Loading...
2013 12-05E IDIAN~-~- MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING I p g y p COMMISSION MEETING AGENDA City Council Chambers 33 E. Broadway Avenue, Meridian, Idaho Thursday, December 05, 2013 at 6:00 p.m. 1. Roll-call Attendance O_ Macy Miller O Michael Rohm X Scott Freeman X Joe Marshall X Steven Yearsley -Chairman 2. Adoption of the Agenda Approved 3. Consent Agenda A. Approve Minutes of November 21, 2013 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting B. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: CUP 13-013 Cole Valley Christian School Auxiliary Field by Cole Valley Christian School Located 1108 NE 2 1/2 Street Request: Conditional Use Permit Approval for the Expansion of a Private Education Institution for an Auxiliary Field in an R-15 Zoning District 4. Action Items A. Continued Public Hearing from November 21, 2013: AZ 13-015 TM Creek by SCS Brighton, LLC Located Southeast Corner of W. Franklin Road and S. Ten Mile Road Request: Annexation and Zoning of 45.34 Acres of Land with C-G (34.82 acres), R-40 (3.94 Acres) and TN-C (5.58 Acres) Zoning Districts Continue Public Hearing to January 16, 2014 B. Continued Public Hearing from November 21, 2013: PP 13-030 TM Creek by SCS Brighton, LLC Located Southeast Corner of W. Franklin Road and S. Ten Mile Road Request: Preliminary Plat Approval Consisting of Forty-Nine (49) Building Lots and Three (3) Common/Other Lots on 41.03 Acres of Land in the Proposed C-G, R-40 and TN-C Zoning Districts Continue Public Hearing to January 16, 2014 Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Agenda -Thursday, December 05, 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. C. Public Hearing: CUP 13-014 Westmark Credit Union at Bridgetower Crossing by Westmark Credit Union Located at 3115 W. Quintale Drive (Lot 66, Block 10 of Bridgetower Crossing Subdivision No. 7) Request: Conditional Use Permit Approval for aDrive-Thru Establishment (Bank with Drive- Thru) in a C-N Zoning District Approved -Prepare Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law D. Public Hearing: PP 13-034 Gramercy Heights by Gramercy, LLC Located South of E. Overland Road and West of S. Bonito Way Between E. Blue Horizon Drive Request: Preliminary Plat Approval Consisting of Thirty-Seven (37) Residential Lots and One (1) Common Lot on Approximately 5.59 Acres in an R-15 Zoning District Recommend Approval to City Council Meeting adjourned at 6:59 p.m. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Agenda -Thursday, December 05, 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 OfFce at 888-4433 at least 48 hours prior to the public meeting. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission December 5, 2013 Meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission of December 5, 2013, was called to order at 6:00 p.m. by Chairman Steven Yearsley. Present: Commissioner Steven Yearsley, Commissioner Joe Marshall, and Commissioner Scott Freeman. Members Absent: Commissioner Michael Rohm and Commissioner Macy Miller. Others Present: Machelle Hill, Ted Baird, Justin Lucas, Sonya Wafters, Bill Parsons, 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 for December 5th, 2013. Let's begin with roll call. Item 2: Adoption of the Agenda Yearsley: Thank you. Next item on the agenda is the adoption of the agenda. The only change that we have today is Action Items A and B, continued public hearing from November 21st, 2013, of AZ 13-015 and PP 13-030, TM Creek, will be continued to January 16th. So, with that can I get a motion to adopt the agenda? Marshall: So moved. Freeman: Second. Yearsley: I have a motion and a second to adopt the agenda. All in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. TWO ABSENT. Item 3: Consent Agenda A. Approve Minutes of November 21, 2013 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission December 5, 2013 Page 2 of 18 B. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: CUP 13-013 Cole Valley Christian School Auxiliary Field by Cole Valley Christian School Located 1108 NE 2 1/2 Street Request: Conditional Use Permit Approval for the Expansion of a Private Education Yearsley: Next item on the agenda is the Consent Agenda and we have the approval of the November 21st, 2013, Planning and Zoning Commission meeting minutes and the Findings of Fact and Conclusion of Law approval of CUP 13-013, Cole Valley Christian School Auxiliary Field. Can I get a motion to approve the Consent Agenda? Marshall: So moved. Freeman: Second. Yearsley: I have a motion and a second to approve the Consent Agenda. All in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. TWO ABSENT. Item 4: Action Items A. Continued Public Hearing from November 21, 2013: AZ 13-015 TM Creek by SCS Brighton, LLC Located Southeast Corner of W. Franklin Road and S. Ten Mile Road Request: Annexation and Zoning of 45.34 Acres of Land with C-G (34.82 acres), R-40 (3.94 Acres) and TN-C (5.58 Acres) Zoning Districts Continue Public Hearing to January 16, 2013 B. Continued Public Hearing from November 21, 2013: PP 13-030 TM Creek by SCS Brighton, LLC Located Southeast Corner of W. Franklin Road and S. Ten Mile Road Request: Preliminary Plat Approval Consisting of Forty-Nine (49) Building Lots and Three (3) Common/Other Lots on 41.03 Acres of Land in the Proposed C-G, R-40 and TN-C Zoning Districts Yearsley: Can I -- since -- we are going to open the public hearing for the continued public hearing of November 21st, 2013, of AZ 13-015 and PP 13-030 of TM Creek. Can I get a motion to continue that public hearing to January 16th, 2014? Freeman: Mr. Chair, I move that we continue file numbers AZ 13-015 and PP 13-030 to the January 16th P&Z meeting. Marshall: Second. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission December 5, 2013 Page 3 of 18 Yearsley: I have a motion and a second to continue the public hearing. All in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. TWO ABSENT. Yearsley: For the next two items let me explain how this process will work. We are going to open each item individually. We will start off with the staff report. The staff will prepare -- has prepared findings regarding how it adheres to our comprehensive plan and uniform development code with staff recommendations. At that point we will have the applicant come forward to present their case for approval of the application and respond to any staff comments. The applicant will have up to 15 minutes to do so. After that we will allow the public to come up and to testify. There is a sign-up sheet in the back if anyone is wishing you to testify. Anyone wishing to come forward will be allowed three minutes. If they are speaking for a larger group, like an HOA and there is a show of hands to represent the group, they will be given up to ten minutes. After the testimony has been heard the applicant will have an opportunity to respond if they desire for up to ten minutes and, then, after that we will close the public hearing and the Commission will have an opportunity to discuss and deliberate and, hopefully, make recommendations to City Council. C. Public Hearing: CUP 13-014 Westmark Credit Union at Bridgetower Crossing by Westmark Credit Union Located at 3115 W. Quintale Drive (Lot 66, Block 10 of Bridgetower Crossing Subdivision No. 7) Request: Conditional Use Permit Approval for aDrive-Thru Establishment (Bank with Drive- Thru) in a C-N Zoning District Yearsley: With that I would like to open the public hearing on CUP 13-014, Westmark Credit Union, and let's begin with the staff report. Watters: Thank you, Chairman Yearsley, Members of the Commission. First application before you tonight is a request for a conditional use permit. This site consists of .75 of an acre. Is currently zoned C-N. It is located at 3115 West Quintale Drive. Adjacent land use and zoning. To the north is commercial property, zoned C-G. To the east are single family residential properties, zoned R-4. To the south is vacant land, zoned C-N. And to the west is North Ten Mile Road and vacant commercial property, zoned C-G. This site was annexed and platted as part of the Bridgetower Crossing development in 2001. A property boundary adjustment was recently approved to change the configuration of the boundary of the site. It is a little different than what's shown here on the zoning map. As you see here on the site plan, the property line actually changed from here and goes up here now. And this is all one property. The portion of the site before you tonight is right here where you see the arrow on the top left. The applicant is requesting a conditional use permit for adrive-thru in the C-N zoning district for Westmark Credit Union. A conditional use permit is required per the UDC, because the proposed drive-thru is located within 300 feet of a residential zoning district and existing residences. Access to the site is provided by a driveway access off Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission December 5, 2013 Page 4 of 18 of Quintale Drive. As you see right here. Across-access exists at the southwest corner of the site to the property to the south. And staff is recommending across-access easement be required to the property to the east here. Street buffer landscaping along Ten Mile Road and West Quintale Drive already exists. It was installed with the subdivision. Internal parking lot landscaping will be installed with development of this site. Building elevations were submitted of the proposed structure as you see here. Building materials consist primarily of stucco with metal panel siding accents. A metal canopy is proposed for water protection over the entrances and shade over the windows. The proposed use and site design complies with the specific use standards for drive-thru establishments. The Comprehensive Plan future land use map designation is commercial for this property. There has been no written testimony received and staff is recommending approval of the proposed conditional use permit with conditions in the staff report. Staff will stand for any questions. Yearsley: Thank you. Are there any questions? Freeman: No. Yearsley: At this point would the applicant like to come forward. Please state your name and address for the record. Fish: I'm Lance Fish with ZGA Architects. I can't even remember our address of our office. At this moment we received the comments and we don't have any problems with any of the comments. Certainly be glad to oblige them, so -- Yearsley: Okay. Any questions of the applicant? Freeman: No. Yearsley: All right. Thank you. Fish: Okay. Thanks. Yearsley: I don't have anybody else signed up for this. Is there anybody wishing to testify on this application? Marshall: Mr. Chair? Yearsley: Commissioner Freeman -- or Marshall. Sorry. Marshall: That's all right. I thought maybe he got in there before I did. Mr. Chair, move that we close the public hearing on CUP 13-014. Freeman: Second. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission December 5, 2013 Page 5 of 18 Yearsley: I have a motion and a second to close the public hearing on CUP 13-014. All in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. TWO ABSENT. Yearsley: Comments? Freeman: Mr. Chair, I don't have a whole lot to discuss. The project seems pretty straight forward. Drive-thru doesn't seem to be an issue at all with the adjacent residences, so I'm in favor of approval. Yearsley: Okay. Marshall: I would second that. Yearsley: And Ihave -- will third that. So, with that I would entertain a motion. Marshall: Mr. Chair, after considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move to approve file number CUP 13-014 as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of December 5th, 2013, with no modifications. Freeman: I second. Yearsley: I have a motion and a second to approve the public hearing on CUP 13-014. All in favor? Opposed? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. TWO ABSENT. Yearsley: Thank you. Next we will hear the public hearing of PP 13-034, Gramercy Heights. Let's begin with the staff report. Parsons: Mr. Chairman, before I get into my presentation this evening, I would note that the applicant is not in the audience, so I at least want to put that on the table. Would you still like to proceed with tonight's hearing or give the applicant some time to show up? I'm not sure where he's at. I'd leave it in your court. Freeman: I don't mind taking a five minute break if that helps. Yearsley: Let's take a five minute break to see if we can't get the applicant here. Thank you. (Recess: 6:20 p.m. to 6:28 p.m.) D. Public Hearing: PP 13-034 Gramercy Heights by Gramercy, LLC Located South of E. Overland Road and West of S. Bonito Way Between E. Blue Horizon Drive Request: Preliminary Plat Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission December 5, 2013 Page 6 of 18 Approval Consisting