Loading...
2013 04-04E IDIAN~-- MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING ~ ~ H ,~ COMMISSION MEETING AGENDA City Council Chambers 33 E. Broadway Avenue, Meridian, Idaho Thursday, April 04, 2013 at 7:00 p.m. 1. Roll-call Attendance X Macy Miller X Michael Rohm O_ Scott Freeman _X Joe Marshall X_ Steven Yearsley -Chairman 2. 3. 4. Adoption of the Agenda Approved Consent Agenda Approved A. Approve Minutes of March 21, 2013 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Action Items A. Continued Public Hearing from March 21, 2013: PP 13-002 Bellabrook Villas (aka Brookside Square) by ZWJ Properties, LLC Located at 300 S. Locust Grove Road Request: 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 Recommend Approval to City Council B. Public Hearing: RZ 13-003 807 N. Meridian Road by LTD, LLC Located at 807 N. Meridian Road Request: Rezone of 0.74 of an Acre from the R-8 (Medium Density Residential) to the O-T (Old Town) Zoning District Recommend Approval to City Council C. Public Hearing: CUP 13-002 Gramercy Pride Apartments by Sagecrest Development, LLC Located 2111 and 2283 S. Accolade Avenue Request: Conditional Use Permit Approval for 18 Multi-Family Dwelling Units on Two (2) Lots on Approximately 1.38 Acres in an Existing R-15 Zoning District Recommend Approval to City Council Meeting adjourned at 8:13 p.m. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Agenda -Thursday, April 04, 2013Page 1 of 1 All materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. Anyone desiring accommodation for disabilities related to documents and/or hearing, please contact the City Clerk's Office at 888433 at least 48 hours prior to the public meeting. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission April 4, 2013 Meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission of April 4, 2013, was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Chairman Steven Yearsley. Present: Chairman Steven Yearsley, Commissioner Michael Rohm, Commissioner Macy Miller and Commissioner Joe Marshall. Members Absent: Commissioner Scott Freeman. Others Present: Jacy Jones, Ted Baird, Bruce Chatterton, Bill Parson, Sonya Wafters, and Dean Willis. Item 1: Roll-Call Attendance: Roll-call X Steven Yearsley X Macy Miller X Michael Rohm X Joe Marshall X Scott Freeman -Chairman Yearsley: Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. At this time we'd like to call to order the regularly scheduled meeting for the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission for April 4th, 2013. I'd like to begin with roll call. Item 2: Adoption of the Agenda Yearsley: Thank you. The first item on the agenda is the adoption of the agenda. At this time we have no changes, so can I get a motion to adopt the agenda? Marshall: So moved. Miller: Second. Yearsley: I have a motion and a second to adopt the agenda as presented. All in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. Item 3: Consent Agenda A. Approve Minutes of March 21, 2013 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Yearsley: Next item on the agenda is the Consent Agenda. The item that we have on the Consent Agenda is approval of the meeting minutes for March 21st, 2013, Planning Meridian Planning & Zoning April 4, 2013 Page 2 of 25 and Zoning Commission. Have you all had a chance to look at those? Any comments? Changes? If not, then, I would stand for a motion. Miller: I move to approve the Consent Agenda. Marshall: Second. Yearsley: I have got a motion and a second to approve the Consent Agenda. All in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. Yearsley: At this time we'd like to go into the public hearings, but Iwill -- let me explain the public hearing process really quickly. We are going to open each item. First we will start off with the staff report. They will present the findings and how it adheres to our current Comprehensive Plan and Uniform Development Code with staff recommendations. The applicant will, then, come forward to present their case for approval of their application and respond to any staff comments. The applicant will have up to 15 minutes. At that time we will open it up to the public testimony for the public to testify. There is a sign-up sheet in the back if you want to testify. Any person wishing to come forward will be allowed three minutes. If they are speaking for a group, like an HOA and there is a show of hands to represent the group, they will be given up to ten minutes. After the testimony has been given the applicant will have an opportunity to respond to those comments of up to ten minutes. Then we will close the public hearing process and the Commission will have the opportunity to discuss and hopefully make a recommendation to City Council. Item 4: Action Items A. Continued Public Hearing from March 21, 2013: PP 13-002 Bellabrook Villas (aka Brookside Square) by ZWJ Properties, LLC Located at 300 S. Locust Grove Road Request: 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: So, at this time we'd like to open the continued public hearing for March 21st, 2013, of PP 13-002, Bellabrook Villas and let's begin with the staff report. Wafters: Thank you, Chairman Yearsley, Members of the Commission. The application before you tonight is a request for a preliminary plat. The site consists of 4.38 acres of land. It's currently zones R-15 and is located at 300 South Locust Grove Road, south of Franklin and East of Locust Grove. Adjacent land use and zoning. To the north is a church zoned C-N. To the south are residential properties zoned RUT in Ada County and R-4 in the city. Woodbridge Subdivision. To the east is rural residential property zoned R-1 in Ada County and commercial property zoned C-G and to the west is Locust Meridian Planning & Zoning April 4, 2013 Page 3 of 25 Grove Road and rural residential property zoned R-1 in Ada County and a daycare center zoned L-O. A little history on this site. In 2007 it was rezoned to R-15 and a conditional use permit was approved for amulti-family development. Private streets were tentatively approved for access and addressing and were constructed within the site, but never received final approval. The multi-family development was never completed and the property is now under different ownership. A summary of the current request. The applicant requests approval of a preliminary consisting of 26 single family residential building lots and four common and other lots. The proposed plat conforms to the dimensional standards of the R-15 district and the density desired in MUC mixed use community designated areas. A little background on this. When the applicant first submitted this application it was for private streets throughout the development. Again, the existing streets are private -- did private construction standards. Staff did not recommend approval of the application, so staff has been working with the applicant to come up with something that would be acceptable to city code and ACHD, as well as accomplish what the applicant is trying to develop there. So, the applicant is now proposing to convert the entry street, which is Kalispell, you can see here, off of Locust Grove Road, which constructed to private street standards, to a public street and stub it at the east boundary for future access and interconnectivity. Private streets are proposed for the loop road connecting to the proposed public street, which is right here. Approval of the proposed plat is contingent upon ACHD's acceptance of the private street, Kalispell, as a public street. ACHD staff is in support of converting Kalispell to a public street, however, the commission action is required to do so and they have not acted on this application yet. It won't be up for several more weeks, probably another six weeks, on their agenda. One of the required findings of the UDC is that the director has to make, in order to approve a private street, is that the site design has to create a common MEU or a limited gated residential development. Private streets are not intended for single family residential develop such as this. However, because the streets already exist and because the R-15 district doesn't have a minimum street