Loading...
2013 03-21Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission March 21. 2013 Meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission of March 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, Sonya Wafters, Bill Parsons, Bruce Chatterton, 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'd like to call to order the regularly scheduled meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission for March 21st, 2013. Let's begin with roll call. Yearsley: Thank you. Before we go any further Bruce Chatterton has an announcement to make. Chatterton: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, this is an important announcement, so I thought I'd use the podium for a change. As you all know, Pete Friedman retired -- actually, the very last day of 2012 was his last day with the city and in the meantime we have been actively recruiting a replacement planning division manager, effectively the individual that would be the planning director of the City of Meridian. We went through a really extensive process. We had qualified candidates from the several different states, a number of folks here locally. It was a really really interesting process and was really gratified by the number of strong candidates that stepped up, how well they interviewed, how well their credentials checked out, but I'm happy to report that it's announced that Caleb Hood is -- has accepted the position planning division manager with the city. Is he here tonight? Freeman: Excellent. Where did he go? Chatterton: Wow. Okay. So, I wanted you all to know that. We are trying to improve communications, so that's -- this is part and parcel of that, so I know you will welcome Caleb to his new position. Don't give him too hard of time. But, you know, he's a familiar face and just also wanted you to know that we are going to continue the rotation that we have been doing where currently for about a three month period I will be taking items before City Council and Caleb to you all, to the P&Z Commission and, then, we Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission March 21, 2013 Page 2 of 22 will switch. So, the idea is not to -- is to make sure that we are in close contact with both very important groups, both our appointed officials and our elected officials. So, if you have any questions I'd certainly invite those, but I know you will help me welcome Caleb. Rohm: Absolutely. Chatterton: Thank you. Item 2: Adoption of the Agenda Yearsley: Well, that's really great to have Caleb take that position. The next item on the agenda is the adoption of the agenda. There are three things that we -- or two things, really, we need to just mention that CPAM 12-007, AZ 13-003, and PP 13-004, the Woodburn West Subdivision is going to be continued. It will be opened for the sole purpose being continued to the May 2nd, 2013, meeting and PP 13-002, the Bellabrook Villas is going to be opened for the sole purpose of being continued to the April 4th meeting. With those changes can I get a motion? Freeman: Mr. Chair? Yearsley: Commissioner Freeman. Freeman: I move to approve the agenda as amended. Marshall: Second. Yearsley: I have got a motion and a second to approve the agenda as amended. All in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carried. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 3: Consent Agenda A. Approve Minutes of March 7, 2013 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes Yearsley: The next item on the agenda is the Consent Agenda. On that is the approval of the meeting minutes for March 7th, 2013, Planning and Zoning Commission meeting. You have had a chance to review that. Any comments, changes, or -- if not, can I get a motion? Freeman: Mr. Chair, I move to approved the Consent Agenda. Marshall: Second that. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission March 21, 2013 Page 3 of 22 Yearsley: I have a motion and a second to approve the Consent Agenda. All in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 4: Action Items A. Continued Public Hearing from March 7, 2013: CPAM 12-007 Woodburn West Subdivision by Northside Management Located North of W. Ustick Road, Approximately 1/4 Mile East of N. Linder Road Request: Amend the Future Land Use Map Contained in the Comprehensive Plan to Change the Land Use Designation on 6.18 +/- Acres of Land from Mixed Use- Community (MU-C) with a Neighborhood Center (N.C.) Overlay to MDR (Medium Density Residential) B. Continued Public Hearing from March 7, 2013: AZ 13-003 Woodburn West Subdivision by Northside Management Located North of W. Ustick Road, Approximately 1/4 Mile East of N. Linder Road Request: Annexation and Zoning of 16.18 Acres of Land with an R-8 Zoning District C. Continued Public Hearing from March 7, 2013: PP 13-004 Woodburn West Subdivision by Northside Management Located North of W. Ustick Road, Approximately 1/4 Mile East of N. Linder Road Request: Preliminary Plat Approval Consisting of 64 Single-Family Residential Building Lots and Seven (7) Common/Other Lots on 16.18 Acres of Land in a Proposed R-8 Zoning District Yearsley: At this time we will open the public hearing for CPAM 12-007, AZ 13-003, and PP 13-004, Woodburn West Subdivision, by Northside management for the sole purpose of continuing that public hearing to May 2nd, 2013. Marshall: So moved. Rohm: Second. Yearsley: I have got a motion and a second to continue Woodburn West Subdivision. All in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. D. Continued Public Hearing from March 7, 2013: PP 13-002 Bellabrook Villas (aka Brookside Square) by ZWJ Properties, LLC Located at 300 S. Locust Grove Road Request: Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission March 21, 2013 Page 4 of 22 Preliminary Plat approval Consisting of 26 Single-Family Residential Building Lots and Four (4) Common/Other Lots on 4.38 Acres of Land in an R-15 Zoning District Yearsley: The next item on the agenda is the continuation of PP 13-002, Bellabrook Villas, to be continued to April 4th, 2013. Can I get a motion? Marshall: So moved. Miller: Second. Yearsley: I have got a motion and a second to continue PP 13-002, Bellabrook Villas. All in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Yearsley: Before we go farther let me explain the process for the remaining of the agenda items. We will open each one of these items and, then, we will start off with the staff report. The staff will describe the project and how it adheres to the Comprehensive Plan, the Uniform Development Code, with staff recommendations. We will then next hear from the applicants to come forward to present their case for approved of the application and respond to any staff comments. The applicant