require the connection to the west. Development agreements may be modified. It is not unusual to see them modified. We have plenty of examples of that and, again, as we have indicated, if over time conditions change, if something happens to the south prior to their planning a subdivision on this property, they can always come back. Newton-Huckabay: Is there anyone else who would like to testify? Okay. With that, would the applicant like to respond? Mr. Conger. Conger: Madam Chair, Members of the Commission. Jim Conger, again, at 1627 South Orchard. I think just closing on the -- the Jericho with staff, I think we do concur with staff on we don't have the crystal ball either and -- and what I'm hearing is tie it to Jericho, but if the south is open it's flexible enough to go to the south, which I think kind of -- if you culminate all that together kind of comes back to my requested condition that states that we either must stub to the west or we must stub to the south. So, I don't disagree with that, but I still respectfully like to throw our condition in there, because it seems to make it more flexible. I do -- I have worked in Meridian and Boise a long time and we have -- we have had conditional uses from 1976 and 1978 that had very specific conditions and the current leaders in the city do respect what the leaders did in 1976 and it could be something very similar to that and those usually don't come out good, Meridian Planning & Zoning October 1, 2009 Page 28 of 32 because your hands are kind of tied when it's a very specific condition. It makes it very tough on future -- future Council members or Commissioners. And I think with that we stand. Thank you. Newton-Huckabay: Thank you. Commission, I would actually like to give my comments first this time, if I may. Rohm: You're the boss. Newton-Huckabay: Would that be okay? Marshall: Before closing the public hearing? Newton-Huckabay: Yeah. I don't believe we need to close the public hearing for my comments. I don't want to get into one of those vicious circles like we had with the last hearing. I just want to make the comment that, you know, this is an annexation and it is an opportunity for the city to ask for concessions that you may not get to with a property that's already annexed. I have been a planning and zoning commissioner in this city for six years now, almost, and this is not the first time that this piece of property in this area has come forward. This is, however, the first time that we have had the opportunity to insure connectivity from Locust Grove into -- in the Jericho Road area and Arcadia and I want the city to take that opportunity and do what we can to insure that we will have that connectivity that does fit with our Comprehensive Plan. If in the future it makes less sense because the south has developed, then, you know, if a DA provision is modified and in 2026 you can go back and pull up this public hearing and play it at the hearing, then, and hear that the Commission maybe was flexible to the south, if a modification needs to take place. So, that said, I would like to see us insure the opportunity for the city to get that connection to Jericho, so that I -- we don't have that -- that issue come before us again. I think this is the third or fourth time. I think this particular area has been a little rocky to develop over the years as it is with the development that was done in the county prior to the other city annexations and I think this is a great opportunity that I did not see -- that I did not believe I would see the city have to tie all this together. So, that's my -- my comments in a nutshell. I do just want clarification from staff before we make a motion that Mr. Goldberg, who was commenting on appearance of homes, I just want to insure that the development agreement provision related to the design guidelines is our intention of insuring that the development in the area is consistent with that around it, which would be my interpretation of the design guidelines and based on the matrix -- we are talking about the matrix program? Friedman: Yes. Newton-Huckabay: What's it called again? Friedman: Design matrix. Newton-Huckabay: Design Matrix. Meridian Planning & Zoning October 1, 2009 Page 29 of 32 Friedman: Madam Chair, Commissioners -- and I'm glad you asked that question, because I did want to respond to Mr. Goldberg's comments. Yeah, two things will happen. I -- again, we have sometimes this confusion where we advertise a public hearing and it really isn't for a subdivision. However, when a subdivision is going to be proposed on that property, City Code requires that the proponent of the subdivisions have a neighborhood meeting even prior to them submitting an application to the city. So, that will offer those residents an opportunity to have -- have a meeting with the proponent at that time, they can talk about their concerns, if they elevations shown, and so forth, they can address those at that opportunity, then, they will have another bite at the apple at the public hearing before the Commission to raise those things. But in response to Madam Chair's questions, our design guidelines do have -- we don't dictate any specific styles, we don't dictate any specific materials, but we do provide guidance in terms of mixing materials, quality of materials. There is, you know, talk about compatibility and so forth. So, that was the intent that with a DA provision that any future subdivision incorporate those guidelines into their -- their covenants or actually we will probably require some form of elevation to be tied to the subdivision application. Newton-Huckabay: Thank you. Marshall: I do have a comment that personally I don't have a problem with wordsmithing the 1.2.4 to actually require connection either to the west or to the south, as long as that connection is existing at that time. It provides a little more flexibility in the original design. We can come back and modify the DA. I don't see a -- I mean what we are saying is we would approve it to the south if there was a road to the south now. That's all we are saying. And to that end I don't have a problem with that, because if they were to develop next year and there is no stub to the south, this would require them to stub to Jericho