Loading...
2013 06-20E IDIAN--- MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING I p ~ ~ COMMISSION MEETING AGENDA City Council Chambers 33 E. Broadway Avenue, Meridian, Idaho Thursday, June 20, 2013 at 7:00 p.m. 1. 2. 3. 4. Roll-call Attendance X_ Macy Miller X Scott Freeman X X_ Michael Rohm X_Joe Marshall _ Steven Yearsley -Chairman Adoption of the Agenda Approved Consent Agenda Approved A. Approve Minutes of June 6, 2013 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting B. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: CUP 13-005 Red Tail Communities by W.H. Moore Company Located Southeast Corner of E. Victory Road and S. Meridian Road (SH 69) Request: Conditional Use Permit Approval for a Multi-Family Development Consisting of 220 Residential Units in an R-15 Zoning District Action Items A. Public Hearing: AZ 13-006 Jack's Place Subdivision by Jack's and Jesse Place, LLC Located East Side of S. Meridian Road, Approximately 1/4 Mile North of E. Victory Road Request: Annexation of 5.34 Acres from RUT in Ada County to the L-O (Limited Office) (1.71 Acres) and R-8 (Medium-Density Residential) (3.63 Acres) Zoning Districts Continue Public Hearing to July 18, 2013 B. Public Hearing: PP 13-010 Jack's Place Subdivision by Jack's and Jesse Place, LLC Located East Side of S. Meridian Road, Approximately 1/4 Mile North of E. Victory Road Request: Preliminary Plat Approval Consisting of Three (3) Office Lots, Twenty (20) Residential Lots and Three (3) Common Lots on Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Agenda -Thursday, June 20, 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. Approximately 4.52 Acres in the Proposed L-O and R-8 Zoning Districts Continue Public Hearing to July 18, 2013 C. Public Hearing: PP 13-009 Touchstone Place by Iron Mountain Real Estate, Inc. Located South Side of E. Fairview Avenue and West of N. Stonehenge Way Request: Preliminary Plat Approval Consisting of Sixteen (16) Multi-Family Lots and Six (6) Common Lots on Approximately 4.38 Acres in an Existing R-15 Zoning District Recommend Approval to City Council D. Public Hearing: CUP 13-003 Touchstone Place by Iron Mountain Real Estate, Inc. Located South Side of E. Fairview Avenue and West of N. Stonehenge Way Request: Conditional Use Permit Approval for Sixty-Four (64) Multi-Family Dwelling Units in an Existing R-15 Zoning District Recommend Approval to City Council Meeting adjourned at 8:50 p.m. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Agenda -Thursday, June 20, 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 June 20, 2013 Meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission of June 20, 2013, was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Chairman Steven Yearsley. Present: Commissioner Steven Yearsley, Commissioner Joe Marshall, and Commissioner Macy Miller, Commissioner Scott Freeman and Commissioner Michael Rohm. Others Present: Machelle Hill, Bill Nary, Bruce Chatterton, Bill Parsons, Bruce Freckleton, and Dean Willis. Item 1: Roll-Call Attendance: Roll-call X Scott Freeman X Macy Miller X Michael Rohm X Joe Marshall X Steven Yearsley -Chairman Yearsley: Good evening,.ladies and gentlemen. At this time I would like to call to order the regularly scheduled meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission on June 20th, 2013. Let's 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. We have no changes, so could I get a motion to adopt the agenda? Miller: So moved. Marshall: Second. Rohm: Second. Yearsley: I have a motion and a second to adopt the agenda. All in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 3: Consent Agenda A. Approve Minutes of June 6, 2013 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Meridian Planning & Zoning June 20, 2013 Page 2 of 34 B. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: CUP 13-005 Red Tail Communities by W.H. Moore Company Located Southeast Corner of E. Victory Road and S. Meridian Road (SH 69) Request: Conditional Use Permit Approval for a Multi-Family Development Consisting of 220 Residential Units in an R-15 Zoning District Yearsley: The next item on the agenda is the Consent Agenda. We have got two items on there today. The first one is the approval of the minutes of June 6, 2013, Planning and Zoning Commission meeting and, then, the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law of approval for CUP 13-005, Redtail Communities. Can I get a motion to adopt the Consent Agenda. Freeman: Move to adopt -- Yearsley: Or approve the Consent Agenda. Sorry. Freeman: Mr. Chair, I move to adopt the Consent Agenda. Marshall: I will second that. Yearsley: I have a motion and a second to approve the Consent Agenda. All in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Yearsley: Before we start the next couple items I kind of want to explain the public hearing process. We are going to open each item one at a time. The staff is going to start basically giving their staff report and telling how the project adheres to the Comprehensive Plan and the Uniform Development Code with staff recommendations. At that time when they are done the applicant will have an opportunity to come forward to present their case for approval. The applicant will be given up to 15 minutes to present. After that we will open the meeting to public testimony. There is a sign-up sheet in the back for anyone wishing to testify regarding the project. Any person wishing to testify will be allowed three minutes. If they are speaking for a larger group, if there is a show of hands, they will be given up to ten minutes. After all testimony has been heard the applicant will have an opportunity to respond if desired for another ten minutes and, then, we will close the public hearing and the Commission will have an opportunity to discuss and deliberate and, hopefully, make a decision for City Council. Item 4: Action Items A. Public Hearing: AZ 13-006 Jack's Place Subdivision by Jack's and Jesse Place, LLC Located East Side of S. Meridian Road, Approximately 1/4 Mile North of E. Victory Road Request: Annexation of 5.34 Acres from RUT in Ada County to the L-O Meridian Planning & Zoning June 20, 2013 Page 3 of 34 (Limited Office) (1.71 Acres) and R-8 (Medium-Density Residential) (3.63 Acres) Zoning Districts B. Public Hearing: PP 13-010 Jack's Place Subdivision by Jack's and Jesse Place, LLC Located East Side of S. Meridian Road, Approximately 1/4 Mile North of E. Victory Road Request: Preliminary Plat Approval Consisting of Three (3) Office Lots, Twenty (20) Residential Lots and Three (3) Common Lots on Approximately 4.52 Acres in the Proposed L-O and R-8 Zoning Districts Yearsley: So, with that I would like to open public hearing AZ 13-006 and PP 13-010, Jack's Place Subdivision, and let's start with the staff report. Parsons: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. First item on the agenda tonight is Jack's Place Subdivision. It's located on the east side of South Meridian Road, approximately a quarter mile north of East Victory Road. In 2000 -- or 2012 the Planning and Zoning Commission of the city approved a Comprehensive Plan map amendment for this site. It changed the land use designation from low density residential to office and medium density residential. That time -- at that time it was discussed -- they had a concept plan that showed a small office park and a pretty small scale residential development. Again at that time it was a conceptual plan and nothing came forward or concurrent with that application. The applicant is here tonight to discuss a -- again, a small office park and a 20 lot residential subdivision. To the north of this site we have an animal vet clinic and Larkspur Subdivision No. 5, which is currently zoned L-O and R-8. To the east we have Larkspur Subdivision No. 4, which is zoned R-8. To the south we have partially developed commercial property, zoned C-G and a residential subdivision, zoned R-4 and, then, to the west we have Meridian Road, State Highway 69, and a church facility, zoned C-G. As you can see here there are three office lots that front along Eagle -- or, excuse me, Meridian Road. This was mostly predicated on providing a buffer for those residential uses that are more internal to the site. At the time that the comp plan amendment came before you everyone -- the city felt that was the appropriate designation to provide that buffer, not only for the residential use that was planned for this portion of the property, but also with the residential -- or the commercial property that was zoned at the south boundary as well. The applicant is proposing the L-O zone and the R-8 zoning designations before you this evening with their annexation request. That requested zoning is consistent with the land use changes that were approved a few months ago. All the lot sizes do comport to the R-8 dimensional standards. I would mention to you that the L-O zone does not have a minimum lot size that you see here, so, really, the only requirement for those lots come in the form of landscape buffers, which require a 35 foot landscape buffer along Meridian Road, ten feet along the local streets and then, basically, a land use buffer buffering the office zoned lots from the residential lots. With this subdivision the applicant will be extending a stub sheet that was stubbed at the east boundary with Larkspur Subdivision No. 4. That will extend it through -- turn that 90 degrees and head north and tie into an existing public street, East Edmonds Drive. This is currently a Meridian Planning & Zoning June 20, 2013 Page 4 of 34 public street that was created with the county subdivision, I don't know, sometime in the '80s. That will be improved to city standards as well. As you can see there will be sidewalks along that south boundary extended through the site. One of the issues with development and one of the items we need to raise tonight is really the requirement -- or the site is impacted with a large irrigation facility on it. Currently that facility would -- would run through these common lots here, turn west, and, then, head along the south boundary and, then, ultimately go along that residential sub that was platted back in 2006. In our staff report we had some concerns about the maintenance of that easement, how that would impact the building footprint of these lots, who would be responsible for the maintenance road. I would make Commission aware that we have not received any comments from the irrigation district on this application. In working with the applicant on these issues he has informed me that he has met with the irrigation district and they have specified the requirements of what they would allow within that 55 foot easement. If you look here on this exhibit that the applicant has prepared for you this evening you can see that the proposed home plans that are provided and that I will present to you later on, they do fit within the footprint of that envelope that's depicted on this exhibit as well. But I think that hatch line there represents basically the impact of that easement. It is stafFs understanding that the irrigation district will allow, through a license agreement, the use of that -- a partial use of that easement. However, because they need -- because this is a large facility, they are requiring that an 18 foot wide access -- gravel access road be provided through the common lots and run along that south boundary as well and that would give them access to that pipe ditch. Currently the Trinity Lateral, which runs along this boundary, is -- is piped along the southern boundary. The applicant is proposing to pipe this portion with this application, so it will be enclosed, which is, typically, a safer facility for -- for a residential subdivision. However, staff has concerns with how the esthetics of how that would look for those homes. Staff has concerns about having the future owners of those lots having the burden of maintaining a large easement on their property and paying taxes on property they can't use or enhance or landscape and that's why we raise it as an issue for you this evening. I believe in the staff report we are recommending that Commission require a common lot along that southern boundary to encapsulate the proposed 18 foot gravel driveway. At least that way if it's held in common ownership there could be a note placed on the final plat that spells out who can maintain and own that common lot and that would certainly address some of those concerns. Because this lot is under five acres in size there really are no open space provisions required by the UDC. However, given the impact of this facility and the amount of open space that is generated because of that easement, staff has recommended that a micropath be extended through these common lots and if the Commission stands