of Thirty-Seven (37) Residential Lots and One (1) Common Lot on Approximately 5.59 Acres in an R-15 Zoning District Yearsley: We will go ahead and get started. Hopefully during the presentation the applicant will come forward. He should be on his way, so let's go ahead and get started. Parsons: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, the next item on the agenda is the Gramercy Heights Subdivision. It's currently located on the south side of East Overland Road in between the Ridenbaugh Canal and East Blue Horizon Drive. Currently zoned R-15 in the city and consists of 5.59 acres of land. In 2006 this property came through and preliminary platted pretty similar to what -- the subdivision you will be acting on this evening. Since that time, though, the applicant was here in front of you in 2011 where they proposed a two lot residential subdivision. If you can see here in the aerial -- or at least the zoning map on the left-hand side, you can see a portion of that is currently platted and zoned R-40 in the city and is developing with that multi-family development that you guys acted on. Well, this is the last remnant five and a half acre piece out in the Gramercy development here. Again, because of the change in the market to single family homes, the applicant is here to discuss doing additional single family within this remnant piece. Back in 2011 they thought at one point it might be an assisted living facility, but as I mentioned to you, given the economies of scale they want to come back to what the original plan was in 2005-2006. The applicant is proposing a preliminary plat, a development agreement modification, and alternative compliance application before you this evening to discuss a 37 lot residential subdivision. As I mentioned to you this is in-fill and is the last remaining remnant residential piece in the Gramercy development to be platted. To the west you can see there are some existing single family homes and, again, this applicant will be extending the two stub streets into the development of this site, platting basically common drive lots along the south -- southern portion of the lot or the boundary of the plat, consistent with those lot sizes to the west and, then, transitioning to more single family -- traditional single family homes north of that. The applicant was also kind enough to show you how this would transition with the multi-family development that's currently under development as well. Because this is an in-fill project in nature, open space will be minimal on this site. The open space the applicant is proposing, basically, a micropath lot that will tie into the pathway system constructed within the Bonito Subdivision -- or EI Dorado Subdivision. The multi-family development that you see to the north also tied into that system and this ultimately ties into the pathway system along the Ridenbaugh Canal. So, we are starting to see some interconnectivity with the mixed use developments and, of course, the employment center to the east as well. Going back to the alternative compliance request, one of staffs recommendations moving forward was we wanted to at least give the Commission an idea of how these auto courts would work. Keep in mind that the applicant will have to come back through for CZC and design review for not only the structures, but also the site design. Also with their final plat submittal they will have to depict building setbacks, building orientations, so at that point staff will evaluate whether or not these homes will actually, indeed, fit on the lots Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission December 5, 2013 Page 7 of 18 that are presented to you this evening. In the R-15 zone the setbacks are minimal, but they still are required to comply with that. But this exhibit tonight is really to show you how the auto court would function. So, typically, you have one curb cut to the street, 20 foot common drive into the site and, then, each homeowner -- the applicant is proposing attached product along the quad lots there. So, you can see here this area needs to be unobstructed in order to get that maneuverability in there to allow these folks to enter and exit out of that -- their garages and so that's one of the reasons why staff is supporting the alternative compliance. Currently under the UDC we do require single family homes to have a two car garage and a 20-by-20 parking pad for three bedroom homes. In order to make this design work we have to allow the applicant the flexibility not only to fit in with the character of the subdivision, at least the mixed use development as a whole, but also we feel it's a unique design and it offers a different housing type or housing product for the community as a whole. So, staff is recommending that the applicant -- we are recommending -- or supporting the alternative compliance request to waive the 20-by-20 parking pad. One of our conditions of that -- approving that request is we want to make sure that at least one set of the units still provides the tandem parking, so that would give an additional to someone that wanted more garage space or had additional vehicles and also eliminate some obstruction here from people trying to attempt to park in here. Our other condition would be -- we do not want any parking allowed within this area. So, either through the CC&Rs or through signage the applicant needs to make future residents aware that you cannot park in here. It would just really hurt the entrance and exit into this development. It's not set up to allow for on-site -- or at least parking pad -- vehicle parking within the auto court. So, we want to make sure that was clear in our staff report. Here is the landscape plan and, basically, what the applicant's done here is try to show you what was contributed or given as part of the overall Gramercy project. So, just because they are only doing a little micropath connection, they want to show you how -- how this fits in with the rest of the Gramercy development and what they contributed as far as open space. One thing -- if I can go back to the aerial for you very quickly -- and it doesn't show up very quickly here, but there is also another plaza or open space here. There is ten foot pathways along the west boundary that tie back into the park. The applicant did dedicate a portion of their site to -- as a contribution to that park and also includes this linear open space