frontage requirement, staff has approved a private street contingent upon gates being installed near the entrance to the private streets in accord with the aforementioned finding. A seven foot wide pathway exists through the common area and extends to the east side of the Five Mile Creek where amulti-use pathway is planned. You can see right here on the landscape plan. Staff recommends the developer provide a public use easement for the section of the multi-use pathway on the east side of the creek and extend the pathway to the north and south property boundaries. Six foot tall vinyl fencing it depicted on the landscape plan as existing around the perimeter of the subdivision. Staff recommends the fencing adjacent to the common area be reduced to four feet in height if solid material is used or six foot if open vision material is used, in accord with UDC standards. The applicant has submitted conceptual elevations for the proposed homes in the development. They are all single family detached. The Comprehensive Plan future land use map designation for this property is mixed use community. Matt Howard did submit written testimony, he's the applicant's representative, in response to the staff report and I will just go over his request real quick with you. He requests condition number 1.1.2 be stricken. The applicant states the pathway currently extends to the north, but not to the south property line due to the topography of the site in that area, which slopes away dramatically from the edge of the Meridian Planning & Zoning April 4, 2013 Page 4 of 25 path to the south and will have to be filled when the property to the south develops. That was staffs condition to extend the pathway to the north and south property boundaries. Staff is in agreement with the applicant's request in this situation. The second request by the applicant is for condition number 1.1.5 to be stricken, which requires gates to be installed at the entrances to the private street. The applicant states that installing gates would serve no purpose other than to create an unnecessary barrier between the homeowners. Staff cannot strike this condition as it is a UDC provision and one of the findings that has to be made to approve a private street. The last request is for condition number 1.1.7 to be modified to allow the existing fencing adjacent to the common area that is owned by adjacent property owners to remain. There is drawing here that the applicant submitted. It shows -- kind of hard to read here, but the LDS property -- the church to the north has installed six foot tall solid vision fencing around the perimeter of their site, which is adjacent to the common area and the property owner to the south here has also installed six foot closed vision fencing. The applicant just requests that that be allowed to remain as it isn't their fence, they don't have authority to change that, but for the remainder of the area along the common area the applicant will comply with UDC's requirements. Staff is in agreement with the applicant's request to modified condition 1.1.7 accordingly. Staff is recommending approval of the proposed plat per the conditions in the staff report with the aforementioned changes. Staff will stand for any questions the Commission may have. Yearsley: Thank you. Are there any questions? Marshall: Mr. Chair? Yearsley: Commissioner Marshall. Marshall: So, I'd like to know what changes would have to be made to make this private street a public street and what is involved before ACHD is going to accept that as a public street? Wafters: Chairman Yearsley, Commissioner Marshall, Commissioners, the streets would have to be widened to ACHD standards. I don't have a -- I don't have the standards for that street in front of me. But they would have to be widened. Sidewalks would have to be provided on each side of the street. Private streets only require sidewalks on one side of the street. Marshall: Okay. So, we are talking they would have to move curb and gutter that's already existing? Wafters: Yes. Marshall: Add asphalt and probably base. Meridian Planning & Zoning April 4, 2013 Page 5 of 25 Wafters: Widen the street. Yeah. Possibly the -- the base would have to be different, too. Marshall: All right. Wafters: The applicant can probably give you more information on that. They did speak with ACRD about accepting all the streets as public and what the requirements would be to -- for them to accept them as public, so they can probably speak a little more to that. Marshall: Thank you. Miller: Mr. Chair? Yearsley: Commissioner Miller. Miller: I have got a question for -- Kalispell, the main entrance street, was also constructed as a private street and is it -- are they proposing that that will be widened to ACHD standards to make that public in this? Wafters: Yes, Commissioner Miller. Miller: Okay. And, then, I have one other question. Where exactly are these gates proposed to go? Wafters: Code requires them to be 50 feet from the entrance to the private street. So, 50 feet in. So, it would be approximately in there. Miller: And is it three gates or two? Wafters: Two. This loop is the portion that's proposed to be private. Miller: Thank you. Yearsley: Any other questions? Would the applicant like to come forward, please. Please state your name and address for the record. Howard: Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, Matt Howard. 1854 East Lanark Street, Meridian, Idaho. 83642. Appreciate the opportunity to be here tonight and answer some questions. Appreciate Sonya and her efforts to present that staff report. The few exceptions that we have asked for, the main one being the gate issue and, then, I also want to address briefly the ACRD requirements on Kalispell. If we look at -- let's see. I don't know how to run this. Sonya, if we can go back to the plat. There is a typical existing street section there in the top left which shows the required size of that street, so, actually, we would not need to remove the existing asphalt and sidewalk in order to meet ACHD's requirement for that road to be public. We would just need to add a five Meridian Planning & Zoning April 4, 2013 Page 6 of 25 foot attached sidewalk on the inside loop of the development. Thank you. Because it's existing on the other side where it was going to be a private street or where it was originally constructed as a private street, of course, that was not initially required. So, that would, generally speaking, be one requirement that we would need to comply with with ACHD in order for them to accept that as a public street. That was the primary requirement. And, then, we would have easements at one foot back from those sidewalks in order to get the necessary access for them. So, that was the primary thing with ACHD that we are working through and as staff indicated they have indicated initially that they are in agreement with making that road public and proceeding that way and, then, we just need to go through the hearing with their commission. The issue of the gates -- you bring up a good question with that. The location of those gates would be approximately where those cross-sections across the road are. The detail there. It would be roughly in that area. And as I mentioned in my response to the staff report that this seems to create an unnecessary barrier -- thank you -- an unnecessary barrier within the subdivision itself and I mean, obviously, that is something that we can do. We can install gates. It just -- for this size of development -- I mean it's a very small development at 26 lots. They are smaller lots as it is and that's why we have asked for that exception to be made to the requirement to install the gates. And, then, the other issue was the fencing and I think Sonya addressed that well. With much of that fencing already existing, obviously, that would be hard for us to change. The other section where there is not a six foot vinyl fence, it's barbed wire fencing that runs through there and so we would -- would be able to put the four foot fence that staff is recommending in those sections of the common area. And, then, lastly regarding the south boundary on the ten foot wide multi-use path