Loading...
2009 12-03Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting December 3, 2009 Meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission of December 3, 2009, was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Chairman David Moe. Members Present: Chairman David Moe, Commissioner Joe Marshall, Commissioner Tom O'Brien, Commissioner Wendy Newton-Huckabay and Commissioner Michael Rohm. Others Present: Bill Nary, Machelle Hill, Sonya Watters, 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 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 and I'd like to call this meeting to order 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. Commissioners, there are no changes, so could I get a motion to accept the agenda? Marshall: So moved. O'Brien: Second. Rohm: It's been moved and seconded to approve the agenda. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? That motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 3: Consent Agenda: A. Approve Minutes of November 19, 2009 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting: Moe: Next item on the agenda is the Consent Agenda. We have one item, which is the approval of the meeting minutes of the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting of November 19th. Any questions, comments of the meeting minutes? Could I get a motion to accept the Consent Agenda? Meridian Planning & Zoning December 3, 2009 Page 2 of 33 O'Brien: So moved. Rohm: Second. Moe: It's been moved and seconded to approve the Consent Agenda. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? That motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Moe: Before we open our first public hearing for this evening, there is -- I see people that I don't think I have seen in the audience before, so I thought I would give you somewhat of a rundown of how the format will be at our meeting here. I will open the public hearing and, then, ask the staff to give a brief overview of the project and if the Commission has any questions to ask staff and go through that process. After they are done I will, then, ask the applicant to come forward. The applicant will have 15 minutes to ask any other questions or give explanation of the project in their mind. After that process there are sign-up sheets in the back if anyone in the audience would like to speak, you can sign up back there. Once I have reviewed the list and gone through the list I will, then, ask one more time if anyone in the audience would like to speak to the hearing and give you an opportunity to do that. After that process is done I will, then, ask the applicant to come back up and answer any questions that may have come up in the public testimony, after which, then, I will, then, ask the Commission to close the public hearings and, then, we will discuss it and, then, make motions at that point. Item 4: Continued Public Hearing from November 5, 2009: 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'/ mile west of N. Ten Mile Road: Moe: So, having said that I would now like to open the continued public hearing on Avendale and start with the staff report, please. Wafters: Thank you, Chairman Moe, Members of the Commission. The applications before you are a Conditional Use Permit modification to change the building elevations and site plan previously approved with an extension of the Conditional Use Permit and a design review application for the proposed multi-family structures and the site. The property is zoned R-15, consists of 24 acres, and is located on the north side of West Franklin Road, approximately a quarter mile west of North Ten Mile Road. A little history on this property and previous approvals. This site was annexed in 2005 with an R-15 zoning district. A development agreement was required as a provision of annexation. Concurrently a preliminary plat and a Conditional Use Permit for a planned development, consisting of 70 multi-family four-plex structures, totaling 280 units, with a private clubhouse, park, and pathways was also approved. Initially one building elevation and floor plan was approved with the planned development, which consisted Meridian Planning & Zoning December 3, 2009 Page 3 of 33 of two and three bedroom units of 1,030 square feet and 1,185 square feet respectively. The building elevation and site plan is no longer valid. The building elevations and site plan approved with the time extension in 2008 replaced these plans. In 2007 the director approved a one year time extension to record the final plat and commence the use approved with the Conditional Use Permit. In 2008 a second time extension for 18 months was granted by Council and with the time extension request a site plan and building elevations were submitted consistent with the previously approved plan, but with condominiums, instead of four-plex structures with rental units. The site plan called out three specific neighborhood areas, with each neighborhood consisting of different architectural styles, Cape Cod, Mediterranean, and Prairie, as you see here on the site plan on the left, that was the plan proposed with the time extension. Three different variations of each of those styles, for a total of nine different looks, was planned to provide architectural variety within the project. A total of four different floor plans were also proposed. The City Council strongly favored the revised plans in comparison to those originally approved. As a condition of approval of the time extension, the applicant was required to develop the site consistent with the submitted concept plan and building elevations. These revised elevations, floor plans, and site plan were included in the existing Conditional Use Permit and replaced the original plans approved in 2005. The original site plan, floor plan, and elevations are no longer valid. This site plan shown on the left is the current approved plan. The plan on the right is the revised site plan that's submitted with this application. The revised site plan depicts the same number of units, open space, and amenities as previously approved. The overall building layout is not changing on the revised site plan, as underground utilities have already been installed on the site. However, the location of each building type is proposed to change. The proposed site plan depicts the location of each building type by letter, A, B, or C, on each lot. The site is no longer planned to develop with different neighborhoods. The three different proposed building types are now planned to be interspersed throughout the site. The proposed building elevation incorporates substantially the same design elements and mix of materials, stucco, or horizontal siding, shingle siding, stone veneer, and brick with asphalt single roofing, although not quite as much brick and stone veneer as proposed as before -- as the previously approved design, which consisted of row houses and two different condominium concepts. However, instead of individual entrances to each unit from the main level, resembling single family units, their proposed entries for each unit are from a central stair well consistent with amulti-family structure. The elevations you're looking at here are just colored elevations. The proposed ones by the applicant with this application. And what you see here is the proposed building type on your left and the previously approved elevation on your right. This is plan B, the Prairie style. This is the Mediterranean style. And building type B and building type C, the Cape Cod. Only one floor plan with two and three bedroom units and three building types, with no variations within those types, are proposed now, as opposed to four different floor plans with two and three bedroom units and three types of building designs with three different variations within each of those designs, for a total of nine different looks as previously approved. Because the modification to the Conditional Use Permit is proposed, compliance with current design standards is also required. Staff has reviewed the application for compliance with the design standards listed in UDC 11-3A-19 pertaining Meridian Planning & Zoning December 3, 2009 Page 4 of 33 to architectural character, color, and materials and pedestrian walkways and found the proposed changes to be in substantial compliance with those standards. Because significant changes are requested to the previously approved building elevations and site plan and because new design standards are in effect that weren't previously, the director convened a committee of design professional to review the project and provide a recommendation on the interpretation and application of the guidelines contained in the design manual, as allowed in UDC 11-5A-2. A meeting was held with the design professionals committee on October 17th. At the meeting the committee noted the following: They felt that the variety of plans and separate neighborhood feeling has been lost. The quality of the building elevations had been sacrificed in the form of nonseparate entries. Low roofs have essentially been lost. Quantity of the high quality materials, such as stone and brick, has decreased. There is monotonous repetition in the appearance of the structures regardless of material types. A single floor plan eliminates the ability to provide variety in the appearance of the structures. There is no longer modulation on the front sides of the elevations and the basic quality of the elevations has been lost. Further, because the Conditional Use Permit finding listed in UDC 11-5B-6E requires the proposed use to be harmonious with the Meridian Comprehensive Plan, the director also requested a recommendation from the design committee on compliance as the proposed changes with the standards contained in the Ten Mile interchange specific area plan. Based on the standards contained in that plan, the committee found the following: Front porches are not provided on the proposed structures as desired in the plan. There is significantly less variety in the housing types proposed from four different floor plans with three type of buildings designs with three different variations within each of those designs as was previously approved, for a total of 36 different variations, as opposed to one floor plan with three building types as now proposed. There is no access to the railway corridor proposed and detached sidewalks are not proposed as desired in the plan. However, detached sidewalks are not really feasible at this point due to adjacent parking structures. Additional trees, however, could still be provided in front yard areas. Based on these findings the committee recommended denial of the design review application. The director has reviewed the proposed building elevations and site plan submitted with the design review application and the recommendation of the committee. The director has determined that the changes proposed to the plan do not meet or exceed the intent of the design manual, as required by the UDC 11-5B-8D to grant approval of the design review. Therefore, staff is recommending denial of the design review application and consequently recommending denial of the Conditional Use Permit modification application. No written testimony was submitted on this application. Staff will stand for any questions