period. But if there were a stub to the south, if we reworded that to say either to the west or to the south, as long as that was -- that was an existing opportunity that that stub was there, it means they couldn't just stub to the south with nothing there. I don't see a problem with that and it would avoid having to come back and do a DA modification. It's just -- but, then, again, I can easily see the DA modification coming in and those go through quite readily and we see them all the time and it's not that big of deal. Rohm: Commissioner Marshall, I second your motion. So, have at it. Newton-Huckabay: Unless Commissioner O'Brien has a comment. O'Brien: Well, I think it's already been said. Have we closed the public hearing? Newton-Huckabay: We have not closed the public hearing. I do want to make one comment here. Staff is recommending to modify DA provision one that the future home shall not be placed on the site to impede the extension of East Commander Street through the property. We probably need to work in any wordsmithing you're planning on doing in relation -- or insuring that no home is built in -- either to impede access to Meridian Planning & Zoning October 1, 2009 Page 30 of 32 Jericho or impede access to the south and I would point out that we currently in the subdivision to the east have connection opportunity stubbed to the south. Marshall: Okay. Madam Chair? Newton-Huckabay: Commissioner Marshall. Marshall: I'd like to make a motion that we close the public hearing. Rohm: Second. Marshall: On -- Rohm: AZ 08-00 -- Marshall: Dash nine five. Newton-Huckabay: All those in favor? Opposed? Motion carried. Public hearing is closed. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. Marshall: Madam Chair'? Newton-Huckabay: Commissioner Marshall. Marshall: After considering all staff, applicant, public testimony, I move to recommend approval to the City Council of file number AZ 09-006 as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of October 1st, 2009, with the following modifications: First, that DA provision one add: The future home shall not be placed on the site to impede the extension of East Commander Street through the property. The applicant shall obtain certificate of zoning compliance for a future home prior to the issuance of a building permit. Also, that 1.2.4 be amended to allow the development agreement provision that future development of the property necessitate on East Commander Street be extended through the site with a connection to the west at Jericho Street or to the south boundary if -- if a southern stub is available at the time of development. End of motion. Rohm: Second. Newton-Huckabay: All those in favor. Opposed? Motion carried. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. Item 8: Public Hearing: AZ 09-005 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 5.89 acres from RUT (Ada County) to C-C (Community Business) zoning district for JJA Land by Mason and Stanfield, Inc. - NWC of N. Linder Meridian Planning & Zoning October 1, 2009 Page 31 of 32 Road and W. Ustick Road: Newton-Huckabay: That would end that public hearing. Thank you. I would like to open the public -- AZ -- or public hearing AZ 09-005 for the sole purpose of continuing it to the regularly scheduled Planning and Zoning Commission meeting of October 15th, 2009. Rohm: So moved. Marshall: Second. Newton-Huckabay: All those in favor? Opposed? Motion carried. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. Item 9: Request for approval to create new Development Application Forms/Checklists by City of Meridian Planning Department: Newton-Huckabay: We have one other item and it is not a public hearing. Do we -- but we would keep the meeting open. Friedman: Yes, please. Newton-Huckabay: All right. This is a request for approval to create a new development application form checklist. Friedman: Madam Chairman, Members of the Commission, as you know, the UDC in Section 11.5.A.3.B.2 directs that the Planning Commission approve any major changes to our applications and recently the City Council did adopt a new process called a certificate of zoning compliance verification. What that is is it's simply a letter that the city planning department will now issue when we have a change of use within an existing building and there is no exterior modifications, any site modifications. Essentially, it's a faster, cheaper way for us to get a CZC out the door. So, what we have done is we have developed an application and a checklist for that process and are asking for your approval of it. Kristy did provide you with a memorandum that addresses that again. Typically if you had an office and you were coming in and you were changing from a retail space to an office space and there was an existing certificate of zoning compliance, it would require CZC modification, which has a big long checklist and it was 173 dollars I believe. The new one is, really, tell us what you're doing, look at this checklist, which is very short, we issue a letter, and it's 53 dollars. So, we are simply asking for your blessing on our new checklist and our new application. Rohm: Sounds like a good process. Meridian Planning & Zoning October 1, 2009 Page 32 of 32 Newton-Huckabay: Do we have a motion to request or approve the creation of a new development application form checklist by the City of Meridian Planning Department? Marshall: Yes, you do, Madam Chair. So moved. Rohm: Second. Newton-Huckabay: All those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. Newton-Huckabay: Okay. Approval. Friedman: Thank you. Newton-Huckabay: We have one more motion and we are going to let Commissioner O'Brien make the motion, since he has been out for awhile and under the weather. That's an understatement. O'Brien: Madam Chair, I recommend we adjourn. Newton-Huckabay: Okay. Marshall: Second. Newton-Huckabay: All those in favor? MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. Newton-Huckabay: Thank you. MEETING ADJOURNED AT 8:36 P.M. (AUDIO RECORDING ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS.) APPROVE ~. ~~. G'',~' _____.~._.__ ~I l ~ I~ WEN NEWTON-HUC144~Y - VI CHAIRMAN DATE APPROVED /`\\~~.~ pF El~j~~~ . ATTEST: i ~ . - ~a . HOLI~AN Y CLE SEAL - ~, ., ,, ,~90'! r ts~ • P~ ~~~~ ,, ~,~Y rp