with staff's recommendation in regards to the common lot here, we are requiring that a five foot micropath pathway run all along the south boundary to the office portion of the development and ultimately into the ten foot pathway that is required along Meridian Road here, which would ultimately provide connectivity to the commercial development to the south. Here are the elevations that the applicant is proposing this evening. Again, these homes are designed to fit within that footprint that described to you. The office portions of the development will have stucco, stone wainscoting, trim relief and modulation, roof forms and articulated wall plains. Staff has Meridian Planning & Zoning June 20, 2013 Page 5 of 34 recommended a provision in the DA of compliance with both of these separate elevations with future development of the subdivision. I would mention to you that you did receive written testimony from the applicant that kind of explains his situation of why he feels it's better not to allow the common lot to happen on the south boundary. I would -- what I failed to mention to you is if there is a common lot required as recommended by staff, that would change the configuration and the lot sizes along that boundary. If a common lot were to be platted there it's more than likely the plat would have to be redesigned and the lots reconfigured in order to meet the R-8 dimensional standards. So, please, take a moment, look at the applicant's response. Again, staff is recommending approval to you this evening. I think these issues could be worked out. Really, the outstanding issue is really what is the irrigation district going to allow for those residential lots in the future. Staff is recommending approval and I would stand for any questions Commission may have. Yearsley: Thank you. Are there any questions? Freeman: I have maybe one or two. Bill, could you go back to the plan. So, if understand right, to the south of those homes -- along the south there is going to have to be an 18 foot gravel driveway for access, plus we are recommending a five foot micropath. I'm wondering how much room there is actually going to be left there behind those homes and I can't envision what that's going to look like or how it's going to work for backyards or privacy or maintenance. I guess what I'm asking you to confirm is we are going to have an 18 foot gravel access road for irrigation, plus a five foot micropath back there, whether it's common lot or private lots? Parsons: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Freeman, you stated that correctly. We are -- although the irrigation district wants an 18 foot gravel road, we have recommended a 20 foot wide common lot. So, basically, you have 20 foot of landscaping, the five foot micropath could be centered within that 18 foot access road and that way if there was any heavy equipment or anything needed to get back there it wouldn't damage that pathway. However, in the applicant's response to you, as I mentioned, they have met with the irrigation district. It is their desire not to have a pathway behind homes. They don't want anything within that access road. They merely want their access to remain open, because of the size of the facility, they go there -- go through there very frequently to make sure everything is operating correctly. So, they -- they need that to be -- not have pedestrians back there getting in the way. It's a safety concern for the irrigation district. Freeman: Two more questions. How much distance-is there between the footprints of those proposed buildings and the property line, approximately? Thirty feet? Parsons: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. It varies. If you look at the exhibit, when the irrigation district went in there and piped the canal you could see they didn't do it parallel to the -- to the lot lines and so from -- from this pipe to this boundary believe -- or from the south boundary to this line I believe is 36 feet on the plat. Maybe the applicant could testify that, but you can see it's -- Mr. Chatterton has told me it Meridian Planning & Zoning June 20, 2013 Page 6 of 34 varies from 38 feet to 26 feet along that boundary there. Freeman: Okay. And the last question for you, Bill. When that pipe extends to the west it ends. Where does it go from there? Parsons: Mr. -- Commissioner Freeman, are you speaking from this point on? Freeman: Yes. Parsons: It actually -- it turns at this point and, then, runs along this subdivision boundary. Freeman: Okay. Thank you. That's all. Yearsley: Any other questions? At this time would the applicant like to come forward. Please state your name and address for the record. Yearsley: Which one do I talk into? I will choose this one. My name is Dave Yorgason. I'm with Tall Timber Consulting. I'm representing the applicant here tonight, who is Jack's and Jesse Place, LLC, as well as the owner Jack Bartlett. My address is 14254 West Battenburg Drive in Boise, Idaho. Can I proceed? Yearsley: Absolutely. Yorgason: Thank you. We appreciate the -- all the effort and the time in which we have worked with staff through this process. As staff has clearly articulated, this is not an easy tiny little site, which has many many challenges. We have pushed and pulled and tried to find a solution. As has been stated and I will even point to the illustration on the screen here, we are bound by developments around us. We have Edmunds Street on our north bounty, we have an existing stub street for the existing development of a phase of Larkspur West on our east boundary. On the south boundary, which is a few different things going on there. There is an existing fence along our south boundary common to the development behind us. An interesting aspect of that fence is it runs through that irrigation easement, in conflict with the existing agreement with Nampa- Meridian Irrigation District. I don't know how it happened, we just know it exists today and it is a problem. But the problem is upon us to try to solve as far as access for the Nampa-Meridian Irrigation District. They have required an 18 foot wide access way. spoke to Greg Curtis yesterday and we apologize that we didn't get anything in writing to you. He's been out of town for at least a week at some conference training and in a board meeting again tonight -- or today all day. But what he shared with me yesterday when I spoke with him is that that access way is traveled at least once, if not twice a day by their trucks. They do travel along this county lateral very frequently. They do not have any interest in having -- whether it's kids on bikes or moms pushing strollers or joggers or whatever it may be, they have no interest in a pedestrian pathway in their access easement area. So, they would not allow that. Rather than going back and explaining the whole history of the project, I just would acknowledge what staff has said Meridian Planning & Zoning June 20, 2013 Page 7 of 34 and I will just try to be a little more brief to the remaining items on concern that we have in the staff report. I guess I will ask the question. Did you receive the couple pages of -- that are -- that went through the different bullet points and suggested changes to the staff report? If you did I will refer to them here in just a minute. If not I can provide you with copies as well. Yearsley: Can I get a copy as well? Yorgason: Sure. Maybe a couple extras that we got -- I think staff has it, but we can get you copies as well. In reference to the staff report, we, first of all, appreciate again staffs efforts for this. In looking at the Ada County Highway District's portion of the staff report we have no comments. We agree with all the conditions from the Ada County Highway District. Regarding the conditions from the staff report, we'd like to start with page 21, which is Exhibit B. There are -- and this really boils down to three items, but it's kind of restated in a couple of places in the staff report. The times refer to cross- access and, then, landscaping improvements or other improvements in the landscaping -- excuse me -- in the easement for the irrigation district, as well as a common easement versus a common lot. So, I will address those three items. In the staff report on page 21, letter -- excuse me -- 1.1.1, letter D, refers to the cross-access. We have two or three reasons why we -- we requested a portion of this condition be changed or deleted. The topography. Along the south boundary of the site, as you look from south to north, there is approximately a six to eight foot change in elevation as you -- across that short distance and much of that slope change is actually in the first hundred feet and, then, it flattens out fairly quickly for the balance of the site. As you're going from the -- if you can point for me, Bill -- Lot 9, the southwestern corner of the residential area, between Lot 9 and 10 there and sloping to the west towards Meridian Road, that's even steeper. That area there is about a ten percent slope and it's pretty consistent all the way down to Meridian Road, that slope area. Trying to physically -- I don't know if it's even physically feasible to put an access road through there. Certainly we know it is not feasible between Lots 9 and 10. There may be a slightly softer slope over there on the western side against Meridian Road between that berm and the commercial building there. However, that raises another concern is even if it is engineering wise easier to build, that would take out at least three of our parking stalls and about a third of our building pad. I'm not sure it's very marketable. That building pad may not even be -- be the right size for us to try to build something through there. So, that's another concern in trying to provide cross-access is the hardship or the burden that is upon that lot. The last thing if the southern lot -- excuse me -- the parcel to the south of this lot and -- already has access. Access is not needed for it to function. It's been something that was just stated in kind of a last minute discussion with staff and we recognize that Council had some discussion on this regarding the cross-access way back when this -- six months or so ago when the Comprehensive Plan map was changed. Again, there was also recognition, because the topography and other challenges -- we again ask that this portion of the conditions be changed. We do believe, of course, that we should have cross-access within the commercial lots, but we ask that that portion be deleted. will refer to two other items. The common area improvements, as identified in Letter E of the development -- sure. I will stand for questions. Sure. Meridian Planning & Zoning June 20, 2013 Page 8 of 34 Marshall: Just a real quick question while we are going here. I'm sorry, I apologize, Mr. Chair, if I can. You were saying that -- I'm sorry, my plat here is a little too small to read. So, I'm assuming that the tilt of the elevation slops from south down to the north? The high point is on the south end. Yorgason: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Marshall, that is correct. The high side is the southside, so the site slopes to the north and down to the west to Meridian Road. Marshall: Thank you. Yorgason: Were there any other questions? Marshall: It just -- it allows me to keep up with you now. Yorgason: That's fine. Thank you for the question. Letter E, the first -- the improvements within the common area, Lot 3, Block 2 and Lot 2, Block 1, the irrigation district will require us as we said before, a gravel access area through there. We just ask for a couple things there. One refers to the allowance of gravel access. As the condition reads it does not allow for that, which will be required by the irrigation district. And, second, is the requirement for a pedestrian pathway. Again, we don't -- and will point to another -- another point here in just a minute, but that pathway will not go through to anywhere and it won't be very functionally feasible. So, referring to that second page of notes, we ask for a change that we -- excluding the gravel access road within the said common lots, that the landscaping will comply with the staffs condition there of lawn and a mix of shrubs and vegetative cover in those two common lots. We do ask and request that you delete the next sentence referring to a five foot wide common area asphalt pathway. Along the south boundary of these lots were several requests by the staff report. It talks about the 20 foot wide common lot or an agreement with the irrigation district to landscape across the -- and pipe across -- fence across the pipes. The irrigation district will not allow fencing across the pipe, first of all. Second of all, the 20 foot wide access -- call it 20 foot wide common lot -- is actually not even wide enough