the Commission may have. Moe: Thank you. Any questions of the staff at this time? Marshall: Mr. Chair, I do. Moe: Commissioner Marshall. Meridian Planning & Zoning December 3, 2009 Page 5 of 33 Marshall: Sonya, the design review committee, what's the constituency? I mean is it people from industry, architectural firms? Where are they from? How many members? I'm not looking for names and names of firms, but do they all come from one firm or what? Wafters: Chairman Moe, Commissioner Marshall, they are not the same group every time. They are members that have volunteered from different architectural firms, you know, around the valley. There were three different members present at this meeting. Marshall: Okay. Thank you. Moe: Any other questions? Would the applicant like to come forward, please? And state your name and address for the record, please. McKay: Thank you, Mr. Mayor, Members of -- or Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. Becky McKay, Engineering Solutions, 1029 North Rosario, Meridian. I'm representing the applicant Ten Mile Development on this particular application. Bear with me. This is kind of a complex situation. I was not the original planner, nor were we the engineer on this project. This project was done back in October of 2005. We kind of have been retained to pick up the pieces, basically, in short words. In 2005 this project was annexed. They had a preliminary plat approval, a conditional use approval, and a planned unit development. At that time the Meridian zoning ordinance was in effect and the Ten Mile specific plan did not exist, nor did the design review guidelines exist. They entered into a development agreement with the city in January of 2006 and that development agreement, I have reviewed it closely, still links the original elevations to this particular project. I can't find any evidence the development agreement modification was submitted after that time extension and as you well know, a development agreement is a binding contract between the city, between applicant, and I guess that's something for Mr. Nary to look into, but -- but that did come to light as I was doing my review of this application. In June of 2006 they obtained construction plan approval, final plat approval, from the city and commenced construction, installation of their infrastructure. While construction was going on they had to submit, back in March of 2007, an administrative time extension and when that time extension came in, the very first administrative time extension, the UDC had been adopted. So, in staffs review and the director's review, four new conditions were added to the project, which now brought it into compliance with the UDC. The original developer was Charter Builders and back in 2007 the project was not progressing well and it went into foreclosure and it went back to Banner Bank. My clients Ten Mile Development, Joe Stafford, Graye Wolfe, were the original property owners, who had sold the property to Charter Builders. So, since they were in second position on this particular project, they stepped up with Banner Bank to assume that loan to, obviously, protect their position. Construction of the site, obviously, stopped when this became a distressed project. Approximately 80 percent of the infrastructure was installed. Sewer. Water. Joint trench. They have storm drain ponds. They have concrete vertical curb. Extruded curb. Sidewalks. Base. And I have reviewed the proposals and bids from the contractors. There is in excess of one million dollars in the ground today and I did bring Meridian Planning & Zoning December 3, 2009 Page 6 of 33 some photographs to demonstrate that to the Commission. So, once it went back to Ten Mile Development, they started a discussion with Milt Erhart and Mr. Erhart was contemplating purchasing this project and doing a condominium, some row houses. He had -- kind of had a concept and was contemplating trying to go in and retrofit this and at the same time they were running out of time on their plat and their approval. So, a second time extension was filed that had to go before the Council and at that time it went to the Council -- I have read through the minutes and the Council said, well, we want to see what you're doing. So, he had his architect draw up some condominium buildings, they came in with three architect styles, Prairie, Mediterranean, Cape Cod. The Council liked those elevations. They liked the variety. And if you compare that to the original four-plex that was approved with the application, it was definitely an improvement. The Council, with the time extension, tied these elevations, but, yet, like said before, no development agreement modification was ever done, at least that I can find. Mr. Erhart, then, attempted to find some financial backing for his project and was unable to do so and every bank that he went to or investor kind of shied away and so the project, as presented to the Council with those types of buildings -- obviously, the site plan remained the same, other than they had different areas of different architectural styles, was not economically viable. So, Ten Mile Development right now is trying to salvage this project and complete the infrastructure. They have had Idaho Survey Group doing as builts out there. We have been meeting with Ada County Highway District, Meridian public works inspectors, Nampa-Meridian, every entity that had involvement to, basically, try to identify what remains to be completed. The contractor that did infrastructure originally filed for bankruptcy. So, we will be dealing with a whole new contractor. The estimated cost of completing the infrastructure out there is around 600,000 dollars and it is my client's desire to go in and finish this project. So, then, the question arises what type of product can we build in this marketplace. So, we kind of put a team together with some architects from the Architects Group, Elizabeth Cooper and Mark Sanders, and we, basically, are trying to figure out how to come up with a viable project in this marketplace and what I told them -- obviously, by reading through the minutes the Council liked the different architectural styles, so my recommendation to them was I want you to stick with the Prairie, the Cape Cod, the Mediterranean styles, and -- and make sure that even though the buildings deviate you take those necessary components of that architecture and incorporate it. We met with the city on multiple occasions. We worked with Will Thornton at the time, who was our design review liaison, and after many meetings -- and other staff members attended some of the meetings and some they didn't, we went away with -- believing that we had a product that kind of met in the middle and so we were recommended to submit our CU and told that we had to submit a design review application at the same time. So, we submitted that and, obviously, now we ran into a snag. I have looked at the staff report. The Ten Mile specific plan is the applicable plan. In looking at it, this particular area is designated as medium high density residential. On the Comprehensive Plan at the time the original project was approved it was high density residential. So, as far as the designation, nothing has changed. Staff cites the fact that there are no usable porches in the provision at 30 percent of the exterior -- front exterior have porches. The original condominium designs didn't have front porches either. The architects looked through those and said they don't -- the ones that the staff says are tied to the project don't meet Meridian Planning & Zoning December 3, 2009 Page 7 of 33 that. The staff talks about residential diversity in the Ten Mile specific plan, incorporating single family attached, detached, row houses, apartment buildings, different things like that. Well, it's kind of hard at this juncture for us to switch gears. I mean when I have got vertical curb and parking and to go and try to retrofit single family, I mean it just -- it just doesn't work and it doesn't make any economic sense in times like these to abandon over a million dollars of infrastructure that we have in the ground. One of the comments was the criticism that there is no public art. There was no public art in the original application, nor in the subsequent time extension. If the staff would like public art to be part of the amenities in this, obviously, we are open to that. The staff talks about that they prefer the different architectural styles be concentrated in different areas, so you may drive into one area, it's Mediterranean, the other is Cape Cod, the other is Prairie. We don't object to that. We -- the architect and the -- the developer kind of interspersed them, they thought at the time that that would look better, but we are, obviously, open to creating these little pockets with their own specific architecture. I guess from my perspective we are not asking for the moon, we are asking the city, the staff, just to try to meet us in the middle. Help us come up with a solution for this distressed project. This unfinished development is a detriment to the city. It's a detriment to my client. Some of the infrastructure that's out there right now has already been damaged. We have manhole lids that are missing that are a hazard. I mean as -- the longer they lay unfinished in the ground the more work we are going to have to do to bring this -- or to complete this project. I mean things degrade. The problem, you know, that we have in our industry right now is many of these projects were planned three and five years ago and if they were not fortunate to get finished quickly, then, they are faced with a different market and that's kind of where we are. Some developments, obviously, have the ability to be reinvented. We go in, come up with new ideas, and try to make them work in today's marketplace. I guess what I'm asking the Commission is to keep an open mind, provide us that opportunity to reinvent this project, because in this current unfinished condition it doesn't benefit anyone and the final plat on this has been recorded. They even went as far as getting certificates of zoning for I think a few buildings, but they never acted upon them. I brought some pictures that I wanted to submit to the Council, basically -- sorry I didn't put these on a disk, but I ran out of time. Basically, to demonstrate what's out there in the field and, like I said, we've spent an immense amount of time trying to identify what needs to be done to get this completed. Could you put that disk in? In closing I just wanted to kind of show you the elevations. What I did here is -- this is the original condominium building that was submitted with the time extension and, then, what I tried to do is, then, show you the corresponding building that we have that captures the same architectural features. So, that -- that is the Prairie design and as you can see brick exterior, certain features, and, then, we tried to emulate that. And can you go to the next one, Sonya. Oops. This is the Cape Cod. As you can see, that was the original condominium type building. We captured similar features to it. We have some exterior patio doors there on that single level. You can see the Cape Cod features. You can switch to the next one. And, then, this is -- this