there on Five Mile Creek, as I mentioned in my response it does connect to the north boundary currently, as you can see up here. The south boundary -- this is a picture looking at the topography and you can see -- I don't know how well you can see, but standing at the top ledge you're at half orthree-quarters of the height of that barbed wire fence that you see in the picture. So, I mean it can be done. I think the solution there is to just have an easement for that section of the pathway to allow for connectivity in the future when that path is developed. I would stand for any questions at this time. Yearsley: Thank you. Are there any questions? Marshall: Mr. Chair? Yearsley: Commissioner Marshall. Marshall: Okay. So, we have got a 29 foot back to back on Truss, Bellalucca, and Torino. Correct? Your street section as existing. At least I'm trying to -- mine I had to blow it up a bit and it's still a little hard to read, but I'm reading it 29 foot back to back, 25 foot edge to edge on asphalt was rolled curb -- two foot rolled curb each side. Howard: On that private street, yes. Marshall: Connect. So, what's ACHD requiring for a public street on that? Meridian Planning & Zoning April 4, 2013 Page 7 of 25 Howard: Well, those streets would not be made public, but you're just asking in general what would they require? Marshall: Yes. Howard: My understanding is that they require a 41 foot right of way. Marshall: And so -- Howard: And so as you look at the typical existing street section for Kalispell, which would have the public section, would incorporate that. Marshall: And your lots are of such a size you wouldn't be able to build on them with a 40 foot -- 41 foot right of way is what you're telling me? Howard: Correct. And also the fact that the -- so much of this development is existing already, it's been sitting there for, you know, four or five years. You know, obviously, if we were to do it again if would be done differently, but given the constraints we have this is a plan that, you know, we have worked with staff to present that would be feasible and workable given those constraints. But, yes, that would meet the ACHD requirements. Marshall: All right. Thank you. Rohm: Mr. Chairman? Yearsley: Commissioner Rohm. Rohm: Are the other utilities in as well, the natural gas lines and power, electric and water and all those things as well? Howard: Yes, Commissioner. All the utilities are existing. We actually have excessive sewer connections in there that would be abandoned back to the main in order to accommodate the number of lots that were proposed. Rohm: Reconfiguration of the lots? Howard: Yes. Rohm: Thank you. Howard: Okay. Thank you. Yearsley: Thank you very much. Meridian Planning & Zoning April 4, 2013 Page 8 of 25 Howard: Thank you. Rohm: Mr. Chairman, I have a couple questions of staff, if you don't mind. Yearsley: Can we -- I have one person who has signed up to testify. Can we do that first? Rohm: You bet. Yearsley: I have someone -- I have Orson Woodhouse. Would he like to come up? Woodhouse: Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, my name is Orson Woodhouse. I reside at 10010 Palisades in Boise, Idaho. I am the broker -- I have been the broker for Woodhouse Group Real Estate since 2000 and we have been working with Matt and the owner -- the condominium plat had some -- well, condominiums in general have issues in terms of financing through FHA, as you probably know, and FHA is starting to change their guidelines, but if a project isn't designed to meet their requirements for financing -- the homeowners association has to be set up a certain way with a certain number of owner occupied properties and the homeowners association can't have any history of delinquencies to a certain degree, so the vehicle for condominium financing with a lower down payment has virtually disappeared, mostly for FHA, and so this would be a solution that would provide an alternative that would be more cost effective and potentially more affordable for the types of jobs that are generated in that area with Scentsy doing their thing and St. Luke's doing their expansion and a lot of the retail businesses in that area they can afford a certain type of home and this solution would provide them that option and even with the smaller home sites you can make the home attractive. A lot of folks we are finding are moving towards a lower maintenance type lifestyle and want yards that they can maintain that aren't extremely large. You have a lot of single mom's with children. This would be a nice location for them. So, that was part of the premise to move to single family home sites at this particular location, because it would comply with FHA financing and a lower down payment. Yearsley: Thank you very much. Woodhouse: Thank you. Yearsley: At this time is there anybody else that would like to testify? Commissioner Rohm, would you -- at this time you can actually ask your question now. Rohm: Okay. Good. You know, I have been around for quite a while on this Commission and it seems as if gated communities have been kind of frowned upon by the city for quite a number of years and it also seems to me that this particular development would be better suited to not be gated and I guess where I'm going with this is even though the UDC specifies that if the road is not constructed to ACRD standards, it has to be a private road, is there any way that the city as part of the City Meridian Planning & Zoning April 4, 2013 Page 9 of 25 Council's approval of this project can waive that -- that ruling or is it -- or is that just cast in concrete that we have no room or any flexibility? Wafters: Chairman Yearsley, Commissioner Rohm, I think that's one of the city attorney questions. Baird: Commissioner -- Chairman and Commissioners, I saw her giving me the eye, so knew that she was going throw it over this way. The short answer is it's required by our code. There are no variances allowed. There is no exceptions. The most that you can do is in your remarks forwarding this to City Council you can ask for some kind of a code change -- you know, ask staff to look into that. Kind of like what we have done with some other things, block lengths and things of that nature where you're stuck with a situation that wasn't anticipated by the code and it restricts you unduly and comes up with a weird result. So, your hands are tied, but you can, you know, see if we can't move forward to solve it down the road. Hope that helps. Yearsley: I guess one follow up for that question. Can the City Council do away -- I mean with this application say, no, we don't want to -- Baird: Legally -- well, under the city code they don't have any of those options either. Yearsley: Okay. Baird: And that's all I'm going to say at this point. Yearsley: Okay. Rohm: I suppose we could make a recommendation and, then, the Council could direct the Planning Department to rewrite the specification for that specific code and have that move forward. It's not going to help in the short run, but maybe we can figure out a way to at least let them get started and let the changes, if, in fact, there is something that the Council would even consider, catch up with it as we go down the road. I don't know, but it just seems -- it doesn't seem like a very good fit to me. We as a city have strongly discouraged gated communities. I mean that's just something that we are -- we are trying to make sure that all of our roads have ingress-egress to the community as a whole and because of the construction of these existing roads doesn't seem to change the fact that we still want that -- that mobility. So, I'm just on record saying that I'm not sure that that's the best answer, but it might be the -- in the short run the only answer, so -- Chatterton: Mr. Chairman, if I could comment real quick to Commissioner Rohm. What you have before you really is -- I don't think that anyone is really happy with the situation. I mean clearly you have a development in which the infrastructure provided was for multi-family. It accommodates multi-family. We really -- staff was really in a quandary on this one. We very rarely deny anything. That would have been