Loading...
2013 02-21Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission February 21, 2013 Meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission of February 21, 2013, was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Chairman Steven Yearsley. Present: Chairman Scott Freeman, Commissioner Steven Yearsley, Commissioner Michael Rohm, Commissioner Macy Miller, and Commissioner Joe Marshall. Others Present: Machelle Hill, Ted Baird, Caleb Hood, Bill Parsons, Sonya Wafters, Bruce Freckleton and. Dean Willis. Item 1: Roll-Call Attendance: Roll-call X Scott Freeman X Macy Miller X Michael Rohm X Joe Marshall X Steven Yearsley -Chairman Yearsley: Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. At this time we would like to open the regularly scheduled meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission for February 21st, 2007 -- or 2013. Sorry. At first we'd like to start with roll call. Yearsley: Thank you. Before we go into the adoption of the agenda I want to take a minute to recognize one of our past commissioners that just got -- served his term. Tom, would you mind coming up for a few minutes. I will come down. Make sure we got to do this on the record, you know. Tom, this is a certificate of appreciation presented to you, Tom O'Brien, and it says: In recognition of your service, dedication and participation on the Planning and Zoning Commission for the City of Meridian, on behalf of your fellow citizens, thank you for your years of service and commitment to improving the quality of life in our community. And it's presented this day the 21st of February 2013 and signed by the Mayor. I wanted to -- O'Brien: Well, thank you very much. It's a surprise. I really do appreciate that. Yearsley: Thank you very much. O'Brien: Because I have given all my speeches in the past six years, I don't have anything prepared for tonight. Thank you, everybody. Yearsley: Thank you, Tom. Rohm: Chairman Yearsley? Before Commissioner O'Brien leaves the building I'd like to say just a couple of things if I could. Yearsley: Commissioner Rohm, please. Meridian Planning & Zoning February 21, 2013 Page 2 of 29 Rohm: We had this same opportunity at our last meeting, but we had a different audience, so I'd like to restate some of the things that I said last time and they are Commissioner O'Brien has been on the Commission for the last six years and one of the things that has been great about his tenure is he has always been able to present a perspective that was unique to Tom and I think that he's done a great job representing the City of Meridian and it's been a pleasure to serve with you, sir. Thank you. Item 2: Adoption of the Agenda. Yearsley: Thank you. So, with that we will move into the business meeting portion of our meeting. At this time the first item on the agenda is the adoption of the agenda. We don't have any changes. So at this time could I get a motion to adopt the agenda . Marshall: So moved. Rohm: Second. Yearsley: I have a motion to adopt the agenda as presented. All in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carried. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 3: Consent Agenda A. Approve Minutes of February 7, 2013 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Yearsley: The second item on the agenda is the Consent Agenda and that is the approval of the minutes from the February 7th, 2013, Planning and Zoning Commission meeting. Is there any changes, modifications to that? With that can I get a motion to adopt the -- approve the Consent Agenda? Marshall: So moved. Freeman: Second. Yearsley: It has been moved and seconded. All in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Yearsley: At this point we would like to open the public -- the public hearing process. I'd like to explain this a little bit before we move forward. We are going to open each item one by one. First we are going to have the staff report -- present their findings regarding how the item adheres to the Comprehensive Plan and the Uniform Meridian Planning & Zoning February 21, 2013 Page 3 of 29 Development Code with staff recommendations. Next the applicant will come forward to present their case for the approval of the application and respond to any staff comments. The applicant will have up to 15 minutes to do so. Then we will open it to the public testimony. We will -- there is a sign-up sheet in the back, as you come in the -- anyone wishing to testify, please, sign up. Any person testifying will come forward and be allowed three minutes. If they are speaking for a larger group, like an HOA and there is a show of hands representing the group, they will be given up to ten minutes. After the public testimony the applicant will then be allowed to come forward to answer any questions if they desire and will be given up to ten minutes. At that point we will close the public hearing and the Commission will have the opportunity to discuss any -- discuss and, hopefully, be able to make recommendations to the City Council. Item 4: Action Items A. Continued Public Hearing from February 7, 2013: PP 12-019 Rushmore by Tealey's Land Surveying Located South of W. Pine Avenue and West of W. Broadway Avenue Request: Preliminary Plat Approval of Three (3) Buildable Lots and Two (2) Common Lots on 2.17 Acres in an Existing R-15 Zone B. Continued Public Hearing from February 7, 2013: CUP 12-014 Rushmore by Tealey's Land Surveying Located South of W. Pine Avenue and West of W. Broadway Avenue Request: Conditional Use Permit Approval for a Multi-Family Development Consisting of Three (3) 8-Plez Structures (24 Dwelling Units) in a Proposed R-15 Zoning District Yearsley: So, with that I would like to open the public hearing for the continued public hearing from February 7th, 2013, of PP 12-019 and CUP 12-014, Rushmore by Tealey Land Surveying. We would like to start with the staff report. Parsons: Thanks, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. The first item on the agenda tonight is the Rushmore Subdivision. It's approximately 5.54 acres, consists of L-O zoned property, which is 3.14 acres and, then, an R-15 portion along -- which is cut in half. It is currently zoned R-15 and that's 2.4 acres. The site is located on the south side of Pine just west of North Idaho Avenue -- or, excuse me, West Idaho Avenue and West Broadway Avenue. To the north of this property is R-4 single family homes zoned R-4. To the east we have single family homes zoned R-4 and R-8. To the south is the railroad tracks and industrial property zoned I-L. And to the west we have multi-family development as well and, then, a nursing care facility. This project was before you in 2008. It was also known as the Rushmore Subdivision. At that time it included the church lot and four -- or, excuse me, six multi-family lots and two common lots. The church lot was -- is already developed with an existing church and, then, that portion south of the Nine Mile Creek, which the R-15 portion, was to develop with six four-plex buildings, for a total of 24 units. Since that time the previous developer and owner of the property did not follow through with the CUP or the final platting of the property. Meridian Planning & Zoning February 21, 2013 Page 4 of 29 Therefore, both those applications have expired. Now, we have new owners that wish to come before you this evening and reestablish that CUP and reestablish the plat as well. Before I get into the plat dimensional standards and all that, I do want to mention to Commission that upon staffs request we did work with the applicant and we have asked them to go back to the church and have them be part of the plat as well. If you recall in the staff report staff made some -- some analysis in there that this property was illegally split by the previous developer and since the subdivision process has not been completed we do not recognize these two parcels, we only see the parcel as one five acre parcel. So, in essence, the church has to be part of the plat in order for them to move forward and expand development on their site as well and getting a building permit moving forward. The plat before you this evening does not represent the church lot. It is conditioned in the staff report that prior to City Council they submit a revised plat that includes the church as a lot and block in the subdivision. Staff has received an affidavit of legal interest from the church. They are amenable to being part of the plat and they want to be part of the plat. The applicant is aware of it and they are in process of making those changes as well. Moving forward, just for the plat this evening I will just be discussing the multi-family portion, of course. As I mentioned to you, the L-O portion of the plat is already developed with an existing church at this time. No development is proposed and none is being required at this time as well. So, moving forward, we are looking at three multi-family lots, with two common lots. One of the lots will provide cross-access for all the multi-family buildings as well. I would mention to you that all the R-15 zoned properties do comport with the dimensional standards in the zoning district. With the platting of this property we will be requiring a cul-de-sac at the terminus of the roadway, which is West Broadway Avenue that you see here and that will be dedicated right of way. The applicant is proposing, again, a conditional use permit to develop 24 multi-family units. Based on the acreage of this site that will get roughly 15 dwelling units to the acre, which is consistent with the underlying zoning district of R-15. So, that's the maximum allowed in that zoning district. Again, they are looking at three eight-plex buildings, a mixture of two bedroom units and three bedroom units, which one of the units will also be used as a property management office and on site manager if