Loading...
2013 05-16E IDIAN~-~- MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING I a A ~ ~ COMMISSION MEETING AGENDA City Council Chambers 33 E. Broadway Avenue, Meridian, Idaho Thursday, May 16, 2013 at 7:00 p.m. 1. Roll-call Attendance X Macy Miller _X Michael Rohm X Scott Freeman _O Joe Marshall X Steven Yearsley -Chairman 2. Adoption of the Agenda Approved 3. Consent Agenda Approve Minutes of May 2, 2013 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Approvd 4. Action Items A. Public Hearing Re-Notice: 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 6.8 +/- Acres of Land from Mixed Use-Community (MU-C)with a Neighborhood Center (N.C.) Overlay to MDR (Medium Density Residential) Continue Public Hearing to June 6, 2013 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting B. Public Hearing Re-Notice: 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 25.8 Acres of Land with an R-8 Zoning District Continue Public Hearing to June 6, 2013 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting C. Public Hearing Re-Notice: PP 13-007 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 99 Single- Family Residential Building Lots and 16 Common/Other Lots Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Agenda -Thursday, May 16, 2013Page 1 of 2 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 888-4433 at least 48 hours prior to the public meeting. on 25.75 Acres of Land Continue Public Hearing Commission Meeting Meeting adjourned at 7:40 p.m. in a Proposed R-8 Zoning District to June 6, 2013 Planning and Zoning Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Agenda -Thursday, May 16, 2013Page 2 of 2 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 888-4433 at least 48 hours prior to the public meeting. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission May 16, 2013 Meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission of May , 2013, was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Chairman Steven Yearsley. Present: Commissioner Steven Yearsley, Commissioner Scott Freeman, Commissioner Michael Rohm, and Commissioner Macy Miller. Members Absent: Commissioner Joe Marshall. Others Present: Machelle Hill, Ted Baird, Caleb Hood, Sonya Wafters and Dean Willis. Item 1: Roll-Call Attendance: Roll-call X Scott Freeman X Tom O'Brien X Michael Rohm O Joe Marshall X Steven Yearsley -Chairman Yearsley: Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. At this time we would like to call to order the regularly scheduled meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission on May 16th, 2013. Let's begin with roll call. Item 2: Adoption of the Agenda Yearsley: Thank you. The next item on the agenda is the adoption of the agenda. At this time we have no changes. Could I get a motion to adopt the agenda? Miller: I move adoption of the agenda. Freeman: I second. Yearsley: I have a motion and a second to adopt the agenda. All in favor say aye. Opposed. Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. Item 3: Consent Agenda Approve Minutes of May 2, 2013 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Yearsley: Next on the agenda is the Consent Agenda, which the only item on that is the approval of the May 2nd, 2013, Planning and Commission meeting. Any comments or -- to that? If not can I get a motion to approve the Consent Agenda? Meridian Planning & Zoning May 16, 2013 Page 2 of 14 Freeman: Mr. Chair, I move that we approve the Consent Agenda. Miller: Second. Yearsley: I have 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 I'd like to open -- let's see. Let's see. At this point we are going to open the public hearing, but let me explain the process really quickly for you. We are going to open, actually, all three of these items at the same time, so we can hear them all at once. The staff will start with their findings and how it adheres to the Comprehensive Plan and the Uniform Development Code with staffs recommendations. The applicant will, then, come forward and have an opportunity to state his case for approval. The applicant will have up to 15 minutes to do so. After that we will have public testimony. Anybody wishing to come up may do so. There is a sign-in sheet in the back for those who want to -- to testify. We will also open it up at the end. Each person is allowed three minutes to testify. If they are testifying for a group they will be given up to ten minutes. After the testimony has been heard the applicant will have an opportunity to respond and he will have up to ten minutes to do so. Then we will close the public hearing and the Commission will have the opportunity to discuss and hopefully decide on the recommendation for City Council. Item 4: Action Items A. Public