one option. So, we felt that to move forward with -- let the project move forward and be Meridian Planning & Zoning April 4, 2013 Page 10 of 25 considered, you know, with, of course, the limits -- keeping in mind the limitations that Mr. Baird mentioned -- was the best -- the best thing for everyone, but it is -- it is a situation where things had been sized and configured for a different type of projects. The -- I'm not -- I'm no fan of gated communities at all, but in our code private streets go part and parcel with -- with gates. There is a bit of mitigation here in the fact that stubbing the street out to the east -- how far is that actually going to go in the future. It would go to the canal and probably no further. It's very unlikely we would have a crossing or bridge at that point. So, there is less of a chance I think of -- of the private streets being trying to serve -- being ungated trying to serve that purpose that a -- that public streets built to ACHD standards would serve. So, this was -- this was a real tough one for us and -- Rohm: Oh, I -- believe me, I am in full support of the staff coming forward with their recommendations, because we all have to live by the UDC and the Comprehensive Plan, but I have seen in the past where Council has a little bit more flexibility. But I think it's suffice to say that the current law of the land says you have to gate it if it's going to be built to those standards and it's already there, so I have exhausted my opportunity here, so we can move forward. Marshall: Mr. Chair? Along those lines, probing just another area, what's the definition of the gate that's required? Could you help me with that? Chatterton: I think we are going to have to consult the code on that, Commissioner. Rohm: Well, I suppose they could have a gate that they just leave open. Marshall: Right. Rohm: I mean -- Marshall: And something a little more decorative that might -- and code requires that they be 50 foot back? Chatterton: Yeah. And, of course, Mr. Chair, Commissioner that is, of course, as the applicant pointed out, that is not a great situation to have that occurring that far into the -- the development. Yes, it does require that it be 50 feet in. Marshall: Okay. Chatterton: And we are checking those other requirements right now. Wafters: It just can't restrict pedestrian and bicycle access along the private street and can't dead end in a cul-de-sac or dead end, which it doesn't. No common driveways are allowed off the private street, which there aren't any. That's pretty much it. Meridian Planning & Zoning April 4, 2013 Page 11 of 25 Marshall: And it just says it has to be gated without a true definition of the gate. So, my exploration here is tending to suggest maybe something more -- on a decorative front. Rohm: Mr. Chairman? Yearsley: Commissioner Rohm. Rohm: I think we want to close the public hearing. Baird: Well, I think I will just go ahead and address that, if you don't mind, since it was -- Yearsley: Absolutely. Baird: -- posed and, then, I would be happy to see this closed, but, Mr. Chair and Commissioners, I think that's going to be in the discretion of the applicant, how decorative it is, whether it -- you know, what control features are on it, whether it's manual, whether there is a situation where it's left open. Wink. Wink. It's just unfortunate that the codes require the expenditure. Now, I'm thinking possibly of a situation where if the City Council is going to direct staff to change the code to allow an exemption, perhaps they could also allow through the planning department for the developer to bond for the gate and if the code isn't changed within a certain period of time, then, they would have to go install it. I'm just -- there is some options that staff can explore with the applicant to -- to get a more reasonable result here. So, those are my comments. Yearsley: Okay. I guess just for the applicant, do you want to come up and make any responses to any of this at this time or are you okay? Howard: I am being told no. Yearsley: Okay. Just wanted to give that open to you. At this time I would entertain a motion to close the public hearing for PP 13-002, Bellabrook Villas. Marshall: So moved. Miller: Second. Yearsley: I have a motion and a second to close the public hearing for PP 13-002. All in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. Yearsley: Okay: Who would like to go first? Rohm: Mr. Chairman? Meridian Planning & Zoning April 4, 2013 Page 12 of 25 Yearsley: Commissioner Rohm. Rohm: I think that this is a very well thought out development based upon what's already existing and I applaud their efforts for taking something that had been laying fallow for a number of years and putting the effort into it bring some new live to that section in our community and so I applaud them for that and the fact of the matter is is there is some issues associated with this and we as a Commission can't resolve those, but I think that the discussion that's taken place tonight has at least opened the door to communication between them and the Council or the fact of the construction of that gate isn't part of this Commission's responsibility, so we will just leave it with that and move forward with the balance of the application as requested. Yearsley: Okay. Miller: Mr. Chair? Yearsley: Commissioner Miller. Miller: I agree with a lot of what was said here about the gates kind of a silly little formality. I think that this could be a cool development. I like the small lots and you get density, like Mr. Woodhouse said, towards those industries we have growing. I really like the little public area out to the side. I think it would be a cool place to live. Obviously there is some stuff to work through. But I like it. Yearsley: Thank you. Commissioner Marshall, you're sitting there thinking pretty hard. Marshall: Yeah. Well, I'm kind of in agreement with the applicant that if I had a clean slate I would probably do something different, but based on the infrastructure that's there, I have to admit I think they have tried pretty hard to make that work and I appreciate all the work with staff and I appreciate staff, because this is a difficult situation. It really is. I do like to see something move forward here. I'm not fond of the gates, but given the situation, you know, maybe they can figure something out there and I do kind of like the idea of maybe giving some time there on the -- on the option of bonding for those instead, to see if something can be done. Other than that -- and appreciate stafFs agreement with the requests on 1.1.2 and 1.1.7. So, yeah, I'm for the project then. Yearsley: Thank you. You know, I have looked at this and I -- you know, I have kind of gone back and forth on this project and I think that where it comes down to me is the private road. We are putting a pretty hefty burden on the residents having to maintain that roadway in the future. Roadways are not inexpensive to maintain and you're putting, what, 20 citizens -- or 20 residents having to maintain that roundabout. So, I -- struggle with this one just because of -- because of that financial burden that has to be placed on those residents that live there and that may actually have something to do with what lot sales -- on what they are going to have to get out of them or not. My -- my Meridian Planning & Zoning April 4, 2013 Page 13 of 25 initial thought was maybe widen the roadway to the inside and make the center as a park as an option. You know, you got 26 lots that you're trying to cram into there, which is pretty tight in my opinion, so -- so, like I said, I struggle with that. So, that's kind of my thoughts. Rohm: Mr. Chairman? Yearsley: Commissioner Rohm. Rohm: I hadn't heard anything of that discussion before, but I have thoughts on that, and an HOA can cover a lot of different things, whether it's the maintenance of a road or a swimming pool or a park I mean from my perspective maintaining a road isn't any different than anything else within the subdivision and so I'm not the least bit afraid of turning that roadway over to the -- the HOA that will be responsible to maintain it, because it's like any other part of the subdivision