you will. Amenities planned for this site include some open space over here, a tot lot, a plaza area, some barbecue pits and a covered picnic area. Those amenities do comply with the UDC standards as well. They laid out here the parking lot. They meet the required parking requirements of the ordinance as well. Staff did have some concerns along this portion of the site, merely because there will be an easement -- sewer easement along this portion of it and so structures and landscaping, meaning trees, should not be within that easement area, so it does not disrupt the functionality of that sewer line. The applicant is aware of that and he has been conditioned to comply with that as well. Here is the proposed landscape plan. Nothing to really add to it. It does comply with the requirements of the UDC as far as tree counts and pretty similar to what was proposed back in 2006. I would mention to the Commission that there are some minor tweaks to the site plan and landscape plan that we required, but nothing that can't be handled at the CZC level. The applicant has submitted alternative compliance. Here are the elevations that they are proposing. The elevations have a mixture of vinyl siding and, then, a stucco wainscoting along the front facade and, then, wraps around the side as well. The only reason why they are requesting alternative compliance is because the Meridian Planning & Zoning February 21, 2013 Page 5 of 29 UDC prohibits vinyl siding or restricts vinyl siding to an accent material only. Over the past couple of years we amended the design manual to allow vinyl siding if they can do it with a mix of patterns and provide some architectural detailing on the building. If you look at the elevations before you this evening you can clearly see that they have a mixture of siding materials, a mixture of colors and, of course, another element as well with the stucco. So, based on what we see and what's presented to you this evening, staff has approved that alternative compliance to allow them to move forward with the vinyl siding as the primary building material. I would also mention to you that in the staff report we have conditioned that they provide another color scheme in addition to the one that's before you. So, we are looking at two color schemes, two trim colors -- or two body colors and a trim color as well moving forward. If you look at the bottom of the elevation you can see the design of the carports. Again, those are colored to match the -- the apartment complex as well. Staff has not received any comments on the application. It does conform -- comport to the Comprehensive Plan. To staffs knowledge there aren't any outstanding issues before you this evening and at this time I'd stand for any questions you have. Yearsley: Thank you very much. Is there any questions at this time? Marshall: Mr. Chair, just a quick clarification, Bill. As you know in our packet the plat's a little bit on the small side, a little hard to read, so just a clarification. That upper clear area, the green space up there, appears to be to swale for drainage; is that correct? Parsons: Commissioner -- Chairman, Commissioners, that is correct. A portion of the drainage for the site will be located in that play area. As long as it's landscaped that's acceptable under the UDC. Marshall: Thank you. Yearsley: Thank you. Anybody -- any other questions? At this time we'd like the applicant to come forward. Please state your name and address for the record, please. Tealey: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, my name is Pat Tealey, with Tealey's Land Surveying, representing the applicant Angel's Holding, LLC. There is also a representative from the architect's office here if you have any architectural questions. We have been in quite a few discussions with staff over this thing and how to revive this project. It was originally about 80 percent built -- the infrastructure anyway -- back in 2007 and 2008. There is -- for instance, there is water and sewer and the drainage was built and the sub base for the ACHD improvements were built also and it fell into disrepair and the current owner bought it through the foreclose action and he wants to revive it and do, basically, exactly what the original applicant was. He switched from -- was it six four-plexes to three eight-plexes, maintaining the number. He just liked the economy of the building with the eight-plex, as opposed to the six buildings, so -- as stated we have worked with staff quite a bit to get this thing going again and there were a few stumbles, but we are here for the approval now and here to answer questions if you have any. Meridian Planning & Zoning February 21, 2013 Page 6 of 29 Yearsley: Is there any questions for the applicant? Rohm: I guess my only question is you're in concurrence with the staff report then? Tealey: Yes, we are. Rohm: Okay. Yearsley: Okay. Marshall: I do have a question, Mr. Chair. Yearsley: Commissioner Marshall. Marshall: Looking at this, you know, I -- you're pretty tight on land. I don't know if you could really change much, especially with all the infrastructure there. Right now the only concern I have is putting a tot lot next to a drainage facility. I know that's open space and it's not going to be filled very often, but just -- and I'm looking hard to see where else I could go and I'm just not seeing that much. Tealey: And as you stated, the site is pretty constrained. Marshall: Uh-huh. Tealey: These -- the slopes on this drainage facility we -- I think they are five to one or six to one slope, so we have really smoothed it out. It would only be a depression that's about a foot deep maximum and, as you said, when it's raining that hard they probably shouldn't be out there playing. Marshall: Well, yeah, I know my kids are out no matter what. Yeah. I just -- and tots pretty well go to a tot lot pretty quick. I just -- about a 500 year storm, that's meant to fill; right? And -- Tealey: Yes. Marshall: -- you have -- is it full detention or is there retention on it? It dumps to somewhere? Tealey: No. It's detention. Marshall: Okay. All right. Thank you. Tealey: Uh-huh. Meridian Planning & Zoning February 21, 2013 Page 7 of 29 Yearsley: Thank you very much. At this point I have nobody signed up to testify for public. Is there anybody that would like to come up and testify? All right. I guess with that we don't need the applicant to come back and refute his own comments, so at this point I'd like to entertain a motion to close the public hearing. Marshall: So moved. Rohm: Second. Yearsley: I have a motion and a second. All in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Yearsley: Who would like to start? Marshall: Mr. Chair? Yearsley: Commissioner Marshall. Marshall: Again, I'd like to see it move forward. It just seems appropriate. I would like to address the letter that was received from -- I can't pronounce the last name. Minitar -- Leroy Minarti? I'm terrible with name here. But he was simply voicing concern and opposition regarding the building of additional multi-family units in the City of Meridian and my comment to this letter was that it's really not our job to determine what businesses and limit businesses and things like that and, obviously, people wanting to build additional apartments they feel that they can make money at that and I felt that the comments really didn't really apply to anything that we are making decisions on here. Our decisions are based on whether it is appropriate in the location and for the city and, unfortunately, yes, that would cause him some more -- cause rents to -- increased difficulties for -- and problems for existing owners as he said. Well, yes, that's, unfortunately, part of business I guess, so -- that was my comment there. The only other issue I had with this is the location of the tot lot right next to a drainage facility. Again, with a five or six to one slope and a single foot deep, I really don't see another location with existing facilities and the infrastructure already in I don't see a lot locations where you could move that to. I wouldn't mind it if we moved it back a little bit, but, then, again, you want it out in the open so everybody in all the buildings can use it. So, if there is any way to slope it away from that tot lot so that the deepest part is as far away from that tot lot as possible, I think that would probably be best, but that's just my thoughts Freeman: Mr. Chair? Yearsley: Commissioner Freeman. Meridian Planning & Zoning February 21, 2013 Page 8 of 29 Freeman: I like the project. I'm glad it's finally moving forward. Given the constraints on the site I think that the architect and engineer have done a good job on this layout, the elevations look fine. I'm glad to see that there is going to be some material change and some colors coming along with the final approval. So, I would -- I would tend to favor and vote for the approval of this project. Yearsley: Thank you. Rohm: My only comments are associated with the plat itself and the fact of the matter is that we are going to have a legal plat once this is moved forward and I think that's always in good keeping. Miller: You know, I don't have any new comments. I -- the elevations look good to me. There is different textures and -- on the front side of the buildings and I have no comments. Yearsley: Okay. Thank you very much. At this point -- Marshall: Mr. Chair? Yearsley: Commissioner Marshall. Marshall: After considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony -- of which there wasn't -- I move to recommend approval to the City Council of file numbers PP 12-019 and CPU 12-014. Do we need to make comment on the alternate compliance? I assume we will recommend approval on the alternate compliance as well. It's 12-008. As presented in the staff report for the hearing date of February 21st, 2013, with no