as we get further to the west behind lots six, seven, eight and nine, along that southern area, because of the diagonal installation of that pipe. It may work for a couple of lots, Lots 3 and 4, but it would not work for five through nine. So, actually, the area will have to be slightly larger to accommodate the irrigation district. Putting in a common area lot, as opposed to an easement through there for access and maintenance, that changes the setback requirements of the houses. Setbacks -- rear setbacks are based on property line and so because of that we are forced smaller houses or more additional configuration, which we have already pushed and pulled feet and inches that I have shared with staff trying to find a solution to adequate building pads for these sites. The lots are not a hundred feet deep through there, especially on the north side, those two boundary lots there. And so that's another reason why that would not work. We have already stated the irrigation district does not want landscaping or a pathway through their easement to interfere with their daily maintenance and also on the back of Lot 10, Block 1, because of the steep slope we Meridian Planning & Zoning June 20, 2013 Page 9 of 34 don't think it would meet ADA requirements to have a pathway through, as well as don't believe it's safe to have aslope -- sloping pathway for kids on bikes or skateboards as you're headed towards the state highway to have a pathway headed out to towards the highway. So, again, that's -- these are all reasons why we think that condition should be deleted. However, we recognize and agree with staff that we should impose some restrictions for weed control and maintenance to insure that it's not a burden or a nuisance for the community, as well as for individual lot owners. One of the developments that I have done is for Castlebury West Subdivision located on Chinden and Meridian Road. The landscape berm on the frontage of Chinden is entirely in an easement. It's not in a common lot. There is an irrigation line that runs through there for access for the irrigation facilities as well and for several years that has worked just fine to insure the individual lot owners don't have the burden of the responsibility for maintenance, but the access and maintenance is clearly defined both in the plat, as well as in the CC&Rs to insure that -- that the homeowners association takes primary responsibility for those things. We think that can work here also. It's not maybe a good application in all cases, but because of the nature of what we are faced with with these tight restrictions, we ask for your consideration of a common area access easement -- just call it a common easement area and we have referred to that in our conditions here. The last thing I will state is in the Section 1.2.1 there are a couple of bullets that refer to the same items that are in the development agreement. The first bullet refers to the access. We ask that the same change be made to that condition. The second bullet refers to the access easement area versus common lot, which I have just referred to and asked for the same change be made there in that condition. In the landscape plan section of the -- of the staff report, section 1.2.3, the fifth bullet refers to the landscape requirements within the easement and, then, the last bullet is the seventh bullet -- that last bullet of requested change and, again, we ask that that be deleted, so we don't have those requirements along the south boundary. We recognize there is kind of a lot to digest and shoot through. We also recognize that we have restrictions put upon us by the irrigation district that we have to follow. We also recognize that we want this to look right for the city, for the neighbors, and for the future neighbors that live here as well. We want this to work for builders to have adequate building pads, so we can have marketable lots. And so as we have pushed and pulled and looked at all the different restrictions on this site, we think that what we have proposed with these requested changes will work for us and will work for the future. Those are my comments tonight. We request your approval for our application as submitted with the staff report and the requested changes as I presented tonight. I will stand for any other questions you may have. Yearsley: Are there any questions? Marshall: Mr. Chairman? Yearsley: Commissioner Marshall. Marshall: I do. So, you're saying -- go back over that. Help me understand that common access easement. Who is going to be taking care of that property now? The Meridian Planning & Zoning June 20, 2013 Page 10 of 34 homeowner takes care of the common lots -- actually, the common lots, that's to be maintained by the homeowners association. But this easement across the back, who is supposed to be maintaining that? Yorgason: Chairman Yearsley and Commissioner Marshall, maybe I could answer it with two answers, if that's okay. The short answer is the homeowners association, not the individual homeowner, but the Jack's Place homeowner association will be responsible to maintain that common area easement, which is on the south boundary up to a distance of where the fence would be. The second answer I want to give you, which was not here on your exhibit, but it is presented to you and I just gave you a copy tonight and the reason why it's not in the packet, not in the presentation here, because it was based on a conversation I had at the end of the day yesterday with the irrigation district and this is whether a fence would be allowed within the easement area. The irrigation district has said that they will allow a fence ten feet -- within ten feet of the pipeline, but no closer than ten feet to the pipeline. The exhibit I presented to you shows that fence location to be ten feet from the pipeline. The -- here it is not. So, I'm sorry I didn't have that available for you until just now. Marshall: Are you showing this -- the pipeline as the -- how large a pipe are we referring to? Forty-eight inch? Seventy-two inch? Yorgason: Forty-eight. Marshall: Forty-eight inch. So, are we running from center line of the pipeline? Yorgason: Yes. Marshall: And are they saying ten foot from the center line -- Yorgason: Yes. Marshall: -- or ten foot from the outer edge? Yorgason: They said ten foot from center. Marshall: From center line. Okay. And so -- so when I look at those last lots there, seven, eight, nine -- those lots -- how far is that fence from the back of the building pad? Yorgason: Mr. Chairman and Commissioner Marshall, that's exactly what we have been looking at. That's exactly the problem we are having. The tightest restriction would be on Lots 7, 8 and 9. For clarification, just to help a little on dimensions, the easement for the Nampa Irrigation District is 20 feet north of the pipe. The fence is ten feet north of the pipe. So, you can see it's at least ten feet from the fence to the back -- the maximum building envelope -- that doesn't mean the home is necessarily being built all the way to the corner, but the maximum would be -- would create a minimum, guess, of ten feet, but our vision would be a 12 foot backyard for these houses back there. The houses that we have presented to you in the presentation packet -- and I Meridian Planning & Zoning June 20, 2013 Page 11 of 34 can show -- I have some exhibits, just a little bigger renderings, if you would like to see them -- fit those two -- both the single level and the two stories fit in the building envelopes that we are showing in this exhibit to you and so with these houses you would have approximately -- at least ten -- it would be more likely a 12 or more foot deep backyard. As I understand, that's what is allowed within the R-8 zone is a 12 foot rear yard setback. So, it would be the same as if it was normally within a 12 -- excuse me -- within an R-8 zone. The challenge, as staff has clearly articulated that, is if we have a common lot, as opposed to a common area easement through there, that forces these lots to be less than 5,000 square feet and less than 5,000 square feet, as staff has explained to me, you can have lots as little as 4,000, however, the lots will have a shared access -- shared driveway off of -- in this case off Whitehall Street. When you do a shared driveway you typically need a little more room for the car to backup before he can turn to hit the diagonal, if you will, the shared portion of the common lot. We think functionally and everything will look that same, just creating it as common lot easements, therefore, the lots can stay greater than 5,000 square feet. Therefore, they can have the regular garage, regular driveway backup out of their house. So, that's another reason why -- a critical reason why an easement is important to us, as opposed to a common lot line. Yearsley: But, yet, also the homeowner will have to pay property taxes on 20 some feet of property that he cannot use; is that not correct? Yorgason: Mr. Chairman, that is correct. I can probably envision a lot of easements throughout the valley where the people have easements in their backyard you can't use -- whether you can't use it exactly on how you would like or at all. We certainly know the irrigation easements are very common throughout the valley. You're not supposed to put sheds or trees or those kinds of things over top. In this instance we are trying to avoid the problem by trying to put some definitions and parameters around this, all of which will be in the license agreement with the irrigation district as well and, again, in the CC&Rs and a note on the plat referencing so we can have clarity to the buyers as they move there. Freeman: Mr. Chair, I have one question, too. I want to make sure I understand again -- the fence line -- I see that in the drawing you provided here. Ten feet off of center line of the pipe. That fence line is going to encroach in an 18 foot gravel driveway -- access driveway; right? Have you discussed that with the irrigation district? Maybe I missed it. Yorgason: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Freeman, actually, that would not be correct. There is more than 18 feet in between the south boundary of the property and the ten foot fence. So, the 18 foot access road will be between the south fence and the proposed fence. Freeman: Even at Lot 3? There is 18 feet there? Yorgason: Yes, there is. Meridian Planning & Zoning June 20, 2013 Page 12 of 34 Freeman: Okay. Yorgason: Pretty right at -- Freeman: Thank you. That clarifies that. Yorgason: Thank you. Miller: Mr. Chair? Got a quick question for you. Am I understanding right like these seven lots can't have trees in their backyard on that south side there? It's still in that irrigation district, so they just don't get any landscaping or anything? Yorgason: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Miller, trees, shrubs and, really, they don't even want grass along the 18 foot grassway, because -- excuse me -- 18 foot access way, because the equipment is driving there daily. On the other side of the fence in that additional fenced in -- if that's what you're referring to in their backyard, they would be allowed to have landscaping in there. Miller: Okay. Yorgason: Maybe not big sheds, but they can have some landscaping, yes. Miller: Okay. Marshall: So, you're saying the irrigation district has said it's okay to actually plant trees within their easement? Because I have never heard of them doing that before. Yorgason: They don't like them over the pipeline. There are certain species of landscape that do well, as long as the trees are not in the drip line of the -- of the pipe. Freeman: And, Mr. Chair, one more question. Yearsley: Absolutely. Freeman: I just have to. Could you, please, explain -- I understand you have got a tight site. That's apparent. And one of my first impressions just looking at is, my goodness, that Whitehall Street needs to move north a little bit and the other lots need to be shortened. Could you talk to me a little bit about that option? Yorgason: Certainly, Mr. Chairman and Commissioner Freeman. We looked at that. Maybe if I could back up one step. As staff knows, we have had several conversations -- not only with them, but it's more of communication with the irrigation district as well, and we actually had -- I guess I would call it a misunderstanding with the irrigation district, because they told us there would be an 18 foot access way through there, so we had the impression that we could have a fence 18 feet away and they came back Meridian Planning & Zoning June 20, 2013 Page 13 of 34 later very recently and said, no, the fence has to be ten feet away from the pipe, in addition to an 18 foot access way. So, the proposed -- the plat that we presented to the staff and to you for tonight for your