Hearing Re-Notice: 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 6.8 +/- Acres of Land from Mixed Use-Community (MU-C)with a Neighborhood Center (N.C.) Overlay to MDR (Medium Density Residential) Continue Public Hearing to June 6, 2013 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting B. Public Hearing Re-Notice: 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 25.8 Acres of Land with an R-8 Zoning District Continue Public Hearing to June 6, 2013 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting C. Public Hearing Re-Notice: PP 13-007 Woodburn West Subdivision by Northside Management Located North of W. Meridian Planning & Zoning May 16, 2013 Page 3 of 14 Ustick Road, Approximately 1/4 Mile East of N. Linder Road Request: Preliminary Plat Approval Consisting of 99 Single- Family Residential Building Lots and 16 Common/Other Lots on 25.75 Acres of Land in a Proposed R-8 Zoning District Yearsley: So, at this time I would like to open CPAM 12-007, AZ 13-003 and PP 13- 007, Woodburn West Subdivision. Let's begin with the staff report. Wafters: Thank you, Chairman Yearsley, Members of the Commission. The applications before you tonight are a Comprehensive Plan map amendment, a request for annexation and zoning, and preliminary plat. The subject property consists of 25.75 acres of land. It's currently zoned RUT in Ada County and is located north of West Ustick Road approximately a quarter mile east of North Linder Road. Adjacent land use and zoning. To the north is Sawtooth Middle School, zoned R-4, and single family residences and Sienna Creek Subdivision, owned R-8. To the south is rural residential properties, zoned RUT in Ada County and Ustick Road. To the east are single family residences in Woodburn Subdivision and vacant commercial property, zone C-C. And to the west are rural residential and agricultural properties, zoned RUT in Ada County. The Comprehensive Plan future land use map designation that currently exists for this property is medium density residential, which consists of 18.85 acres of the site and mixed use community with a neighbor center overlay, which consists of 6.8 acres of the site. The applicant proposes to amend the future land use map contained in the Comprehensive Plan to change the land use designation on 6.8 acres of land from mixed use community with a neighborhood center overlay to medium density residential. Annexation and zoning of 25.8 acres of land with an R-8 zoning district, is requested consistent with the existing and proposed future use map designation of medium density residential for this property. A preliminary plat consisting of 99 new single family residential building lots, two common lots for the existing homes, and 14 common lots on 25.75 acres is proposed and is proposed to develop in three phases. Access is depicted on the plat at the north and east boundaries via North Anfield Avenue, West Applepine Street, and West Woodpine Street. You can see right here, here and here. A stub street is depicted at the west boundary of this site and to the south to the Saleen and the Richards property for future extensions. No public street access is proposed or approved via West Ustick Road. Two existing homes, which, again, are right here, the Saleen property and the Richard property, currently take access via Ustick Road. The Saleen property has frontage on Ustick and there is a cell tower that exists on the north end of the property right here and they have an easement to access their facility via Ustick across from the Saleen property. The applicant is requesting a waiver from Council to UDC 11-3-A-3 for the Saleen property to be allowed to retain their access to Ustick until such time as the property redevelops in the future. At such time access via Ustick would be reevaluated. The Richard property has an easement over the Cooper property to the south where access to Ustick Road via North Cooper lane. Staff does not object to them continuing to use this access. However, upon redevelopment of the property access should be taken internally and the Ustick access discontinued. At staff's request the applicant has submitted a conceptual street layout plan for adjacent properties, so that they can make connections to the stub street Meridian Planning & Zoning May 16, 2013 Page 4 of 14 proposed in the subject plat, internal circulation, and access points via Ustick and the new road in alignment with existing and future accesses across Ustick and Linder. This network is only a concept and may change, but the goal was to illustrate access points and sewer connections to Ustick Road. A landscape plan is proposed that depicts 15.2 percent or 3.91 acres of the site for open space, which exceeds the minimum