modifications. Rohm: Second. Yearsley: We have a motion to approve -- and a second to approve PP 12-019 and CUP 12-014 and ALT 12-008 as presented in the staff report. All in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. C. Public Hearing: RZ 13-001 Legacy Church by Legacy Church Located South of W. Cherry Lane, Between East NW 1st Street and N. Meridian Road and North of W. Maple Avenue Request: Rezone of Approximately 3.95 Acres of Land from the R-4 (Medium-low Density Residential District) Zoning District to the O-T (Old Town District) Zoning District Yearsley: Thank you very much. At this point we would like to open the public hearing for RZ 13-001, Legacy Church by Legacy Church and start with the staff report. Meridian Planning & Zoning February 21, 2013 Page 9 of 29 Parsons: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. The next item on the agenda is Legacy Church rezone. The site consists of 11 parcels totaling 3.95 acres. It's currently zoned R-4. It is located south of Cherry Lane on the west side of North Meridian Road. The applicant is here this even to rezone from the R-4 zoning designation to the Old Town zone, which is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Currently that plan does designate this portion of the property within an Old Town land use designation. If you recall there is some heavy construction going on in the area that has -- necessitated the church to move forward and rezone this property. The main reason for it is currently the church use on the site is a nonconforming use under the definition of the Unified Development Code. In order to process or expand the site that requires a conditional use permit. With this rezone application it would give the applicant flexibility to move forward and improve the site and rehab the site as they see fit under the current ordinance and also allow them to do so at the staff level, not having to go back before you for the CUP mod or CUP to expand the use on the site. I'd also mention to you they did submit a concept plan that shows kind of what they have envisioned. First development phase does include them adding a portion of parking here. Due to the split corridor phase project they are losing a majority of their parking in front of the building here, which necessitates the need for them to add additional parking. Again, in order to do that under the R-4 zone it would require a conditional use permit to expand the nonconforming use. Subsequent phases probably will happen with addition to the existing church use in the future. Again, that would be done through the CZC and design review level once and if the rezone goes through. So, you can see here what they have planned. Typically with a rezone application staff does recommend a development agreement in this case with this rezone application given the amount of detail that the applicant has provided with the application staff feels comfortable that they can move forward without a development agreement, just given the fact that the rezone or going to an Old Town zone would allow the church to be a principally permitted use and also that existing single family homes would still be a principally permitted use in that proposed zoning district. You can see here they are closing off access points into Meridian Road as well, which is a plus in compliance with the ordinance as well and, of course, the parking lot will take access from the alley as well. So, given the fact that we have things in place, design review and an ordinance that can probably handle the revitalization of this site, even if it were sold or changed in the future, staff feels comfortable recommending no development agreement with a rezone. Staff did not receive any written testimony on this from the applicant. I assume they are in agreement with staff's recommendation of approval and to staffs knowledge there aren't any outstanding issues with this application and at this time I'd stand for any questions you have. Yearsley: Thank you very much. Is there any questions? At this point we would like the applicant to come forward. Please state your name and address for the record. Crawford: Chairman, Commissioners, my name is David Crawford with B&A Engineers. My address is 5505 West Franklin Road, Boise. I'm here representing the applicant and most all of them are here tonight. So, we are glad they were able to attend. I concur Meridian Planning & Zoning February 21, 2013 Page 10 of 29 with the staff recommendations for approval. We appreciate all the work that they put in assisting us with the development of the site and the rezone. It's been an arduous task with the Meridian Road getting blown up. Hopefully that's a great improvement for the citizens of Meridian. It should be noted that the church has dedicated the right of way prior to receiving any rezone or approvals or anything like that, so they worked with the highway district prior to any of these applications moving forward to allow those improvements to take place. There was a dramatic impact with those improvements and the loss of in excess of 20 parking stalls, which is really -- hasn't helped the church any. So, of course, the church is looking forward to addressing some of those -- the loss of those parking stalls with the addition. Of course, it would be applied for at a future time, but what would need to precede that, of course, is the rezone to the Old Town district. There is only two items I guess that the -- that the church would like to just make part of the record and one of those items is the Old Town requirement does require two story construction in most instances and the church isn't opposed to that, however, it's difficult to maintain access -- accessibility. So, their concern was that they would give the facade of any future construction that may occur, though there is not any anticipated right now, but a facade for two story construction would occur at the appropriate time, but they wouldn't necessarily build two stories given the use and, of course, the church has been working with ACHD and the City of Meridian and has requested a fee reimbursement request, but we just thought we would note that as part of the record. So, for that I will stand for any questions you may have. Yearsley: Thank you very much. Are there any questions? No? Oh, Commissioner Rohm. Rohm: No, I don't. Yearsley: Oh. Sorry. So, thank you very much. Crawford: Thank you. Yearsley: I don't have anybody signed, but is there anybody in the audience that would like to come up and testify? No? Well, with that can I get a motion to close the public hearing. Freeman: Mr. Chair, I move that we close the public hearing on RZ 13-001, Legacy Church. Miller: Second. Yearsley: I have a motion and a second to close the public hearing for RZ 13-001, Legacy Church. All in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Yearsley: Any comments, questions, concerns or deliberations? Meridian Planning & Zoning February 21, 2013 Page 11 of 29 Marshall: Mr. Chair? Freeman: Go ahead. Yearsley: Commissioner Freeman. Marshall: My only question is how to handle the request on the two story facade. If two stories are required in any new construction in Old Town is -- I'd like to ask staff if that's accurate. Parsons: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, that is correct. New construction does require two stories. What we have communicated to the applicant in several meetings we have had with them is we have -- even given the latitude to give the appearance of two stories. So, there is -- there is ways to get that roof line and get the height and give the appearance or the look of a two story construction without actually physically being two story. And that's, really, what we are looking for. Marshall: So, my question is would that condition -- is that in the application or do we need to modify anything to include that or -- Parsons: Commissioner Marshall, this is a rezone only and we don't condition rezones. So, there are no conditions in the staff report. Marshall: Got you. So, you're saying that you would be willing to work with them when those came forward and that's the only way we can handle it? Parsons: Absolutely. Marshall: Awesome. Thank you. Yearsley: Thank you. Any other questions, comments? Rohm: Just one more comment. Yearsley: Okay. Rohm: And that is if, in fact, we are not requiring a development agreement along with this rezone, that makes it sound like the applicant and the city are pretty well in agreement as to the direction this project is going, so that's always a good thing. Yearsley: Thank you. So, with that I would stand for a motion. Freeman: Mr. Chair? Yearsley: Commissioner Freeman. Meridian Planning & Zoning February 21, 2013 Page 12 of 29 Freeman: After considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move to recommend approval of file number RZ 13-001 as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of February 21st, 2013, with no modifications. Rohm: Second. Yearsley: I have got a motion to approve Item No. RZ 13-001, Legacy Church and a second. All in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries. Thank you very much. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. D. Public Hearing: PP 12-018 Irvine by Northside Management Located Southeast Corner of W. Chinden Boulevard and N. Ten Mile Road Request: Preliminary Plat Approval Consisting of 145 Residential Lots and 12 Common Lots on Approximately 38.5 Acres in an Existing R-8 Zone Yearsley: The next item on the agenda is the public hearing for PP 12-018, Irvine by Northside Management. We'd like to start with the staff report. Parsons: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. The next item is the Irvine Subdivision. It's currently zoned R-8 in the city. It's located on the southeast corner of North Ten Mile Road and Chinden Boulevard. To the north of this site is, again, the State Highway 20-26 and Spurwing Country Club, zoned RUT. Along the west -- or, excuse me, the east boundary we have Ada County property zoned RUT and the Silver Leaf Subdivision zoned R-4. To the east we have Silver Leaf Subdivision and Ada County outparcels zoned RUT and R-4 as well. And, then, to the west we have Ada County property zoned RUT. The Comprehensive Plan does designate this site as medium density residential. Some history on this property. It was in front of you in 2005 and it was also known as the Irvine Subdivision. At that time it gained annexation and preliminary plat approval for 175 residential lots and 12 common lots on 38.5 acres of land. In 2008 the previous developer -- or the developer was before Council requesting a time extension. At that time Council did deny their time extension request, because the plat did not conform to the ten percent open space requirements currently required under today's ordinance. So, here is what the application -- or the applicant is proposing this evening. We are looking at 145 residential lots and 12 common lots. The plat does comport to the ten percent open space requirements of the UDC. Access to this site is from Ten Mile as originally proposed back in 2006. We have interconnective streets. To the south and to the east we have two stub streets that will be constructed and extended into the site as well. The applicant is proposing to develop this in five development phases, which I have highlighted here for you. So, the first phase would start along the south and, then, just move towards Chinden Boulevard. I would mention to you that the average lot sizes in here are roughly 6,700 square feet. The density for the plat is at 3.77 dwelling units to the acre, which is consistent with the medium density residential -- or land use designation, which anticipates densities Meridian Planning & Zoning February 21, 2013 Page 13 of 29 between three and eight units to the acre. So, slightly on the lower end, but still within that density range anticipated by the Comprehensive Plan. Here is the landscape plan that the applicant is proposing this evening. Along Ten Mile they are doing a 35 foot landscape buffer in accordance with the UDC. Along Chinden Boulevard is a 45 foot landscape buffer. The applicant is providing a greater buffer to fit the ten foot pathway along that segment of road and also to meet the noise abatement requirements in the UDC. Because they do abut Chinden, the ordinance requires a berm wall combination along that facility to buffer the residential from the highway. They will have to comply with that with a future landscape plan. I did want to mention to you that several blocks to exceed the block length requirement in the UDC. At a previous meeting we did report to you that we are looking at maybe amending the ordinance and instituting a new block length standard going forward. We anticipate that this would probably comply with that requirement moving forward, but I did want to mention the one block -- there is several block lengths that do not comply, if I can go back here, would be this portion here along -- up against the state facility. One we kind of have a code conflict here. That state facility would want to limit access there, so the applicant has provided that micropath connection, so we feel that's adequate block -- that adequately breaks up the block there given the constraints with access they have along that roadway, but the majority of the concern is this block here, which is located around the central open space. In the staff report we have conditioned that they submit a final plat that comports with whatever block length requirements we had in effect at the time of development. So, based on what -- the way they are phasing this project it doesn't come into play until the second phase is where I'm getting at now. So, again, moving on, here is the landscape plan. Again, a majority of the open space will be platted with the second phase as well. We are looking at that central one and a half acre park with a tot lot. Staff has recommended an amenity that they also include a covered picnic shelter within that and, then, you have this linear open space here that will be, basically, a covered ditch and landscape and as I mentioned to you the plat does conform to the amenity requirements and the open space requirements as well this evening. The applicant is proposing a mix of residential housing types and sizes in the subdivision. I anticipate similar home styles in here. You can see again the applicant is -- will be providing homes that provide a mix of resident -- or a mix of sidings on here, a mix of stone and stucco covered porches. Definitely gives the appearance of some variation in the subdivision as well. Staff did receive comments from the applicant. He is in agreement with all the conditions in the report, except for that one that I mentioned as far as the block length requirement. Currently that would be Condition 1.1.3. The way it's written in the staff report we wanted compliance with the block length requirements with the first phase of the final plat. As I just showed you, it wouldn't really come into -- come into factor until the second phase. So, staff is requesting that Commission basically modify that condition to read that the applicant shall comply with the block length standards in effect at the time of final plat submittal. That way it gives him the flexibility whatever way they change their phasing on this they just have to make sure whatever phase comes in that particular phase has to comport to the block length standards in effect. With that staff did have some comments from several adjacent owners. There is nothing formally on the record, just phone conversations and front counter conversations and that has to do with the -- basically these two RUT parcels. This Meridian Planning & Zoning February 21, 2013 Page 14 of 29 gentleman here would like to discuss with you the possibility of maybe limiting some of the homes along his boundary to single story homes and requiring the applicant provide vinyl fencing for the entire subdivision and, then, this gentleman here is asking the same request that those lots that front on his western boundary are limited to single story as well. Other than those conversations staff has not received any other written testimony. Again, staff is recommending approval and at this time I'd stand for any questions you have. Yearsley: Thank you very much. Are there any questions? Okay. At this time we'd like the applicant to come forward. Noriyuki: Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, Scott Noriyuki, 6810 Fairhill Place, Boise, Idaho. I want to thank staff. This has been a long time coming as far as projects, but think we have come up with a superior layout than was previously presented. We are pleased with it and we agree with the staff report and all of Bill's comments and with that I'll stand for any questions. Yearsley: Thank you very much. Are there any questions? Marshall: Mr. Chair, I do. My first question is how tall is the berm up against Chinden? Noriyuki: Excuse me? Marshall: How tall is the berm up against Chinden Boulevard? Noriyuki: It will be between six and eight feet tall with a four foot fence top of it. Marshall: Okay. I guess that's it. Yearsley: Okay. If there is no other questions, thank you very much. Noriyuki: Thank you. Yearsley: I have a few up here that's signed up. Mike Meyers. Please state your name and address for the record, please. Meyers: My name is Mike Meyers. I own the property at 2685 West Chinden, which is just on the -- it would be the east side. My property basically runs about a thousand feet deep from Chinden to the south. Sorry, I'm not very good at speaking like this. But when we moved there originally there was no houses. There was maybe six neighbors within a square mile and I know there is nothing I can do to stop the building, but the biggest problem that I have is, excuse me, anytime I step outside now these two story houses basically are looking down at you. So, basically, my privacy is gone and my views are completely gone. So, what I would like to see is at least along my eastern boundary just single level homes. Other than that that's. mainly my only concern. Meridian Planning & Zoning February 21, 2013 Page 15 of 29 Rohm: How far is your property from the property line? How far is your home from the property line? Meyers: From the westward property line? Rohm: From the west property line. Meyers: I don't know. A couple hundred feet. Rohm: That's pretty good. Meyers: It's a ways, but anytime you go outside -- and I don't spend a whole lot of time in the house. So, anytime I'm doing anything outside -- you know, my property is like a long sliver, so anytime I'm outside in the field farming, doing whatever, it's like all these people are staring right down at you. Rohm: Okay. Thank you. Meyers: Thank you. Yearsley: No other questions? Or did you -- Miller: Yeah. Staff mentioned that there -- you said something about a vinyl fence along that side, too, but I didn't hear you mention that. Meyers: Well, I would assume that they would be vinyl, because that's what they have done on the other two sides of me. If they put a wood fence there I think that would look horrible. But, actually, I believe it was the other gentleman that the vinyl fence was his concern. I don't know if that's within the plan. Do you know? Is it wood or vinyl? Rohm: The applicant will address that on rebuttal. Meyers: Okay. Perfect. Thank you. Yearsley: Thank you. The next one is Jerry -- is it Stevenson? Stevenson: Jerry Stevenson at 1640 North Ten Mile Road. Commissioner and fellow Planning and Zoning committee members, I -- you know, we -- growth is coming and, you know, I'd like to keep it agricultural forever, but