consideration, considered the 18 foot access way, only not -- the additional burden is the fence further into those lots. We have taken a look, we have pushed and pulled and, again, we want to make sure that we have adequate site building envelopes. Over here on the eastern boundary where the stub street comes in we are fixed there, because the road is already built. There is really not much we can do until we cross the common lot. The other lots we have looked at and we actually do plan on anticipating pushing the street a couple of feet -- we really feel like 90 feet is the minimum we can have for marketable lots for this development. So, if lots are at 93 and 95 or 92 and -- or whatever, maybe there is -- I don't have that right in front of me, I'm sorry, but I think it was 95 and 90 would be the most. I mean there is five feet we can move the road, to answer your question, but we cannot move it more than five feet. And by doing that we would still not have these lots, because a common lot, which is a common area easement, these lots are still less than 5,000 square feet. Freeman: Do you have concern about the marketability of a ten foot backyard for these smaller lots? Yorgason: Again, we believe it would be closer to 12 and, no, because that's actually standard setback in an R-8 zone. Freeman: Okay. I think I'm out of questions. Yearsley: All right. Is there any other questions? Thank you very much. Yorgason: Thank you again. Yearsley: I do have a Dave Turner signed up. Would you like to testify? Okay. Would anybody else like to testify on this subject? With that can I get a motion to close the public hearing. I guess we have no more -- before we do that, is there anymore comments of the applicant, since there was no public testimony? Freeman: I don't think so. Somebody is raising their hand in the audience. Yearsley: Oh. Oh, sorry. I didn't see you. Please come forward and state your name and address for the record, please. Brown: For the record my name is Kent Brown. 3161 Springwood in Meridian, Idaho. We live across from St. Luke's Meridian. I was just going to give examples of other situations like Mr. Yorgason spoke to where you have an easement and it's part of your property. Our subdivision was there way before Eagle Road went through and changed from a two lane road to the road that it is today and the traffic that's there and so when that went in the homeowners association actually built the berm and, then, two houses went in behind that, but the berm is built on an easement similar to what Mr. Yorgason spoke about on Chinden for the Castlebury Subdivision. Those people own it. They Meridian Planning & Zoning June 20, 2013 Page 14 of 34 pay taxes on it. But the HOA waters it, maintains the trees and takes care of it and the city of Nampa for years -- and mostly the -- most of Nampa's area is Nampa-Meridian Irrigation District. There is many subdivisions that are similar to the condition that Mr. Yorgason has talked about. The only criteria that Nampa put in place was that they have a gate. If they own it, they should be able to go back there and, then, that was the only scenario and usually those were to open ditches and this isn't to an open ditch and I just thought I would give you an example of some other areas where they have done this. Yearsley: Thank you. Are there any other questions or anyone like to provide comment? Any rebut from that comment at this point? Yorgason: Mr. Chairman, Dave Yorgason for the record. I do not have any further comments, I'm just available for any other questions you may have. Yearsley: All right. I guess really quickly before you go, are there any other questions before we close the public hearing? All right. Thank you very much. Yorgason: Thank you. Freeman: Mr. Chair, I move that we close the public hearing for AZ 13-006 and PP 13- 010, Jack's Place. Miller: I second that. Yearsley: I have a motion and a second to close the public hearing for AZ 13-006 and PP 13-010, Jack's Place. All in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Yearsley: Who would like to go first? Freeman: I don't know if I have questions first or comments first. I think I -- I think I still have some questions of staff -- Yearsley: Okay. Freeman: -- if I could. It's obvious to us all that this is a really tight site and there are challenges. My question of staff is -- there are so many requests to change some of your recommendations. Some of them make more sense than others. One, I'm not sure what the impacts are, so I want to hear your opinion about this and that is elimination of this cross-access through -- I believe it's Lot 10 to the south, to make this little area all connectable. Can you shed more light on staffs concerns there, if that is infeasible or as difficult for the applicant as they are stating, what are the impacts of not putting that in there? Meridian Planning & Zoning June 20, 2013 Page 15 of 34 Parsons: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, Commissioner Freeman, I apologize I didn't bring that up in the staff report, because I certainly wanted to hit on that issue. About four months ago when this comp plan amendment came forward Council had some concerns that that is a partially developed property with an access to Meridian Road. Council has a very long-term memory and they remember some restrictions on that property and so at that time I didn't have sufficient enough answers to address all of their concerns. So, after that hearing I went back to the -- to this condition of approval of that property to the south and researched that development agreement and that access that's currently serving that portion of the development for Meridian Road is a temporary access and when that nursery redevelops to the south, that access point is supposed to close. Now, I would point out to you that there is additional cross-access provided within the subdivision for that property to take access, because there is a right-in, right-out only south of this entry point, this subdivision as well that the convenience store uses. So, that parcel has a right to that -- to use that right-in, right-out access point to Meridian Road and, of course, the access points to Victory. But that doesn't necessarily mean that that property -- the undeveloped portion -- the nursery property wouldn't be entitled to ask for a variance to Meridian Road. Over the last couple months staff has gone before Council on several variance requests for accesses to state facilities, because of ITD changing their access policies and our concern is if we don't get cross-access with this development that kind of opens -- we will feel at least it sets a tone that they would have the right to come and ask for an access onto Meridian Road and as you know our development code requires us to try to limit access to the state highways. That's how it's written today and that's why we feel this is an important connectivity, irregardless of the cross-access already tied to the plat through the development agreement in the recorded subdivision. So, yes, long story short, staff is still standing with this recommendation and would like permission to still require that cross-access with this development. Freeman: Thank you. Yearsley: Do you have further questions or further comments or are you -- Freeman: I'm still absorbing right now some of the requests to make sure I fully understand the applicant's request to amend the requirements. Yearsley: I guess with that is there any other -- anybody else have any questions or comments? Marshall: A couple thoughts and I'm just going to throw these out here for chewing on I guess. One, the 18 foot wide pathway, which is not necessarily going to be entirely on this -- these properties, but it will fall in the back of these and going to be as much as eight to ten foot higher than the building pad? Right out here. That's what he said. That's the argument right in here, because the path is going to drop eight to ten foot down to Meridian. That's also, if you look at the contours, there are two foot contours on here, it appears there is about -- on the preliminary plat there appears to be quite a few contours going down there. Contours there. It looks like about at least eight foot Meridian Planning & Zoning June 20, 2013 Page 16 of 34 that you're dropping. You're going to have a gravel road just right outside your back door. The fence, then, is going to be way down the hill and going to collect every piece of trash that blows along and the homeowners association is supposed come through and clean that up all the time. This is a really tough site and I understand that, but I think that's considerably different than -- to me that's considerably different than having an easement to a berm that goes out to the highway where the homeowners association maintains that, that's usually landscaped, has trees and fauna and all kinds of stuff on it. This is -- you know, the irrigation district's pretty tough. They just want something simple and basic and don't want to rip anything out or replace anything every time they fix something and I'm frustrated with that, I'd like to be able to landscape stuff and, yeah, they can be torn out and put back, but they don't like that, so -- the easement is a problem, because I am very much against multiple access points. That's the whole -- our whole problem out at Eagle Road. Freeman: You're talking about the cross-access easement? Marshall: Well, the access easements to Meridian Road. That's a problem with Eagle Road is too many access points. That's why the thing doesn't function as it's designed. Doesn't function, you know, even close to design speed, because there is too many accesses and everybody agreed in the first place it was all going to be through frontage roads and you would take the access at every half mile point and, then, the one hand wouldn't know what the other hand was just doing when the city came in and said, okay, we are going to have to zone that is C-G, that seems appropriate, got to have a frontage in there and ITD says, well, geez, you zoned that C-G. We have to by state code offer access now, because that's reasonable access to C-G. Have the same problem with Eagle going on out there on Chinden with that Fred Meyer and offered a full access -- a full access -- they have a full access out there on Chinden and if they continue to do that it's going to end up just like Eagle Road and is not going to operate at efficiency and that's why we limit those accesses. That's why we are going back through on Fairview and trying eliminate a lot of the accesses. There is too many accesses on there, so it doesn't flow. So, I think that cross-access easement is very important -- very important, because, then, it's the property just south of this, then, almost have to have an access to Meridian, if they don't have the cross-access. Even if they look you have to get of that temporary access. Freeman: Mr. Chairman? Yearsley: Commissioner Marshall -- or Freeman. Freeman: I -- I tend to see that particular issue the same as Commissioner Marshall. think that that cross-access agreement is something that should remain a part of the requirements for this project. The other items -- it looks like the irrigation issues can be worked out technically, still really not comfortable with how it's working out on the south boundary of the property. The situation with those houses that back up right against that with no backyards against what's going to drain right back into their properties -- know there are ways to deal with that, but I'm very uncomfortable with that whole Meridian Planning & Zoning June 20, 2013 Page 17 of 34 configuration. Probably one I'm least concerned about is whether this is a common area or a common lot. I'm actually fine with it being a common area. That seems to solve a problem, as well as anything, other than a taxing problem, which, you know, that's up to the -- that's up to the potential owner, whether that's a property worth purchasing or not. But we have a long list of items here requesting some relief from many of staffs recommendations and, you know, honestly, it's so extensive I don't think we are quite there yet. I certainly would not be comfortable waiving all of staffs recommendations, especially across-access agreement and still uncomfortable with the irrigation down here. Understand the constraints for this site and what I'm kind of left with, honestly, right now is maybe this just isn't the right solution for this site, but I'm not willing to conclude that yet. Maybe a solution similar to this is a solution, but there would certainly have to be some tweaks made to solve at least that cross-access issue, which I agree with Commissioner Marshall is an issue. That's it for me for right now. Yearsley: Thank you. I also -- and