ten percent requirement, so there is quite a bit of open space provided here and site amenities as follows: Pathways throughout the site connecting to open space areas, adjacent developments, and through linear open space along the White Drain at the west and southwest boundaries of the site. An additional five percent open space above the required amount. A tot lot, picnic table, a barbecue, a bench, a gazebo and a large common area space -- area for sports. And there is an existing six foot tall fencing along the northern boundary of the site and along a portion of the east boundary that abuts Woodburn Subdivision. A four foot tall open cedar fence, as depicted here in this detail, is proposed along the rear lot lines of the remainder of the site, excluding the out of perimeter boundary of the Richard and Saleen properties. The White Drain is required to be fenced in accord with the UDC standards to deter access to the ditch. Conceptual building elevations of the future homes in the development were submitted by the applicant with the original application. Because the concept plans only show flat elevations and no floor plans were submitted, staff is unable to determine the quality of development, such as if modulation exists in the wall plains, floor plans, and roof lines to articulate building mass and form. If the quality of design and detail is present on all facades, if there is adequate windows on all elevations to provide articulation and avoid blank walls, and if there will be a variety of materials and color changes for a variety of interest on all facades, et cetera. The elevations do depict a mix of materials, three different types, including masonry accents, but appear to have very little, if any, modulation structurally to footprint and roof lines. Some are lacking in fenestration and have little color variety. Design review is not typically required for single family residential detached homes, however, the city does encourage single family detached development to incorporate the design guidelines contained in the city's design manual. Because of the appearance of the lack of quality in the proposed structures, for reasons stated staff recommends in the staff report that the proposed annexation be denied and, consequently the proposed Comprehensive Plan map amendment and preliminary plat be denied, as staff did not feel it was in the city's best interest to annex the property at this time with the quality of development proposed. Since the staff report was written the applicant has submitted revised photo elevations and floor plans and foot prints to demonstrate modulation of the front facades and roof lines and more windows on the front. These are the revised elevations shown that the applicant submitted. There is a mix of materials. Staff does recommend and applicant agrees that if the Commission finds these elevations acceptable that masonry accents should be provided to 50 percent of the available lot length at a minimum height of 48 inches on the front facades, excluding the garage opening. The need for elevations alleviate much of staff's concerns. However, because the rear of many of the homes will be highly visible from the common open spaces and pathways, staff still would like to see the rear site elevations before being in full support of the revised elevations. Where appropriate windows should be placed on all elevations and detailed to provide articulation and avoid blank walls. The placement, size, and proportions and details of windows should Meridian Planning & Zoning May 16, 2013 Page 5 of 14 contribute to the architectural character of the building. Staff and the applicant are working together on this and are confident that we will reach a product that is consistent with the intent of these guidelines -- design guidelines. Staff is supportive of the comp plan map amendment and preliminary plat and also the annexation if the issued noted with the elevations can be worked out. Written testimony has been received on this project from a petition for the residents of Woodburn, Sienna Creek Subdivisions. Rick Wagner representing Alice Saleen, Norm Brown, and Scott Noriyuki, who is the applicant. He did submit a response in agreement with the comments in the staff report and would like the Commission to consider a favorable recommendation based on the upgraded elevations provided. Staff will stand for any questions the Commission may have. Yearsley: Any questions at this time? Freeman: Not at this time. Yearsley: Would the applicant like to come forward? You need to turn the podium around. Please state your name and address for the record, please. Noriyuki: Scott Noriyuki, Northside Management, 6810 Fairhill Place, Boise, Idaho. Commission. This