will have up to 15 minutes to do so. Then we will have -- open it up to public testimony. There is a sign- up sheet in the back for those of you wishing to testify. Any persons willing to come forward will be allowed three minutes. If they are speaking for a group there will be -- they will be given up to ten minutes. After the testimony has been heard the applicant will have an opportunity to respond up to ten minutes and, then, we will close the public hearing and have a chance to deliberate and to discuss and make recommendations to Council. E. Public Hearing: AZ 13-004 Thompson Farm by R. Orville & Heidi Thompson Located at 975 S. Locust Grove Road Request: Annexation and Zoning of 2.38 Acres of Land with a C-C (Community Business) Zoning District Yearsley: With that we'd like to open the public hearing for AZ 13-004, Thompson Farm by Orville and Heidi Thompson, beginning with the staff report. Freeman: Mr. Chair, before we hear from staff, given my employer's relationship with Scentsy I will need to recuse myself from this agenda item. Yearsley: Okay. Freeman: But I would be happy to return afterwards if you would like. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission March 21, 2013 Page 5 of 22 Yearsley: Absolutely. We'd appreciate that. So, with that we'd like to start with the staff report. Wafters: Thank you, Chairman Yearsley, Members of the Commission. Application before you is a request for annexation and zoning. The site consists of 2.38 acres of land. It's currently zoned RUT in Ada County and is located at 975 South Locust Grove Road on the southwest corner of East Central Drive and South Locust Grove Road. Adjacent land use and zoning. To the north is East Central Drive and rural residential properties, zoned R-6 in Ada County. To the east is Locust Grove Road and across Locust Grove a single family residential property zoned R-1 in Ada County. To the south is Joint School District property, zoned C-G and also to the west is Joint School District property. The applicant has submitted an application for annexation and zoning of 2.38 acres of land, with a C-C zoning district consistent with the Comprehensive Plan future land use map designation of commercial. The applicant requests hook up to city sewer and water services for the existing home and one of the outbuildings. There is currently a single family dwelling and associated buildings -- outbuildings on this site. The applicant has submitted a couple of conceptual drawings showing how the site may develop in the future. However, there are no plans to redevelop the site for the foreseeable future. Use of the site is proposed to remain residential and this is a photo of the existing home. This is Central Drive. This is the existing access point and this is a shot looking south on Locust Grove. They have another access point here that accesses the pasture there. Because the use of the site is proposed to remain residential, staff is recommending a zoning designation of R-2, low density residential, rather than the commercial zoning, consistent with the existing and continued residential use of the property. Upon redevelopment of the site the property should be rezoned to a commercial district in accord with the commercial future land use map designation. The existing home is required to hook up to city services within 60 days of annexation ordinance approval. Sam Johnson, the applicant's representative, has submitted written testimony in agreement with the recommendation of the R-2 zoning. He requests that condition number -- it's actually comment number 2.2.1 requiring streetlights along public roadways be delayed until the site redevelops commercially in the future. Staff is recommending approval of the requested annexation and zoning with an R-2 zoning district and a development agreement with the added provision that streetlights be required upon redevelopment of the site as requested by the applicant. Staff will stand for any questions Commission may have. Yearsley: Thank you. Any questions? Okay. Would the applicant like to come forward. Please state your name and address for the record, please. Johnson: You bet. My name is Sam Johnson. Address is 2701 East Pine Avenue in Meridian. 83642. I represent the Thompson family on this application and I appreciate staff s work on this application and working with us through the -- through the process. We really don't have anything to add, but we do agree with the recommendations that they have provided and we are just making an effort -- the owners are making an effort to clean up the site. It's been kind of neglected for the last eight, nine years that they have owned it and it's become a little bit of a tourist attraction for the Scentsy Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission March 21, 2013 Page 6 of 22 consultants that sell the Scentsy product. A brief history. There is a 20 -- or a 40 foot shipping container that's on the site -- yeah. Exactly. Right there. That is where Scentsy began. They shipped, they made the wax, they did everything out of that shipping container for about nine months and -- and now over -- almost 200,000 consultants that sell Scentsy products throughout the world, when they come to town that is the number one thing they want to see, besides Heidi and Orville. So, we are cleaning up the property so it's more presentable for them and kind of recreating the inside of the shipping container to look like it did back when they were using it. But other than that, that's the reason that we want to clean up the property and connect to city services. And I'd stand for questions. Yearsley: Thank you. Any questions? Rohm: So, you don't really intend to occupy it as a residence, then? Johnson: Correct. It's a rental home right now. There is an occupant that's been there for several years. Rohm: Oh. Johnson: But it's not -- it's not their primary residence. Miller: So, it will be occupied. Johnson: It will be occupied, yes. Rohm: I don't have any other questions. Yearsley: Thank you. Johnson: Thank you. Yearsley: I do not have anybody signed up for this. Is there anybody wanting to testify? At this point we stand for a motion to close the public hearing. Miller: Mr. Chair? Yearsley: Commissioner Miller. Miller: After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to recommend -- Yearsley: This is just to close the public hearing. Miller: Oh. Close the -- Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission March 21, 2013 Page 7 of 22 Yearsley: Sorry. Miller: -- public hearing. I motion to close the public hearing. Marshall: Second. Yearsley: There has been a motion to -- and a second to close the public hearing. All in favor say aye. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. Yearsley: Okay. Any comment? Questions? I have one. Do we need to -- in the motion make comments to the lighting or is that just -- will that be at City Council level? Watters: Chairman Yearsley, you can recommend in your -- in your recommendation to Council that the street lighting comment be included as a provision of the development agreement -- Yearsley: Okay. Watters: -- for future redevelopment. Yearsley: Okay. Miller: Mr. Chair? Yearsley: Yes. Miller: I after considering all staff and applicant -- staff, applicant and public testimony, move to recommend approval to Council of file number AZ 13-004 as presented in the staff report. I would include that -- I'm not sure how to -- I missed what you said about how to improve the writing. Watters: As recommended by staff. Miller: As recommended by staff for hearing date of March 21st, 2013, with no modifications. Rohm: Second. Yearsley: I have got a motion and a second for AZ 13-004 for Thompson Farms. All in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission March 21, 2013 Page 8 of 22 Yearsley: Could we get Commissioner Freeman back in. Give him a minute to get seated. Freeman: Thanks for having me back. F. Public Hearing: PP 13-005 Oak Leaf Subdivision by Oak Leaf Development Company, Inc. Located North of Chinden Boulevard and Approximately a 1/4 Mile East of N. Black Cat Road Request: Preliminary Plat Consisting of Four (4) Single Family Lots and Two (2) Common Lots on Approximately 10.10 Acres in an R-2 and R-8 Zoning Districts Yearsley: At this time we would like to open public hearing PP 13-004, Oak Leaf Subdivision by Oak Leaf Development Company. At this time we'd like to start with the staff report. Parsons: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of Commission. Next item on the agenda is the Oak Leaf Subdivision. It's located on the north side -- or north of West Chinden Boulevard, approximately a quarter mile east of North Black Cat Road. History on this site. This property was annexed in 2006 as part of the Tree Farm annexation with the R-2 zoning designation. With the approval of that annexation there was a development agreement that required -- to tie the concept plan to this property. I would mention to you that this subdivision is consistent with that bubble plan or that concept plan that was approved with the development agreement. If you look at the exhibit on the left-hand side you can see that the property is pretty much surrounded by city zoned property to the west, south, and to the east and, then, also to the north would be county property that's zoned RUT, mostly the Phyllis Canal and agricultural properties as well. The applicant is proposing a four lot subdivision this evening. One of the lots will house the existing estate home that is constructed -- or currently located on it and, then, three additional one acre parcels. A stub street was provided with that subdivision to the south that was known as the Spurwing Greens Subdivision. This road will come in and, then, terminate in a cul-de-sac. The five acre parcel which the house, the existing residence, will take access in the flag shape and have 50 feet of frontage here. The existing home -- per the requirements of the UDC, the existing home will have to hook up to city utilities moving forward. I'd also mention to you that the recorded development agreement also requires the connection to city -- or urban services once they are available. At this time once the development comes forward services will be available to move forward here. The applicant -- because the plat does exceed the five acre threshold, the applicant is required to provide ten percent open space. The landscape plan that is before you this evening does comply with that requirement. The applicant is proposing two large passive open space lots. Each lot will house a picnic area, so they are providing two amenities. The ordinance only requires one. I'd also mention to you that the existing home currently has access to Chinden Boulevard. It's really a long driveway to get up and to the back of that property. With the construction of this subdivision that roadway would -- that access needs to go away and the future home would have to take access as is in front of you this evening with the preliminary Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission March 21, 2013 Page 9 of 22 plat. The applicant has also submitted elevations for you. In his narrative the applicant did state that the minimum home size proposed for this subdivision is 3,500 square feet. It does exceed the minimum required by ordinance by quite a bit. I did want to go on record and at least show you what they plan on doing here. It is meant to be a rural- type subdivision with large estate-type housing on it. I'd also mentioned to you, if I can go back to the proposed plat. The applicant has also received approval from ACHD for a rural street section and what I mean by that is typically staff -- or the UDC requires sidewalks to be provided along the local streets here. ACRD has, again, approved that rural street section to allow, basically, a striped four foot pathway on each side of the roadway and that is meant to serve as the pedestrian connection for the subdivision. Given that ACHD is the road authority on the application, we have to defer to their approval as far as insuring that that connection happens and have not technically required the construction of the sidewalk. However, there are -- there is sidewalk that will be located along the stub street or at least where the new street connects to the existing street, that will have sidewalk, which this roadway will connect into here. I'd also mention to you -- if I can step back. There is also a small sliver of property that is currently zoned R-8. I did make mention of that in the staff report, that that has no bearing on dimensional standards or any part of the buildable lots. It was merely to provide access to this property and as such it will be either a common lot or a dedicated right of way moving forward. Staff did receive written testimony from the applicant. There are several conditions they'd like -- he would like to discuss with you this evening. The first condition reference in his testimony was Condition 1.1.7, 2.7 and Condition 2.8. All three of those conditions refer to the connection of city utilities or urban services, if you will. Refers to the abandonment of the well and the abandonment of the well and, excuse me, the septic system and, then, staffs requirement for the connection of urban services. In his narrative or his written testimony he did say that he recognizes they do have to hook up to urban services, just he would