Loading...
2010 02-11 SpecialMeridian Planning and Zoning Meeting February 11, 2010 Meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission of February 11, 2010, was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Chairman Michael Rohm. Members Present: Chairman Michael Rohm, Commissioner Joe Marshall, Commissioner Tom O'Brien, Commissioner Scott Freeman. Members absent: Commissioner Wendy Newton-Huckabay. Others Present: Machelle Hill, Ted Baird, Pete Friedman, Sonya Watters, Scott Steckline and Dean Willis. Item 1: Roll-Call Attendance: Roll-call Wendy Newton-Huckabay X Tom O'Brien X Scott Freeman X Joe Marshall X Michael Rohm -Chairman Rohm: Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. At this time I'd like to call the regularly scheduled meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission to order and request the clerk to call roll. Item 2: Adoption of the Agenda: Rohm: Okay. The first item on the agenda is the adoption of the agenda and I do not believe there is any changes, so could we get a motion to accept the agenda? Marshall: So moved. O'Brien: So moved. Marshall: Second. O'Brien: Second. Rohm: It's been moved and seconded to accept the agenda. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carried. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. Item 3: Consent Agenda: A. Approve Minutes of January 21, 2010 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting: Meridian Planning & Zoning February 11, 2010 Page 2 of 10 B. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: CUP 09-013 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a Church on approximately 4.65 acres (proposed Lot 1, Block 1 of the Five Twelve Subdivision) in an existing R-8 zoning district for Five Twelve LDS Church by Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints -west side of Stoddard, midway between Overland Road and Victory Road: Rohm: Next item on the agenda is the Consent Agenda and we have two items. Item A is the minutes from the January 21st Planning and Zoning Commission meeting and Item B is the Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law for CUP 09-013 related to the Twelve LDS Church -- for Five Twelve LDS Church. Any corrections or additions? Could I get a motion to accept the Consent Agenda? Marshall: So moved. O'Brien: Second. Rohm: It's been moved and seconded to accept the Consent Agenda. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carried. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. Item 4: Request for Withdrawal of Application -Shaylee Estates CUP 08-025 by Marc Johnson: Rohm: Fourth item on our agenda is a request for the withdrawal the application of Shaylee Estates, CUP 08-025, by Marc Johnson and I don't believe we really have to make any motion on that, it's just a -- it's been withdrawn, but maybe -- Mr. Baird, can you expand on that? Baird: Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission, just because it's on your agenda as a request, I think you might just want to entertain a motion accepting the request for withdrawal. Rohm: Okay. Marshall: Mr. Chair? I move that we accept the withdrawal of CUP 08-025 of Shaylee Estates. Freeman: I'll second. Rohm: It's been moved and seconded to accept the withdrawal of CUP 08-025. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carried. Thank you. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. Meridian Planning & Zoning February 11, 2010 Page 3 of 10 Item 5: Continued Public Hearing from January 21, 2010: 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: Rohm: Okay. At this time I'd like to open the public hearing -- the continued public hearing from January 21st, 2010, of MCU 09-002 for Avendale and begin with the staff report. Watters: Thank you, Chairman Rohm -- Freeman: Mr. Chair, before you start I want to let it be known for the record that I did serve on the professional design committee for the project and I don't believe that's a conflict of interest in any way, but if there is some objection, then, I would recuse myself. Rohm: Okay. All right. Thank you for pointing that out. Mr. Baird? Baird: Thank you, Mr. Chair. As I understand, Commissioner had a discussion with the city attorney about this early this week and we made the determination that there -- there is no conflict or apparent conflict under -- under the state statute, so we appreciate the disclosure and happy to move along. Rohm: Okay. Thanks very much. Appreciate your input. At this time could we get the staff report, please. Watters: Chairman Rohm, 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 a time extension of the Conditional Use Permit and design review for the proposed multi-family structures and site. This site is located on the north side of West Franklin Road, approximately a quarter mile west of North Ten Mile Road. The site is currently vacant, however, underground utilities have been installed on the site. At the Commission hearing on December 3rd, 2009, the Commission voted to continue this project and directed the application to work with staff to make some changes to the proposed plans that would result in a more -- in a project more consistent with the Ten Mile interchange specific area plan and the city's design manual. Specifically, the Commission discussed the lack of variety in housing types. Only four-plex units were proposed. And lack of variety in floor plans. Only one floor plan was proposed, resulting in homogenous building elevations as issues the applicant needed to address. If you look at the screen here, the site plan on the left is the current approved site plan. The site plan on the right was the one that you guys reviewed at your last Commission