is the last one, the Mediterranean. As you can see, that was with the time extension. And, then, there is -- this is the four-plex one. I also have in there -- if you could flip to it, Sonya, another four-plex. Can you turn it? Okay. This is the elevation of the original four-plex. There were kind of three -- three versions of Meridian Planning & Zoning December 3, 2009 Page 8 of 33 the building. They are pretty much identical. I mean I can see a few different features, but they are pretty close. They had -- one of them they had some type of brick or stone on this feature here and, then, another one that they had kind of a little half wall, but, technically, the building was very similar. So, I guess, you know, in closing, this project was approved for four-plexes. This is the structure that was going to be built. We are trying to find someplace in the middle and I guess I'd ask the Commission to think about it. We are open to suggestions. We are not trying to force product down the throat of the city at all. We -- we want to work with the city and that has been our attitude from the day we walked through the door and this has been an uphill battle and -- and I'd like to find middle ground. Thank you. Do you have any questions? Moe: Any questions of the applicant? Marshall: Mr. Chair, I do. Moe: Mr. Marshall. Marshall: So, really, there is -- just clarifying here, from what I'm reading, there is really just one floor plan here, right? And three variations of facade? McKay: Yes, sir. As far as the interior floor plan in the elevations that we have submitted, yes, sir. Yes, sir, they do have one floor plan. Marshall: And the last one that was actual -- the City Council -- this is back with the last time extension. You say were tied to the last time extension. There were three different variations of floor plan with three different variations of each floor plan with three types of building designs -- or four different floor plans, three types of building designs, three different variations of each of these designs for 36 different types? McKay: In reviewing them, no, there should have been -- what we found was they had A, B, C. They had three versions of the Mediterranean, three versions of the Prairie, and three versions of the Cape Cod. So, what I found of record were nine. Marshall: Nine. Got you. McKay: And the buildings were very similar. We saw a little deviation in roof line, a little modification in the -- you know, the front architectural features to take in the different architectural style, but the buildings were very very similar. I have those with me and I can give those to the Commission if they'd like. Marshall: Just curious as to why those were tossed out for something new. You're saying the market wouldn't support those. Why -- weren't those condominiums like this and -- McKay: The project was initially approved for 70 four-plexes. With that last time extension a different developer was looking at buying the project. So, he stepped up Meridian Planning & Zoning December 3, 2009 Page 9 of 33 and came up with this idea as far as what he envisioned for the project. He could not make it work. He could not obtain financing and as you well know even the condominium market in downtown Boise is struggling at this time and so he just walked away. He's no longer involved. Mr. Erhart. Marshall: Do you think that's -- that's because of multiple variations in the condominium? Is that -- is that what we are saying is that multiple variations of the building won't sell, but asingle -- single floor plan will? McKay: It was I think looking at the cost of those buildings, construction cost of the building, and, then, the type of multi-family. Condominium, townhome, are typically owner occupied, so they have go to obtain financing. With the four-plex design those are more rentals and so it's kind of a different marketplace. Each one of those multi- family has its own Hitch. But at this time the financing for condominiums -- I have another -- a townhome project that was really nice up by St. Luke's Hospital. Good location, awesome design. It is in foreclosure also. I mean it's just -- they can't -- they can't obtain financing and when the buyer can go out and buy a detached single family dwelling on a good size lot for either the same or less money than they can the townhome, or the condominium that's where we struggle. They became so popular, because of affordability issue, maintenance issue, but primarily affordability. When they are going head to head with the single family for price point, it's just not happening. And the banks I'm told do not want to loan on condominiums. But that's just kind of -- that lending dried up. Marshall: So, what we are saying is this is really going to turn into, essentially, an apartment complex. McKay: It would be rental units as originally approved. Yes, sir. Marshall: Thank you. Moe: Any other questions? Okay. Thank you. We have no one that has signed up to speak, so if there is anyone that would like to speak to this issue, you're more than welcome to come up. Okay. Thank you. Commissioners, any thoughts from any of you at the present time? O'Brien: I guess a thought I have, Mr. Chair -- Moe: Mr. O'Brien. O'Brien: -- is it sounds like the design review board is looking -- has a wish list about what these things should really look like, but it's not compatible with the current economic conditions. Is that what I'm hearing here or seeing here? I don't know if you agree or disagree, but I think that's what I'm seeing is that we are trying to set a foot into -- a size 12 foot into a nine size shoe and it's not going to fit. It's just economically not feasible. From what I'm hearing from the applicant, anyway, they are trying to come up Meridian Planning & Zoning December 3, 2009 Page 10 of 33 with a solution for this area that is not a compelling reason for somebody to use or to -- to rent, whether it be a condominium or an apartment. So, I don't know, it seems to me like there is -- it sounds to me like there is -- it's not awin-win situation here. We either allow the developer to do the best they can to develop this property into something that's salable -- salable and -- or come up with a compromise of what's on the sheet, which they -- the design review has issues with. Now, I think that's what they are really looking for. So, I don't know. We would have to go back and see which one of these things here we can maybe do without or think that things that are must haves versus the wants being approached, but we are not going to settle that here tonight. I think there is a lot more work to be done to -- to make this thing work. Either another design review with the issues at hand the developer has or what you're after. Moe: Well, no, based upon what you have said, I mean before us tonight, you know, they have brought this product and we have comments from staff and whatnot requesting a denial based upon what was brought to us this evening to do. It's -- in reality, it's not our job to turn around and try and redesign a project for this to fit, if, in fact, this Commission doesn't feel that it -- that it doesn't meet the requirements and whatnot. The biggest problem, you know, that I have in my comments are, you know, unfortunately, times are tough right now and financing is very tough, if there is any out there, quite frankly. The thought of being able to able put people to work building something is -- would be great. But at the same time there has been a lot of long hard work done to take care of requirements in what we have done with the Ten Mile plan and everything else and just because they have a site that, unfortunately, went into bankruptcy and whatnot, it's been purchased again or taken back and whatnot, it's not our responsibility to try and make something happen, even though they can't meet the design guidelines that we have tried to set forward. I'm a little confused, basically, we are going from what was, quote, originally approved to, then, when they went to the extensions and Council at the second extension made comments that they really wanted to -- they like those elevations that were shown and it sounds like to me it was fairly well known that that's kind of what they expected to see and now we are seeing another thing totally different and I realize that it may not have been documented in a -- in a DR or anything else, a revised DR or whatever, to make those elevation changes from the original approval process. But with the review of this project, you know, by professionals and whatnot, you know, what's before us tonight I don't see that they -- they have met the requirements. O'Brien: I agree with you on that. I think also I should have mentioned that I think too much emphasis has been put on the original design back in 2005 and I think that's a mute point. That's gone. I think you're right there. We need to look at what's here before us today. Moe: However, depending upon the documentation, I guess, to make sure -- I guess that's where I -- I guess the question to staff is, can you bring us up to speed from day one to now in regards to what modifications were made in the city documents? Meridian Planning & Zoning December 3, 2009 Page 11 of 33 Watters: Are you -- Chairman Moe, are you asking to see the original elevations and the site plan? Moe: No. I'm just trying to -- what I'm trying to figure out is why aren't we still at the original elevations and whatnot, if that was what was approved in a DR? Watters: Because the applicant needed to extend their Conditional Use Permit. It was expiring. They did obtain one time extension from the director, they needed a subsequent time extension. As a condition of that time extension -- well, let me back up. The applicant at that time Milt Erhart presented that time extension to Council and with that request he showed an updated -- Moe: Right. Watters: -- concept plan and building elevations. The Council liked that. So, they decided to go ahead and grant that time extension contingent upon the site developing per that plan and building elevations. Moe: And documentation stating -- was that, basically, then, the modification to the original DR? Watters: There was no original DR, because design review was not required at that time. Moe: Okay. Watters: Those revised site plans -- there was an extension on the Conditional Use Permit, so those revised plans replaced those plans that were originally submitted with the Conditional Use Permit. So, it just replaced those. Moe: Okay. That's what I -- Watters: Okay. Moe: Okay. Thank you. Do you have something to say? Newton-Huckabay: I think I have a couple of questions. Moe: Great. Newton-Huckabay: I didn't see or -- how did the adoption of the Ten Mile area plan impact decisions to make -- make or allow or require changes on this current change? Watters: Chairman Moe, Commissioner Newton-Huckabay, Commissioners, the Ten Mile specific area plan was not in effect when this originally went though in 2005. Since Meridian Planning & Zoning December 3, 2009 Page 12 of 33 that time it's been adopted and all new applications are reviewed under that plan, if the land falls within that area. Newton-Huckabay: Okay. I guess the question I'm trying to ask is what different aspects of the Ten Mile area plan