like to postpone the timing of that connection until one or -- either one or both services to private system fail on the property. I wanted to at least let Commission know that staff stands with its recommendation. I mean we don't have the -- the ordinance is what it is. It states that he has to hook up. In addition, the recorded development agreement requires the same thing. So, just for your recommendations -- or for you moving forward I think this is really an issue for Council to take up as we move forward, but I did at least want to go on the record and state that he has -- he wants to discuss some of those provisions with you and, then, the last provision would be Condition 1.1.6, which references the vacation application. There is an existing Idaho Power utility easement that runs through several of the buildable lots. In looking at the proposal staff has recommended that they shall vacate that easement, but given the size of these lots it is feasible that the applicant could fit homes on these parcels without having to vacate that easement. So, staff is recommending that we just change that wordage from shall vacate that easement to may vacate that easement and I have that outlined in the hearing outline as well. Other than those recommended changes and the written testimony from the applicant, staff is -- there are no other outstanding issues before you this evening and at this time I'd stand for any questions you have. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission March 21, 2013 Page 10 of 22 Yearsley: Thank you. Any questions? Okay. Would the applicant like to come forward. Please state your name and address for the record, please. Semple: My name is Barry Semple. I'm with RiveRidge Engineering, 2447 South Vista Avenue in Boise. I'm here representing the applicant Oak Leaf development. We have worked with staff for a little while to develop this plan and going through some modifications has been very helpful in formulating this plan and as Bill has mentioned we are in agreement with the vast majority of the staff report and the recommendation to you. We recognize taking the -- the minor one first. We recognize and accept the proposed -- the staff's proposed change to the wording of the Idaho Power easement vacation, changing that from shall to may, and we agree with that. The second issue being the connection to the urban services. In written testimony we recognize the fact that -- and the purpose of requiring connection to urban services. In this particular case we would respectfully request a recommendation to the Council that we not be required to connect at this time. The systems have been operating and supporting this home for over 16 years. Certainly we recognize the fact that these systems fail on occasion and for that reason we are stubbing services out at the driveway location. What we would request is that that connection be delayed until if either of the systems fail. In the case of the sanitary sewer service connection, there is an elevation restriction. The distance to connect from the home to the service stub is approximately 600 feet and based on the minimal grade extension of the sewer main in the proposed street to the service location, there is not enough depth to gravity feed to service from the home to that service location and would require a pump station to facilitate delivery of the -- of the effluent to the service location. And I guess that's about all I have got. I'd stand for questions. Yearsley: Thank you. Any questions of the applicant? Rohm: No disrespect intended, but it doesn't sound like a very good fit to me. And if you can't connect to city services from your existing home and in the future it would require a lift station, it doesn't seem to me that that's -- that's really going to work very well at all and so I guess what my question is -- are you intending to just connect the two additional parcels that will be part of this subdivision and leave the existing home on its existing sewer and well system? Semple: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Rohm, we intend to connect the three additional lots -- single family lots. Rohm: Oh, there is three. Semple: Proposed lots up to the public system and, yes, we do -- we would propose to leave the existing home on the systems that are currently serving the home and -- until such a time as -- as systems would fail. Rohm: Was it a city requirement that you include the existing home in this application? Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission March 21, 2013 Page 11 of 22 might ask the same question of staff. What was the purpose of requiring the existing home to be part of this application? Parsons: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, Commissioner Rohm, staff did recommend that this property be part of the plat for several reasons. One, it was -- it annexed in in '06. Two, the parcel -- if you look here on this exhibit here you can see we -- through the process of the applicant trying to submit a property boundary adjustment we realized that the property had been split illegally and bisected into two pieces and so we didn't recognize the split. So, in order to make the parcels whole, we required the applicant to bring the entire ten acres into the fold and plat it correctly. Rohm: My reluctance to recommend this to move forward is the -- the connection to the sewer for developments that have multiple lots, I'm -- you know, ten or 12 or 20 and having a lift station isn't looked upon very favorably and to do the same thing for one lot seems like it's -- it's an encumbrance to the city that just doesn't feel good to me. I don't know. Maybe staff can speak to that. Freckleton: Mr. Chair, Commissioner Rohm, the pump station that would be necessary would be private. It would not be a city owned or operated pump station. It would be a private injection system that would be -- would have to be installed just for that one house and, then, they would inject to the manhole at the end of the cul-de-sac. It wouldn't be public. Rohm: Have we ever done that? Freckleton: There are -- there are a few locations around town where they have had to do that, yes. Rohm: Okay. All right. I'm just a little bit uneasy about a private lift station, if you will, injecting into the public system. So, I guess if it's been done it can be done again. Okay. That's all I have. Yearsley: Any other questions? If not, thank you very much. Semple: Thank you. Yearsley: I don't have anybody signed up to testify. Would anybody in the audience like to testify? At this time I'd entertain a motion to close the public hearing for -- get my paper here really quick. PP 13-005, Oak Leaf Subdivision. Marshall: So moved. Miller: Second. Yearsley: I have got a motion and a second to close the public hearing for Oak Leaf Subdivision, PP 13-005. All in favor aye. Nay? Sorry. Opposed? Motion carries. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission March 21, 2013 Page 12 of 22 MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Yearsley: Comments? Discussion? Marshall: Mr. Chair? Yearsley: Commissioner Marshall. Marshall: A couple comments in that having watched Spurwing Greens starting out as the Tree Farm, this was part of the original development agreement. It does appear to match. It does seem appropriate. The lot size -- it's a little larger than these surrounding lots, but I do like to see that mix of styles and things like that. I am for the subdivision, shall we say. A little disappointed that we didn't get sidewalks in there. tend to like the sidewalks, because people do -- but that was ACHD's decision. I have lived in a home with a masticator and lift. It's a small masticator and lift that you place in the basement that will lift to the public sewer system. It's -- yeah. It's not -- it's costly, like putting in your own well or something. A little less than that. But it is a cost. Personally, I do believe there are a number of reasons that we require a connection to public services and that's why it's part of our code and so I know it would -- it would entail some cost on this homeowner's part to be able to have to connect in this case, but to have septic systems within -- as ever encroaching living areas -- the reason we as a public have large water treatment facilities is because it is a much better cleaner system and produces -- rather than enzymes and pumping everything back into the ground and a private well is probably only to the first aquifer, where I'm sure city water drops down to the second aquifer and I know the Boise city aquifer had some problems with Percoethylene at one time, as well as other contaminants over the times. I think the water is much safer coming from the second aquifer. I personally like the whole plan, except I would prefer to see the connections to city services. Rohm: I concur with Commissioner Marshall and maybe we could strike some common ground here where when the first lot develops within this proposed subdivision that the existing dwelling has to take city services at that time. Something like that. That seems like -- Yearsley: Go ahead, Bruce. Freckleton: WD-40. The only lot that is proposed that would have a pump would be the one at the end of the cu-de-sac. I can't remember the lot number. All the rest of them would -- would be gravity. Rohm: Oh. The existing structure -- Freckleton: Well, the existing structure at the end of the cul-de-sac that sits way back on the rim, that's the only one that the applicant is proposing would need the pump station. Everything else would gravity by normal means -- to the public system. So, Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission March 21, 2013 Page 13 of 22 the only lot we are talking about is just that one and it's because of the distance off of the end of that cu-de-sac back -- I think Barry had said earlier it was six hundred and some feet back there and at minimum slopes per the plumbing code. You know, you go down to a one percent with special approval, but even a one percent slope at 600 feet, you're probably climbing out of the ground at these sewer depths, so just a point of clarification on that. The rest of them would be connected to city sewer and United Water. Miller: Mr. Chair? Yearsley: Commissioner Miller. Miller: I second also what Commissioner Marshall says and he went further in depth than I would have, but I feel like there is definite reasons to hook up to city water and the fact that it was part of the initial development agreement. I haven't heard enough to make me change my mind on that. It feels like it needs to happen. Yearsley: Okay. Freeman: I like the plan. I think it fits. The only real question is this question on hooking up to the city sewer and utilities or not. You know, I would like to remind the applicant you're welcome to bring this up to City Council and have them consider this, but I on the Planning and Zoning Commission would not be comfortable recommending anything that's in direct opposition to city ordinance. So, t concur with my fellow commissioners and their opinions that we need to follow the staff's recommendations and you can take that up with City Council. Yearsley: Thank you. I have a tendency to agree with my fellow commissioner, you know, we have allowed this -- or we have recommended it to not hook up in other circumstances, but with these coming into this -- the property coming in as the full development, they are asking to be part of the plat, I don't see a hardship. Yes, they will have to install a pump, but I don't see that being a hardship in any means. So, I have to tend to agree as well. So, with that I will entertain a motion. Marshall: Mr. Chair? Yearsley: Commissioner Marshall. Marshall: After considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move to recommend approval to the City Council of file number PP 13-005 as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of March 21st, 2013, with the following modification: Staff's recommendation on 1.1.6 with the change to may vacate the Idaho Power easement. So moved. Miller: Second. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission March 21, 2013 Page 14 of 22 Yearsley: I have a motion and a second for public hearing PP 13-005, Oak Leaf Subdivision. All in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries. Thank you. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. G. Public Hearing: PP 13-006 Heron Ridge Estates Subdivision by Mason and Stanfield, Inc. Located North of Chinden Bouelvard, South of the Phyllis Canal and Approximately a 1/2 Mile East of N. Black Cat Road Request: Preliminary Plat Approval Consisting of Sixteen (16) and Single Family Residential Lots and Five (5) Common Lots on Approximately 9.76 Acres in a Proposed R-2 Zoning District H. Public Hearing: AZ 13-002 Heron Ridge Estates Subdivision by Mason and Stanfield, Inc. Located North of Chinden Boulevard, South of the Phyllis Canal and Approximately a 1/2 Mile East of N. Black Cat Road Request: Annexation of 10.10 acres of Land from RUT and R-1 in Ada County to the R-2 (Low-Density Residential) Zoning District Yearsley: The next item for public hearing is PP 13-006 and AZ 13-002, Heron Ridge Estate Subdivision by Mason Stanfield. If we begin with the staff report, please. Parsons: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. Next item on the agenda is Heron Ridge Estate Subdivision. This property is approximately