is a good project. It's taken a lot of work. I recognize that we are working on the elevations and we will provide some siding rear photography, as well as modeling architecturally so that you can insure that there is modulation. You will also see in the footprints that I submitted that there is modulation, but we will further the photography and the design from that standpoint. But before we start talking about product, I want to talk about the actual application or the land use application at hand and I -- it's not very often I'm allowed the flexibility to create something with substantial open space, to request a waiver to keep the creek open, to retain several existing trees and habitat or open space, if you will. It is a very safe creek. It's lazy and it's shallow. We are proposing to put in a pathway that's going to connect all of these southern subdivisions south of Ustick genuinely and truly to the school on the north side. Years ago I worked on the creek property that was just on the west side and that was a big priority to create these pedestrian connectivity pathways. It took a little bit farther not only connected this north-south, but also east-west and I think this really creates a huge vision -- or completes a vision whereas -- or at least part of it. From a practical R-8 design standpoint, we are deficient of the minimum 50 foot frontage on a handful of lots. When I come forward with the final plat we will make those adjustments. It's a handful of parcels and that is noted in the staff report and I do concede to that and we will just clean that up proper like. From there I'm working on the elevations. I think if you really look at the elevations you're going to be surprisingly pleased. These are pulled from northeast Boise, the Harris Ranch Mill District area. It's high quality. And with that I'd stand for any questions. Yearsley: Any questions of the applicant? All right. Thank you. Meridian Planning & Zoning May 16, 2013 Page 6 of 14 Noriyuki: If I may, I apologize, I missed what I would consider an important part. I have met with the neighbors a handful of times within Woodburn and there is some -- there is some concern for traffic impacts within their neighborhood and that's why I had submitted the master plan -- or the conceptual plan for all the other southern properties and the connectivity of roads. You're going to hear a handful of them talk tonight and really the goal is is if we can get a recommendation from the city to install a handful of stop signs, as I proceed with my first or second phase of my project before these ultimate connections in the future transpire, it's going to help us with ACHD to obtain an approval, because I recognize the impacts on them and that would be great if we can get any help for them. Thank you. Yearsley: Thank you. I have got a couple of people signed up. Is John Palomares? Do you want to come up and -- Palomares: I'm John Palomares. I live at 3416 North Bryce Canyon Avenue in the Woodburn Subdivision. I'm actually here speaking on several -- or speaking for several of the residents there. They kind of nominated me to go and fill out the thing that we submitted with all the signatures and everything. We have worked with Scott on this and talk to him quite a bit on the traffic impacts. We are actually all very excited that this could be something that could be built and the houses seem to be nice and we kind of like the way that he can keep the trees and kind of keep everything the way that, you know, it's looking now. Our major concern was there was no relief out. So, we are talking a hundred new homes, two cars per home. I mean it's an awful lot of traffic that's going to come either through the Woodburn Subdivision or actually go back around and go down the back road. Think it's Ashton or one of those roads, but -- so, our main concern was trying to get either some stop signs in at least for the first phase, so, then, way in the second phase when they start bringing in more homes that they can start going out towards Ustick. The new paper that we have just been shown, that actually shows some possibilities of roads going out to Ustick. If we can get some kind of, you know, just this guarantee or something saying, you know, this is what can happen, I think the neighborhood could get behind that, because that was mainly the main thing that we were asking for. The one thing we don't want to have is a neighborhood that has a hundred percent of the traffic go through our neighborhood and that's the way it was set the first time. That's exactly how it was going to happen. It was going to have to go through the neighborhood. So, we have already got, you know, kind of an issue with the