that weren't -- obviously wasn't in effect at the time, it's in effect now, because this is subject to the Ten Mile area plan. What element of that plan had the biggest impact on the changes requested by the city for this plan, the one we see before us today? Wafters: Let me go to that section in my staff report. Newton-Huckabay: Okay. Wafters: There is a little more than just the Ten Mile plan. The design manual was adopted since that time also, so there are requirements in the design manual, as well at the Ten Mile specific area plan that it has to comply with. If you look at page seven of the staff report, it talks about the standards in the Ten Mile plan, front porches on the proposed structures, those are desired in the plan. Variety of housing types is also a big thing in the plan. Access to the railway corridor. Newton-Huckabay: Okay. Wafters: Detached sidewalks. Newton-Huckabay: Okay. So, what is this last section -- so, what, those were the -- the changes that would be made to those grounds, so to speak, those aren't really issues with the elevations tied to these various agreements. Am I -- so -- Moe: And I'm anticipating that the applicant -- because a lot of this infrastructure is already in place, then, you would be either tearing it out and having to redo it. Newton-Huckabay: Okay. So, those elements -- the elements of the Ten Mile area plan would have required infrastructure redesign on the property, is that a fair statement? Wafters: Some of the items -- Newton-Huckabay: For the porches. Wafters: I believe that the variety in housing types could still be provided. There just isn't financing is the problem they had with the condo units. Newton-Huckabay: Okay. The other question I have that I thought was interesting is this has been continued multiple times and been in and out of staffs office and how is it that we get all the way to a Commission meeting and you guys are at logger heads at what -- we thought we were fine and, then, all of a sudden staff says, no, this doesn't Meridian Planning & Zoning December 3, 2009 Page 13 of 33 work? I mean how did we get to that point? Who -- did somebody recommend something? Somebody just ignored it or -- I mean how do we get to that point to where -- did you draw a line in the sand and say it's these elevations and these condos or nothing or -- I mean it seems like it just -- to me it seems odd that we would be in denying this -- wanting to deny this application based solely on an opinion of the elevations. Is it because we want to try out the new design guidelines and -- I just -- it seems odd to me. Wafters: Chairman Moe, Commissioner Newton-Huckabay, staff did meet with the applicant on several occasions. I was not present personally at all of those meetings. As Becky said, she met with Will Thornton, our design review guy on these. He made several suggestions I know to them. They were told from the very beginning that they -- this application is subject to the design standards in the design manual, the Ten Mile specific area plan, they aren't simply guidelines we can waive at a staff level. As a body, you know, the Commission and Council has adopted these plans and our job as staff is to make sure these projects are consistent with those plans. You know, it -- Newton-Huckabay: I guess what I'm kind of struggling is this area is zoned high density residential. A four-plex is high density residential. Condominiums are high density residential. So, as far as -- if I understand it correctly, it's meeting the spirit of the zoning of the property to have multi-family units and -- but we are just -- the city is saying we prefer the condos there. Or we prefer -- is it -- I'm, basically, interpreting everything written that we want those -- we want those condos. Wafters: In response, Chairman Moe, Commissioner Newton-Huckabay, I think the main probably issue is that the design manual and the Ten Mile plan both call for a mix and variety in housing types and there is none as proposed. Newton-Huckabay: So, if it were -- so, are you saying that there should be single family houses in here, condos, and four-plexes? Wafters: Not necessarily saying single family, but there should be a mix. Newton-Huckabay: So, like duplexes and four-plexes or -- Wafters: Possibly. Probably some -- possibly owned units, possibly some rental units, possibly some two bedroom units, three bedroom units, that accommodate a variety of, you know, folks to live there. Newton-Huckabay: Okay. Marshall: Mr. Chair? Moe: Mr. Marshall. Meridian Planning & Zoning December 3, 2009 Page 14 of 33 Marshall: May I ask a question of clarification, then? Making a guess here and, please, correct me if I'm wrong, then. The variety and mix of housing is speaking to more of a change of elevations for esthetic reasons that it's okay if they are all apartments, but as you drive in you want things to change, you want some things to look different and every building to look different than the last building, so that it doesn't look -- shall we say institutional. Is that the intent here? Wafters: Chairman Moe, Commissioner Marshall, that is the intent and also not only for them to look different, for them to be different, to offer a variety in housing types to residents. Marshall: Right. Some that could be purchased. Some that could be rented, et cetera? Wafters: Possibly. Those are just examples, but -- Marshall: Uh-huh. Wafters: -- yeah, different opportunities, you know. Possibly studio apartments. Possibly, you know, three bedroom units that are available to families. It's not just staffs desire to see this, this is -- this is what's in the Ten Mile plan and the design manual. Moe: Anyone else? Mr. Rohm, any comments? Rohm: Mr. Chairman, what I think that what we have going on here is, basically, as a four-plex and I -- I don't know dollar per square foot what it is, but I'm just going to use a four-plex may be 100 dollars a square foot for construction and the original concept of the condominium development would probably be 100 plus, let's say 150 dollars a square foot. Well, now you're going to develop it as rental units, rather than condominiums, because the economy doesn't service condominium development, you can't put a 200 dollar a square foot four-plex out there to compete against afour-plex that's right around the corner off of Ten Mile and what the issue really boils down to is the Ten Mile plan wants to have more variation than what afour-plex rental complex can afford and in my mind if, in fact, our Ten Mile area plan says that we want additional amenities on the buildings, whether they are called condominiums or four-plexes for rent or whatever, we got to go with what the Ten Mile plan and the design review committee submitted and go with that and if the applicant wants to come back and say we have got a million dollars in the ground, we are going to meet you in the middle and come up with a design that meets that Ten Mile area plan expectations, and still is economically feasible to develop as rental units, then, we got a fit, but until we can get to that we don't have anything. That's the way I see it. Moe: Thank you, sir. McKay: Could I make just one comment? Meridian Planning & Zoning December 3, 2009 Page 15 of 33 Moe: One comment. McKay: I do apologize with burdening the Commission with this. I just want you to understand the design review procedure that we have. We don't have any opportunity to be heard or interact with your design review committee. It is closed door. And unlike city of Boise where we are an active participant in that design review with the design review commission, which they can make suggestions, we can offer up solutions and kind of solve problems, I don't have that opportunity the way it's structured. Now, according to Pete they are still working through their process, but I don't believe that there is any due process in that. I mean how can I work out the kinks? I'm asking the Commission to provide us the opportunity. I don't know. Maybe -- maybe you send us back -- defer us, send us back, say why don't you guys all get together and, you know, let's try to solve this. That's all I'm asking. I mean -- Moe: I don't want to get into great discussion here, but the one point I do want to make and that is -- is you had your architects go to the city. McKay: We did. Moe: They did meet with the design review representative here at the city and work through some of the issues to where you had the information necessary to bring back and you failed as far as what the city is saying. So, now you're saying now you want to go back and try again. McKay: No. We thought we had hit the mark. Moe: Okay. McKay: That's where we came away from the last meeting with Mr. Thornton, thinking that this -- what we had come up with was in the middle. Obviously, other staff members are not of that same opinion. And Will Thornton's no longer with the city, so that's where we have the disconnect, sir. Moe: So, I guess -- well, thank you. Rohm: Mr. Chairman? Moe: Mr. Rohm. Rohm: I move we close the public hearing on this application. O'Brien: Second. Moe: It's been moved and seconded to close the public hearing on MCU 09-002. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? That motion carries. Meridian Planning & Zoning December 3, 2009 Page 16 of 33 MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Moe: Comments? Rohm: Yes. I have comment. Mr. Chairman, you know, I believe the applicant has a very compelling argument that they have got a million dollars in the ground already out there and nobody wants to see that lost -- or let's -- it makes no sense to lose it if, in fact, it can be salvaged. This design review process that we now have in place is in its infancy and I believe that there are kinks that are yet to be worked out and from my perspective I don't want to deny this, but I'm certainly not in favor of moving it forward and if, in fact, we want to continue it and let them get back and further alter their plans to accommodate the design review committee's responses, then, I think that the -- this project can still be viable. But the fact of the matter is as it currently exists I would recommend denial. So, that's -- my recommendation is to continue it and let them come up with some alternative planning. Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair? Moe: Commissioner Newton-Huckabay. Newton-Huckabay: I have a question to the Commission at large. I guess the only one floor plan thing -- but I didn't think that the architectural changes that they made to go from a condo to a duplex or a four-plex were so grossly drastic that it made it an unappealing elevation for amulti-family home. I'm curious if that -- I mean I understand the design review and, you know, and -- and, yes, I voted in favor of it and all that, but think that, again, it's a new process and I want to know your opinion. I mean do you guys think they are so far of a deviation from what the City Council -- I mean beyond the front porch issue, because the front porch issue comes out of the Ten Mile plan. Moe: Well, I want to answer first. Newton-Huckabay: Go. Marshall: Go ahead. Moe: I'm going to be very -- very brief and to the point. The point was well taken that we are looking for different views of these buildings, not just the three -- you know, it's too simple. The Ten Mile plan is looking for a lot of difference out there. What's on Ten Mile just right off Ten Mile Road right now -- this is exactly what we'd see a second time, in my opinion, is the same look and when we are trying to -- the Ten Mile and Pine right there. Newton-Huckabay: There is no way that looks like that. Meridian Planning & Zoning December 3, 2009 Page 17 of 33 Moe: When you've only got three different elevations to work from, it's all going to look the same, you don't have different entries and everything else. I realize you don't want to talk about the porches and whatnot -- Newton-Huckabay: No, but -- Moe: -- but it's all going to look like a bunch of boxes. There is -- there is no big change to me. That's my point. You asked for an opinion. Newton-Huckabay: And I wanted to know it. Moe: Mr. Marshall. Marshall: Mr. Chair, I fall on the side that I don't think there is a lot of variation architecturally at all. I really don't. More than anything else -- and that's mostly based on the floor plan. You look at one floor plan -- and, I'm sorry, when you start saying mixed use, either you want that -- that mixed stuff or starting to say we wanted -- we want each building to look different in that area. The mixed use is also referring to being able to mix in a little higher end with a little lower end, rather than everything the same, as in -- again, as Sonya mentioned, the place where the single family can -- can live, as well as the single person with -- with a studio apartment and mixes and change in the design. I'm sorry if I saw these drawings -- driving in with the same floor plan, even though there is a mix of facades, I still see the same floor plan. You know, to me that gives an institutional feel and I think that's what we are trying to get away from. And I would like to see different floor prints and I believe that was why the City Council was so interested and approved the last time extension, because, to be honest, if it had stayed the same as it had been originally, I don't believe the time extension would have been approved. That's my thought. Moe: Just another comment I would like to make, Mr. Rohm. I would -- I happen to agree with you, I do believe that, you know, a lot of money has been spent, you know, and I would like to see them go back and see if they can't work with staff to make some changes and make this project work and so I also would hope that we could set something up to go back again. Rohm: Okay. Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair, I wanted to ask Sonya -- she had that same picture of the three old elevations previously approved all in one, like she did in the three new ones. Wafters: Chairman Moe, Commissioner Newton-Huckabay, the previously approved one is here on your right. I don't have them all on one slide, but -- Meridian Planning & Zoning December 3, 2009 Page 18 of 33 Newton-Huckabay: But -- I guess maybe I'm not getting this, but I understand there were nine different buildings, but there were only three different elevations all along. Am I -- on the second -- Wafters: There were three types of building designs with three different variations within each of those designs. You're only seeing one of them here in each of those three. Newton-Huckabay: So, how much different was the other Prairie style? Wafters: I don't believe we ever got elevations of those. I believe it was just a -- I may be wrong, but I believe it was just averbal -- there will be three different variations within each of these styles or types, if you will. Newton-Huckabay: Okay. I have nothing else to say. Rohm: Mr. Chairman? Moe: Yeah, Mr. Rohm. Rohm: Do we need to reopen to get input from the applicant as to how long they feel that it would take to meet with the design committee and come up with alternatives to what's currently -- or can we just say January 21st would be a good date and I move to continue -- Moe: I would recommend that right there, just go to the 21st of January. Rohm: Fair enough. Mr. Chairman? Moe: Mr. Rohm. Rohm: I move that we continue public hearing of MCU 09-002 to the regularly scheduled meeting of January 21st, 2010, and give the applicant an opportunity to redo modifications from the design review process. Marshall: Second. Nary: Mr. Chairman? I don't recall in the motion that you said to reopen the public hearing. Did you say that? Rohm: No. No. We didn't. Nary: Well, you can't take anymore information on the 21st of January unless you reopen the public hearing. But, secondarily, Mr. Chairman -- and maybe this is a clarification. I don't know if this will be helpful. Commissioner Rohm, you stated that this was an opportunity for the applicant to meet with the design review committee. Meridian Planning & Zoning December 3, 2009 Page 19 of 33 That is not part of the process. They don't meet with the committee, the committee merely advises the director. Rohm: With staff I should say. Nary: Yeah. The committee advises the director. The director is the one that makes the determination. So, we don't have a review process, like Mrs. McKay was talking about. That isn't what the City Council wanted and I think you all know that, but I wanted to make it clear for the record is they would be meeting with the staff further, which is just fine, but you need to open the public hearing, too. Rohm: Okay. Mr. Chairman? Moe: Yes, Mr. Rohm. Rohm: I move that we reopen the public hearing to establish a date certain for a continuation of MCU 09-002. Marshall: Second. Moe: It's been moved and seconded to reopen MCU 09-002. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? That motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Moe: Mr. Rohm. Rohm: At this time I'd like to ask the applicant if they would have plenty of time by January 21, the regular scheduled meeting of Planning and Zoning, to meet with staff? McKay: Yes, sir. Moe: From the audience she says yes. Rohm: Okay. Mr. Chairman? Moe: Mr. Rohm. Rohm: I move that we again close the public hearing -- Nary: No. No. No. Leave it open. Moe: We are not closing, we are continuing. Rohm: Oh. Oh. That's right. Excuse me. Mr. Chairman, I move that we continue MCU 09-002 to the regularly scheduled meeting of January 21st, 2010. Meridian Planning & Zoning December 3, 2009 Page 20 of 33 Marshall: Second. Moe: It's been moved and seconded to continue MCU 09-002 to the regularly scheduled meeting of Planning and Zoning of January 21st. All those in favor say aye? Opposed? That motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 5: Continued Public Hearing from November 19, 2009: RZ 09-004 Request for Rezone of 5.41 acres from R-4 (Medium-Low Density Residential) to an R-8 (Medium Density Residential) zone for Cabella Creek by Coleman Homes, LLC -north side of E. Victory Road, west of S. Mesa Way and east of S. Bailey Way: Moe: At this time I'd like to open the continued public hearing on RZ 09-004 for Cabella Creek and start with the staff report, please. Parsons: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. Before you this evening is an application to rezone approximately 5.41 acres of land from R-4 zoning designation to an R-8 zoning designation. The aerial before you you can see that it's part -- this portion that's proposed for rezoning is part of a subdivision that was approved in 2006 known as Cabella Creek Subdivision. The area in red is the area that is proposed to be rezoned from the R-4 to the R-8 zone. Surrounding the property -- or the property is located on the north side of East Victory Road, approximately a quarter mile from Locust Grove. Surrounding the property is single family lots in Cabella Creek and Salmon Rapids Subdivision. The property is zoned R-4. To the west and the east are five acre lots in Ada County, zoned RUT and they are part of the Kachina Subdivision. And, then, also, if you notice to the west there is also a couple lots that are preliminary platted -- or been final platted, but have not received city engineer's signature and that's known as Shays Cove and that's this portion here that is zoned R-4 at this time. To the south are R-8 zoned lots platted with the city and, then, again, you can see surrounding the property there is some other pockets of R-8 zoned property as well. Here is an aerial and right now there are approximately seven to nine homes constructed on this site, so the site's a little further along than what you see here. One thing I did want to point out is that this property is -- again, was in foreclosure, so when it came before the city it was titled under a different owner and now because of it being -- going into foreclosure the new owner is here tonight seeking the rezone and primarily the reason for the rezone is to construct a smaller home than what is allowed in the R-4 zoning district. What I have shown to you -- demonstrated for you on this slide is on the left side is the zoning map, which shows what the property surrounding this subdivision is zoned currently and how it relates to the land use, which is the exhibit on the right. This -- again, this area was -- is designated low density residential, so when it came through in 2006 staff analyzed the site appropriate to the designation and it was found to conform to that site in 2006 and it still does today under its current approval. If you look at the other lots adjacent to it you can see that they are also designated low density Meridian Planning & Zoning December 3, 2009 Page 21 of 33 residential, as well as along to the north it's medium density, however, those lots are zoned R-4, which is consistent with this property as well. The density for this site -- this subdivision today is -- came in as 2.49. The current -- the Comp Plan calls for densities in the low density zoning land use designation to be three or less. So, that's what I was saying that it does conform to that low density land use designation at this time. The applicant is not proposing any -- to change any of the lots, the configuration of the lots, the setbacks, the size, the density, they merely just want the opportunity, again, to construct a smaller home. Staff was of the opinion that that wasn't the appropriate avenue just to rezone a portion of a subdivision in order to construct a 1,270 square foot home on seven lots. I did error in the staff report, I did say that there is a potential for 20 lots to develop that way, but it really is only 17 buildable lots that would be subject to the R-8 standards. The lots will meet both setback standards and size standards of the R-4 and R-8 zone if the rezone is approved -- or recommended approval by you. One thing I did want to point out is the fact that the applicant is leaving those lots buffered along the north and the east and, again, it is internal to that development. So, again, the one other issue is -- that staff had and the reason for the recommendation of denial from staff is the fact that when this site was annexed and zoned in 2006 there was a requirement for a development agreement and in that development agreement it did not tie elevations to the property, but it did tie the use to the property and that was to be only single family detached homes in the R-4 zone and so staff felt like even though they are going with the rezone, we can't condition the rezone, but the UDC allows us to ask for another development agreement, so staff -- because the UDC doesn't really regulate single family homes, it doesn't require a CZC approval for a single family home, staff is of the opinion that it would be difficult to track which seven lots would develop with those size homes and so we felt that was another point of contention for recommending denial. The applicant -- staff did not receive any comments from the applicant. I did receive written testimony from one of the neighbors and he spelled out his concerns with the rezone and he wanted to go on record stating that he's against the rezone and with that I'll stand for any questions you may have of me. Moe: Any questions of staff? Marshall: One question. You say -- Moe: Mr. Marshall. Marshall: -- that one person on record, was that the Mike Vale or is that someone else? Parsons: Commissioner Marshall, that's correct. That's Mike Vale. Marshall: Thank you. Parsons: He came into the office and submitted written testimony. Marshall: Thank you. Meridian Planning & Zoning December 3, 2009 Page 22 of 33 Moe: Any other questions? Thank you. Would the applicant like to come forward? Coleman: Good evening, Mr. Chairman, Commissioners. Thomas Coleman. 