hearing. And this is the proposed site plan. It's currently -- this is the revised plan currently proposed by the applicant. Staff met with the applicant and discussed options to achieve more variety within the development through additional Meridian Planning & Zoning February 11, 2010 Page 4 of 10 floor plans, architectural details, and building materials and the inclusion of apartment structures. Based on this discussion the applicant submitted a revised site plan that you see here. Revised building elevations for the four-plex structures, and building elevations and floor plan for two more types of apartment structures, all of which staff is in support of. There is a whole bunch of slides here, so I will try to go through them and give you guys a chance to look at everything here. The applicant is now proposing 14 four-plex structures, four 12-plex, and 11 16-plex structures, for a total of 280 units, consistent with the number of units previously approved. There are still three different variations in elevations of the four-plex units. This first one was presented at the last hearing. I'm going to go through these -- the first one I will show is ones that you saw at the last hearing. The second one here is the proposed revised site plan. The elevation -- the smaller elevation down on the left corner is the previously approved elevation that's current. So, that's the Prairie style. This is the Mediterranean was presented at the last hearing. And the revised Mediterranean. And the Cape Cod presented at the last hearing. And the revised elevations. Although the number of four-plex structures has decreased from 70 to 14, only one floor plan with three variations in elevations is still proposed. Changes were made to the four-plex structures as recommended by design professionals committee, which staff believes adds to the quality of development through the increase of higher quality materials, stone, brick wainscoat was added to the side and front side elevations. Material changes were made to the center mass of each structure and pop-outs were added on the side to provide articulation. This is the proposed floor plan for the four-plex units. It consists of two and three bedroom units. One floor plan consisting of one, two, and three bedroom units is proposed for both the 12-plex and 16-plex structures with two different variations in elevation for each. Staff is recommending that at least two color schemes per elevation type be provided to add variety. So, these are the two types of building elevations for B-1 and B-1, the 12- plexes. This is the first and second floor plans for B-1 and B-2. And this is the 16-plex building elevations, C-1 and C-2. You can see there is two different variations there. And the floor plan for C-1 and C-2. The applicant has submitted a phrasing plan and it depicts the project being constructed in three phrases, with the community center complex being constructed within the first phase of development. No written testimony has been received on this application. Staff believes the revised plans demonstrate a variety in housing types and design and substantially comply with the design standards in the Ten Mile plan and the design manual and, therefore, staff recommends approval of the proposed conditional use permit modification as stated in the staff report. Staff will stand for any questions the Commission may have at this time. Rohm: Are there any questions of staff? Friedman: Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, just one more -- one more comment. I think since your last hearing on this and you remanded it back for staff and the applicant to work together, I think one thing that has been going on rather robustly in the last few days is that we did receive the revised plans with the addition of the apartment complex, which we feel -- as Sonya indicated is more consistent, actually, with the Ten Mile specific area plan. The project site was actually anticipated to be of a higher density development and so with addition -- with the removal of a lot of those four-plexes and Meridian Planning & Zoning February 11, 2010 Page 5 of 10 the addition of these larger complexes, that brings it a little bit more into consistency with the Ten Mile plan, but we did trade a number of plans back and forth and there has been quite a bit of dialogue, so I think, again, to build on what Sonya said, there has been a genuine effort on the part of the applicant to -- at least to come to some agreement with some of the concerns that were raised by the design professionals committee, so that there has been a -- a really genuine effort in that direction. Rohm: Thanks, Mr. Friedman. Would the applicant like to come forward at this time, please? McKay: Good evening, Members of the Commission. Becky McKay, Engineering Solutions, 1029 North Rosario, Meridian. We made it back. Appreciate the patience of the Commission and the staff. As you recall at the last hearing the Commission asked us to go back and meet with staff, try to go back to the design review committee, see what we could do to improve the multi-family diversity, to do something about the monotonous repetition where you had -- we had this project of 70 four-plex buildings with technically one floor plan, but yet differing elevations, to try to take a look and see, based on market conditions, what we could come up with. So, we did take extra time and we looked at this and decided, you know, where the marketplace was going we need some 16 unit buildings, 12 unit buildings, and, then, a pod of four-plexes. That was one of the other comments, you know, try to create maybe some separate neighborhoods. So, we isolated the four-plexes into primarily one