that is of common interest. So, that's my thoughts on that. Yearsley: Thank you. So, anymore comments? Marshall: Yeah. I have to agree that that will be a rather expensive item and you're talking some very very small, lower end houses, because these are not going to be people with a lot of money. And it can be rather expensive to maintain that. I do appreciate that. Then, again, that's a very good point, that that -- that would be a serious burden and I would prefer to see that as a public street, but there is no way it can be with the lots the way they are. You will not be able to build on them if you put a 41 foot right of way in there as it is. You're right, you would have to make that center aisle a -- some type of park or something like that. But, then, at that point -- at that point you're talking considerable infrastructure, too. Is anybody even going to be able to move forward with this at that point, because that makes it either have -- makes fewer lots to sell and considerable additional cost would be very difficult. Yearsley: That's for sure. So, at this time I would entertain a motion. Rohm: You have those numbers, Joe. Marshall: I'm going to hope that our citizens are a little more informed when they purchase and somehow we can require that -- that they are aware of the fact that they would be required to maintain that road when they purchase here, because, otherwise, this is not going to develop. It's just not going to. After considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move to recommend approval of file number PP 13-002 as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of April 4th, 2013, with the following modifications: That 1.1.2 be stricken, as well as 1.1.7 be modified to -- as staff has recommended in their brief here. Rohm: Second. Meridian Planning & Zoning April 4, 2013 Page 14 of 25 Yearsley: I have a motion and a second for the approval of public hearing PP -- or PP 13-002, Bellabrook Villas. All in favor say aye. Opposed? Nay. Motion carries. Thank you. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE NAY. ONE ABSENT. B. Public Hearing: RZ 13-003 807 N. Meridian Road by LTD, LLC Located at 807 N. Meridian Road Request: Rezone of 0.74 of an Acre from the R-8 (Medium Density Residential) to the O-T (Old Town) Zoning District Yearsley: Next item on the agenda is public hearing RZ 13-003, 807 N. Meridian Road. We would like to start off with the staff report. Wafters: Thank you, Chairman, Members of the Commission. The next application before you is a request for a rezone. This site consists of .47 of an acre of land. It's currently zoned R-8 and is located at 807 North Meridian Road. Adjacent land uses and zoning. To the north is single family residential property zoned R-8. To the east is Meridian Road and property owned by Quest and Church of the Harvest, zoned O-T. To the south is West Idaho Avenue and single family residential property zoned R-8. And to the west is single family residential property zoned R-8. A little history on this site. The property owner states that this property has been used for a variety of nonresidential uses and believes it was converted from a residence in the late 1970s. The property is currently being used as an office, which is classified as a professional service. The planning and building divisions have no records of this property being approved for nonresidential purposes. Assuming the commercial use of the property, including the parking lot design and landscaping lawfully existed prior to the effective date of the UDC, the use would be considered nonconforming, as it does not conform to current UDC standards. The applicant is requesting a rezone of .47 of an acre of land from R-8 to the Old Town, consistent with the future land use map designation of Old Town. Approval of the rezone will change the status of the use to a conforming use as professional services are a principal permitted use in the Old Town district. However, because a certificate of zoning compliance does exist for this site, a certificate of zoning compliance will be required on a change of use in the future, which will involve improvements to the parking lot to comply with current UDC standards. With a new tenant a certificate of occupancy may also be required to insure compliance with Americans With Disabilities accessibility standards and occupancy classification. The property has one access via Idaho Avenue that leads to the parking area on the west side of the lot. Access is not proposed or approved via Meridian Road. Because the structure was constructed in 1905, according to the tax assessor's records, staff did send a memo to the historical preservation commission notifying them of this request. They did not verbally express any concerns at the meeting, nor have they submitted any comments on the application. The Comprehensive Plan future land use map designation for the site is Old Town. The zoning is consistent with that. Written testimony has been received from Matt Hart, the applicant's representative in Meridian Planning & Zoning April 4, 2013 Page 15 of 25 agreement with the staff report. Staff is recommending approval. Staff will stand for any questions the Commission may have. Yearsley: Thank you. Are there any questions? Rohm: Mr. Chairman? Yearsley: Commissioner Rohm. Rohm: I just have one. What happens if they hadn't ever made this application and just went on using it just as they are currently using it, would the city -- what could the city do? Wafters: Chairman Yearsley, Commissioner Rohm, the city currently looks at the property, the use, as a nonconforming use. It should have a certificate of zoning compliance. It does not. That's why staff is requiring that upon a change of use that they come in and get that and bring the parking up to standards. Their parking is paved at the rear of the building. It does not have striping. Staff has some doubts about it being able to meet our current standards so far as drive aisle dimensions, parking stall dimensions, you know, all of that. Rohm: Well, that's kind of where I'm going with this is it sounds like the more you stir it the worse it gets and -- Wafters: My projects are a little difficult tonight. Rohm: Yeah, they are. I agree. Wafters: Well, we are kind of trying to bring it up to current standards and, you know, it's been a nonresidential use for so long it's -- you know, we are trying to get it up to where it needs to be, but there are some difficulties with the existing site and its design. Rohm: Thank you. Wafters: Well, I don't know that I answered your question. Rohm: No. You did fine. Chatterton: Mr. Chairman and Commissioner Rohm, I think one of the issues before you is is this an appropriate land use. Is this an appropriate zoning district for this parcel. There are lots of ways to come into compliance. It might be difficult, but I think the main issue is is this an appropriate zoning district for this parcel. Rohm: Thank you. Meridian Planning & Zoning April 4, 2013 Page 16 of 25 Yearsley: Thank you. Would the applicant like to come forward? Please state your name and address for the record, please. Hart: My name is Matt Hart. I'm with Civil Survey Consultants here in Meridian. We are located at 1400 East Water Tower. I don't have much more to add to this other than we are in agreement with staffs findings and we appreciate their recommendation for approval. I'm here if -- if the Commission has any questions for me. Rohm: I just have a comment. I sincerely appreciate you folks moving forward and making an application to make this parcel part of a zone that actually matches the use and, you know, at the end of the day that's what we are all after and so I applaud you for even making the application and thank you for working with staff so well and as long as the applicant and staff are in agreement that's a pretty good step forward. Thank you. Hart: Thank you. Yearsley: Any other questions? Thank you very much. I have nobody signed up to testify. Is there anybody in the audience that would like to testify on this? If not I would entertain a motion to close public hearing RZ 13-003. Marshal: So moved. Miller: Second. Yearsley: I have a motion and a second to close the public hearing RZ 13-003. All in favor say aye. Opposed. Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. Yearsley: Comments? If no -- I don't have any issues with this. I think it's a good use, a good, you know, option to go with. So, with that I would entertain a motion. Rohm: I can do this one I think. Yearsley: All right. Rohm: Mr. Chairman? Yearsley: Commissioner Rohm. Rohm: After considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move to recommend approval to the City Council of file number RZ 13-003 as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of April 4th, 2013, for the following reasons that the use is in accordance with the proposed rezoning and that's what we are all after. So, I recommend approval. Meridian Planning & Zoning April 4, 2013 Page 17 of 25 Miller: Second. Yearsley: I have a motion and a second for approval of public hearing RZ 13-003, 807 Meridian Road. All in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries. Thank you. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. C. Public Hearing: CUP 13-002 Gramercy Pride Apartments by Sagecrest Development, LLC Located 2111 and 2283 S. Accolade Avenue Request: Conditional Use Permit Approval for 18 Multi-Family Dwelling Units on Two (2) Lots on Approximately 1.38 Acres in an Existing R-15 Zoning District Yearsley: At this time we'd like to open the public hearing for -- let me -- I don't have a -- CUP 13-002 and MDA 13-004, Gramercy Pride Apartments. We'd like to start with the staff report. Parsons: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. The next and last item on the agenda this evening -- it shouldn't be as painful as the previous two Ihope -- is the Gramercy Pride apartment complex. It is two residential lots currently zoned R-15 within the Gramercy development. The site is located south of East Overland Road and located on the west side of South Accolade Avenue, which is a local street here and currently constructed. These lots were created back in 2006 with the Gramercy project. Originally these parcels were envisioned for a condominium, which were basically -- it looked like they were townhome elevations. The applicant is here tonight proposing a multi-family development. Currently to the north we have some vacant commercial properties and some commercial residential properties zoned C-G and R-15. To the east we have a 48 unit multi-family development as well. Vacant townhome lots and constructed single family homes. All these parcels are zoned R-15 as well. To the south we have a city park and, then, to the west we have a high school zoned R-4. If you recall, this portion of land, which is to the east of the two subject properties has been approved fora 276 unit multi-family development and that's currently into the city for permitting. One thing that I did point out in the staff report currently Wells Avenue is the only connectivity to this -- all of this residential to the south here. With the approval of this project the applicant was to provide a secondary emergency access that is to tie into this street. So, this development as it moves forward and these larger developments as they move forward will have secondary access out of this portion of the development, so we are not landlocked just with South Wells Avenue moving forward. Here is the site plan before you this evening. Again, it is two parcels. The north parcel, which is Lot 9, Block 3, as a ten unit apartment complex on it. Lot 26, Block 3 has an eight unit apartment complex on it. The proposed site plans before you tonight have been modified from the version that you saw in the staff report. The applicant has taken it upon themselves to address all the conditions that staff placed on the project and the site plan before you represents those changes as recommended by staff. I'd point out those changes quickly to you. The first one is the connectivity to the adjacent pathways. The applicant has made the connectivity to the pathways to the Meridian Planning & Zoning April 4, 2013 Page 18 of 25 north here along Lot 9 and, then, for Lot 26 connected to the pathways here and, then, also tied into the five foot sidewalk that connects to the park, which is along the south boundary here. The trash enclosures have been relocated per our recommendations in the staff report. I would report to you that the applicant has received verbal confirmation from Republic Services that they approve their new location of those trash enclosures. So, that issue has been resolved as well. The sidewalk has been widened from six feet to seven feet, so there is -- although minimal, additional buffering along the south boundary here along the residential lot and, then, along the north boundary here the applicant has actually shifted the multi-family building to the south a little bit further and actually increased this buffer by at least almost nine feet in width. So, there is actually more buffering on this side to get the parking moved away from future single family homes as well. This property is designated as mixed use regional on the future land use map. Densities are anticipated between six and 40 units to the acre. The proposed projects before you this evening come in at 13 units to the acre, which is less than what's anticipated, but given the amount of multi-family that's planned in there and what amount of additional single family homes could be developed in the site staff anticipates roughly 20 to 22 units to the acre in the future once this is built out. Here is the landscape plan as well. As you can see it's a pretty lush plan. I would mention to Commission that amenities are pretty low on this site. The applicant has requested that we them use -- have the right to use the amenities that were constructed with the Gramercy project. If I can go back to the aerial here I can demonstrate what's existing right now. Currently there is a multi-use pathway, as I mentioned, along the north boundary and the west boundary here. This is Gordon Harris Park, which a portion of this development -- this developer has donated a portion of that property to the public park and, then, you also have the land -- the ten foot pathway along the Ridenbaugh Canal. The developer also established this plaza area and this open space as well. Staff is amenable to the applicant's request. They just have to provide documentation that they have the right to use these amenities. That also was prefaced in staffs condition requiring that connection to those pathways. Again, that helps link this development to the amenities in this subdivision. It provides that connectivity to the park, to the school site, to the commercial to the north along Overland Road. So, again, staff is supportive of the applicant's request to use those existing amenities. I'd also mention to you we did require additional bike parking for this site given the amount of connectivity and pathways in the area and it just makes sense to -- folks living here will probably bike more than drive their cars, at least that's the vision for the site. So, we actually enforce a greater provision and require one bike space per the number of units on the property. So, the applicant has gone ahead and added that bike parking, so the north lot, which is Lot 9 again, has the ten bike park located in this vicinity and this portion was required to provide eight bike parks and that's located here. So, the one thing that I did want to mention to you is this site currently doesn't meet the covered parking standards. In the staff -- if you recall last P&Z hearing we are in the process of amending our ordinance to reduce the amount of covered parking required. Staff did build a condition in the staff report that they would have to provide the amount of covered parking with -- in accord with the ordinance in effect at the time that they submit the certificate of zoning -- zoning compliance. We envision I think April 23rd that UDC text amendment is before Council. Because this conditional use permit is going forward Meridian Planning & Zoning April 4, 2013 Page 19 of 25 with a development agreement modification, that UDC text amendment