1859 South Topaz Way here in Meridian. I'm going to give you a brief rundown and, then, Becky will come back up and actually talk about some important stuff. She's a little bit better at this than I am. But wanted to give you a quick rundown. Could we get that Powerpoint up, Bill. Just to give you an introduction, Becky and I have been working on this since we bought the project in June of this year. The original engineer was Land Group, but Becky has been working on a lot of the outstanding issues with me. I'm Thomas Coleman, I'm the executive vice-president of Coleman Homes. My father and I own the company and have been in business since 1972. We are currently building homes in three different communities. One, which is West Highlands, which is a community of our own in Middleton. We are also building in Bridgetower here in Meridian and, then, in Cabella Creek where we have already built some homes. Cabella Creek, like Bill said, was approved in 2006 and when we purchased the property it was, for the most part developed, but there was still a large amount of landscaping that needed to be done, a lot of landscaping maintenance because it had been in disrepair for some time. There was also a lot of irrigation work still outstanding. Road work. And, then, the ponds in the community, which were actually the amenities, had not been completed either. And there was a slew of unpaid bills as well. So, we actually didn't buy it in foreclosure, we worked with the owner and their bank and bought it from the owner and in that process worked with the city, who had outstanding letters of credit, which we replaced and all those types of things and brought all the bills current to the community. So, it's been a lot of work in doing that. In the summer after we purchased that project we started redoing all the landscaping. We have planted 60 new trees, fixed all of our irrigation problems, and updated all the landscaping and replaced anything that was dead. This fall we are going to be completing all of the roadway work, as well as redoing all of the ponds that are in the community and completing every other punch list item that the city and ACHD still had outstanding. The purpose of our application in general is that we are catering to a specific market with this housing type, which really is not available in this -- this area of the city, which is that there is a large demand for smaller homes right now that aren't starter homes. We build this collection of houses in West Highlands and it ranges from 1,270 feet through about 2,100 square feet and so the one floor plan, which comes in a lot of different styles that's excluded from that is the one that's 1,271 square feet and right now what we are seeing down there in Cabella Creek is that 85 to 90 percent of our prospective home buyers are either empty nesters or retirees and so they are really looking to down size. A hundred percent of our buyers out there have been that. Bill, if we can cycle through. I don't know how to -- this is just a brief shot of some of the landscaping repairs that we have done. I will run through this pretty quickly. But you can see up top are two before pictures of when we purchased the property and down below were what it was after we got done this summer. We have replaced the entryways and redone and put in a new sign and this is one of the homes that's built out there now for sale. In addition to that, we are trying to go through and kind of the philosophy of our company is that we build a variety -- a wide variety of houses that range from 1,270 feet through 4,000 feet, but our philosophy is that a bigger home is not always the better home and a bigger lot is not Meridian Planning & Zoning December 3, 2009 Page 23 of 33 always a better lot and this is just an example of some really big houses on some really big lots that -- at least I don't feel are really that nice looking. While these houses are significantly smaller, significantly smaller lots, they are nicer looking. These are homes which are in Cabella Creek now, homes that we built. This house itself was 1,500 square feet. This is another one. This is about 1,700 square feet in Cabella Creek. And ..this home, which you can see some of the rear elevation shots, is about 1,800 square feet. Scroll through here. To give you an idea of the houses we are building -- I won't run through this, obviously, but this is a list of all the standard features that come with every single one of the houses, including the one that we'd like to build, which is 1,270 feet. And just to give you some quick highlights -- go back here. Things that come standard are hand textured walls, hardy board siding -- we don't use any vinyl siding or anything like that. Thirty year architectural shingles. Three inch baseboards. Front yard landscaping. All those things come standard in our houses. The house that we are proposing to build, the one floor plan that's excluded is 1,271 feet, is this home right here. This is built in our West Highland Subdivision and it's kind of a bad day for it, but you can see that it's of the exact same type as what we are proposing or what we are currently building out at Cabella Creek, same roofing type, same exterior features, all that type of stuff. Same cabinets on the interior. With that I think I will turn it over to Becky McKay and, then, field questions if you have any, if that's all right, or I can stand for questions if you have them now. Moe: Do you have any questions of this -- okay. Marshall: Yeah, I do have one question real quick. Moe: Mr. Marshall. Marshall: Typically, what's the cost per square foot here on these, approximately? Coleman: A sales price? Marshall: Yeah. Sale price. Coleman: These are about 105 dollars a square foot. We -- the smallest plan would be 145,000 dollars, although we are not building it right now. So, our least expensive home is 155,000 and we go up to about -- with options up to 250,000 dollars. But on average about 180,000 dollars. Marshall: Got you. Thank you. Appreciate that. Moe: That 15 minutes is coming due here. McKay: My list is short. Becky McKay, Engineering Solutions, 1029 North Rosario. I am representing Coleman Homes on this particular application. This is another one that has been a challenge trying to get everything organized. When -- when we started the project we had about two pages of items that had to be done at the site as far as -- even Meridian Planning & Zoning December 3, 2009 Page 24 of 33 though it was paved, landscaped, there were still some items that were undone, so we spent a lot of time with the highway district, the city, and even the Army Corps of Engineers, because all of their permitting had expired on their 404 permits, their flood plain permits, their license agreements, et cetera. So, we have submitted all of those and obtained those necessary approvals. Thomas wanted us to come up with an idea as far as how could we deviate from that 1,400 square foot minimum lot size -- or minimum home size in the R-4 zone. We met with the staff, we talked about variance, they didn't think a variance was appropriate. We kicked around the rezone and that seemed at the time to be viable and that's kind of why we are here. And, then, after we submitted they said, yeah, you know, we are not -- we can't warm up to it. So, we proceeded forward, basically to lay our case out before the Commission and, obviously, the Council. When we met with the neighbors I received quite a few comments from them. Originally we were going to have no more than ten homes out there. They asked me would you contemplate reducing that number. We did. We backed it off to seven homes total that would deviate from the 1,400 square foot. Nothing would be below that 1,270 or whatever we had in there. They also -- we were going to rezone the whole thing and some of the adjoining neighbors in Salmon Rapids said, you know, I don't like that. Could you isolate it to just say one particular area, possibly in the interior of the project. So, the application that you see before you is it does exactly that. We took a block of 17 lots and we said we would like to rezone these -- no more than seven of these would drop below the 1,400 square feet. They also had concerns about the landscaping. The ponds out there were atrocious. They were green. They were ugly. So, Thomas has been spending a lot of time bringing it up to snuff. We have been doing a lot of design work redesigning ponds, redesigning pump stations, and check structures for the irrigation system and we -- we have just obtained those approvals and hopefully we will get those installed as far as the pump station soon. There is 47 lots total in this project when it was originally approved. So, the -- you know, the seven that we are asking deviation from is about 14.9 percent. Staff I think talked about, well, maybe -- maybe an ordinance amendment should be done, because there has always been a debate about is that minimum square footage appropriate. There isn't a minimum square footage in the R-8, but there is in the R-4. Well, we kicked that around after we had already submitted and paid our fees and so forth and -- and we kind of thought, you know, elimination of a section in the ordinance shouldn't be project specific. We didn't feel that made sense. If there is going to be an initiation of an ordinance amendment, that should probably come from the staff and not from us for one particular project, even though the staff has had their -- their questions whether minimum home sizes are appropriate. Let's see. Can you switch -- oops. Where did it go? There we go. One of the other things that we took a look at was in this general vicinity. What you see in yellow are the R-8 zones that are out there currently. As you can see, here is the subject -- will it point without changing? There is the subject property right there that we are proposing to rezone that block of lots. As you can see there are lots of pockets throughout those sections of R-8 and, then, a large sea of