it's kind of sad to see it all go, but it's going to happen, so with that I have lived here for 25 years now and back then I think there was only like about four or five houses within that whole square mile and we still actively have a little hobby farm going. We raise -- we have got 24 ewes that we Iamb out. We did cut down -- a few years back we had up to 60 ewes that we were doing there, too. So, we still continue the agriculture practice and we support the FFA and 4- H kids with all their activities. In fact, my son even teaches FFA and we bring city kids into our place and they keep them in our place as we recognize that we have to make Meridian Planning & Zoning February 21, 2013 Page 16 of 29 this transition together. But one of my concerns is -- is, you know, the previous development Silver Leaf was all supposed to have been vinyl fences. The previous developer took some shortcuts, put up a wood fence and, then, he snuck through a variance to get it accepted and I did insist on making sure that I had a vinyl fence that abutted my place, so I would like to continue that vinyl fencing surrounding my place at least and, you know, continue on the integrity of the -- the residential area. The other thing is to -- again, I'm going to lose all my views of the mountain and everything with these houses. I'd like to, you know, try to at least retain some type of privacy, especially when you have agricultural practices and people looking down at you, everything you do being criticized and everything, I'd like to try to prevent, you know, those issues from happening. So, just immediately along my -- the border of my place I'd like to try to restrict that and I'd also like to have some -- you know, some trees up there to try to protect some of that as well, too. I have, you know, started some landscaping on my own to put trees in there, but, you know, it gets very expensive, but, then, they are the ones that actually benefit from the shade of those trees and not me, you know, on the west corner. So, anyway, that's -- that's my major concerns there, too, but I'd also like to point out, too, that the -- this is kind of maybe a little bit besides the development itself, but that corner there at Ten Mile and Chinden really needs to get a traffic light up there. There is one half mile from each side of it -- I mean it's a bear and all these little tiny projects keep trickling up and everybody says, well, this project isn't going to affect it and there is only so many homes, but you take a look at that and now on Black Cat they are developing all that over there, too. It's just -- you know, now Wal-Mart is coming in, you know, we need to get a light up there. So, that's my biggest concerns that I have. Thank you. Marshall: Mr. Chair, if I could very quickly just mention that I know the city has been aware of the light at Ten Mile and it is on a request list with Ada County Highway District. Unfortunately, they have not yet deemed it worthy, but we definitely are requesting it and asking for that. Stevenson: Thank you. Yearsley: Thank you. The next one is Scott -- oh. Okay. Is there anybody else that would like to provide testimony for this application? At this time we'd ask the applicant to come back and rebut any of the comments, answer questions from the applicant. Noriyuki: Thank you. Would you like me to restate my name and address? Yearsley: Yes, please. Noriyuki: Scott Noriyuki. 6810 Fairhill Place, Boise, Idaho. Okay. So, I have taken a couple of notes and we are going to try to chronologically address Mike and Jerry's concerns or clarifications or questions. First of all, regarding Mike's property and the request for two story -- or only single story along our shared property line. I have concerns as far as setting a restriction on that. His property is also in the comp plan that's going to allow and ultimately develop at that point and I would imagine once that Meridian Planning & Zoning February 21, 2013 Page 17 of 29 property develops it would feel fair to them at that point to have the one or two story flexibility. Furthermore he has entered into a lease agreement with a cell tower that will be located predominately in the -- that would be the northwestern portion of his property, which is our shared property line. At that point there will forever be a buffer for that portion and, then, we start to talk about the 200 feet -- 100, 150, 200 foot separation between our homes and his home, I think that's a very reasonable dimension that should allow us to stay consistent with the two story or one story as the market demands. I believe I addressed all of his items. As far as Jerry's -- regarding the single story versus two story, I feel the same way. I believe that we have got a comp plan in place and we got zoning and I think that flexibility is reasonable, considering my lots are a hundred foot deep at a minimum. I will average about a 35 foot backyard, plus the separation to his side yard and -- and/or rear. I think we are looking somewhere between a 50 and 60 foot separation between structures at the build out point that I feel is -- once again is a reasonable separation. Regarding the fencing, I spoke to Jerry about this prior to the hearing and I think the appropriate thing to do is for me to pay a site visit -- excuse me -- pay a site visit and look at what all of the existing fencing is out there between Silver Leaf and Mike's property, as well as Jerry's property and come up with the best game plan for consistency overall. So, at this point I'm not adverse to wood cedar or vinyl, but I want to make sure it's a consistent, good looking project when it's all said and done. With that I will stand for any questions. Yearsley: Does anybody have any questions? Freeman: I don't. Rohm: I just have a comment. Vinyl siding is -- Noriyuki: Vinyl fencing. Rohm: Vinyl fencing is a very good product and I'd like to see that on your project. Noriyuki: Understood. Yearsley: All right. Thank you very much. Noriyuki: Thank you. Yearsley: At this time could I get a motion to close the public hearing. Rohm: So moved. Freeman: Second. Yearsley: I have a motion and a second to close the public hearing for PP 12-018, Irvine, by Northside Management. All in favor say aye. Meridian Planning & Zoning February 21, 2013 Page 18 of 29 MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Yearsley: Would anyone like to go first? Marshall: Mr. Chair? Yearsley: Commissioner Marshall. Marshall: A couple thoughts. First was addressing the comments made by the neighbors. I was a little disappointed that we need the flexibility and we are not -- I feel like we are just not coming forward to help out the neighbors when they are saying vinyl fence, we want vinyl fence -- I heard it from both people here, but you want flexibility. Now, I agree that a couple hundred feet to another house -- two story house is -- that happens all the time and you're going to have some one story and some two story in here. I understand. I also feel for the neighbors that, gosh, you have had views for so long and suddenly this comes in. I feel for you. I really do. But at the same time as mentioned that growth is going to happen. Now, that means that this is zoned R-8, they are very small lots, in my opinion. And I think there is some good in that. I think we do need some higher densities in areas and the like, but, to be honest, you know, what works best for the city and I'm going to talk about what makes a good neighborhood for just a minute and I hope you guys will bear with me for a minute. We have certain standards in place within the city asking for variation in architecture, in paint, in articulation of roofs, things like that and for good reason. It's because variety helps create interest, makes it more fun. I mean it's -- to see the same thing over and over is what we are trying to avoid and one of the things I'm not sure we do well enough to address as a city right yet is layouts of subdivisions and my first comment is long, straight streets with -- people argue that the old neo-traditional square, Romanesque layout is the same thing you're going to see in some of the most desirable parts of town, in the Old Town and the like, but I will argue that it's not the streets in that square layout that makes that interesting, what makes it interesting is the variety and size that banker back then built right next to the stable boy and everybody was trying to build within a walking distance of city and you had big houses next to small houses, immense difference in architecture, different builders and things like that and we as a society now put one type of house here and it's quite a ways away before we see another type of house and so as a city to address some of that we have started asking for more articulation, more differences in houses. We don't want to see the same house all over. To add to that I would suggest that long, straight streets with houses the exact same distance set back becomes just as boring as the same architecture. This design could have been different and still -- and still achieve just as many lots I think in a much more appealing way when you drive into the -- into the neighborhood, as well as seeing maybe more alley loaded material where you can get houses very close to each other. I know a number of people that love architecture and that kind of thing that -- where the houses are very narrow, alley loaded, no garages in front, the houses are up against the street, you can get a very small lot, high densities, but to be honest I look at this and it looks so much like so many others that I have seen out of the '70s that I thought we were trying to avoid, to be honest. That being said, we do need the diversity in what we Meridian Planning & Zoning February 21, 2013 Page 19 of 29 offer and I like the diversity. We do have some small lots