will precede this application before Council. Staff is confident that this site -- that UDC text amendment will probably be approved, but if it isn't, again, they will have to comply with the -- whatever the ordinance is in effect at that time. Get to these proposed elevations here. Excuse me. These are typical of what you see out there back in 2009 with the Gramercy 48 unit apartment complex. The proposed structures have a mix of building materials. You're looking at lap siding, .board and batten, stucco finish with stone wainscoting. This -- the left building here -- the building on the left here is -- the structure proposed for Lot 9, which is the northern parcel, the building here on the right is for the -- Lot 26, which is the southern parcel, again, similar architecture to what's out there given the -- the proposed architecture also mimics the single family homes in the area as well. Staff is amenable and recommends the proposed structures to you. would mention if you take a look at this portion of the elevation here staff is recommending that this pop out on the single story level to provide some more -- a difference in building material and stone wainscot just to tie back into this portion of the building. If you look at the front elevation you can see they tied in a covered entry here or covered pop out with some stucco accents. It just seems to blend a little bit better, so staff is making a recommendation that they provide a mix of materials and stones wainscot on this pop out. They kind of match -- blend in better with that back facade or the west facade along the pathway there as well. Staff has received written comments from the applicant. They are in agreement with the conditions in the staff report. To staff's knowledge there aren't any other outstanding issues before you and at this time I'd stand for any questions you have. Yearsley: Thank you. Are there any questions? Marshall: Yeah. Bill, can we go back to the plat again? Excuse me, Mr. Chair. should ask. Yearsley: Commissioner Marshall, you're fine. Marshall: The lots in between these two lots -- I thought for a minute you said they were commercial, but they are single family residential; right? Parsons: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, that is correct. They are out of court single family detached homes. Marshall: Now, have those been built up? This aerial is rather old I think. I remember seeing this exact one when we saw the other apartments there. Have any of those houses built in? Parsons: At this time there are no single family homes present or constructed.. Marshall: Or down on the south side. Parsons: Correct. This portion is built out. Meridian Planning & Zoning April 4, 2013 Page 20 of 25 Marshall: Right. And those are the only single family residential homes in the whole area are the ones that are back to back there that are built out at this time. Thank you. Yearsley: Any other comments? Thank you. Could we have the applicant come forward. Please state your name and address for the record, please. McKay: Becky McKay. Engineering Solutions. 1029 North Rosario, Meridian. Business address. I'm representing Mr. Hunemiller on this particular project. As Bill indicated, we brought forth the Gramercy Apartments, which was 48 units kind of in a horseshoe shape. I did give Bill some photographs that were taken last year of right after they landscaped the site for the Commission to take a look, how nice it turned out, the landscaping, the buildings, the architecture really blends. The residents that -- that we met with that live out there in the single family dwellings have complimented the buildings, said they are great. They are luxury apartments. They are higher end. And they filled up within just a matter of like two months of completion. So, Mr. Hunemiller -- these.two lots became available. I brought a conditional use application through. We were going to do some condominiums that kind of looked like townhomes. We had some problems with getting the 20 foot drive pad or the -- the pad in front of the garage and, then, meeting the requirement for the access in between. So, it was kind of abandoned. However, the -- obviously, the -- the elevations were tied to the development agreement modification that went through at that time, so we are here this evening to ask for a modification of that development agreement to tie these elevations, these site plans, to the project and, obviously, approve the conditional use permit. We are I think 13 dwellings units per acre. So, these lots are R-15. They were always intended to be some type of multi-family, you know, larger building and we think that this is a good fit. It's going to mesh just right across the street with that architecture and we tried to provide, you know, quite a bit of landscaping and buffering as much as we possibly could. Yeah. That's -- there is -- Bill -- yeah. You can see the horseshoe one with the 48 units. The only homes that are constructed out there are the detached single family to the east. The courtyard lots have not been constructed on. So, obviously, any home buyer -- these units will go in prior to that. Our client intends on constructing that this summer. You're a real Google wizard. Parsons: It's not getting much street view, though. McKay: We are -- we are in agreement with all the conditions and I'd be glad to answer any questions. Yearsley: Any questions? Miller: Mr. Chair? Yearsley: Commissioner Miller. Meridian Planning & Zoning April 4, 2013 Page 21 of 25 Miller: I have a question on the covered parking. I didn't see the elevations or anything, other than it was noted that it was going to be a similar construction. Is this just a pitched -- covered kind of like that horseshoe development? McKay: Yes. The client indicated he would do the same kind of a powder coated, colored, you know, with a similar roof line. We initially when we applied showed covers on all of our parking spaces, but now since the code's being altered I thought, you know, maybe it will be better to have the covered away from the building and the uncovered toward the building. So, I think people always fight over the parking right in front of the building and so there would be an advantage to being across under the cover. And, then, it also enhances the looks of the building when you don't have a carport in front -- right in front of it. Yearsley: Thank you. Any other questions? Marshall: Mr. Chair? Yearsley: Commissioner Marshall. Marshall: Becky, do you foresee those single family residential houses building up in between these eventually? McKay: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Marshall, yes, they have been purchased by Corey Barton Homes. So -- and Mr. Barton has constructed the homes along that one street and I think he's probably kind of waiting for the right time and the right moment that that product, obviously, will be marketable. You know, we are seeing that the -- the nontraditional alley load lots, courtyard lots, those are kind of lagging behind your more standard front load single family as far as development in the valley and build out and so I think he's probably kind of holding onto those. He has some alley load lots in another development that he's doing the same thing. Marshall: Thank you. Yearsley: I actually have a question. Bill, will you go to the landscaping plan. On that -- that south property, the parking, actually, will face those homes; is that not correct? The homes to the north. What -- I see just a couple of trees. Is there going to be a fence there as well? McKay: We could install a fence. That would be their rear yards. Yearsley: I would think that that would be -- to help block any lights coming into the backyards and stuff like that be a nice neighbor effect on that, so -- McKay: Oh. And we did -- we did shift the building further south. That -- the landscaped stripe increased by nine feet, so that's the one that we shifted the buildings. Meridian Planning & Zoning April 4, 2013 Page 22 of 25 We thought that the buffer made -- increasing the buffer north made more sense than south where it's open space. Yearsley: Right. McKay: So, as you can see we significantly