the same proximity as the last hearing item, just to the east a bit. The annexation boundary does consist of 10.10 acres and the plat itself is actually 9.76 acres. Again, you can see that this property is primarily surrounded by residential -- either undeveloped or developed residential properties along the west, south and east boundaries and, then, across the north -- to the north you have the Phyllis Canal and, again, agricultural properties. would mention to you that one of the parcels, which is on the eastern half of the subdivision, does contain an existing home and, again, this is the same situation as the previous project. It appears it will remain as part of the plat as well and the same requirement applies to this property as well as far as connection to city services. The applicant -- the plat consists of six residential lots and -- or, excuse me, 16 residential lots and five common lots, again, on approximately 9.76 acres of land. The Comprehensive Plan designates this property as low density residential. The applicant is requesting the R-2 zoning district, which is consistent with that designation. The plat before you this evening has a density 1.65 dwelling units to the acre, which falls within the density range of both the Comprehensive Plan and, of course, the requested R-2 zoning designation. The applicant is proposing to annexation two parcels. The first parcel here is, again, this six acre piece and, then, a three acre piece over here. Access to at least this portion or this parcel is already provided with the Spurwing Grove Subdivision No. 4. Future access to this property will not happen until Spurwing Grove Subdivision No. 5 happens. I would mention to you that that subdivision was heard on Tuesday night this week's Council meeting and Council did approve that final plat Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission March 21, 2013 Page 15 of 22 application. Staff has placed a condition on that this portion of the development may not commence until such time as this new public street access is available to it. I'd also make mention to you that if you looked at the staff report there was some disconnect between the utility extensions and road extensions with this parcel and the parcel to the south. Those applicant -- the applicant this evening and the previous applicant property owner to the south are working on those issues as we speak and that should be resolved by the time phase two, which is this three acre piece develops we should have all that in place. The North Jayker Way Street right adjacent to the Phyllis Canal here. A ten foot multi-use pathway is planned along the east side of that consistent with other approval to the south of this. The other streets at this time will all -- both of them will terminate in cul-de-sacs. There weren't any requirements of the adjacent properties to provide stub streets. Given the topography in the area staff is not requiring any additional stub streets with this plat either. The applicant is -- does comply with the ten percent open space as required by the UDC. The applicant is required to provide on amenity. That amenity, although not linked very well with the other phase two, given what's happening in the area, is provided on this path of open space lot here and it will be a sitting area slash gazebo area. The other amenity, which is not necessarily a UDC requirement, but given the fact that they are going to construct a ten foot pathway that stubs along the gulch there along that roadway, that is not a public amenity -- I mean it's not part of the city pathways network, but it's still an amenity that will eventually punch through and connect to a city park that may happen along the river in the future. The applicant has submitted elevations for you this evening. Again, it's more of your rural estate type living. We have large homes on modest lots. Property range between 11,000 square feet all the way up to 28,000 square feet -- square foot lots, so looking again at large lots again consistent with what's happening in the area. We do have smaller lots that are adjacent to this, but we do have residential properties to the west that are zoned R-2 that will more than likely develop with the same size lots as well. So, staff finds that the proposed plat before you this evening is consistent with the UDC and the Comprehensive Plan. We did receive written testimony from the applicant. They are in agreement with all of the conditions in the staff report and at this time I'd stand for any questions you have. Yearsley: Any questions? Would the applicant like to come forward. Please state your name and address for the record, please. Yearsley: Scott Stanfield of Mason Stanfield Engineers in Nampa, Idaho. 826 3rd Street South. Representing this project and the land owner on this evening. Basically not a whole bunch to add. The staff report was straight forward and made a lot of sense and we concur with every one of those item. I will add that you can see this as an odd ball shaped piece of property, both of them on the east and west side of the gulch road, if you will, so we had our limitations there, both topography and shape of the parcels. So, we tried to do the best we could on laying this out. The applicant wanted to create some large rim lots on the edge, so that's what we did and kind of went some little smaller lots as we transitioned to the south next to Spurwing, so we feel we have a good flow of transitional from the smaller lots to the bigger lots on the rim and short of that the only thing I would maybe ask bill to clarify that I just realized, on page six on Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission March 21, 2013 Page 16 of 22 existing structures, Bill, I'm assuming that the requirement to remove the shop and the -- and that related issue, that's when phase two develops. Is that correct? Parsons: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, that is correct. That would happen when phase two -- Stanfield: Thank you. He'd hate to lose the shop and his house prematurely. And with that I will stand for any questions. Yearsley: Thank you. Any questions? Freeman: No. Yearsley: Thank you very much. Stanfield: Thank you. Yearsley: At this time we'd like to open it up for the public. Is there anybody that would like to testify? I don't have anybody signed up. So, with that -- Marshall: Mr. Chair, I move we close the public hearing on PP 13-006 and AZ 13-002. Rohm: Second. Yearsley: I have got a motion and a second to close the public hearing for PP 13-006 and AZ 13-002, Heron Ridge Estates. All in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Freeman: Mr. Chair? Yearsley: Deliberation? Commissioner Freeman. Freeman: Pretty straight forward. Given the challenges of that piece of property, I like the layout. It's a little disappointing that we can't have that amenity shared conveniently by both sides, but, again, given the constraints it doesn't bother me that much. So, I'm in favor of the project. Yearsley: Okay. Anybody else? Marshall: Mr. Chair? Yearsley: Commissioner Marshall. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission March 21, 2013 Page 17 of 22 Marshall: I do think it fits the area quite well. It is a nice transition. Yes, the rim lots will be a little more valuable and probably a little more space on there and I think it fits in with the surrounding development. Miller: I second all of those comments. It's a tough property to layout and I think you have done a nice job of it. I do like the added pathway down the road for access to future development down there. I think that's a nice little bonus to kind of offset that accessibility to that community space there and I'm in favor of it. Yearsley: Okay. At this point I'd entertain a motion. Marshall: Mr. Chair? After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, (move to recommend approval to City Council of file numbers AZ 13-002, PP 13-006, as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of March 21st, 2013, with no modifications. Point of clarification, though. The alternative compliance was exactly what issue? Freeman: That was a landscape buffer issue. Marshall: Oh. Freeman: They agreed to reduce the landscape because of the topography and that was approved by the director. Marshall: Yes. And I would even recommend approval to City Council of that alternative compliance 13-007. Thank you. Rohm: Second. Yearsley: I have a motion and a second for approval of public hearing PP 13-006 and AZ 13-002, Heron Village Estates. All in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries. Thank you. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. I. Public Hearing: ZOA 13-001 Unified Development Code (UDC) Text Amendment by City of Meridian Community Development Department Request: Text Amendment to Certain Sections of the UDC Pertaining to Block Length, Multi-Family Parking, Storage Facilities, Bicycle Parking Facilities, Street Knuckles and Other Miscellaneous Clean-Up Items Yearsley: Last item. We would like to open the public hearing for ZOA 13-001 Unified Development Code text amendments. Like to start off with the staff report. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission March 21, 2013 Page 18 of 22 Hood: Thank you, Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission. Do have some changes to the Unified Development Code I'd like to run through with you very quickly. I probably won't touch on all of them, hopefully you have had a chance to review the staff report. Most of them are fairly minor. We hope that you, too, find that these changes make the UDC a better document and a nicer tool for everybody that uses it, staff and development community included. We did clean up some items on minimum street frontage requirements, particularly just on the knuckles and requiring the -- removing the requirement for a landscape island, sometimes they are called eyebrows in those islands -- islands in those -- in the knuckles. We are removing that, because it's been -- it gets in the way for emergency service providers, trash providers, so we have gotten enough complaints we are just going to remove that requirement. Lighting of internal pathways we are requiring that. Bicycle parking facilities. Here is one I just want to take a minute. We did receive a letter from ACHD's bicycle advisory committee either early this year or late last year asking us to adopt some standards and we are getting some complaints, just as an example, out at Eagle and Fairview the bike racks they put in are only about 13 inches, maybe 16 inches off of the ground and so most bicyclists prefer to lock their frame. I don't have a real expensive bike, but if you are going to steal a bike the frame is the most valuable part and with these ones you're only able to essentially lock your front tire or rear tire if you back it in. It's very difficult to lock your entire frame to a low lying bike rack. So, these standards are meant to clarify and bring up the minimum standards to 36 -- 34 inches, excuse me, so you can lock both the frame and wheels with one lock, you don't have to lug around multiple locks to secure the bicycle to a rack. We will also clarified where they should go. Not right in the middle of the sidewalk, we want them close to the front door, you can't hide them in the very back of the building and require the cyclists to go around. So, that was some of the intent with the bicycle parking facilities requirement amendments. We are also proposing to amend not the number of car parks required for multi-family, but the type of car parks required for multi-family. We have had a lot of multi-family, as you know, recently and just about to a developer they question our requirements to have both of the car parks required for two and three bedroom units in a covered carport or patio. So, what we are proposing here is to still require two car parks per unit, but only require one of them be in a covered space. This also has some esthetic implications. First thing -- most architects don't necessarily want you to see their carport first, so, then, it gives you a little flexibility with having a surface parking lot and you can actually see the building where there is essentially, most of the time investing most of their money and resources. So, again, no change to the number of car parks required there, but -- but only the requirement one of them being a covered carport or garage. I should have said this earlier, but if you have any questions at anytime feel free to interrupt. There is similar changes of the buffer requirements between storage facilities and residential. Having someone verify that a wall is able to mitigate the sound is very difficult, so we took out the sound attenuation part of that and we are just basically saying provide this buffer and not requiring a sound attenuation wall, because a lot of times you can get something where it will bounce off that wall and off the building and just goes right back over the fence line you're trying to mitigate anyway. So, that was the intent with that one. 11.5.66, conditional use permit. This has to do with transfers of CUPs for day cares. Currently it conflicts. We -- in one section we do allow the transfer of a CUP for Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission March 21, 2013 Page 19 of 22 a day care between the new property owner and the other instance it says you can't transfer