traffic as it is now, because we have got the townhomes right in the center, instead of the homes, so that was -- that was one of the -- our major concerns. So, I mean as far as that, if we can just get some stop signs in there to start off and, then, get the easements or the traffic flow that way. One of the other things having worked with Scott was during the construction he is just saying that he can get some -- he could actually get the construction traffic going through some of the -- the land owners and he's already gotten that, so as long as he sticks to that we are all fine with that, too, so -- Yearsley: Thank you. Meridian Planning & Zoning May 16, 2013 Page 7 of 14 Freeman: I have a question for you. Palomares: Yes. Freeman: I did -- I read your letter and your recommendations -- I just want to confirm. This is what I understand. Your first stop signs, you'd still like to see that for the initial phase? Palomares: Yes. . What I'm hearing now recommendation for the Freeman: The other recommendations, which are basically for connectivity to the arterials, as long as you see those happening in future phases you understand that those things might be delayed; is that correct? Palomares: Right. And (realize -- I mean it might be something that might be five, ten years out, maybe even further. I know, you know, it takes a little while for the roads to come in. That's why having the stop signs there is kind of intricate. I mean we have got -- we really need that. But, yeah, as long as, you know, we get it at the second phase, we can get some roads in there or something just to relieve that -- that traffic, I think that would be fine, because, you know, 20, 30 homes probably not going to make a huge, huge impact, especially if we have the stop signs, but if we get all hundred homes in and there is no easement out, that's going to be -- it's just not going to happen, because there is so many kids in there and we already -- the way that the traffic is set right now anybody coming out from the back neighborhood, if they are not able to go down Venable, because there is so much traffic, they actually cut through Woodburn right now and we have had a lot of close calls with the kids just playing in that one cul-de-sac, because they will come whipping through there and you can't see the kids and they have already been almost hit a few times, so -- Freeman: Okay. Thank you. Palomares: Thank you. Yearsley: Thank you. The next one I have is -- it's Alecia Lease. Lease: Hi. My name is Alecia Lease and I reside at 972 West Applepine Street in the Woodburn Subdivision. The original Woodburn. We are largely here just based off original concerns for traffic and, obviously, you know, we are a single family residence primarily and we have a lot of children and that was our largest concern that we originally had, but after having so many conversations with Scott and his proposed plan, I do actually feel that it could be promising, as long as we can do what we can to move forward on some traffic calming measures, because if not as it is right now, like John was stating, we do have quite a few people that are backdrafting the side subdivisions, according to us, and coming through our subdivision and while I'm not part of that primary arterial, it still -- you know, we have got people on motorcycles that are racing through there doing 45 and that's just unrealistic. So, if we could do measures, in Meridian Planning & Zoning May 16, 2013 Page 8 of 14 addition to the 99 homes that he is intending to put in -- 99 homes that he's intending to put in, you know, that would definitely feel much more comforting. We actually met with him on this last run. Once people determined he, you know, was going to put that motion forward to see if we couldn't get that acknowledgement and get that put together, then, everybody came together on the same page. So, that's pretty much where we are at. We do have quite a few of us that were opposed originally and now we are more on board. No, we are not opposed to growth. We definitely want more homes to come in and, you know, with this new intent that he's got it definitely will help our property values, so we are not opposed to any of that. We are just more concerned about our families and safety and traffic. So, if we can just get some help with that, then, I don't see any reason to oppose this project. Yearsley: Thank you. Next is Rick Wagner. Wagner: My name is Rick Wagner and I represent Alice Saleen, who lives on Ustick. The Saleen property. Pretty much our only concerns -- I think we have got the sewer and the water issues solved. If we can keep our access onto -- onto Ustick Road that would prevent us from driving through this big subdivision that everybody is concerned about and we have a cell tower on the property that they need access to. I think that is pretty much our only concerns at this time. Yearsley: Thank you. Is there anybody else that would like to testify at this time? Okay. Would the applicant like to come up and address -- Noriyuki: Thank you. You want me to restate my name? Yearsley: Please. Noriyuki: Scott Noriyuki, Northside Management. 