along the canal. So, in essence, staff feels that because this is an in- fill project and they did provide their proportionate share of open space with the overall project in 2005, 2006, staff finds that this proposal before you this evening does comply with the open space and amenity requirements as required by the ordinance. Here are the proposed elevations -- I put that slide in twice. Here are the proposed elevations for the subdivision. Currently the applicant has shown all single story homes for the development. They do have a mix of materials. The reason for the development modification was originally when they came through in 2005 they actually had higher end homes planned for these lots, at least to the west of this area, and so in order to move forward with this product and kind of open it up to a different Hitch and different market, the applicant needs to amend the development agreement and replace -- not those elevations, but substitute or include these elevations to allow them to move forward and construct something similar to what they are proposing to you this evening. As I mentioned to you, they will have to come back through for CZC and design review Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission December 5, 2013 Page 8 of 18 and, again, show us how these will work and fit on those lots. So, we will be looking for that -- least for the quad lots only, not the internal lots -- or the traditional lots, but just primarily for the common drive lots along the south boundary. Staff did receive written testimony on this application from Larry Kavarik and Stephanie Meyers. Larry's comments were in reference to single story homes within the development. I think that should be in front of you this evening as part of your packet. Stephanie Meyers did provide written testimony in support of the application and she just wanted to make sure that the proposed elevations were similar to what is already currently constructed with the Corey Barton homes or the other adjacent single family residential development to the west. Staff is recommending approval of the subdivision. To my knowledge there aren't any other outstanding issues before you, except for the written testimony, and at this time I'd stand for any questions you have. Yearsley: Thank you. Are there any questions? Freeman: I have a question, Bill, and we might need to involve counsel on this one. But you mentioned that one of the requirements would be -- for the alternative compliance would be that we disallow parking in the driveway between the units and typically as planning and zoning we don't dictate CC&Rs, but through a development agreement are we able to dictate a minimum requirement being placed in the CC&Rs in this case or do we just hope that's going to happen? Parsons: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, certainly you can do that. mean the development agreement is open up, so if that's -- if you feel that's the way to enforce it you certainly can require that as a provision of the DA. We have not. We have merely stated that as part of their common drive requirements that there be no parking in there. I could see it happening two ways. One, the applicant could -- with their exhibit that they submit final with their final plat they could show no parking signage or some type of guarantee that there is no parking allowed in there or -- as you said, we are not a party to the CC&Rs, but the plat does -- right now it's a plat condition. If you think it's prudent for the DA certainly you can recommend that. But I think as an exhibit with the final plat I think it works as far as us being able to enforce that. Freeman: Okay. Thank you. Yearsley: Thank you. Any other questions? Marshall: Mr. Chair, I would real quick. I believe we are only acting on the preliminary plat; is that correct? Because the MDA and the alternative compliance are solely the purview of City Council, but we can, if we so choose, make comment, I believe. Freeman: That's my understanding, Commissioner Marshall. Marshall: Just double-checking on that. Yearsley: Thank you. Would the applicant like to come forward? Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission December 5, 2013 Page 9 of 18 Merrill: Commissioners. My name is Taylor Merrill. My address is P.O. Box 244, Meridian, Idaho. 83680. I apologize for holding you up. I feel like a heel. I looked at the agenda and it was -- I thought it would be longer. But I will never do that again. We appreciate the opportunity to present this project in Gramercy to you. We appreciate staff, their support, and we really appreciate their comments in working through some of the issues that we have addressed here so far. This plat is consistent with the Meridian City Comprehensive Plan, which is consistent with our Gramercy district master. Mixed use residential. It's working well over there, which is consistent with staffs statement, was approved in 2006. This development agreement, in part, is requested to reduce the height of the structures, which would address -- the staff commented on. We have platted -- oh, I don't have that number. Probably 30 of these other courtyard lots and there was some economic restrictions and I'm going to address this parking issue in a minute, but there was just a little bit too much dense in there and there are -- both lots are still out there. I believe the owner of those lots has met with staff on several occasions trying to figure it out. We think we have a really nice floor plan here. We are siding for single level homes based on not a 55 year old community, but on a semi-tired community or not so much the family type would be the demographic that we are striving for here, but, you know, a nice kind of a double master floor plan type of thing but without stairs, if you will. The lot frontage on these courtyard lots is about 110 feet. That should allow us ample overflow parking and also the demographics of what we are trying to achieve wouldn't ideally identify multiple cars to a family. A couple, maybe one care, maybe two, and maybe even three. We will include some CC&R language that talks about a maintenance for these homes, because they will not have yards. So, basically, we are doing a sweep and probably with that CC&R, because that CC&R will include an access agreement to -- as staff mentioned, the -- the trails that are already in there. We feel the landscaping is minimal in this