I apologize for not having a chance to look at that sooner. I did look at it, but I didn't realize the relief on that back corner as much as it is. From looking at this where the fence would be, the fence would be on top of that berm and that hillside is actually where that ten feet of grass is supposed to be. So, their backyard is a steep hill and some of that may be -- have to be cut down anywise and will the irrigation district allow you to cut that down and those questions I don't feel for me are actually resolved enough to make a decision on that, you know, without further clarification from the irrigation district. So, I do have a tendency to agree to have issues with that and I -- you know, I understand needing the 5,000 square foot minimums, but do we put the burden on the homeowners for paying the property taxes on a piece of property or do we put the burden on the developer developing the property. That's -- that's atough one to decide on, so -- Freeman: In my opinion -- if I may, Commissioner Yearsley -- Mr. Chair,- that's a call the developer can make. You know, if the developer feels that the homeowners are willing to take on that burden, great, that's how we set it up. It not, he's not going to set it up that way. I would tend to -- I would tend to be okay with acommon -- the common easement back there. Yearsley: Yeah. Miller: I would also second that argument. That to me is -- if he thinks he can sell them and it works with the irrigation district, I don't feel that that's my place to say he can't do it. The thing that does worry me is that access point, especially considering with the one they are currently using is designated as a temporary access, I feel like that's something that's important to maintain here and keep an access point on this development. Freeman: So, Mr. Chair, if I may, I'm actually -- and I hope Commissioner Rohm will chime in here in a second, but I'm actually wondering if I was to make a motion what my motion would be. Would my motion be -- and I'm going to think out loud here -- would my motion be approval, upholding all of the staff recommendations, or approval Meridian Planning & Zoning June 20, 2013 Page 18 of 34 modifying maybe one of the staffs recommendations or is it denial because I'm uncomfortable actually with more than just one aspect of this. I think there is more issues to be dealt with here still than the cross-access easement, which I think is critical. Yearsley: My thinking the other option would be to potentially continue this to have staff and the applicant try to work those issues out prior to coming back to -- Freeman: That is an option, too. I don't think enough of this has come to agreement yet that I can recommend approval, unless I recommend approval per all of staffs recommendations and I don't think that's exactly what the applicant is after either. Yearsley: Right. And I agree. Parsons: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, just to refresh your memory, July 4th -- if it is your desire to continue this hearing, the July 4th meeting I believe has been canceled, so the applicant would have some time to come back, get some concrete evidence for you from the irrigation district as to what that road section -- gravel road section would look like as far as how it butts up to the buildable lots. As far as all the other conditions as he's outlined in his staff report -- his rebuttal to the staff report, could see it happening a couple ways. You don't have to necessarily address every condition with a modification. If you support their idea of having it just be an easement along that, staff can take that as modify the appropriate conditions that kind of tab along with every one of those specific changes. Also I mean they could bring back exhibits, show you across-section of that and try to at least give you some assurances. The other idea is maybe limiting the fencing -- the fences along the back of those lots to four foot and make that gravel road basically a de facto pathway in the future for residents to use and, then, have them bring back something that shows how those can be landscaped to screen that and give some livability to those homes as well, so -- I mean there is some options here that they have, they just -- they need to give you more details, probably, and certainly I think the cross-section would probably answer a lot of those questions for you. Marshall: I was just going to say just in my past experience with the irrigation district that when you're saying -- I really liked the idea that if you're going to make it a common lot, make some use out of it, get that pathway through there, but he's right in that the irrigation district doesn't want anybody touching their stuff any how, any way and that's why I don't think that it's a good thing to be putting an easement in there and I think it should be a common lot owned by the homeowner's association, because this is not just a common piece of ground that's maintained, this is -- this is something that the irrigation district tightly controls and I will tell you trying to work with the irrigation districts on trying to create some amenities or something like that is next to impossible. They want it as simple and basic as it can be and I will tell you what, they don't want any vegetation, they don't want anything on it, they don't want any fences and they really came a long way to get that ten foot -- ten foot off the center line to even put a fence in there. And what that's doing is saying, okay, we have got our 18 foot wide gravel dirt way and, then, a foot on either side of that you have got a fence. You're just going to Meridian Planning & Zoning June 20, 2013 Page 19 of 34 fence our little -- our little dirt pathway here and, then, you do whatever you want outside of that and now we are going to tell the homeowner that they have got to go in and pay the taxes on that, I don't know as if -- I mean you say that, well, if he can sell that -- well, I'm sorry, I'm not really big on selling snake oil either and that's what I think it is and so I'm absolutely against the common easement, so -- the persons pay taxes on something that they don't -- they don't own. I mean, yeah, they own it legally, but they can't do anything with it. Not a thing. They can't put a little shed roof over it, they can't put anything out there, they can't plant a tree, because those are south facing -- that's the south facing and you go back to start a barbecue on your back porch, you want barbecue for that night, the sun is going to be baking down on you and there is no way to even stop it, except, well, you got eight foot of dirt and a fence on top, I guess, but, then, if you have got a two story house your windows are looking straight out at that truck that's got to go by a couple times a day. I'm not -- Freeman: So, would you be making a motion to approve with all of staffs recommendations intact or deny and go back to the drawing table? Marshall: Yeah. Something like that. It's got to change. I don't like just the way it is. know it's a really really tough situation. I feel for them. I like the idea of moving that whole road north and give those lots a little more room and actually put that common lot in and staff had a great idea to make some use out of it, but -- but I also understand the irrigation district is not going to let you do it. Yearsley: Well -- and then -- and Ihave atendency -- I still wonder about the validity of can you still actually build homes on nine -- seven, eight and nine. I mean if you look at the hillside coming down into that property, it's beyond the ten feet. So, are you building your house into that wall, into that dirt and, you know -- you know, if you look at that it's -- Marshall: Let me ask you this: What's 40 times 50? Yearsley: Forty times fifty? Times? Marshall: Yes. Freeman: Two thousand. Marshall: What's that? Freeman: Two thousand. Marshall: Two thousand. And this says sixty to -- sixty-two, twenty-six. So, is that a three story home? A little extra on a 2,000 square foot pad? Each one of those says 40 times 50. That's 2,000 square foot. Yet we say 53, 53 -- Miller: Is that the lot size? Meridian Planning & Zoning June 20, 2013 Page 20 of 34 Yearsley: That's the lot size. Marshall: That's the lot size, not the buildable lot size square foot pad. So -- that's a pretty good size pad, too -- Rohm: Mr. Chairman? Yearsley: Commissioner Rohm. Rohm: I'm ready to chime in here. Yearsley: All right. All right. . So -- okay. So, you got a 2,000 but you start counting the garage, Rohm: I have been listening all evening to this and the applicant would prefer to have an easement, as opposed to a common lot. The Commission would prefer to have a common lot. The fact of the matter is is with a common lot the whole configuration of this subdivision is going to have to change, because those lots will no longer conform to the 5,000 square foot minimum for the eight. So, that being said, we either have to approve an application with the staff report's recommendations or give the applicant an opportunity to make adjustments to the application, so that it will conform to the zone eight and meet the setbacks and the easement. I don't -- I don't personally care if it's an easement or a common lot myself, but if, in fact, we have an issue with that being so tight through there, adjustments are going to have to be made in order to make this subdivision fly period and I don't think that there is a motion that could be made tonight that will satisfy all of those issues that have to be resolved. So, with that being said, think what we need to do is send our set of specifications back to staff saying we want the common access, one, that's a must. We have to come to some concurrence whether or not we want an easement or a common lot and we give those directions back to staff and the applicant and let them go back and work things out to those things that we feel are most important for this project to move forward. If -- if we can't give them those directions, then, short of that I think that we would have to make a motion to either accept it or deny it based upon the existing staff report and let the chips fall where they may. Freeman: Which, Commissioner Rohm, is effectively going to send them back to the drawing board with staff to work these things out anyway. Even if we approve per staffs recommendation. Rohm: Well, the only thing about a denial is, then, you have to make a new application and in respect to the applicant to continue it to allow them, with directions from the Commission, they don't have to make a new application, all they have to do is adhere to the -- the concerns that the Commission can't live with based upon the current application. So, it would be my recommendation to continue this application with some directives and if -- if there is a Commissioner that has some strong feelings about the Meridian Planning & Zoning June 20, 2013 Page 21 of 34 common lot versus the easement, then, that needs to be articulated now. My personal opinion is either/or is sufficient as long as it addresses the concerns of the irrigation district, while at the same time still complies with the Comprehensive Plan and ordinances that we currently have on the books. So, that would -- that's my position on both of those issues. Yearsley: Commissioner Marshall. Marshall: Commissioner Rohm, very well said. I agree with you -- everything you said. thought I would point out that it appears I'm the only -- the only hold out for the common lot. Everybody else is okay with the easement it appears at this time I'm assuming. Yearsley: Yeah. I'm okay with the common lot. However, I -- I still think we need to get at least -- for me personally clarification, can they actually build on seven, eight and nine. I still wonder if a house could actually be built based on the way the contours are and the slope, even with the backyard and maybe show a house with the contours -- you don't have to spend a lot of time, just plot the house on, show me the footprint of a backyard and let -- let me know that -- how the yard -- or will the irrigation district allow us to recontour that back to make the back a little steeper, so you can actually have a backyard. Those are the concerns that I have with that as well. Marshall: And I would say that should contain some drainage design, because everything is flowing right towards that house and you don't want to leave somebody with some serious draining issues. So, it should contain some drainage design showing how the drainage is going to get out away from the house. Yearsley: Right. So -- Freeman: Mr. Chair? Yearsley: Commissioner Freeman. Freeman: I move to continue file numbers AZ 13-006 and PP 13-010 to the hearing date of July 18th, 2013, for the following reasons: I would like to