6810 Fairhill Drive, Boise. Clearly traffic is key with this project and that's why I have worked with the neighbors. The first thing that 1 want to -- I do want to point out is that ACHD and the existing public right of ways, the roads, do not require any other kind of mitigation. The public rights of way are designed to handle this project and you will see that forthcoming with the ACHD staff report. However, as a developer we were naturally going to have some sort of an impact as we come in and that's where I'm putting up the offer to see if we can get a little support from you guys to convince ACHD to allow us to put in some stop signs, so the impact is not as heavy as we proceed. Yearsley: Just a quick question. Do you have a location of where you're thinking those stop signs should go? Noriyuki: Yes. Absolutely. Overhead? Yeah. Absolutely. Great. Sonya, can you pull up the -- pull something up for me? Sonya: You got it right there. Meridian Planning & Zoning May 16, 2013 Page 9 of 14 Noriyuki: Thank you. I think this is -- actually, can you pull up the one with my conceptual -- because it's a little more global. Yeah. Perfect. Thank you. Just kind of test it. Okay. So -- and help me out a little bit. But the primary goal is -- you're going to -- we are anticipating we are going to have primary access coming in at this point, so we -- we have discussed a stop sign here and here or potentially here and here and something in this area. I think that was the big one. As people pull in to initially stop them, but, then, the other desire was at some point between this point or this point to have some sort of stopping mechanism. This one isn't as critical, because we have a T, but our concern is is if we are going to have somebody that's really starting to pick up some speed running a long there. Am I correct? Yes. There was a point as well here or here. But I think the real critical area that we need to look at is this stretch across here and ultimately we had moved our stub street -- we had an original design like that, but it would turn into a race track, if you will. So, these are the thoughts and concerns as most people come in on Venable, either way, they are probably going to hit here and they are probably -- if not, they will come this way. Yearsley: Okay. Noriyuki: We are going to try formalizing this and it's somewhat organic, but I think we need to contemplate it. Yearsley: Any other questions? Okay. Thank you very much. Noriyuki: Thank you. Yearsley: If there is no questions -- or no more comments, can I get a motion to close the public hearing? Miller: I move to close the public hearing. Freeman: I second. Yearsley: There is a motion and a second to close the public hearing. All in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carried. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. Yearsley: Comment? Concerns? Freeman: Question. Yearsley: Question. Freeman: Stop signs. And I'm going to turn my head from you, Mr. Chair, over to legal, because I'm wondering what authority do we have to do anything regarding stop signs. Meridian Planning & Zoning May 16, 2013 Page 10 of 14 Baird: Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission, you don't have any authority. It's totally within ACHD's jurisdiction. But what Mr. Noriyuki has asked you to do is give your jaw bone to the Commission, to Council, to -- you know, the more recommendations we get for stop signs the greater consideration possibly ACHD would give to them. So, it's merely in the form of a recommendation. Freeman: Thank you. Mr. Chair, I have another question of staff if I may. Yearsley: Absolutely, Commissioner Freeman. Freeman: Sonya, looking at your initial recommendation and now seeing that there are some elevations, you stated that you're happy to see those elevations, yet you still have questions about the remainder of the elevations and fenestration and that kind of thing. I'm curious. In your mind is that something that you would still recommend we wait on until those things are resolved or is that something you feel at this point can be resolved with a DA agreement worked out between you and the applicant? Wafters: Chairman Yearsley, Commissioner Freeman, Commissioners, I do like what I'm seeing so far, but because we don't have any rear elevations yet