particular project, but we think it very abutted and very complimentary with the Gordon Harris Park, the interior parks to Gramercy -- there is a half acre park inside, kind of a private park versus a city park and, then, three or four or several strips throughout that they will have access to. So, we need to probably do two things, address the parking issue, whether it's signage or conditions of the home, but we still have 110 of that frontage to accommodate at least on the one side, you know, as many as four or five -- maybe even a half a dozen cars and that may even require -- we can look at that and even look at staffs recommendation on that, that it's the overflow issue. Some of our products that we have out there -- you know, overnight parking or long-term parking is -- is kind of turned away from, so to speak, not prohibitive in same cases, but we feel the parking -- the allowance to get them out of the courtyard and have that courtyard interact with itself, so to speak, isn't viable to storing vehicles in there. That being said, for homes it's the possibility of having two, four, six -- you know, eight, almost nine, maybe ten vehicles inside those homes. So, that ought to be adequate, you know, for anybody. Again, we have that great buffer in the back. It's part of the -- I believe it's part of the Gordon Harris Park or it's at least a city park -- it's about a 70 foot park strip that we put in in the initial plat and overflowed this -- this several hundred feet of the pathway in conjunction with the Ridenbaugh, it's a really nice feature and that landscape now is becoming quite mature. I think I counted -- I can't remember the number, but there was 30 or 40 trees Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission December 5, 2013 Page 10 of 18 in there and several evergreens, so it's -- it's going up nicely. It's really comfortable to go back there. I think I have covered our plat. We appreciate -- again, I apologize for holding up anything. I know your time is valuable, so I do really sincerely apologize about that. I feel like a heel. But I do also really express my gratitude with staff. You guys really have -- I do business with several cities and I say it anywhere, Meridian Staff, Planning and Zoning, Development Services, they really strive to help us out and think they help the community out and solved a lot of issues coming in. So, again, thank you and I apologize for being late. I hope I didn't do anything and I will stand for questions if you have any. Yearsley: Okay. Thank you. Are there any questions? Marshall: Mr. Chair? Yearsley: Commissioner Marshall. Marshall: Real quick one. I would ask -- you can see on your screen there -- is this the current preliminary plat that we are looking at? Merrill: Uh-huh. Yes. Marshall: Okay. So, at the southeast corner there -- those last two quad lots -- Merrill: Yes. Marshall: -- I believe we are referring to, where do they have any frontage and how do we get a driveway to them and -- Merrill: We have a little bit of an error there. That's -- oh, that's probably about 30 feet wide. That would be a private driveway to at least the driveway of that 55 feet turning in. There will be a sidewalk through there to access this -- the pathway -- can I -- does this -- Parsons: Pick a color. Merrill: So, we need to go back. There we go. Right there. This area here. Yearsley: You need to pick a color on top. Merrill: Okay. So, this area through here -- okay? Will be a driveway into that -- into those units there and, then, this pathway will continue until it's through there, already established, but back lots, yes, Commissioner, will -- will be accessed through that drive. Marshall: All right. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission December 5, 2013 Page 11 of 18 Yearsley: Any other questions? Marshall: My question, then, would go to staff. How does that meet the code on frontage requirements? Parsons: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, Commissioner Marshall, this is zoned R-15, so there really are no frontage requirements within that district, so the common lot, as Taylor has described, meets the ordinance, so -- Marshall: Okay. So, what we are saying is as long as they have a written ingress- egress easement appropriately, then, they are okay? Parsons: That's correct. Marshall: All right. Thank you. Yearsley: Okay. Any others? Thank you. Merrill: Thank you. Yearsley: I have a couple of people signed up. Is it Larry Kovarik? Would you like to come forward. Please state your name and address for the record. Kovarik: Okay. It's Larry Kavaric. 2686 East Green Canyon Drive, Meridian, Idaho. 83642. I pretty much am the spokesperson for the majority of the adjoining homeowners around this plat, with the exception of Gloria, who is also here tonight. We -- for the most part we support the applicant's plan, looking for homes for an older -- I hate to say older, because I qualify myself -- for an older demographic is -- is a good thing. Some of the other ones in the community throughout Meridian are working pretty good. Our only concern here is in the development agreement modification, whereas the applicant is asking for only Lots 1 through 16 of Block 1 to be -- to be specified as same story, we would like to see all the lots specified as single story. We have a concern for the most part since the applicant is a developer at anytime it's possible he could sell the property to somebody else and with that somebody else coming in here doing something to the contrary, once again our only consideration of the panel is to -- is to include their recommendation all 37 lots, not just Lots 1 through 16. Any questions? Yearsley: Any questions? Marshall: My question is why do you want to see these limited to one story? Kavaric: Because -- because of -- basically because of height. We have already in the past gone along with the applicant with some of the other plans that they have proposed and have started or completed in the area. Some of them would be in apartments that are back there and the -- quite frankly, if, in fact, once again, if this was going for an Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission December 5, 2013 Page 12 of 18 older demographic, if that's the intent, then, there is no reason I guess to see a two story home in that area. So, we are asking for consideration for the neighbors with regard to the view and everything else has got to be single story and also that it does, in fact, attract an older demographic and, once again, I don't like to use that, but -- but that is the intent here, so -- Marshall: Thank you. Yearsley: Thank you. I don't think -- any other questions? Freeman: No. Yearsley: All right. Thank you. Next on the list is Gloria Fern. Could you at least come to the microphone and -- so we can at least -- sorry about that. State your name and address for the record, please. Fern: Gloria Fern. 2660 East Green Canyon Drive, Meridian, Idaho. 