here, we need some higher densities. It is at a point where we have a lot of traffic flow. Ten Mile and Chinden is going to be a high traffic order and that's where you'd want some high densities, so people can take mass transit and we can start actually justifying paying for bus schedules and buses to come through there where we have enough people congregated to be able to take that. To be honest, I'm not happy with the esthetics of this. I'm not happy with the block lengths. And I don't think it's the best we could see for this area. I really don't. And, again, I am disappointed that we can't meet the neighborhoods. I'm disappointed in that that we can't just say, okay, we are going to be a good neighbor, we are going to put up the vinyl fence, everybody wants vinyl fence, we will do a vinyl fence and be a good neighbor and, you know, try to -- try to meet some people halfway, because they are losing out a bit and, yes, this should be developed, it -- they have a right to develop it, but at the same time we want to be good neighbors. Some trees and things I don't know is a huge request when you look at the amount of money that will be going into this project just trying to be a good neighbor and so I'm, you know, a little disappointed with this project. Those are my thoughts. Yearsley: Thank you. Freeman: Mr. Chair? Yearsley: Commissioner Freeman. Freeman: A couple of things and I have a question of staff, too. Somebody flag me down if I forget by the time I'm done with my diatribe. I am -- I, too, feel for the neighbors, development moving in next door. However, I would not be comfortable, nor do I believe I have the power or the right to ask the owner to limit his -- what he otherwise is allowed to build per the UDC as far as residential two story homes. I, too, agree with Commissioner Marshall that I would like to see vinyl fencing on -- on all of these boundaries, again, in the interest of being a good neighbor. You know, whether you would like to see the flexibility or not, what fits in, if you're neighbors are requesting vinyl and vinyl is, in fact, a good product, I would tend to favor vinyl fencing along both of those borders. I agree with Commissioner Marshall and much of what he said about the subdivision and there being interest. I'm also balancing with the fact that we do -- we do need developments that -- that fit this criteria. It could have been done differently. I agree. But overall I'm -- I'm happy to see this type of development going in. Other than some of the comments that you made. I do have a question of staff and I'd like to step back to the modification, Bill, that you mentioned. Was it -- was it 1.1.3 condition and it needed to be modified you say or just reiterated? I actually have the language in your report, because I saw it elsewhere. Did that not get into that condition? I don't have it in front of me. Parsons: Chairman, Members of the Commission, I read it into the record, so if you're amenable to how I presented it to, then, just say and all staff and applicant comments and I will make it happen before City Council. Meridian Planning & Zoning February 21, 2013 Page 20 of 29 Freeman: Thank you. That's clear enough. I think that finishes my comments. Yearsley: Thank you very much. Commissioner Rohm? Rohm: I don't have anything to add. Yearsley: Thank you. Commissioner Miller? Miller: I would like to make a comment and kind of echo some of Commissioner Marshall's statements with the winding streets. In the third and fourth phase here it looks like you have the community park area that's -- the front is right by the main street and having lived in a subdivision like this I know people tend to barrel through that and so I have some concerns about how that would work in reality. Other than that I don't have any comments. Yearsley: Thank you. And I don't have any comments either, so I'm open for a motion. Freeman: All right. Mr. Chair? Yearsley: Commissioner Freeman. Freeman: After considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move to recommend approval to the City Council of file number PP 12-018 as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of February 21st, 2013, with the modification of Condition 1.1.3, so it includes the language that staff recommends development of the plat comply with the block length standards in effect at the time of submittal of the first final plat application. Yearsley: Do I have a second? Miller: Second. Parson: Mr. Chairman, excuse me. I didn't mean to interrupt. We are wanting to strike with the first submittal, just comply with the submittal of a final plat is how it should -- Freeman: Okay. So, as amended I would modify my motion to agree with what you just said. Parsons: Thank you. Miller: Second. Yearsley: Thank you. I have a motion and a second to approve file number PP 12-018. All in favor say aye. Opposed? Marshall: Aye. Meridian Planning & Zoning February 21, 2013 Page 21 of 29 Yearsley: Motion carries. Thank you very much. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE NAY. E. Public Hearing: RZ 13-002 Red Wing Subdivision by WH Moore Company Located Southeast Corner of S. Meridian Road (SH 69) and E. Victory Road Request: Rezone of 32.87 Acres of Land from the C-N and TN-C Zoning Districts to the R-4 (16.55 Acres) and R-15 (16.32 Acres) Zoning Districts F. Public Hearing: PP 13-003 Red Wing Subdivision by WH Moore Company Located Southeast Corner of S. Meridian Road (SH 69) and E. Victory Road Request: Preliminary Plat Approval Consisting of 48 Single-Family Residential Building Lots; One (1) Multi-Family Residential Lot; and Nine (9) Common /Open Space Lots Yearsley: The next item on the agenda is a public hearing for RZ 13-002 and PP 13- 003, Red Wing -- Red Wing Subdivision by W.H. Moore and start with the staff report. Wafters: Thank you, Chairman Yearsley, Members of the Commission. The next applications before you are a request for a rezone and preliminary plat. This site consists of 31.11 acres of land. It's currently zoned C-N and TN-C and is located on the southeast corner of South Meridian Road, State Highway 69, and East Victory Road. Adjacent land and zoning. To the north is Victory Road and fuel facility, convenience and retail store, landscape nursery, zoned C-G and residential properties zoned R-4. To the south and east is undeveloped property, zoned R-8 and some TN-R there to the east and to the west is Meridian Road, State Highway 69 and rural residential property zoned RUT in Ada County. A little history. This property was annexed in 2006 with a development agreement. The preliminary plat for Cavanaugh Subdivision was approved in 2007. The final plat was never approved on this site. Since that time the subject property has changed ownership. The new owner is requesting a rezone of 32.87 acres of land from the C-N, neighborhood commercial zoning district, of 13.59 acres of the site and TN-C, traditional neighborhood center at 16.49 acres of the site. They want to change that zoning to the R-4 and R-15 zoning districts. R-4 being 16.55 acres and R-15 being 16.32 acres. This is consistent with the recent change to the future land use map designating this property for medium density residential and medium high density residential uses. A preliminary plat is also proposed consisting of 48 single family residential building lots, one multi-family residential building lot, and nine common open space lots on 31 acres of land. Access to the subdivision is proposed via two access points on Victory Road in accord UDC 11-3A-3, which limits access to arterial streets. Staff is recommending only one access via Victory be approved for this site, unless waived by City Council and approved by ACHD. ACHD's draft staff report that I got this afternoon did recommend approval of the two access points proposed and the fire department is also requiring two accesses just as a side Meridian Planning & Zoning February 21, 2013 Page 22 of 29 note. A stub street is shown on the plat for future extension to the east where a collector street is planned to be constructed for access to the south across the Ridenbaugh Canal. The Ridenbaugh Canal does run along the southern boundary of this site. A 35 foot wide landscape buffer is required along Meridian Road, State Highway 69, and a 25 foot wide buffer is required along Victory Road. A four foot tall berm and six foot tall fence on top of the berm is proposed along Meridian Road for noise abatement from the highway to the proposed residential uses. Across-section of that berm is shown there on your right. A ten foot wide multi-use pathway is proposed along Meridian Road in accord with the master pathways plan. A seating and picnic area is proposed as amenities for the single family residential portion of the site. A minimum ten percent open space is required to be provided for the subdivision. The single family residential portion appears to be a little short on that. However, there will be in excess of the required amount on the multi-family portion that will be shared between the two developments, as well as several side amenities. The multi-family portion will come in for a conditional use permit on that, so that's when we will see all the open space and site amenities for that. Conceptual building elevations were submitted for the single family dwellings, as well as the future apartment structures. These are the apartment structures before you. And the single family dwellings. A modification to the development agreement is also proposed to remove this property from the overall Cavanaugh development agreement. This will be heard and decided upon by the City Council with the subject applications. Written testimony was received from Jonathan Seal and I'll let him go over his response with you. Staff is recommending approval of the rezone and preliminary plat with a new development