it. So, the intent is to allow a daycare on the same site to transfer to a new owner. Now, you can't take your permit for a daycare and move it to a different site, but if someone buys your outfit and he wants to continue running a daycare, they can -- they basically don't have to go through the CUP process. Block face. Now, this is one we have talked about over the past few months on a couple of different projects saying we are going to be before you in the next couple of months with a proposal. This is -- a lot of work went into this. I thought it was going to be a little easier than it turned out to be. Hopefully you have had a chance to review this. I'm not going to read to you. We did try to reinforce 750 is the maximum block length we are looking for in most all situations. However, there are some certain circumstances where you can apply. Now, staff has the discretion to grant that or not. Now, definitely an applicant would need to show -- not going to call it a hardship, but essentially these site constraints would make explicit compliance with the 750 nearly impossible to do. So hopefully -- I know you had some concern about that, Commissioner Marshall, I think that was you back when I originally brought this up. Hopefully this appeases everyone. I think we vetted it through staff. I will call to your attention I did receive an a-mail from Becky McKay. I sent this off to a couple of developers just to kind of get their feedback on it. Becky responded not too keen on the maximum of 1,200 square feet. I will -- and I talked to her subsequent to that -- to that a-mail. Even in the most constrained situation, if you're able to do lots on either side, what we are proposing in here is a 90 degree turn in a block will constitute a break in block face. So, even if you have a canal running along your entire boundary, anyone can just put a 90 degree turn in a roadway and that broke up your block face. So, hopefully -- I cannot envision a case where someone cannot develop a piece of property. Now, if you're along a railroad corridor and you only have a hundred foot lot for a half mile will be a variance. But we don't have any of those in Meridian. So, we do not have a strip of half mile long property adjacent to a railroad corridor where you couldn't develop that. There Is not a lot of roads for houses on one side of a railroad -- next to a railroad track. And so -- but, anyways, pedestrian connectivity also plays into this mix. Again, put a lot of that -- the onus on the applicant to say why they couldn't meet the standard and allowing staff the flexibility to say, hey, you know what, you can, if you just move this block you can meet the 750. So, I trust staff enough that they can do that analysis, recommend to you things that are consistent with this. But it would spell that out if 850 feet is -- you know, in certain cases may make some sense, so -- so that was part of the biggest one that drove some of this. Some of the other stuff was fairly minor and cleanup in nature. I think -- I think that's the gist of the UDC amendments proposed this evening and I would stand for any questions you may have. Yearsley: Thank you. Any questions? Freeman: Comment, Mr. Chair, if I may. Yearsley: Absolutely. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission March 21, 2013 Page 20 of 22 Freeman: One is really nitpicky, but first I will say I'm glad you finally built in some flexibility here and it's up to staff to determine whether it's necessary. I think you have achieved what you were after here, so congrats on that. The nitpicky thing is in your -- in your language on block face F-3-B, I think your first sentence you want that to read to 1,200 feet before you do the 1,200 feet in the parenthesis. Hood: Thank you. Freeman: But I won't recommend that we reject this just because of a typo. Yearsley: Any other comments? Marshall: Mr. Chair? Yearsley: I just -- oh. Go ahead. Marshall: Sorry. Mr. Chair, if I could. Yearsley: Commissioner Marshall. Marshall: Caleb, I know we talked about this at length and I do appreciate that there is, obviously, a lot of work went into this and this is considerably different than I had envisioned and I do appreciate the work behind it, so -- Yearsley: I wanted to say t think you guys did a great job on this. Allowing some flexibility, but yet kind of keep the standard pretty firm. I think that's a smart way to go. So, I think it's a job well done. So, with that I would entertain a motion for approval. Freeman: Mr. Chair? Yearsley: Commissioner Freeman. Freeman: After considering all staff and applicant -- well -- oh, close it. Yearsley: First one we will entertain a motion to close the public hearing, since no one is actually here to testify. Freeman: Mr. Chair, I move that we close the public hearing for ZOA 13-001, Unified Development Code text amendment. Miller: Second. Yearsley: I have got a motion and a second to close public hearing ZOA 13-001, Unified Development Code. All in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission March 21, 2013 Page 21 of 22 Yearsley: Now, I will entertain a motion. Freeman: I'm a little gun shy now, but I will try again. Mr. Chair, after considering all staff and what there was of applicant and public testimony, I move to recommend approval to the City Council of file number ZOA 13-001 as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of March 19th, 2013, with no modifications. Marshall: Second. Yearsley: I have a motion and a second to approve file number ZOA 13-001, Unified Development Code text amendment. All in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries. Thank you very much. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Yearsley: Last -- Marshall: Before we make that last issue, I really very quickly, since he's in the room, would like to congratulate Mr. Hood. I'm very excited to see this happen and pleased that the best candidate got the job. Freeman: We were a little concerned that when you were announced you weren't here, so, you know, first day on the job and -- Hood: Don't read into that too much. Freeman: I won't. Congratulations. Yearsley: So, with that I would entertain a motion to adjourn, Rohm: So moved. Miller: Second. Yearsley: All in favor? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Yearsley: Let's go home. MEETING ADJOURNED AT 8:00 P.M. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission March 21, 2013 Page 22 of 22 (AUDIO RECORDING ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS.) APPROVED ~~~ i~ ~/3 STEVEN YEARSLEY - C RMAN DATE APPROVED ATTEST: V ~~~ V~ gyDAUGUS\ JAYCEE HOLMAN, CITY CLERK °~°~ ~'9~ 3`' _ . City of _ . ,.ii 'r~/~ )/ i ~ppNO r/ ~ -' ~ Imo SEA ,,! 0 ~B ~' rBf ~l tia T4FlS