I can't really say whether or not they will -- they will meet our guidelines. I think we are almost there. We do not have design review for single family detached homes is the thing. So, I would really like something to attach to the development agreement that they are required to build to. Freeman: Well, that clarifies for me. So, you have actually no further teeth, because of the design -- the lack of it -- Wafters: Correct. Freeman: -- that would have to happen at this stage. Wafters: I would really like them to get the details nailed down before -- Freeman: I understand. I understand even clearer the recommendation now. Okay. Thank you. Miller: Mr. Chair, I have a question. Yearsley: Commissioner Miller. Miller: More just clarification -- and this is for Sonya here. To Mr. Wagner's concern about his access to Ustick, that's not being taken away; correct? To that radio tower? Wafters: Chairman Yearsley, Commissioner Miller, Commissioners, our UDC does not support an access to Ustick. When access is available via a local street they are required to take access from the local street. However, the code does allow for Council Meridian Planning & Zoning May 16, 2013 Page 11 of 14 to waive that provision to grant an access waiver from Council for access. So, that is what the applicant requests Miller: Okay. Freeman: Again, which we can give some lip service to, but it will be ultimately their decision, if I understand correctly. Yearsley: Well -- and it's in the staff report that the staff recommends that waiver, too; is that correct? Wafters: Staff doesn't object to that, Chairman Yearsley. Yearsley: Okay. Waters: The access can be reevaluated in the future when that property redevelops. Yearsley: Okay. Any other comments, questions? Freeman: Yes, Mr. Chair. Yearsley: Commissioner Freeman. Freeman: I'm glad that the applicant and the -- and the property owners that are there are starting to come together and work some of these things out. I'm very encouraged by that. I do think that the stop signs -- there is some merit to that idea and so this will go on record as saying I hope ACHD will help you out with some strategically placed stop signs when this project starts moving forward. I still share staffs concerns that we haven't seen enough yet to know for certain that this is in the best interest of the city from a design standpoint, so I for one would still like to see those things. At the same time I like where I see this going. I like the direction. I, for one, would like to see it come back with those questions answered, so that everybody can be satisfied and staff can feel very secure in their recommendation. Yearsley: Thank you. Any other comments? Rohm: Basically, I just support what Commissioner Freeman just said. I think that before we would be comfortable moving this forward to City Council we would like to see those additional elevations from the sides and the rear of the buildings as well, so that we know that we are moving forward with the project that would have a universal support. So, I would recommend that we will table this or continue it to our next regularly scheduled P&Z meeting and give the applicant an opportunity to bring those elevations forward. Freeman: Mr. Chair? Meridian Planning & Zoning May 16, 2013 Page 12 of 14 Yearsley: Commissioner Freeman. Freeman: Commissioner Rohm, you brought up something I hadn't thought of. Is continuing this a viable option, rather than recommend denial at this point and modifying the application? Baird: Members of the Commission, absolutely. That could, indeed, be your next motion. Instead of closing the public hearing you could move to continue it. I would recommend that you put on the record the exact date that it's being continued to, so that the folks present here would have the opportunity to show up again to see what it is you're asking for. Yearsley: Thank you. So, I guess with that, if there is no further comments, I'm open for a motion. Freeman: I still have one more -- Yearsley: Okay. Freeman: -- thing in my mind. Yearsley: Sorry. Freeman: Sorry, Mr. Chair. Dates. I will turn to staff. I don't think we need to reopen the public hearing for this, but a reasonable date to get that -- the additional information. Do you think that would be our next regularly scheduled meeting or do you think it would take a couple of those, in your opinion? Wafters: I think the 6th would work. It sounds like for the applicant and staff. Freeman: Okay. Thank you. I'm done -- Yearsley: All right. Freeman: -- talking. Rohm: Mr. Chairman? Yearsley: Commissioner Rohm. Rohm: I move we continue this public hearing to the regularly scheduled meeting of June 6th, 2013. Freeman: Commissioner Rohm, did you want to state the