agreement for the current owners and the conditions in the staff report. Staff will stand for any questions. Yearsley: Thank you very much. Is there any questions? All right. At this time we'd like to have the applicant come forward. Please state your name and address for the record, please. Seal: Good evening, Chairman, Commissioners. Jonathan Seal, W.H. Moore Company, 1940 Bonito, Meridian. I think Sonya did an excellent job and I appreciate all her help on this. If I can what I'd like to do is kind of give you what I refer to as a little bit of color on this project. When we first started this project we spent a great deal of time both in design of the multi-tenant, as well as the single family development and one of the things that we decided near the beginning of it is -- is the amenities that are over here in this particular area for the apartment complex, we could do amenities that we would also share with the single family residents and I will get to a list of those amenities here in a few minutes. But one of the things we realized is that this unique feature I think almost created this thing as a community. Typically you will see in a lot of them you will see the single -- you will see the single family with a line down it and you will see the multi-family and they will be separated. This way what we have done is we have enabled people within the single family to enjoy the amenities within the multi- family. So, we think we are getting a merging of it or what we like to refer as a community. So, as a result of that we came up with -- added onto the name of it community -- Red Tail community, because we think it reflects that, we think it's a very Meridian Planning & Zoning February 21, 2013 Page 23 of 29 unique feature of it. If I can -- and I'm not sure where that is. Can you put the amenities on? Keep going. There we go. If you -- if you look at the amenities over here you will see a list of them and I won't go through them, but I think you can see that the amenities that we are planning on putting within the apartment project are extensive. We are not putting a barbecue pit in and maybe a little tennis court or something, we are looking at pools, workout facilities, club houses, so we are going very extensive with it. So, again, think it creates a really unique feel for this -- for this particular project. Let's see. think, again, staying with the apartment project -- and these right here, so you understand are what we envisioned to look like. These are not exact. We will be coming back for a conditional use permit, so we will be, obviously, much more detailed. But it gives you a flavor. But one of the things that's interesting and it -- again, if you look at the apartment complex, again, we are not coming with a project that's a huge monolithic structure, we are not coming in for the building with 400 units in it, five stories tall, what we are looking at here is individual buildings here, each one will have four units on a floor, they will average two to three stories each. So, we think we will get almost -- I don't know if this is the proper term, but give kind of an intimate type of feel to the whole project. There will be smaller buildings that would be much more conducive. Moving over to the single family, again, I think we are also carrying a unique character on. One of the things that we could easily do -- and we have been contacted by major builders and I think you can probably guess some of them out there -- is they would -- they would offer to come in and take down all 48 single family lots in one -- in one group. We could eliminate the marketing. We don't have to have any concern, we can take it. But what that does is that you get the cookie cutter type of subdivision that you so often see. You will get one builder in there, he will come up with maybe two, three designs, you put them in there, you put a little bit different lipstick on one versus the other, but they will still be basically the same house. Again, if we go back to here, on your right-hand side or my right-hand side, it shows you the group of builders that we are selecting. These are all quality builders, they are not large builders, but they are builders that they are going to be building homes anywhere from 290 to 400 thousand dollars each. The other thing that that insures for is that each one of these is going to be building a different type of product. It's going to have a different character, a different type of architecture quality to it, so when you go through it it's going to have that feel and I think Commissioner Marshall talks about, you have this house for this particular piece and this house for another one. We think that's going to be very attractive and very appealing. So, again, we think that that's a real plus to it. Just very briefly -- well, and, then, going through again you can see here -- you see the example of the home and this is, again, going to reflect the quality of the homes in here, because we think that's a real attribute. Just very briefly going -- if this will work for me -- going back through the project here and -- just a few other points. Sonya's talked about the landscaping. The other thing that we think that's going to be attractive for this project is out here on Victory Road, this area right here, we are going to enter a cooperative agreement with ACHD, we are going to improve that to three lanes, plus curb and gutter. I have done that on our project at EI Dorado business campus where I did at Eagle Road and I also did the same thing on Center Point, Ustick, both east and west of Eagle Road. It's a very successful project. We worked in tandem with ACRD, but we oversee it. That project will be completed this summer and, in fact, we are getting in the Meridian Planning & Zoning February 21, 2013 Page 24 of 29 process of doing it. So, we think what we have got here is a very unique project. We think one that I think will be a real asset to the community, I think will be extremely successful. There is just one thing that we have great concern and pause on and that is the -- get my glasses on here so I can see -- is Article 1.2.6 in the staff report, which staff mentioned about which is restricting this to one access point. We have been meeting with staff since November. Sonya has been extremely understanding of all the times I have requested to do it and all those times we have always had the two access points here on Victory. We think there is some very compelling reasons for the two access points and I would like to go through them just very briefly here. First -- go back here. First, you will look at this one, if you look at this particular site plan, this is your entrance for the apartments and this is your entrance for the single family. The distance from Meridian Road to this entrance is approximately over 660 feet. Actually, 684 feet. The next entrance from the apartment complex to the single family is 671 feet in the entrance from the single family to Standing Timber is 577 feet. As a developer we love to have access points. We would like to have them every 50 feet if we could. But think here we are being realistic. I think there is very fair separation between all these access points and I will get into the staff report with ACRD on the one to Standing Timber, which doesn't quite perform to code -- or to policy, rather. But, again, we think that this -- these are very -- very suitable separation points. Number two. As mentioned to you -- and I don't know if you have seen the staff report, but I made sure that Meridian got it today -- you received a draft copy of the Ada County staff report for this. In fact, I have a copy here. This approves two access points on Victory Road. It always has. They have never deviated from that. We entrust ACHD with the design of our streets, monitoring our traffic, the safety. If ACHD believed that two access points on Victory Road is suitable and meets policy for this, why shouldn't the City of Meridian be comfortable with that. So, anyways, I don't know if you have had an opportunity to look at that. I certainly have. Number three, as I mentioned to you, we have entered into a cooperative agreement with ACRD for improving this road to three lanes. We think that will enhance the safety of Victory Road also. In other words, you have got a center turn lane and your -- both east and west lanes. In prior meetings with Meridian they were actually the one back in the very beginning that I think suggest that we would need to have two access points off of Victory Road and, then, interestingly in Article 4.7 of the staff report it says that the fire department requires two access points for a project with more than 50 homes. I understand we have 48, but we also have 220 potential apartment dwellings. Now, someone might say, well, Jonathan, you got an access point right there. Well, yes, we do. That could be the second access point. But we have no idea when that road is going to be constructed. You know, if next year, we hope not, but let's say the economy goes bad, down tanks, it could be years before this is developed. So, you're looking at one access point for 48 homes and 220 apartment buildings. I have to believe the fire department, they have great concern about that. Also as I read it it mentions -- Sonya mentioned about UDC 11-3A-3A. That's the one on the access point. If I can -- I don't want to bore you with it, but I'd like to read this to you. It says the following standards apply to any property that takes direct access to arterial or collector where access to a local road is available the applicant shall reconfigure the site. We don't have any local roads. We never will. Okay? Where access to a local is not available the property owner should be required to grant cross- Meridian Planning & Zoning February 21, 2013 Page 25 of 29 access, ingress, egress