R-8, which is Cavenaugh and Tuscany Village, is located directly across Victory from Cabella Creek. So, we felt that this did make sense with that R-8 all out there. One of the things that we did take note of was staffs concern about how do you track something like this and the administrative tracking of it. So, we kind of thought about that and we Meridian Planning & Zoning December 3, 2009 Page 25 of 33 came up with an idea. The staff stated that a CZC is not required for a single family dwelling. Well, we would like to agree to a CZC or certificate of zoning compliance for any home that drops below seven, the 1,400 square feet. That would give staff that opportunity for the review and the track. Along with that CZC we will submit a map that shows the lots within that 17 lot pocket that have been built on and the size of the home that's been built on it. So, that would be a very easy way to track it. We couldn't really come up with any other ideas on how to handle this situation. This was kind of the best that we could come up with. The project looks good considering the way it looked originally. The homes that are out there are very esthetically pleasing and I have been impressed and unlike some subdivisions that have multiple builders, Coleman Homes builds in their own subdivisions, so, obviously, he controls the architectural and the size of the homes, et cetera. So, we'd ask the Commission to at least consider this as a viable option in this project and help us have some diversity. Do you have any questions? Moe: Any questions? Okay. Thank you very much. We do have some folks that have signed up. Rose Crandall, please. State your name and address for the record, please. Crandall: My name is Rose Crandall and my address is 1319 East Observation Street in Cabella Creek Subdivision. I'm just going to go through my notes here. I don't agree with the rezoning from R-4 to R-8. Number one, when we purchased the home -- when we were looking into getting into the subdivision we spoke with the previous builder and I don't know how much due diligence a buyer has to do. I thought I did. I questioned him, I asked him about the CC&Rs, I asked him -- when we signed up into the subdivision the minimum square footage or living space was 2,400 square feet and the lot sizes were, you know, decent compared to the other newer subdivisions and the neighborhood Salmon Rapids and, you know, the Tuscany Village -- it's in a good area. And so when we bought -- when we signed up for it and we -- my realtor even asked the builder at that time if he was financially capable to sustain this project, because we were -- I was one of the new homes -- I was the first home, actually, in the subdivision to be built and he said no problem. I even asked him what if he sold the subdivision, you know -- you know, is it going to change and he said, no, because the CC&Rs has already been filed. Well, I didn't check that, because I didn't know that I had to research all of those things. And so now I'm sorry that he fell into financial -- you know, a bad financial situation and this had to happen and we already lost the value. -- you know, some value to our home because of the economy, even without the houses in the subdivision being built in the smaller sizes. And so I think that we have already conceded -- our subdivision has already been reinvented from when we signed up to purchase the home initially and we were also told the homes in the subdivision will be built Energy, you know, Star certified. Well, now, it's not a standard, they offer it because they are an Energy Star certified builder, but it is not a standard anymore. And as far as the smaller sized homes, I can understand the situation and right now we don't have a choice anymore, because th_ a houses are lowered and the square footage when we first bought into the homes, so as far as that goes my thought was just if they are already building from -- 1,500 is the smallest square footage home they are building right now, because the next to that -- is that my time? Meridian Planning & Zoning December 3, 2009 Page 26 of 33 Moe: Just finish up. Crandall: Okay. Because his smaller square footage home is 1,271, but he could still build home with -- a smaller square footage home if he designed it into a 14 square feet and would still be within the -- the R-4 requirement, I guess, and so I -- I have more points, but I will submit my testimony to you guys for your review if my time is up. Moe: Okay. Thank you very much. Crandall: Okay. Thank you. Moe: Yeah. Your comments, you will need to give them to the clerk. I will apologize now if I get this wrong and she already knows who it is. Is that Aneke. Close enough, right? Sorry about that. Binford: Aneke Binford, 3101 South Mesa Way. I just wanted to start out by adding a little bit to what I wanted to present in thanking and commending Coleman Homes for the job that they have done in cleaning up the landscaping and their long list of everything that they have done to improve the site that they purchased. However, that's how they purchased it and they knew that that was something that they would have to do to be able to market whatever went into that project. So, those are great things that they have done and we appreciate it, because it was a mess, but that being said, they bought it as is: They knew they had to do those things. So, they did show some photos of the interiors. Those photos are absolutely beautiful. But that's really not the issue here. The issue is the zoning. When Cabella Creek was originally approved in 2006 it was approved for R-4. At that time staff found that the R-4 zoning was appropriate. It provided an adequate transition to the nearby five acre residences. It's my understanding that part of the objectives and goals of the Comprehensive Plan is to protect existing residential property from incompatible land use developments on adjacent parcels. We feel that R-8 zoning will have a negative impact on the value of our home, as well as building the smaller homes that they are planning to. The remaining homes in Kachina Estates are all on five acre parcels with larger homes. R-8 did not provide an acceptable transition in the year 2006 and it does not provide an acceptable transition today. We understand that the economic times are bad. We know that the developer is trying to capture more of the first time home buyer. It is easier to get a loan these days on a smaller amount. However, the real estate market was bad when he got into the project and we feel that the price and value of our homes should not be sacrificed because of the risk that he took in purchasing that project. We understand that he wants to only include the seven homes at that 1,270 minimum square footage. But, again, we agree with staff. We have concerns over what could possibly go wrong with that, how many of those homes, if that entire five acre area is rezoned to R-8, how many of those homes could end up being a 1,270 square foot house? Like I said, since its original approval as being R-4, nothing around that area has changed. Everything to the north -- Salmon Rapids that is still R-4 as it was in '06. To the west you have RUT five acre parcels. To the east is the RUT five acre parcels. Meridian Planning & Zoning December 3, 2009 Page 27 of 33 Nothing's changed since 2006 and at that time it was deemed that R-4 was appropriate. So, we feel that nothing around this area has changed, so why should we change the zoning just because economic times are bad and this developer would like to be able to get on with his project. Staff has always recommended that R-4 has been appropriate for this area and we hope that staff continues to keep that recommendation. Thank you. Moe: Questions? Marshall: I do have aquestion -- a quick question. Moe: Mr. Marshall. Marshall: Have you seen the Coleman product that they have produced out there so far? Binford: We have. Marshall: And your thought as to the product itself? Other than size, are there any issues? Binford: I wouldn't say I have any issues. I don't think that it really flows that well into what's out there right now. I mean they are attractive homes, but -- I mean I hate to use the word cookie cutter, because that has such a negative, you know, connotation to it. But when when I drive from my property and down the rest of Kachina Estates, which is down there, I mean these are five acres estate homes. When you hang a right and go past the Coleman Homes it's just -- it's such -- I mean we have even had people go what are they doing across the street from you guys, you know. Our house is currently on the market and every home buyer -- possible buyer that's come through and agent who has come through has looked across the street at the larger homes -- now, we are not talking the 1,270 square foot homes, and they have said that just doesn't fit. So, even, though, you know, back in '06 we fought for that R-4 and the homes that are being built there are the larger homes, we still have people saying they don't fit. So, it's a huge concern for us. Absolutely. Moe: Next on the list is Matt. From the audience she did a good job, so he has nothing further. So, that's all that was signed up. ff there is anyone else that would like to speak to this hearing -- I see no one raising their hand, so would the applicant like to come back up and make comments to the testimony, please. Name and address again. Coleman: Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, I do appreciate the comments from both of our adjacent neighbors and we did -- Moe: Name and address again. Coleman: I'm sorry. Thomas Coleman, 1859 South Topaz Way. Meridian Planning & Zoning December 3, 2009 Page 28 of 33 Moe: Thank you. Coleman: I do appreciate the input and we got a lot of input at our neighborhood meeting as well and we take these concerns very seriously. You know, unfortunately, we can't do anything about the promises made by the previous owner. I do understand that there were promises made and I'm not trying to break anybody's promises by any means, but what we have to go by is what was established and what was recorded and those types of things. We feel like we are bringing value to the neighborhood in rehabilitating and building the houses that we are building. Certainly I think some of the slides that I have shown, we could build a lot bigger houses and be devaluing the property. We are not changing the density of the property in any way and we are in violation of the CC&Rs and all that -- I'm mean we are not in violation of the CC&Rs by any means. We are trying to address the demand for Energy Star housing by offering that to anybody that would like it. It costs about 3,000 dollars to upgrade your home to Energy Star. We do a lot of things that are already Energy Star standard, like two by six framing and a lot of our appliances and those types of things. So, there is really a cost of an inspection and couple of other things that go into that. Going down to 1,400 square feet would require us to design a new home which, you know, isn't unreasonable by any means, but we do have one home that has been popular that we would like to sell and part of it would be that that home at 1,400 square feet would still be more expensive and could cost anywhere between, you