increased that. Yearsley: I was kind of concerned, because I'm assuming as cars pulled in they will have their headlights shining into the backyards and -- or onto those buildings to the neighbors to the north. So, that's why I was just trying to be -- McKay: Yeah. You know, they could plant additional trees there for -- to, obviously, buffer the headlights or install a fence. Yearsley: Okay. So, that's all I have. Thank you. McKay: Thank you. Yearsley: I have no one signed up and no one in the audience, so at this point I will stand for a motion to close the public hearing. Miller: So moved. Marshall: Second. Yearsley: I have a motion and a second to close CUP -- the public hearing for CUP 13- 003, Gramercy Pride Apartments. All in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. Marshall: Mr. Chair? Yearsley: Commissioner Marshall. Marshall: I'm a little disappointed in our number of neighbors here like there were with the last time. Last time there was -- we had a lot of conversation going and I think most people that have served anytime on the Commission know that I'm very pro apartments. I like apartments and I like them -- I think -- I like the mixed use and things like that. But to be honest, this project feels really disjointed to me. It feels like split personality. I almost feel like the houses there are going to feel like -- they are going to be in the middle of an apartment complex and I -- I'm not liking that feeling. I really would like to have seen it go to the condos -- some kind of townhouses or condos, some mix -- it wouldn't have to be single family residential, but some mixes in there and I really think it would have flowed much better. This feels like I have got houses and just everything's kind of piecemeal and it doesn't feel right to me, to be honest and I -- I appreciate the fact that those houses in between these buildings have not been built, nobody's Meridian Planning & Zoning April 4, 2013 Page 23 of 25 purchased them yet, and if they were to they would know what they are getting into. But I mean one thing that we are really looking for is this sense of neighborhood, sense of community, sense of belonging and if I lived in this neighborhood I'm not sure what I would feel like I belonged to. I think I would be lost in the middle of apartments on an island and I wouldn't feel like community. I'd feel that if they had gone to condos or something like that I would feel like I'm one of the many different types here and we are all kind of in this together. But having the great big three story apartments all around -- you know, huge in front of me and now on the side and now up here and, then, just some single family houses in between, Idon't -- I'm not fond of it. I really am not. think there is going to be people really losing a sense of community in there and I think they would have been very appropriate for condos or something smaller, a little smaller scale that would have been something in between the apartments and the houses. But don't think apartments -- great big huge apartments -- because your -- it's -- I think the houses are going to get lost in it. Yearsley: Thank you. Any other comments? Rohm: Mr. Chairman? Yearsley: Commissioner Rohm. Rohm: I concur that those single family dwellings are going to be dwarfed by all the apartments, but the fact that the existing apartments that have already been constructed have been so well received and filled up so rapidly and this is really a continuation of that same theme, I -- 1 think that this is appropriate for the -- the parcels in this request and my suspicions are that those ten residential lots that are sandwiched between these two parcels may come back to us with a different look at some point in time in the future or may or may not, but they will stand on their own and the fact of the matter is the existing apartments have all been well received and this is -- this is a continuation of that theme and I'm pretty much in support of the application as it stands. Yearsley: Thank you. Miller: Mr. Chair? Yearsley: Commissioner Miller. Miller: Just some comments. 1 agree with the development. I don't feel like it feels too awkward. I feel like the courtyard lots are kind of a different animal anyways and they will kind of attract their own person that wants to live in a space like that and I think there is a market for that. I agree that the success of these other apartments states that there is a demand for this and, then, that -- the lots in between can be whatever they need to be otherwise. But I don't feel like it's foreign. Just my personal opinion. I like the development. I like where it's at in relation to the public parks, that it's tied into that and also using other spaces and just kind of making a total use of the area and I think that this accomplishes that for sure. Meridian Planning & Zoning April 4, 2013 Page 24 of 25 Yearsley: Thank you. So, at this point I would entertain a motion. Rohm: Mr. Chairman? Yearsley: Commissioner Yearsley. Rohm: After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to approve file number CUP 13-002 and MDA 13-004 as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of April 4th, 2013, with no modifications. Miller: Second. Yearsley: I have a motion and a second to approve CUP 13-003 and -- do you have that? Parsons: Mr. Chair? Yearsley: Yes. Parsons: I'm sorry to interrupt. You're not approving anything tonight, you're still recommending approval -- Yearsley: Okay. Recommending approval. Parsons: -- approval, because there is a DA modification associated with this application. Yearsley: Okay. All right. I have a motion and a second to approve the -- recommend approval of CUP 13-002 and MDA 13-004. All in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. Yearsley: Thank you. So, at this point we have one last motion to make. Rohm: 1 move we adjourn. Miller: Second. Yearsley: I have a motion and a second to adjourn. All in favor say aye. Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. MEETING ADJOURNED AT 8:13 P.M. Meridian Planning & Zoning April 4, 2013 Page 25 of 25 (AUDIO RECORDING ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS.) APPROVED STEVEN YEARS - HAIRMAN ATTEST: --~-~. JAYCEE HOLMAN, CITY CLER ~4,UAUGUST~ l9~ 404 4 S ~;~ ~~p,1`o 1 " DATE APPROVED v N ~ ~+ a ~~ ,o~ S o, r~6c~Nres ai tletaE~6Jt Meridian Planning Zoning Commission Meeting DATE: April 4, 2013 ITEM NUMBER: 3A PROJECT NUMBER: ITEM TITLE: Approve Minutes of March 21, 2013 PZ Commission Meeting MEETING NOTES [~ APPROYEU CLERKS OFFICE FINAL ACTION DATE: E-MAILED TO STAFF SENT TO AGENCY SENT TO APPLICANT NOTES INITIALS Meridian Planning Zoning Commission Meeting DATE: April 4, 2013 ITEM NUMBER: 4A PROJECT NUMBER: PP 13-002 ITEM TITLE: Bellabrook Villas (aka Brookside Square) Continued Public Hearing from 3/21 /13: Preliminary Plat approval consisting of 26 single- family residential building lots and 4 common/other lots on 4.38 acres of land in an R-15 zoning district by ZWJ Properties, LLC - 300 S. Locust Grove Road MEETING NOTES 5 dny a ~r.1 o.-4~e-`r-S ~ ~ a~ I-b~-d ~~ ~ - S~-r~c1Ce~ Se~-~-~vr ~J~ x=7-13 L-, pPPR CLERKS OFFICE FINAL ACTION DATE: E-MAILED TO STAFF SENT TO AGENCY SENT TO APPLICANT NOTES INITIALS Meridian Planning Zoning Commission Meeting DATE: April 4, 2013 ITEM NUMBER: 4g PROJECT NUMBER: RZ 13-003 ITEM TITLE: 807 N. Meridian Road Public Hearing: Rezone of 0.47 of an acre from the R-8 (Medium density residential) to the O-T (Old Town) zoning district by LTD, LLC - 807 N. Meridian Road MEETING NOTES ~n~ a~ ~a~1--~-2J~ ~ pppAOVED CLERKS OFFICE FINAL ACTION DATE: E-MAILED TO STAFF SENT TO AGENCY SENT TO APPLICANT NOTES INITIALS Meridian Planning Zoning Commission Meeting DATE: April 4, 203 ITEM NUMBER: 4C PROJECT NUMBER: CUP 13-002 ITEM TITLE: Gramercy Pride Apartments Public Hearing -Conditional use permit for 18multi-family dwelling units on two lots on approximately 1.38 acres in an existing R-15 zoning district by Sagecrest Development, LLC - 21 1 1 8~ 2283 S. Accolade Avenue MEETING NOTES \ 1 ~ ~ctrS c9rLS r~/ APPROVED CLERKS OFFICE FINAL ACTION DATE: E-MAILED TO STAFF SENT TO AGENCY SENT TO APPLICANT NOTES INITIALS