easements to adjoining property. This standard is intended to apply primarily to nonresidential properties, but may extend to residential property where the use and anticipated change is nonresidential. I could stand on a stack of Bibles right here today and tell you it's not going to change. Finally, all substitutions must provide local street access to any use that currently takes direct access from an arterial collector. Again, we don't have any local streets, we never will have them. So, as I read this -- and maybe I'm reading it wrong, maybe I'm biased, I don't see where this applies to us. So, I guess the bottom line in this -- and maybe I'm spending a lot of time on this, but this is critical -- this is a critical item to us, because if we go back here, even though this is a community, this project, it is critical that each one of these be -- the single family, multi-family, have their own identity as far as an entrance into the project. The success of this project hinges on it. It's important for the city to have successful projects. It's important for us. We are in this together. We don't gain anything if we have a project that's not successful and neither do you. So, what I would ask you tonight is to modify that condition. The only other question I have on here -- and it's minor -- and, then, I will finish up, is in the staff report it mentions that -- requires that all development improvements, including sewer, fencing, micropaths and irrigation, landscaping, shall be installed and approved prior earning a certificate of occupancy. have no objection to any of these, except the landscaping. We want to do landscaping as quickly as anyone, but we have run into situations -- and I have been up here before and requested -- where you're trying to put landscaping in in January when you have got a foot of snow on the ground. It's hard to lay sod down. So, in those particular cases we would ask that this be an exception and that we would either bond for it or provide a letter of credit, so we can continue to build, because this is a very sizeable project. So, with that I would simply ask that you approve the rezone, that you do the preliminary plat, and you make the modifications as I have requested. And I thank you for your time. If you have any questions I would be glad to answer them. Yearsley: Any questions? Thank you very much. Sorry. Seal: Thank you. Yearsley: Any questions Rohm: Not at this point. Yearsley: Thank you very much. Seal: Thank you. Yearsley: I do not have anybody signed up to testify, but is there anybody in the audience that would like to come up and testify at this time? With that I -- Marshall: Mr. Chair? Yearsley: -- need a motion to -- Meridian Planning & Zoning February 21, 2013 Page 26 of 29 Marshall: I move we close the public hearing on RZ 13-002, PP 13-003. And did we open MDA 13-002? Freeman: Second. I did say second. Yearsley: Okay. Marshall: That was to close the public hearing on all three, then. Yearsley: All right. I have got a motion and a second to close the public hearing. All in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Yearsley: Commissioner Marshall. Marshall: Mr. Chair. I'd really like an opportunity to show a little different side of myself. Yearsley: Please. Go for it. Marshall: I'm really impressed. I like this project. I love the interconnectivity. I like the idea that you have got these homes with different builders. I'm really impressed with the project. You know, with the change in the future land use map here the other day, my one concern was getting rid of some commercial and the fact that we have got commercial on the drive home right across the street has been addressed. I like the -- and the fact that they are going forward and actually adding athird -- another lane out there to Victory I think helps argue the case for the two access points as well. I also see the need for the two access points for identity and for fire department. I would be a little more hesitant if that other road were in, you know, because we have got another access point there and maybe we could make a larger access to the subdivision from that side. But minus that road -- that road's not there, I -- I'm all for that, to be honest, and I really, really like the project. Yearsley: Thank you. Any other -- Freeman: Mr. Chair? Yearsley: Commissioner Freeman. Freeman: You know, before you even got up and explained your sense of community, had to say your design already said it. I would commend you for that. That is a great -- that is a great concept. We so often see single family dwellers very much against neighboring apartment houses and I love that you're putting them right next together -- right next to each other and you're putting all the amenities on the apartment side. There is a -- I suppose there is a solution off the top of my head -- and I haven't checked Meridian Planning & Zoning February 21, 2013 Page 27 of 29 this out -- to your two accesses off of Victory and that's just split your property into two pieces, but I hate that. Don't do that, because that would compromise what it is you're trying to do, which I think is fantastic. I like the architecture that you presented. I don't think we can and perhaps I will be corrected here -- I don't think we can modify the conditions to state that only -- that two accesses would be allowed. However, you have my recommendation on the record that I think your project, in particular, demands that. I think you stated your case well. I think your layout tells me plainly that two accesses makes a lot of sense here. So, City Council would be making final decision on that. think that's it from me. Hand it over to somebody else. Yearsley: Anybody else? Rohm: Mr. Chairman? Yearsley: Commissioner Rohm. Rohm: In concurrence with the two previous commissioners' comments, the two access points I think is essential and if you were to reduce it to single access through the single family development portion of this project all of the apartment dwellers would, then, be going by a half a dozen lots, maybe more, to gain access back to the apartment complex and I think that that encumbers those residents more so than the fact that we are requesting a second access and so I think we are -- there is additional benefits to having a second access over keeping them separate. You're just not encumbering those residential lots to the east. End of comments. Yearsley: Thank you. Commissioner Miller. Miller: I think you have all the support up here. I agree also that the two entries are critical. If you, you know, split it down the middle you're going to hurt both sides there. I -- I look at this and I would be excited to live in either side of that development and so I really like the development also. Yearsley: Thank you. I actually have two questions of staff I want to clarify before we go any further with this. The first one is with Commissioner Freeman's comment, we cannot approve the access, we just can make recommendations to Council, is that not correct? Watters: That is correct, Chairman Yearsley. Yearsley: Okay. The next one was he asked about bonding for landscaping. Is there a provision to bond for landscaping? I know that there is a provision to bond for sewer improvements, but I don't know if there was a provision to bond for landscaping. Watters: Due to inclement weather conditions applicants are allowed to submit bond, cash, or letter of credit surety. Meridian Planning & Zoning February 21, 2013 Page 28 of 29 Yearsley: Now, do we need to make a motion with that or can he just come in and request that? Watters: That's standard code. Yearsley: Okay. Watters: He can just come in and request it. Yearsley: Okay. All right. I have a tendency to agree with the rest of my commissioners that this is a great project. I was -- when I -- I talked to the staff -- or to the staff about this earlier this morning -- or this afternoon my comment was I hope they build the apartments first, because -- to save us a little bit of a problem, but the way you have combined the two I don't think that that will be an issue and especially where you're going to be marketing the amenities in the apartments to the homeowners, I think that ties it all together and I'm very pleased with that. I think that's a nice amenity with that subdivision. So, I'm very happy with the way this is going and I do agree that the two accesses are -- is necessary. Freeman: Mr. Chair, I would love to make a motion on this, but I would like Commissioner Marshall to have the opportunity to make a motion on a project that he really likes. Marshall: I like that. Yearsley: All right. Marshall: Thank you. Freeman: You're welcome. Marshall: Mr. Chair, after considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move to recommend approval of file numbers RZ 13-002 and PP 13-003 as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of February 21st, 2013, with no modifications, but to add in, essentially, a recommendation to City Council that both accesses be approved. Freeman: I will second that. Yearsley: I have a motion and a second for public hearing RZ 13-002 and PP 13-003. All in favor say aye. All opposed? Motion carries. Thank you very much. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Yearsley: With that I have one last motion to be made. Miller: Yeah. A motion to adjourn. Meridian Planning & Zoning February 21, 2013 Page 29 of 29 Rohm: Second. Yearsley: Motion to adjourn. All in favor? Opposed. Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. MEETING ADJOURNED AT 8:26 P.M. (AUDIO RECORDING ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS.) APPROVED ~ ;, . ~~ r _ /: STEVEN YEARSLEY -CHAIRMAN ='' ATTEST: ~~. JAY EE HOLMAN, CITY CLERK ~~ ~ ~ ~ pJ~ DATE APPROVED O~O~,~ED AUCUSrt 1 `2G ~~+ City of ~E IDl~ IAN~- r ~ TIDANO ~~s S r.h ~ . ~ PST 6• °~ t I t T YE S.S~~~~~~.