general area where you saw the cul-de-sac. We would still have the three different variations of the Cape Cod, the Mediterranean, the Prairie style. The architect beefed those up a little bit to give them a little bit more curb appeal, a little more articulation, a little more masonry, change in the exterior materials, just to dress them up a little bit more. So, we have created kind of an ideal four-plex neighborhood. Then, we mixed in the 16 and the 12 unit buildings. We were kind of limited on the placement of those buildings, because it was based on the allocation of parking in the original plan. As far as the open space, it increased because we have gone from, obviously, 70 buildings to 29. The architects have came up with two different variations of the 16 unit and 12 unit multi-family buildings. I think they got agood -- a good mix of materials. It does mesh with the four- plex character as far as the different architectural design. We retained the amenities in the middle and we, basically, came up with something that I think is closer to the Ten Mile specific plan and I think that was one of the primary concerns that the Commission had at the last meeting was we understand that this was approved prior to the adoption of the Ten Mile specific plan, but, nonetheless, that document is in place, what can you do to bring this project more into compliance with it. And that's what you're seeing here. We have got the multi-family diversity, we have taken care of the monotony of the repetition and I think this project is a lot closer to what the city envisioned out here and I think this will compliment that area once that interchange opens up next year in May, because this will be the first multi-family project out there and we are excited about it, we have got a handle on the improvements and what it's going to take to finish it and, hopefully, this evening the Commission will approve this modification, so we can move forward and try to get this thing built and marketed. Do you have any questions? Meridian Planning & Zoning February 11, 2010 Page 6 of 10 Rohm: Becky, I have one question. Could you speak to the phasing just a little bit? Are you planning on building the four-plexes first or are you starting with the 16 plex or do you -- can you just speak to that a little bit? McKay: Commissioner Rohm, we came up with three -- three phrases. The first phase the staff wanted to make sure that the amenities were installed with the first phrase, which is -- which is t}~pical for larger projects like this. We would bring on three of the four-plexes, one -- or two of the 12 plexes and, then, we had -- would have five of the 16 unit buildings. So, we would have agood -- a good mix. It's, basically, that first loop that you see coming in from the entrance off of the west -- what is it, Perigua Street -- I don't know how to pronounce that. That would be the first phrase. And, then, the second phase went north. The third phrase was the four-plexes. But we would like, obviously, a little bit of flexibility -- you know, if the four-plexes pod became the second phase, I would hope that that would be acceptable. I think the key was to get the primary infrastructure in place with the amenities. Rohm: Thank you. That was the purpose of the question. McKay: Thanks. Rohm: Any other questions of the applicant? Thank you. McKay: Thanks. Rohm: There is nobody that has signed up to speak to this application and it looks like most of the people ire the audience are part of that same crew, so if somebody else would like to speak, this is that time. Otherwise, thank you very much. And nobody is coming forward, so I think maybe we will have either some discussion or a motion to close the public hearing. Marshall: Mr. Chair, a couple comments. Rohm: Please. Marshall: A couple thoughts. My first thought is how this was very first originally approved was my veiry favorite of all. I think it offered the biggest mix and the match and everything, but I really appreciate as far as the applicant has come in the last few weeks in trying to meet the needs and understanding that the times have changed, the project's changed, and trying to meet that -- the infrastructure that was already in place and, then, trying to change things to meet the changing needs and I appreciate the changes and the efforts that have gone in, both on the applicant's part and on the staff's part very much. I appreciate those efforts. Again, I think it's a compromise that, hopefully, best meets everybody's needs at this time. Rohm: Thank you, Mr. Marshall. Any other comments? Meridian Planning & Zoning February 11, 2010 Page 7 of 10 Freeman: No. Rohm: Okay. Could I get a motion to close the public hearing? Marshall: Mr. Chair, I move that we close the public hearing on MCU 09-002. Freeman: Second. Rohm: It's been moved and seconded to close the public hearing on MCU 09-002. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carried. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. Marshall: Mr. Chair? Rohm: Mr. Marshall. Marshall: After considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move to approve file number MCU 09-002 as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of February 11th, 2010, with no modifications. I further move to direct staff to prepare appropriate findings document to consider at the next Planning and Zoning Commission meeting on March 4tri, 2010. Freeman: Second. Rohm: It's been moved and seconded to approve MCU 09-002 with no modifications of the staff report. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carries. Thank you folks for coming in. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. Item 6: Request for Approval to Create New Development Application Forms / Checklists by Planning Department: Rohm: Okay. The last item on our agenda is a request for approval to create new development application forms by the Planning Department. Mr. Friedman. Friedman: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. As you know, the UDC requires Commission review and approval of any major changes to our development applications and checklists and we have two proposed changes, one is to the sign permit checklist. When we amended our sign code earlier in this year we no longer prohibit off-premise signs. However, we discovered that if we are going to, in fact, allow off premise signs, it's probably wise to have the permission of the owner of whose property the off-premise sign is going on. Therefore, we are going to -- or would like to require that any applicant for an off-premise sign submit an affidavit of legal interest, basically a signature by the owner. It's not onerous. The forms already exist. Meridian Planning & Zoning February 11, 2010 Page 8 of 10 If they happen to come in and apply for their off-premise sign permit and they don't have it, they can certainly fax it to us, e-mail it to us, something like that. So, we'd like to make that a requirement of the sign permit application. The second one is to our certificate of zoning compliance checklist. Currently we have a long laundry list of items our project proponents have to submit. Most of those items are paper based. As the city goes forward in the future we have a records retention policy where we may only keep those for a limited number of years. But we would like to maintain an electronic record of that in perpetuity, therefore, we are -- would like to require that in addition to the paper copies that they submit, that they also provide electronic copies of their landscaping plan, their site plan, and so forth, just to help us kind of stay up with the digital age. So, those are our requested changes. Most of that's already happening anyway. When -- you know, when they prepare a -- like what we just went through and the give and take on this project, the digital plans were flying back and forth between the architects office ,and our office. So, they are being done anyway electronically, so -- Rohm: Thank you, Mr. Friedman. Marshall: Mr. Chair, I'd like to ask Pete a question. Pete, you say the signature forms for the owner of somE; other property somebody's going to put a sign on already exists, so we already required that in the past, we just didn't write it in with the new one? And it is just going on the checklist now that they have to fill that in. But we already have that form? Friedman: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Marshall, Commissioners, we do require that for all other applications. So, the form exists online and it's -- for example, when you come in for a CUP application you may be a contract purchaser or so forth, so you have an affidavit of legal interest from the owner. We are simply now asking that for an off- premise sign, that you provide one of those. Marshall: Thank you. Rohm: Any other questions of staff? O'Brien: I have a question, Mr. Chair, of Pete. I'm not totally familiar with the whole process of everything, but who is responsible for the placement of the sign on say intersections? Because I have seen that on many occasions the signs are placed such that you can't see oncoming traffic until you get right near the intersection. So, I just wondered where that responsibility lies? Friedman: We do have standards that talk about the placement of both permanent signs and temporary signs in terms of not blocking vision. We have what's called a vision triangle identified in the code and so, you know, we have it on good faith that when someone takes out a sign application that that sign is placed in accordance with our regulations. If we receive a complaint or if code enforcement happens to be driving by and noticed that they can't see around it, then, they will follow up with the owner of Meridian Planning & Zoning February 11, 2010 Page 9 of 10 that sign. But we have criteria in the code for the location of the sign. Sometimes they inadvertently get placed on public right of way, as opposed on public property, and, then, that opens kind of a whole other door of complications. O'Brien: Thank you. That's all I have. Rohm: Okay. I have nothing additional to add. I think maybe if we could just get a motion to approve. Marshall: Mr. Chair, I move that we approve the -- staff's request for approval to create new development application forms and checklists. I don't have a list of them. Yes, I do in here. I was made copies. Baird: Mr. Chair, I might suggest you just state as presented in the packet this evening. Marshall: As presented in this evening's packet. Thank you, sir. It's right here in writing. Freeman: I'll second. Rohm: Okay. It's been moved and seconded to approve the staff application for development application form adjustments. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carried. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. Rohm: One more motion. O'Brien: Mr. Chair, I imove to adjourn. Marshall: Second. Rohm: It's been moved and seconded to adjourn. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. Rohm: We are adjourned. MEETING ADJOURNED AT 7:42 P.M. (AUDIO RECORDING ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS.) Meridian Planning & Zoning February 11, 2010 Page 10 of 10 APPROVED l~'A~EL-R~O1~1V1'- THAI RMAN Z~% ,j~~C~~J~a~/~~~// 1. ~~ ~~~~~~\~~~ OF Mme,©~'Q~,~~jTEST o ~TF ~]E~L ~~~ ,~ ~~''% COUNTY ~ ~~~~`~~ /~~~~~rirrri~: n ~~.~~~~\ ~`~'1 Zip ~/^ DATE APPROVED l" ~ 1 JAYCEE L. HOLMAN, CITY CLERK