83642. I'm just here because I, actually, attended the neighborhood meeting and we discussed at the neighborhood meeting with the people that were present there and they actually told us that there would be single level homes, so we are kind of -- I'm kind of surprised to see now that only 1 through 16 or 1 through -- let's see. One through 16 are going to be for single level homes and, then, the rest of them were going to be -- could be two story homes. So, it was kind of a conflict of information there, so I would like to see single level homes as well, just to, you know, protect our view looking out and, you know, it's really a height factor. So, I think the single level homes could really do what they want to do and we are asking for all of the lots to be single family homes -- single level homes. Okay? Yearsley: Any questions? All right. Thank you. Fern: Thanks. Parsons: Chairman Yearsley? Yearsley: Yes. Parsons: Before we have the applicant come up and rebut what was just testified to, want be clear on the record that there is nothing -- the recommendation before you this evening did not restrict any of those lots to single story homes. Yearsley: Even the first 16? Parsons: Even the first 16. Yearsley: Okay. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission December 5, 2013 Page 13 of 18 Marshall: That's part of the MDA, as opposed to the PP we are acting upon tonight; right? Parsons: No. Staff has not recommended any changes to the DA restricting these lots to single story. The only -- the only recommended change to the DA going forward to City Council is to attach these elevations to allow them to be -- have a consistency with the elevations that are showing. There is no restriction on the lots -- any one of the lots in there. Marshall: I understand. But, again, any restrictions that might have been or could be placed were -- are typically placed in the MDA and not on the preliminary plat that we are acting upon. Parsons: That's correct. But if you wanted to forward a recommendation on with that requirement you can do so. Marshall: Appreciate that. Thank you. Freeman: Bill, could I follow up on that, because that -- I'm confused now, because when I read page five where it says development agreement modification, apparently I'm misunderstanding that, because I thought that was going to modify the DA to restrict it to single story buildings and what I heard you say is I'm misunderstanding it if I'm reading it that way. They are not restricted. That's not the intention of this paragraph. So, what was the intention of this paragraph? Is it just the elevations? Parsons: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, that's correct, it's just to show the style of homes. Just because they showed single story we did not say that thou shalt only construct single homes -- single story elevations. Freeman: So, even though it says single story attached homes are proposed for the quad lots, the intention of that statement is not to say that site is restricted to this. Okay. Parsons: That's correct. We are just saying what was presented to us as far as their narrative in how it's depicted on the site plan that I showed you this evening where you can see the garages are attached -- Freeman: Okay. Parsons: -- that's where we -- that's why we testified or put that in the staff report, that they attached for the quad lots. Freeman: Okay. And I think I understand where the 16 lots are that have been identified as being designated single story. Could you point those out for me on the site plan? Parsons: On the south boundary. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission December 5, 2013 Page 14 of 18 Freeman: One, two, three, four, five, six -- I only see -- okay. Parsons: Those are -- Freeman: I'm seeing sixteen lots. Thank you. Parsons: Yeah. Sixteen lots. Freeman: Okay. I'm clear. Thanks. Yearsley: I also had Richard Fern. Would you like to come up and testify or -- okay. just wanted to make sure. Your name was on there, so -- with that would the applicant like to come forward, since there is nobody else in the audience. Merrill: Taylor Merrill. Westpark Company, P.O. Box 344, Meridian, Idaho. 83680. Yes, there has been some -- a little bit of discrepancy and we had the neighborhood meeting and, again, we appreciate the neighborhood support of our project. That being said on these things, we are modifying and designing this plat by virtue of an economic driven machine here that the larger, taller homes, the price point doesn't fly, we can't get there. It addresses the traffic issue as well, which I touched on. We don't oppose -- mean we are here to build somewhat of a -- of a quiet community in there. We aren't opposed particularly on the -- the south -- those four quad lots, Commissioners, that they are restricted and it's been discussed by myself and the neighbor representative, you know, and the restriction of all of it. In regards to height, you know, we have done this battle a little bit, we got the apartments approved, which are 38 feet tall, you know, they are 500 feet away from southern border of these neighbors, so to speak, but particularly on the south line on these 16 lots or those four, we don't oppose a restriction on those. Our intention is to build single levels in the interior. You know, if I was looking at it there may be some economic limitations to that. We have multi-level homes throughout there to the -- to the west, but our intention is here to -- to build a civil -- you know, a stellar community, if you will, and so just to clear that up, that's our intention. Restriction or whatnot, you know, there is some economic factors there. Based on those quad lots that's the only way we can get these quad lots to work and we worked hard with staff to get to this point in getting that -- that product in there. The interior homes -- you know, again, our intention is to do single level. We'd rather not be restricted to that there, that that be our preference and discussions with the neighbors have been consistent in our application of two stories. We have represented to them single stories and that's our intention to do so. But to Mary's point, we may sell these, you know, and we don't want to limit ourselves economically to what's there, but we are very vested in Gramercy and we feel very very proud of the product that we are putting in there, including the apartments and the mixed use and after all these years we are finally getting something in there, so it's our -- but I think the whole community's interest to protect what we have and we appreciate your consideration of that fact. Yearsley: All right. Any questions? Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission December 5, 2013 Page 15 of 18 Freeman: No. Yearsley: All right. Thank you. Is there any other discussion before we close the public hearing? Freeman: I have some discussion after we close the public hearing. So, Mr. Chair, if may, I propose that we close the public hearing on PP 13-034. Marshall: Second. Yearsley: I have a motion and a second to close the public hearing on PP 13-034. All in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. TWO ABSENT. Yearsley: All right. Commissioner Freeman. Freeman: It looks like I have been volunteered. First of all, I agree with staff and the applicant that this project is consistent with the zoning for the area and the adjacent project. I think it finishes it out nicely. It seems that the big concern is regarding the building height of these and I -- I don't know what was represented or misrepresented or misunderstood at the neighborhood meeting, but the fact remains we have no means of justifying limiting this particular development to one store buildings. There is no -- no mechanism in the code that would dictate that these be one story buildings. It sounds like they might be, maybe they won't be, and I understand the concern about losing view. I built a home in Bridgetower, brand new subdivision, years ago -- I don't live there anymore, but when I -- when I built it I had a wonderful view of the mountains in Boise. I could see Bogus Basin. But I recognized that when development continued there was a good chance that I would lose that view and I did. But, frankly, I went in understanding that development is going to happen and those owners to the north of me were perfectly well within their rights to build two story versus one story. It's just a -- it's afact of living in this type of zone and I just had to live with that and I'm afraid, you know, if you end up with some two story homes behind you that restrict your view somewhat, yeah, I understand. There is a loss there. But, again, we cannot restrict developers' rights to build what the zoning code will allow him to build. In this case if he wanted to do all of these two stories he could. I think you probably could look at it as a great benefit that the intention is to build at least the majority of these as one story homes and the fact that the -- the particular market the applicant is going after would dictate that for most of these homes, just happens to be a plus in favor of those who wish their views to remain unrestricted. So, I guess I tried my best to address the concern. I understand the concern. However, in my mind there is not much we can do about that concern and I am in favor of this project. I think it completes what was started there very nicely. Yearsley: Commissioner Marshall. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission December 5, 2013 Page 16 of 18 Marshall: Well, I'm going to take a minute and try to separate out between the preliminary plat, the MDA, and the alternative compliance. I like what staff and the applicant have come together with on the alternative compliance. I see what you're going for there with the quad homes and I like the idea and I agree that there shouldn't be any parking there in front of those garages and I think it is a different product and it is kind of fun to see different products available. As far as the preliminary plat goes, it appears to fit quite well and is appropriate. In fact, I'm kind of pleased that it ended up matching the rest of the subdivision, because it was kind of a small area with the number of houses and, then, suddenly we have the multi-family in there and -- and there was potentially now an assisted living center and things changed from what was -- and I'm -- I'm actually rather pleased it went back to what it was, because I like the larger group here of these similar houses and I -- I know this community is kind of torn back and forth and we have seen you down here quite a few times with a lot going on around you and I'm pleased that you like the direction it's developing. I agree with you, think it's good to see that filling in and being something similar to what you have got already. As far as the MDA, again, we are not making any decisions on that, the City Council is going to make that decision on the MDA, but if -- and I would want some more questions on this. If there were additional two story houses on the other side -- and Imean Ican't see why you would even want all one story on one side and already have two story on the other -- I agree that, yeah, I want to keep my -- my view and the like, but, you know, there is arguments on both sides, that one story versus two story. With two story you get more square footage and you might get a little higher dollar value out of the house sometimes, but, then, again, the one story you're focusing on -- you're focusing on an older generation that can't make it up and down stairs and doesn't want a second story. I'm torn on that and I'm going to make a decision on the MDA, to be honest, I'm only making a recommendation on the preliminary plat and I am for it. Yearsley: Thank you. Bill, can you go to the -- the alternative compliance. The only concern I have on this one is if you look at the driveway on that south -- or the lower property, they have got their driveway right up against the house and I'm a little concerned about that. I'd prefer that to be a -- a little bit more buffer between the house and driveway, you know, because someone might actually hit it or something to that effect if it could be done. But I don't believe that's -- that would be my recommendation is to allow a little bit better buffer on the one side. Overall I think the -- the layout as well is consistent with what's already been built. I know on the homes to the west there is already two stories. I would almost think that you would want two stories on that -- in that middle lot, just because it would give a buffer to the apartments to the north. You know, you have got three story apartments to the north. If you have the two story apartments -- house -- or two story houses, it would kind of get a stair step feel and not as much. So, with that I don't know if I have issues with the two story as well. So, agree. So, since I'm not making the recommendation, Iwould at least like to see if you guys are -- have concurrence -- at least make recommendations on the driveway for the -- Marshall: Alternative compliance. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission December 5, 2013 Page 17 of 18 Yearsley: --alternative compliance. Freeman: Mr. Chair, given that this is just a preliminary plat and these are conceptual in my mind of what they are trying to achieve, I'm not sure it would be appropriate to include a requirement on -- Yearsley: I'm not asking for a requirement, for a recommendation is what I'm asking for. Freeman: Yeah. When I looked at this, Mr. Chair, I had the same concern, but I also assumed as the details of this are worked out they may end up seeing the wisdom and perhaps a narrower driveway with some planters and some curbs to protect those buildings. But, again, in my mind that's something that happens in the future with staff, they will figure that out, so I would be hesitant to make a recommendation to that level of detail for a preliminary plat. Yearsley: All right. Freeman: Commissioner Marshall may differ. Marshall: To be honest, I -- other than the drainage issues, which I know have to be worked out, I really don't have a problem with it. I think, essentially, with 20 foot you're looking at two lanes here and the only time you're going to get anyone close to that house is if you're trying to squeeze two cars in between those two houses at the same time and I think that's going to be pretty rare. I think 20 foot is quite a wide margin and, yeah, I would probably want a planter out there if I owned the house. I would probably put one out there myself if the builder didn't, but I -- Freeman: I would agree. I was restricting myself so as not to design this thing immediately. I'd like to make a motion if I may. Yearsley: Absolutely. Freeman: Okay. Mr. Chair, after considering all staff, move to recommend approval to the City Council presented in the staff report for the hearing date c modifications. Marshall: Second. applicant, and public testimony, I of file number PP 13-034 as f December 5th, 2013, with no Yearsley: I have a motion and a second to approve public hearing PP -- or file number PP 13-034. All in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. TWO ABSENT. Yearsley: With that we have one last motion to make. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission December 5, 2013 Page 18 of 18 Marshall: Mr. Chair, I move we adjourn. Freeman: Second. Yearsley: I have a motion and a second to adjourn. All in favor say aye. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. TWO ABSENT. Yearsley: We stand adjourned. MEETING ADJOURNED AT 6:59 P.M. (AUDIO RECORDING ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS.) APPROVED YEARSLE~'t(-CHAIRMAN ATTEST: ~~_~~~_ DATE APPROVED C-~-x-+1 `~GO~4~¢pTED A LCGS~ j,9 JAYCEE HOLMAN, CITY LER Qi+ r`_~ /'r Gtyof ~ IOANO ~'„ a ~'1I.. ~ '4, ter, ~~~~~he 7RFA5~t'6A Meridian Planning Zoning Commission Meeting DATE: December 5, 2013 ITEM NUMBER: 3A PROJECT NUMBER: ITEM TITLE: Approve Minutes of November 21, 2013 PZ Meeting MEETING NOTES 3d CLERKS OFFICE FINAL ACTION DATE: E-MAILED TO STAFF SENT TO AGENCY SENT TO APPLICANT NOTES INITIALS Meridian Planning Zoning Commission Meeting DATE: December 5, 2013 ITEM NUMBER: 3g PROJECT NUMBER: CUP 13-013 ITEM TITLE: Cole Valley Christian School Auxiliary Field FFCL for Approval: CUP approval for the expansion of a private education institution for an auxiliary field in an R-15 zoning district by Cole Valley Christian School - 1108 NE 2 1 /2 Street MEETING NOTES ~~n~~~l ~ISF 3 -D CLERKS OFFICE FINAL ACTION DATE: E-MAILED TO STAFF SENT TO AGENCY SENT TO APPLICANT NOTES INITIALS ~~~~ ~ Y Meridian Planning Zoning Commission Meeting DATE: December 5, 2013 ITEM NUMBER: 4A PROJECT NUMBER: AZ 13-015 ITEM TITLE: TM Creek Continued Public Hearing. from 11 /21 /13: Annexation and zoing of 45.34 acres of land with C-G (35.82 acres) R-40 (3.94 acres), and TN-C (5.58 acres) zoning districts by SCS Brighton, LLC -SEC of W. Franklin Road and S. Ten Mile Road MEETING NOTES ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~~ CLERKS OFFICE FINAL ACTION , DATE: E-MAILED TO STAFF SENT TO AGENCY SENT TO APPLICANT NOTES INITIALS Meridian Planning Zoning Commission Meeting DATE: December 5, 2013 ITEM NUMBER: t~.g PROJECT NUMBER: PP 13-030 ITEM TITLE: TM Creek Continued Public Hearing from 11 /21 / 13: Preliminary Plat approval consisting of 49 building lots and 3 common /other lots on 41.03 acres of land in th proposed C-G, R-40 and TN-C zoning districts by SCS Brighton, LLC -SEC of W. Franklin Road and S. Ten Mile Road MEETING NOTES ~ --v CLERKS OFFICE FINAL ACTION DATE: E-MAILED TO STAFF SENT TO AGENCY SENT TO APPLICANT NOTES INITIALS Meridian Planning Zoning Commission Meeting DATE: December 5, 2013 ITEM NUMBER: 4C; PROJECT NUMBER: CUP 13-014 ITEM TITLE: Westmark Credit Union ~ Bridgetower Crossing Public Hearing: Conditional use permit for a drive thru establishment (bank with dreive thru) in a C-N zoning district by Westmark Credit Union - 3115 W. Quintale Drive (Lot 66, Block 10 of Bridgetower Crossing Sub No. 7) MEETING NOTES ~1P Ip n~ V~e ~ 7v~I s~ CLERKS OFFICE FINAL ACTION DATE: E-MAILED TO STAFF SENT TO AGENCY SENT TO APPLICANT NOTES INITIALS Meridian Planning Zoning Commission Meeting DATE: December 5, 2013 ITEM NUMBER: 4D PROJECT NUMBER: PP 13-034 ITEM TITLE: Gramercy Heights Public Hearing: Preliminary plat approval consisting of 37 residential lots and 1 common lot on approximately 5.59 acres in an R-15 zoning district by Gramercy, LLC -south of E. Overland Road and west of S. Bonito Way between E. Blue Horizon Drive and the Ridenbaugh Canal MEETING NOTES CLERKS OFFICE FINAL ACTION DATE: E-MAILED TO STAFF SENT TO AGENCY SENT TO APPLICANT NOTES INITIALS