see the applicant work with staff to work in staff's recommendations for the access cross-easement agreement and demonstrate to us with a section following the irrigation district's recommendation also of how Lots 7, 8 and 9 would be built with relationship to that easement. Rohm: Second. Yearsley: I have a motion and a second to continue file numbers AZ 13-006 and PP 13-010, to July 18th. All in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Meridian Planning & Zoning June 20, 2013 Page 22 of 34 Yearsley: Gentlemen, I think you have your work cut out for you. Wish you the best of luck and hopefully we can get this resolved. Thank you. C. Public Hearing: PP 13-009 Touchstone Place by Iron Mountain Real Estate, Inc. Located South Side of E. Fairview Avenue and West of N. Stonehenge Way Request: Preliminary Plat Approval Consisting of Sixteen (16) Multi-Family Lots and Six (6) Common Lots on Approximately 4.38 Acres in an Existing R-15 Zoning District D. Public Hearing: CUP 13-003 Touchstone Place by Iron Mountain Real Estate, Inc. Located South Side of E. Fairview Avenue and West of N. Stonehenge Way Request: Conditional Use Permit Approval for Sixty-Four (64) Multi-Family Dwelling Units in an Existing R-15 Zoning District Yearsley: Moving on I'd like to open the public hearing for PP 13-009 and CUP 13-003, Touchstone Place by Iron Mountain Real Estate. Let's begin with the staff report. Parsons: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. Next item on the agenda is the Touchstone Place Subdivision. The property is currently zoned R-15 in the city. It's located south of East Fairview Avenue and approximately a quarter mile west of North Stonehenge Way. This property was annexed, zoned and preliminary platted and received conditional use approval in 2006 fora 48 unit multi-family development. Surrounding the property is commercial and residential zoned properties along the east boundary. Along the west boundary -- south boundary you have residential homes zoned R-4. To the west we have commercial -- partially developed commercial property, zoned C-G. To the north we also have C-G property and Ada County property designated R-1 in the county. The applicant is proposing a 64 unit multi-family development consisting of 16 four-plex units on 16 buildable lots. Access to the site was provided from a stub street that was created with the Danbury Fair Subdivision along the south boundary. So, only a small segment of this roadway will be constructed with the subdivision improvements and will stub to that partially commercial developed property to the west. I'd also mention to the Commission that the master pathway plan prescribed a ten foot pathway on this property, so that will run along this road segment here and provide future connectivity and run across this commercial development to the private street as well in the future. Cross-access will be facilitated within the development with a driveway extension connecting to Fairview Avenue. Staff is recommending cross-access with the two adjacent properties and there is an animal clinic here currently and, then, we have, as I mentioned to you, an Ada County parcel here. One item of discussion for you this evening is this out-parcel that I have highlighted for you. When this property was annexed and zoned in the city in 2006 it was included as part of this property and this parcel. Since that time that bank has purchased the property and somehow this remnant parcel has been split off from the property. Staff is recommending a condition that the applicant provide a revised preliminary plat prior to City Council that includes this remnant parcel as part of the Meridian Planning & Zoning June 20, 2013 Page 23 of 34 subdivision boundary for several reasons. One, the original development agreement for this development requires that cross-access be provided to the county parcel and this property is not part of this application or the subdivision. This could become a spite strip in the future and restrict access from happening, therefore, going back to my point on the previous application this person would either be forced to provide -- get cross-access granted from this property or seek another access point to Fairview Avenue. As you know our access management policy in the UDC tries to eliminate curb cuts and requires cross-access and that's what we are trying to achieve here. The other thing to keep in mind is we are not requiring that curb cut to be built with this development. Because we don't know how this county parcel property will develop, we will allow that easement to float along this boundary, so that it would be established when this property develops. All we are asking for is they provide across-access -- cross-access easement to these two properties. However, for the property to the east there is developed an animal care facility. Back in 2009 that piece of property did go through a certificate of zoning compliance with the city for an expansion. During that review staff required cross-access when this driveway or street was developed. Now that the applicant is here proposing that connection to happen, this -- the owner of the animal care facility must connect to that driveway as part of their agreement with the city and so as soon as this driveway gets constructed the city is forced to send that property owner a letter informing him of his commitment to connect to that driveway and so we have got to make sure that the applicant constructs this for a portion of their easement. Our recommendation is that they coordinate with that property owner on that exact location of that driveway connection. Here is the proposed landscape plan for you this evening. Again, it depicts the sliver a little bit better for you, so you can see where this needs to come back in. Here is the general layout of those four-plexes. Along the boundary here the applicant is proposing a 14 foot setback, which is in excess of the required amount for multi-family developments. The minimum is ten feet. So, the applicant is proposing an additional buffer along the residential portion of the development. Here is that ten foot multi-use pathway that I described to you. This is the common lot that the applicant will be providing to share access in a common driveway and shared parking and, then, again open space is pretty minimal with this development. The only requirements are based on the number of unit counts, which is approximately 16,000 square feet if you take the 250 square feet per unit times 64 units, that's what the maximum comes out to is 16,000 square feet. A majority of the open space will be located centrally to the development. Along with this central open space the applicant is proposing a gazebo area here and a tot lot and, then, an additional 5,000 square feet of open space. So, right now they have the required three amenities. In the UDC specifications for multi-family standards they do require three amenities from each of a specific group. In this case the applicant's only provided amenities from two of the groups, so the applicant is working with staff on coming up with an additional amenity. We do anticipate some sort of fitness facility -- not a structure, but some kind of outdoor fitness area on the central common lot here, so folks can work -- adults in the facility can do their outdoor workouts here in the open space lot and still meet that amenity requirement. Here are the elevations. As I mentioned to you they are all four- plex structures. The applicant has proposed four distinct color pallets for you. They are conditioned to provide those four different color pallets. Here is a streetscape view for Meridian Planning & Zoning June 20, 2013 Page 24 of 34 you. One of stafFs recommendations this evening is that they provide another design with development of the site. It's not a requirement for Council or Commission review this evening, it would be a requirement when they submit for their design review that they submit ultimately the same building form, just provide a different variation of building materials to kind of give a more balanced design in their units. The unique feature about these four-plexes that we haven't seen is the applicant is actually proposing to enclose the patio structures with the same building materials. So, that should help screen some of the barbecues and the sitting areas and the patio furniture from the adjacent neighbors as well, so that certainly is a nice touch that you see here and it definitely provides a better design for the back of those structures. Staff has also recommended that they add additional fenestration on the side elevations. So, basically, you can expect at least four more windows on each side of those units. Staff has not specified a size requirement for those windows and in discussing it with the applicant they intend on putting in some of these transom windows here just to add some light there. That way these will all become usable areas for the tenants as they lease the units as well. One thing I did want to mention to you is staffs original recommendation was that they come back to you with a different carport design. The one that's attached in the staff report staff did not approve of that design. We have since met with the applicant. It is their preference to go with a flat roof type style carport. Staff has had some discussions internally and we believe that maybe after looking at other other developments in the area and throughout the country it appears the flat carport design actually blends into the developments a lot better and allows the building to stand out as the predominate feature of the development. But we would mention to you that staff has put the condition that they design a carport that at least has, you know, some substantial reveal along the top of it and, then, also be powder coated or painted to match the color scheme of the development. Staff has not received any written testimony on this application. The applicant is here this evening. We did have discussions with them. They have some issues they would like to discuss with you. I think I have hit on most of those. I know Mr. Chatterton -- or Mr. Freckleton has some concerns about one of the conditions in the staff report as far as a requirement for a pressure reducing valve that we have in the DA provision and also one of the recommended conditions for the plat. This concludes my presentation and I stand for any questions Commission might have. Yearsley: Are there any questions? Bruce, do you want to -- Freckleton: Thank you, Chairman and Members of the Commission. Good evening. One thing that I did want to point out is the -- as Bill mentioned, the original annexation came in in 2006. Staff report was prepared for that application. During that time a hydraulic analysis was done of the water system for the city and at that point in time there was a comment that the applicant needed to make a connection to Fairview Avenue. There is a water main in Fairview. So, they needed to connect water through from Fairview down to Sandlin Avenue to the south. The comment went on to say that upsizing may be required due to fire flow that hadn't been yet determined at the time they did that. Since that time, as you know, the water system in the city is not a static thing, it changes over time, as buildings build, the city spreads out, more wells are Meridian Planning & Zoning June 20, 2013 Page 25 of 34 brought online. The system is dynamic and it changes all the time. We have established across the city -- I believe there is five or six pressure zones now that divide the city up and that's to try and get more even pressures as you go through the city. One of those boundaries happens to be the south boundary of this proposed development. I did condition the applicant that due to that pressure boundary being there that they would -- they would need to make a connection at Fairview, but they would also need to install a pressure reducing station at -- near that Sandlin Avenue connection. This to the applicant is a surprise. You know, as they were doing their due diligence they -- they probably had the old report and that sort of thing and didn't anticipate this, so -- and it is a pretty costly item. We are going to continue our discussions with them, bringing the Public Works folks into the discussions as well and just wanted to bring that up to you tonight, that it is in the report and give you a little bit of background how it got there and we are going to further our discussions before we get to the City Council, so -- Yearsley: Thank you. Any other questions at this time? Freeman: Mr. Chair. If I could go back to Bill for just a second. Regarding the carport design, I see your recommendation there is still a recommendations for a gabled roof, but you mentioned that the flat would be okay, as long as they colored it. Could you clarify that for me? Parsons: Sure. Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, it's your desire to modify that condition based on testimony that you hear from the applicant. Staff is amenable to changing that condition. Freeman: Okay. Thank you. Rohm: Mr. Chairman? Yearsley: Commissioner Rohm. Rohm: I have a follow up to Bruce. Yearsley: Okay. Rohm: It kind of sounds to me from your testimony just now like this condition that has been placed on this development didn't -- wasn't a necessary component when this property was first annexed into the city, but now due to the growth of the city in order to maintain the pressures within the city water system a reducing valve would be necessary. But it almost sounds like that this is the straw that broke the camel's back, not just this application in and of itself is what caused the condition and just for my own understanding, it doesn't seem to me that a single application when it's the aggregate of several applications that caused the situation, why they would be responsible to correct something that has been caused by multiple developments over a period of time. So, would just like you to speak to that if you could, please. Meridian Planning & Zoning June 20, 2013 Page 26 of 34 Freckleton: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Rohm, no, you're exactly right. It wasn't a condition originally back in '06. With the establishment of those pressure zones you have to kind of draw those lines and it's based on, you know, the elevations and the system pressures and pipe sizes -- it's all taken into consideration in our hydraulic models that we run. It's difficult to try and draw a straight line when you have got, you know, your parcel lines and that sort of thing. So, you're exactly right, I mean this development has happened. Establishing this PRV here helps draw the line, because it does make a connection between a high zone and a lower zone. I don't know if that answers your question. But beyond the boundaries of this development -- Rohm: Well, I agree that the pressure valve needs to be installed, I'm just saying that from what you have said it sounds like that it is almost a maintenance item on our system, not necessarily specific to this application that the relief valve or pressure reduction valve needs to be installed. So, it just -- it doesn't seem to me that it's tied to this application specifically. Freckleton: Yeah. And, Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Rohm, that certainly is part of the discussions that we have had with the applicant yesterday. You know, they didn't feel that it was -- it was one hundred percent their responsibility to install that as well. So, we will address that with the Public Works Department and is see what kind of opportunities there might be out there to achieve the city's overall need and goal, as well as the developer's goals. Yearsley: And also, Commissioner Rohm, on that I believe at this point it is not our decision to weigh in on that. It needs to go in and it will be the City Council's decision on how that gets paid for, so -- if I am not correct, so -- Rohm: Okay. Well, never mind. Yearsley: So, make that a little cleaner for us to have to deal with. We don't really have to deal with that at this level. Marshall: I would simply ask one more thing, though. If the lot on either side of them were developing today they, too, have to address that with the same pressure reducing valve; right? Freckleton: Mr. Chair, Commissioner Marshall, any connection that we would establish between one zone to another zone, you have to be able to create that boundary. So, yeah, it depends on where along the line you would make those connections and where we have drawn the lines for our boundaries. Marshall: So, if they had built this in '06 it would have been somebody else today here in front of us needing to put it in is what we are saying? Freckleton: If they would have built this in '06 we wouldn't have had -- we didn't have Meridian Planning & Zoning June 20, 2013 Page 27 of 34 the requirement in the staff report from '06. That's right. And so we would have had to establish the boundary somewhere else. You're exactly right, so -- Yearsley: Any other questions before we move on? Thank you. Would the applicant like to come forward? State your name and address for the record, please. Brown: For the record my name is Kent Brown. 3161 Springwood in Meridian, Idaho. Just a brief understanding. My clients Iron Mountain three or four years ago they started doing these four-plex developments. There was a lot of thought that it might have been too soon, because the market was so bad, but they really hit a Hitch in the market in these four-plexes and having them on individual lots has been something that has been very surprising I think to them. They do a very good job and they have continued to improve their product. One of the parts that was discussed by Bill, the screening in of the patios, that's something that they just recently started doing and the thing that has brought them along really well is that they have a constant demand for these -- these items to be built. These apartments. There is a demand for renters and there is a demand for the buyers and we know that this product will sell and we want to build it as quickly as possible, as soon as we can go though all the necessary requirements to make that happen. With the different colors that's a part of what has also made these successful by mixing those, having another elevation as staff is requesting, is also another benefit that they don't all look vanilla, that they all have a little bit of uniqueness to them and, yet, the two bedroom, two bath, that these are providing, we have found to be very useful and the renters like those and they seem to fill up very quickly. We are grateful for staff and their willingness to work with us on a number of these items, specifically the Public Works and Bill in planning and we are -- with the items that they highlighted we are willing to work forward with those on. We tried to contact the -- the spite strip neighbor. We weren't aware of that until this week. The developer has been busy with some family situations and so it's been kind of difficult to trace those people down and work that out, but we have done some research on that parcel and how it was created and so we are willing to go talk with them and have that included prior to the City Council. I'd stand for any questions you might have. Yearsley: Are there any questions? I do have a couple. I just want to make clarification. You are in agreement of the staff report; is that correct? Brown: We are. Yearsley: Okay. And, then, the other question is is do you prefer the flat roof as presented here tonight or the other gabled roof? Brown: Yes, we -- we want the flat roof. We have done for the City of Meridian both and where we have done the gabled one it becomes the major feature that you see when you look at these units and Planning was willing to work with us and we have shown them some examples of how that flat roof and the color pallet being in the same earth tones as the buildings and how that blends in and we feel that that's very amenable to us. Meridian Planning & Zoning June 20, 2013 Page 28 of 34 Yearsley: Alt right. Thank you. Any other questions? Miller: I have got a quick question. Can you go back to the elevations real quick? So, are all of -- do all their 16 units look the same, just a different color? Is that what I'm understanding? Brown: There is a different color pallet and, then, we are going to have a different building elevation that has different treatments over the windows -- Miller: Okay. Brown: -- different shed roof type looks over some of the windows, different rock faces and so forth. Miller: Great. Okay. Thank you. Yearsley: All right. Thank you. I think that's it. Thank you very much. Have a couple of people signed up. Dustin Bristol. Please state your name and address for the record. Bristol: Dustin Bristol. I live at 1480 East Stonehenge in the subdivision right next to it. If I could, I have printed off a couple things, if I can present it to the Commissioners. Yearsley: Please. Bristol: So, I bought my house with my wife and we have had two kids since then. We have lived there almost nine years. We live in Danbury Fair on Stonehenge and our house butts up on that 1480 -- I'm here with two neighbors in 1484 and I'm representing my other one from 1474. On section -- or the second page A, B, D, our three homes, really why I'm here -- I'm not opposing the complex. I think it's probably even great. But these units will have two stories, you know, different -- six windows, six sliding glass doors, different balconies. They are going to have master bedrooms and that kind of thing, dining rooms, kitchens, living rooms that will butt up to our homes. Our homes are all single level homes in our subdivision. It was built in the early '90s and they are pretty small homes. Like mine is probably 1,200 square feef. So, really, our backyard is our extension of our home. It's not a very big backyard. We put a covered patio on. My kids play. We barbecue. That kind of thing. So, we bought high when the market was really peaking and we are stuck in our little house. You know, we want to stay there for as long as it takes until, you know, we regain some of the stuff we have lost. The only thing -- I'm just here to request maybe that the developers look at another design for the three units that abut right up to our backyard. Maybe something single level or -- there is an apartment complex in the beginning of our subdivision that faces Fairview that comes in on Stonehenge and it's an apartment complex and, then, it has parking and, then, it has landscaping and, then, fencing into the rest of the subdivision. We think that looks great for sharing with rental units. I have taken a look at some of Meridian Planning & Zoning June 20, 2013 Page 29 of 34 the other units around town that they have built and they are attractive. We'd just ask that maybe they would consider another plan for those three units that abut up to our house. And that's all. Thank you for listening. Freeman: Question. Yearsley: Absolutely. Go ahead. Freeman: Mr. Chair. Is it the two story aspect that bothers you most? Bristol: Yeah. You know, like -- it is. It's -- it's the windows, because we would really retreat back into our house. I have a six year old and a three year old and we play outside a lot and, I don't know, I think that it would just mostly be kind of an uncomfortable situation, I suppose. Freeman: Thank you. Yearsley: I also have a question. Looking at those plans, with your homes E, B and D -- Bristol: Yes. Yearsley: -- it looks like the only apartment, really, that's going to -- with the back facing you is actually going to be in front of B. Bristol: That's me. Yeah. Uh-huh. Yearsley: And the other two is actually facing the other apartments, so your -- you know, their backyards or their patio won't abut you. Bristol: Right. Yearsley: And, then, the other ones on the corner, so it wouldn't -- it would kind of be away from you. So, you're only really looking at -- Bristol: Really, only moving B over. Yearsley: You want it a little bit different. Bristol: Yes. Yearsley: Okay. Thank you. Bristol: Thank you. Yearsley: Any other questions I guess? Thank you. The next one I have is Richard Meridian Planning & Zoning June 20, 2013 Page 30 of 34 Verschoor. Verschoor: Thank you. I could say the same thing twice. Yearsley: Please state our name and address for the record. Verschoor: Oh, I'm sorry. My name is Richard Verschoor and my address is 1484 North Stonehenge Way and it's just south of the development -- proposed development and I live in the D house there and I was also requesting a redesign of those -- those units there to possibly be one story duplexes to eliminate the privacy invasion from the second story from those units. That's basically all I have to say. Thank you for your time. Yearsley: Thank you. And, then, the last one is Jeremy Amar. Okay. Is there anybody else that would like to testify at this time? Okay. If there is nobody else, would the applicant like to come up and -- Brown: As you look at our plan -- I don't know. Do I need to state my name and so forth for the record again? Yearsley: Sure. Brown: Kent Brown, 3161 Springwood. Thank you. As you look at the plan, one of the things that we have tried to accomplish on here is not to align with someone. Well, we aligned with one person and that's Justin -- or Dustin that got up and spoke. The Bristols. I have been to their house. They missed the neighborhood meeting and brought them an example. We did take the neighbor to the west of him and we