specific reasons for that? Rohm: Well, do we need to with the discussion we have had or -- Meridian Planning & Zoning May 16, 2013 Page 13 of 14 Baird: Members of the Commission, I think it would be good to recap that now, so that everyone is clear what you're coming back for. Also that would put the public on notice that we are limiting testimony at the next hearing to only the new items -- tonight was the opportunity for the public to present on the general project. If you specify the reason that you're continuing it for, then, you would only be taking testimony on those new issues presented at the next meeting. So, it's probably a good idea to do that. Rohm: Okay. Are we only concerned about the additional elevations or do we want to also request more specifics on the stop sign request or just the elevation? Freeman: I think just the elevation. There isn't any more that we can discuss -- Yearsley: I think on the stop signs in the motion, if we approve it eventually, that we recommend stop signs be placed or something to that effect. Rohm: Okay. So, with that being said, Mr. Chairman? Yearsley: Commissioner Rohm. Rohm: I move that we continue Items A, B and C to the regularly scheduled meeting of June 6th, 2013, to consider additional elevations provided by the applicant and that will be the sole item for review. Freeman: I second that. Yearsley: I have a motion and a second to continue file number CPAM 12-007, AZ 13- 003 and PP 13-007, to June 6th. All in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. Hood: Mr. Chair? Yearsley: Commissioner Hood. Hood: If I can, I will just let you know that we will commit to reaching out to ACHD to talk with them about the -- even before the staff report gets copied to them, but we will touch base with ACHD and the applicant already has as well about the stop signs and maybe other traffic calming measures that might be out there as well to address some of the existing neighbors' concerns. So, I just wanted to let you know we will see what we can do behind the scenes, even though that isn't something that we will talk about next time, so -- Yearsley: Thank you. So, with that I have one last motion. Rohm: Move we adjourn. Meridian Planning & Zoning May 16, 2013 Page 14 of 14 Freeman: I second. Yearsley: We have a motion and a second to adjourn. All in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. MEETING ADJOURNED AT 7:40 P.M. (AUDIO RECORDING ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS.) APPROVED D ~~~~~1~ STEV N YEARSL - CH N DATE APPROVED ATTEST: ~~ 1~J~-~C./ L ` 1 1 Jam-` `-f TV ' O~~~D AUGUSTr j JAYCEE HOLMAN, CITY CLE ~ `off 9~ 3 ~;ty, of ~.~y ~E IDIAN W ~,, SEpL ,,~ n~yr6t °f f h e t4E A6~P'c. Meridian Planning Zoning Commission Meeting DATE: May 16, 2013 ITEM NUMBER: 3A PROJECT NUMBER: ITEM TITLE: Approve Minutes of May 2, 2013 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting: MEETING NOTES ~-PP,,b ~- ~sF~rnrn ~F-C~ CLERKS OFFICE FINAL ACTION DATE: E-MAILED TO STAFF SENT TO AGENCY SENT TO APPLICANT NOTES INITIALS Meridian Planning Zoning Commission Meeting DATE: May 16, 2013 ITEM NUMBER: 4A PROJECT NUMBER: CPAM 12-007 ITEM TITLE: Woodburn West Subdivision (Re-Noticed) Public Hearing: Amend the future land use map contained in the comprehensive plan to change the land use designation on 6.8 +/-acres of land from mixed use-community (MU- C) with a neighborhood center (N.C.) overlay to MDR (Medium density residential) by Northside Management - n/o W. Ustick Road, approximately 1 /4 mile e/o N. Linder Road MEETING NOTES r~,~.~~~ ~}-o CLERKS OFFICE FINAL ACTION DATE: E-MAILED TO STAFF SENT TO AGENCY SENT TO APPLICANT NOTES INITIALS Meridian Planning Zoning Commission Meeting DATE: May 16, 2013 ITEM NUMBER: 46 PROJECT NUMBER: AZ 13-003 ITEM TITLE: Woodburn West Subdivision (Re-Noticed) Public Hearing: Annexation and zoning of 25.8 acres of land with an R-I zoning district by Northside Management - n/o W. Ustick Road, approx 1 /4 mile e/o N. Linder Road MEETING NOTES f l~ Corn-i~ n ~.e~ +D ~ - ~O - 13 m~z~s~ y-c~ CLERKS OFFICE FINAL ACTION DATE: E-MAILED TO STAFF SENT TO AGENCY SENT TO APPLICANT NOTES INITIALS Meridian Planning Zoning Commission Meeting DATE• May 16, 2013 ITEM NUMBER: 4C PROJECT NUMBER: PP 13-007 ITEM TITLE: Woodburn West Subdivision (Re-Noticed) Public Hearing -Preliminary Plat approval consisting of 99 single family residential building lots and 16 common /other lots on 25.75 acres of land in a proposed R-8 zoning district by Norfhside Management - n/o W. Ustick Road, approximately 1 /4 mile e/o N. Linder Road MEETING NOTES ~~- Cori-~°v~ t.~e~ --~r~ ~o~ (~~-~ ~ ~~Js~ ~Ad CLERKS OFFICE FINAL ACTION DATE: E-MAILED TO STAFF SENT TO AGENCY SENT TO APPLICANT NOTES INITIALS