know, a thousand and three thousand dollars a year for somebody trying to afford that. And addressing some of the transition concerns, I do think that we have tried to do that by isolating the interior of the subdivision with R-8 and leaving the R-4 around there and I think as Becky showed, there is a lot of R-8 around us already. In fact, almost the entire south side of the street below us is R-8, which I think came in in 2007 or something like that. So, I think that we are trying to have a positive on values. Certainly that's our, you know, desire in owning quite a few properties out there is to bring positive values to the area and with that I guess I'd stand for questions if you have anything else. Moe: Any questions? O'Brien: I have one comment, Mr. Chair. Moe: Mr. O'Brien. O'Brien: Mr. Coleman. So, I -- one of the concerns I heard from -- from the homeowners is -- is the concern of the smaller homes -- more of those being built than the larger ones. How do you control that? How would you achieve a good mix? Coleman: What we are proposing -- are you saying to make sure we don't build more than the seven proposed? O'Brien: Yes. Meridian Planning & Zoning December 3, 2009 Page 29 of 33 Coleman: What we are proposing is that -- so, we isolated the area to 17 lots where we could potentially build those houses and, then, of that area we are only allowed to build a maximum of seven homes below the current 1,400 square foot requirement and as staff noted -- I mean that could be an administrative headache and so what we are proposing to do is with every single building permit we submit, we will submit a plat showing the houses that have already been constructed and the size of those homes, as well as a tally of how many homes we have built under that 14 square feet and, then, as Becky mentioned also, if staff would like a certificate of zoning compliance as well and if there was any other way for us to make sure that we don't build over the seven, I would be happy to agree to that as well. I don't have any intention of doing that and would be open to any other suggestions there may be. O'Brien: Okay. Thank you. Moe: Any other questions? Thank you very much. Coleman: Thank you. Moe: Okay. Commissioners, any comments? Marshall: Well -- Moe: Mr. Marshall. Marshall: -- Mr. Chair, a couple comments. First, I really appreciate the fact that the applicant here has tried to offer up opportunities to address issues staff had come up with with the offer to submit for CZC, for tracking, things like that. I agree that I'd like to see the mix of housing and the opportunity to throw in -- and I'm not sure -- you know, I question the fact that maybe the 1,400 square foot type thing -- would love to be able to see a 1,270 in there. The 1,270, going to 1,400 at 105 dollars a square foot, is about a nine percent increase. It increases the cost of a house almost 14,000 dollars. But, then, again, I really don't like tearing it up and putting a zone inside a zone like this. don't like the idea of splitting that up. I agree that the applicant can't be held responsible for promises of past owners. Sorry, I can't do that. The applicant did know, though, what the situation was when they bought in. I agree, I wouldn't mind seeing 1,270s in that area and I'd like to see the mix. It looks like it's a pretty decent product, you know. But at the same time the rules are what they are. If the rules are 1,400 square foot, until that's changed I don't like stepping around it and rezoning separate lots. It's a creative approach, but I'm just not for it. I think it complicates things and causes a real problem. Maybe there needs to be some other solution, but I don't know of one at this time. And, to be honest, I can't say I like this solution, although I'm not against -- you know, I appreciate they picked up a -- a defaulted product and it looks like turned it around and are starting to make something of it and I appreciate that and it looks like they are doing a good job with it. Again, though, I just can't find myself excited about zoning within, you know, separate lots just to change the building square Meridian Planning & Zoning December 3, 2009 Page 30 of 33 footage. Maybe the city -- maybe somehow we need to come up with another solution along the way, but Ijust -- I'm not for this solution. Moe: Thank you, Mr. Marshall. Commissioner Newton-Huckabay, do you have any comments? Newton-Huckabay: I will keep it brief. I think this is -- should stay the way it is with the R-8 zoning. I agree with the city on rezoning just to reduce the house size isn't a good solution and it certainly always -- like I always tell my teenagers: How could this go wrong and I can just see this rush of applications coming in wanting to rezone various lots and subdivisions so you could put a smaller home on them, so I would -- I don't think I'd like to -- I don't think I would like to vote in favor of this. Moe: Mr. Rohm, any comments? Rohm: No. Moe: Okay. Mr. O'Brien, any comments? O'Brien: A brief or two. I'm not in favor of changing it to an R-8 from an R-4. I think -- I think in the long term we will regret it or the people will regret it. I think it's better to leave it alone and go for the long term instead of the short term effect. Moe: Okay. Okay. Any other comments or motions? Rohm: Mr. Chair? Moe: Mr. Rohm. Rohm: I move that we close the public hearing on RZ 09-004. Marshall: Second. Newton-Huckabay: Second. Moe: It's been moved and seconded to close the public hearing on RZ 09-004. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? That motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Marshall: Mr. Chair? Moe: Mr. Marshall. Marshall: After considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move to recommend denial to the City Council of file number RZ 09-004 as presented in the staff Meridian Planning & Zoning December 3, 2009 Page 31 of 33 report for the hearing date of December 3rd, 2009, because we -- I really don't want to see zoning split up like this to see a rush of rezones of individual lots. I think it's inappropriate, even though I think the product is nice and like to see the mix, there has to be another method of addressing this in the future. This is not the appropriate method. O'Brien: Second. Moe: It's been moved and seconded to deny RZ 09-004 as discussed. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? That motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 6: Public Hearing: ZOA 09-003 Request to amend the text of certain sections of the Unified Development Code (Title 11) for UDC Text Code Amendment by City of Meridian Planning Department: Moe: All right. At this time I'd like to open the public hearing on ZOA 09-003 for the UDC text code amendment, city planning department, please. Wafters: Thank you, Chairman Moe, Members of the Commission. The next application is a request for a text amendment to the Unified Development Code by the planning department. Since the implementation of the UDC on September 15th, 2005, staff has requested several other amendments to that document. Staff continuously tracks the UDC in order to identify issues that hinder the code's ability to function efficiently in accord with the goals of the Comprehensive Plan. The purpose of the zoning ordinance amendment is to modify and/or eliminate vague or unclear standards and add specific sections that staff believes will make implementation and use of the UDC more understandable, equitable, and enforceable. Because staff has bundled many of the so-called clean-up items in this application, numerous sections of the UDC are affected as follows: Chapter 1, Article A, Definitions. Chapter 2, Article A, Residential Districts. Chapter 2, Article B, Commercial districts. Chapter 2, Article C, Industrial Districts. Chapter 2, Article B, Traditional Neighborhood District. Chapter 3, Article A, Standard Regulations In All Districts, Chapter 3, Article B, Landscaping Requirements. Chapter 3, Article G, Common Open Space and Site Amenity Requirements. Chapter 3, Article H, Development Along Federal and State Highways. Chapter 4, Specific Use Standards. Chapter 5, Article A, General Provisions Administration. Chapter 5, Article B, Specific Provisions Administration. Chapter 6, Article B, Subdivision Process. And Chapter 6, Article C, Subdivision Design and Improvement Standards. The details of the proposed amendments to these sections of the UDC are included in Section 7 of the staff report. There was no written testimony submitted on this application. Staff is recommending approval of the proposed text changes as stated in the staff report. I'm assuming that Commissioners have got a chance to look at the staff report. Staff will stand for any questions the Commission may have on the specific changes in that document. Meridian Planning & Zoning December 3, 2009 Page 32 of 33 Moe: Any questions, Commissioners? Newton-Huckabay: I have none. Moe: I'm hearing none here. Marshall: No questions. Comments. I have got a comment. Moe: That's just as good. There will probably be some -- go right ahead, make your comment. Marshall: Again, I'm not a wordsmith. Obviously, I tend to use 15 words to say something someone else can say in three, but -- as evidenced in the last motion. But everything seemed to make sense to me. I never know all the ramifications of these, but they look pretty good to me. That's my comment. Moe: Thank you very much. Newton-Huckabay: We never know the ramifications until they go wrong, isn't that how life works? Marshall: Yeah. Yeah. But you try to -- you try to foresee those things and that's I think part of our job is to review that and try to foresee some ramifications to see if there is anything we see as negative or might be a problem and, to be honest, I didn't see any. Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair? Moe: Commissioner Newton-Huckabay. Newton-Huckabay: I recommend we close the public hearing for ZOA 09-003. O'Brien: Second. Moe: It's been moved and seconded to close the public hearing on ZOA 09-003. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? That motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Moe: Commissioner Newton-Huckabay. Newton-Huckabay: After considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move to recommend approval to the City Council of File number AZ -- excuse me -- file number ZOA 09-003 as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of December 3rd, 2009, with no modifications. End of motion. O'Brien: Second. Meridian Planning & Zoning December 3, 2009 Page 33 of 33 Marshall: Second. Moe: It's been moved and seconded to approve ZOA 09-003. All those in favor say aye. Opposed. That motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Rohm: Mr. Chairman? Moe: Mr. Rohm. Rohm: I move we adjourn. Marshall: Second. Moe: It's been moved and seconded to adjourn. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? That motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Moe: We are adjourned at 8:47 p.m. MEETING ADJOURNED AT 8:47 P.M. (AUDIO RECORDING ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS.) DAVID MOE - CHAI ATTEST: U a JAYCE . HOLMAN, CITY CL ~z 11ZI~ DATE APPROVED ~~~,•~~~ OF ~RI~q'~,,~% ,. ti --. E ~ Fo - SEAL ' ,~~~ O `~' •,~~~~,9 COUNTY . ~~~.~~``.