turned that building, so that it has a side view and you saw the side view in Bill's presentation how few windows that there are. We have screened those patios that are in that upper level that help create that privacy for both us and for them and the fact that you're not sitting and looking out a sliding glass door or seeing those people there. The one interesting thing that we found with those screened in patios, those upper ones, is that it really creates a privacy for them. They can go out there, they can sit and not have people gawking at them either. As you look down the easterly boundary, almost all of those are not lining up directly behind the houses that are behind them. They are kind of offset. Richard is over here directly in the -- our -- kind of our southeast corner. We turned that building also at an angle, so that it's not looking directly into the backyards there also. So, we understand their concern. We have tried to address it as best we can with the configuration that we have done. Staff said we also have a greater setback on those. Part of that was able to be accomplished. In the original approval there was a public street that ran -- connected Fairview with Sandlin. Now that this isn't a public street, it's a common drive, we were able to reduce that width and we were able to kind of move the units away from the houses. The other design -- and I don't know if you're familiar with it. Maybe Mike is. But they have garages. In our experience the garages don't really work. They end up being storage units for the people and they, then, don't have anyplace to park and so we found that the carports and parking, you know, do Meridian Planning & Zoning June 20, 2013 Page 31 of 34 work in these kinds of complexes. So, I believe that that's the best we can do. We have tried to address the concerns and be mindful in the design of our neighbors. Yearsley: Thank you. Any other questions? Miller: I have got a quick question. I'm not sure quite how deep this is, but is landscaping an option that maybe you can put a little buffer that way in between -- Brown: We are proposing a number of trees back there and we are not opposed to putting, you know, trees that are in that area. One of the interesting things -- the homes that are along our easterly boundary, their fence is actually five or ten feet off of their property line. They have an additional ten feet to their backyards that they are currently not using, so they will -- when our fence goes in there is going to be this space, their fences are somewhat older and some are nonexistent. They will probably extend their yards. They will have another ten feet added to their backyard. But we are not opposed to putting more trees. We are working with staff to try to put as many trees in here as we can. Yearsley: Thank you. Any other questions? All right. Thank you. At this point can I get a motion to close the public hearing for PP 13-009 and CUP 13-003? Freeman: So moved. Marshall: Second. Yearsley: I have a motion and a second to close the public hearing. All in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Yearsley: So, who would like to go first? Freeman: Mr. Chair; I will. Yearsley: Commissioner Marshall -- or Freeman. Sorry. Freeman: First of all, addressing the carport design. I tend to agree that the flat roof design actually works better with these sorts of projects visually, so that you can present buildings, rather than carports to people that are looking at the project. So, I -- if I make the motion I will propose that we strike the gable roof language from 1.5.3 of the conditions. Addressing Dustin and Richard -- and I thank you for coming forward and testifying. Development -- development like this happens often. It's not uncommon for two story apartments to be adjacent to properties that have single story residences on them and while some changes like this are uncomfortable, I would have to say the owner is perfectly within his rights to build two story apartments on his property honoring the setbacks and everything and I do appreciate the fact that I'm seeing some Meridian Planning & Zoning June 20, 2013 Page 32 of 34 spirit or cooperation from the applicant, trying to stagger the buildings as best he can, willing to screen, willing to put additional landscape in if that helps. It doesn't solve all of the issues, but he has -- he has made a valid attempt and I can understand, you know, dropping those to single story can -- can make a development like this just not pencil out anymore, it just -- it wouldn't work and he is well within his rights to do those. So, I would encourage you to continue to talk to him and perhaps about additional landscaping that might help buffer that situation between you. Otherwise, I am in favor of the project. I like the arrangement. I am a little concerned about the sliver -- the spite property -- is that what we call it? And I -- Marshall: The what? Spite. Freeman: Spite. That's what I said. Spite property. Marshall: Yeah. Freeman: Yeah. I am curious if we approve this and something can't be worked out, though, with that piece of property where do we stand. Is that a question to ask of staff? Have you thought that far down the road? Or is that a question for legal over here? will start with you, Bill, if I may ask. Parsons: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, Commissioner Freeman, as stated in the staff report, it's -- the approval of the plat is predicated on this becoming a lot and block. So, if it -- if that doesn't become part it's a denial. I mean ought to go to the Council with our change of denial, because they didn't follow through. It's not an approved split through the city or county. We can't -- we can't recognize the parcel, so -- Freeman: Although I want to ask how does that happen, it's pointless of me to ask, isn't it? Parsons: We asked the same question. Freeman: All right. That answers my question, but I'm favor of the project with that modification, that we allow the flat carport roofs. Rohm: Mr. Chairman? Yearsley: Commissioner Rohm. Rohm: I think Commissioner Freeman did an excellent job articulating the voice of the Commission, at least for me. He did a good job and I agree with everything he said. Yearsley: Thank you. Marshall: I was just going to say that in the past we have run into some projects that Meridian Planning & Zoning June 20, 2013 Page 33 of 34 were a three story and the like and we have had to bring them down to two story, so they could sit next to one story. It is very typical, even within regular subdivisions, to have two story right next to one story constantly. Very regularly. Run into problems when we get larger than that next to one. I can understand the trepidation. You know, I'm not going to want somebody looking down on top of me, but it -- unfortunately, you never know how the neighbor is going to develop until it's there. I would also suggest some good trees are usually a really good thing. I have been in one story before and I went out and planted a bunch of trees and it took care of the problem without a problem. So, other than that I am for this. Yearsley: Thank you. Miller: I second all of those statements. I think trees are a great idea. You have paid so much attention to all of the other lots not to get a direct partner there and I think that one little area could benefit from a little extra landscaping. I think that you might be surprised of much that could help the situation. But I like the development. Yearsley: I also have a tendency to agree. If this was a regular subdivision there could have been a two story house there anyways and I have seen up to three story homes go in certain areas. So, you could have neighbors looking back into you even if it was a regular development. I do believe that that -- the developer has tried to screen the best as possible and I do recommend additional trees, specially on that one parcel where it's fronting directly into his backyard. If we could screen that a little bit better, that would be awesome. The only other item that I have that I don't like about it is it's individual lots, so they can be solid individually. However, it is going to be maintained by one single property management group for all of the homes -- or the apartments, but, you know, for me that's something that is my personal preference, not per code. So, that's just my preference, so -- but I'm in agreement with the staff. With that can I get a motion? Freeman: Mr. Chair? Yearsley: Commissioner Freeman. Freeman: After considering all staff, applicant, and recommend approval to City Council of file number presented in the staff report for the hearing date modifications. Yearsley: One. public testimony, I move to PP 13-009, CUP 13-003, as of June 20th, 2013, with no Freeman: Oh. With one modification. With one -- the one I brought up. With one modification, that condition 1.5.3 -- delete the language requiring a gable roof on the carports. Yearsley: Thank you. Meridian Planning & Zoning June 20, 2013 Page 34 of 34 Miller: I second that. Yearsley: I have a motion and a second to approve public hearing PP 13-009 and CUP 13-003. All in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Yearsley: Any other comments from staff at this time? Thank you. At this point I have one last motion to make. Marshall: Mr. Chair, I move we adjourn. Miller: Yeah. I motion we adjourn. Rohm: Second. Yearsley: There has been a motion and a second to adjourn. All in favor say aye. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Yearsley: We stand adjourned. MEETING ADJOURNED AT 8:50 P.M. (AUDIO RECORDING ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS.) APPROVED ~I ~~ I~~l STEVEN YEARSLEY - AIRMA DATE APPROVED ATTEST: JAYCEE HOLMAN, CITY CLERK GO~DR[.TEDgVCG~, `~ ~9 ~,~ ~- GtYof ~ ~-/Vl E IDIAIV c+ ~pANp ~ (+ f+Pyr~o S L' A i ~~~~i o~ ~d'y7+~CElA1S•uTe`1 Meridian Planning Zoning Commission Meeting DATE: June 20, 2013 ITEM NUMBER: 3A PROJECT NUMBER: ITEM TITLE: Approve Minutes of June 6, 2013 PZ Commission Mtg MEETING NOTES /~d~~pv~, 5F~ ~ ~-D CLERKS OFFICE FINAL ACTION DATE: E-MAILED TO STAFF SENT TO AGENCY SENT TO APPLICANT NOTES INITIALS • Meridian Planning Zoning Commission Meeting DATE: June 20, 2013 ITEM NUMBER: 3B PROJECT NUMBER: CUP 13-005 ITEM TITLE: Red Tail Communities FFCL for Approval: Conditional Use permit approval for amulti-family development consisting of 220 residential units in an R-15 zoning district by W.H. Moore Co. -SEC of E. Victory Rd and S. Meridian Rd (SH 69) MEETING NOTES 5F ~~ I 50 CLERKS OFFICE FINAL ACTION DATE: E-MAILED TO STAFF SENT TO AGENCY SENT TO APPLICANT NOTES INITIALS • Meridian Planning Zoning Commission Meeting DATE: June 20, 2013 ITEM NUMBER: 4A PROJECT NUMBER: AZ 13-006 ITEM TITLE: Jack's Place Subdivision Public Hearing: Annexation of 5.34 acres from RUT in Ada County to the L-O (Limited Office) (1.71 acres) and R-8 (Medium-density residential) (3.63 acres) zoning districts by Jack's and Jesse Place, LLC - e/side of S. Meridian Road, approximately 1 /4 mile n/o of E. Victory Road MEETING NOTES 0 ~%fC-'> ltz p'H +o ~-~ ~ 13 s~~~ ~ s-~o CLERKS OFFICE FINAL ACTION DATE: E-MAILED TO STAFF SENT TO AGENCY SENT TO APPLICANT NOTES INITIALS • Meridian Planning Zoning Commission Meeting DATE: June 20, 2013 ITEM NUMBER: 4B PROJECT NUMBER: PP 13-010 ITEM TITLE: Jack's Place Subdivision Public Hearing -Preliminary Plat consisting of 3 office lots, 20 residential lots & 3 common lots on approximately 4.52 acres in the proposed L-O and R-8 zoning district by Jack's and Jesse Place, LLC - e/side of S. Meridian Road, approximately 1 /4 mile n/o E. Victory Road MEETING NOTES sF~ w~,~ s-o CLERKS OFFICE FINAL ACTION DATE: E-MAILED TO STAFF SENT TO AGENCY SENT TO APPLICANT NOTES INITIALS • Meridian Planning Zoning Commission Meeting DATE: June 20, 2013 ITEM NUMBER: 4C PROJECT NUMBER: PP 13-009 ITEM TITLE: Touchstone Place Public Hearing: Preliminary Plat approval consisting of l bmulti-family lots and 6 common lots on approimately 4.38 acres in an existing R-15 zoning district by Iron Mountain Real Estate, Inc. -south side of E. Fairview Avenue and west of N. Stonehenge Way MEETING NOTES ~j ~e~mmen~- ~t"'a~a-Q~a ~C ~~ -~ ~ ~ 7-a 3~ 3 ~F/~ s-o CLERKS OFFICE FINAL ACTION DATE: E-MAILED TO STAFF SENT TO AGENCY SENT TO APPLICANT NOTES INITIALS • Meridian Planning Zoning Commission Meeting DATE: June 20, 2013 ITEM NUMBER: 4D PROJECT NUMBER: CUP 13-003 ITEM TITLE: Touchstone Place Public Hearing: Conditional Use Permit approval for 64 multi-famil dwelling units in an existing R-15 zoning district by Iron Mountain Real Estate, Inc. -south side of E. Fairview Avenue and west of N. Stonehenge Way MEETING NOTES • ~~~ sue- ~ ~( ~ ~1~~ 3 ~ 3 ~~ CLERKS OFFICE FINAL ACTION DATE: E-MAILED TO STAFF SENT TO AGENCY SENT TO APPLICANT NOTES INITIALS •