Loading...
2015 07-02Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting July 2, 2015 Meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission of July 2, 2015, was called to order at 6:00 p.m. by Chairman Steven Yearsley. Present: Chairman Yearsley, Commissioner Patrick Oliver and Commissioner Ryan Fitzgerald. Members Absent: Commissioner Gregory Wilson, Commissioner Rhonda McCarvel. Others Present: Machelle Hill, Bill Nary, Andrea Pogue, Sonya Watters, Bill Parsons and Dean Willis. Item 1: Roll -Call Attendance: Roll -call Gregory Wilson X Patrick Oliver Rhonda McCarvel X Ryan Fitzgerald 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 the hearing date of July 2nd, 2015, and let's begin with roll call. Item 2: Adoption of the Agenda Yearsley: Thank you. The next thing on the agenda is the adoption of the agenda. guess just for a note of order, Action Item No. 4-D, public hearing RZ 14 -- or RZ 15-010 is -- was corrected. The original agenda states it as RZ 15-001 and that was incorrect. So, it's actually RZ 15-010. So, with that can I get a motion to -- Fitzgerald: Mr. Chairman? Yearsley: Commissioner Fitzgerald. Fitzgerald: I would move for approval of the agenda as corrected. Oliver: Second. Yearsley: I have a motion and a second to adopt the agenda as amended. All in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. TWO ABSENT. Item 3: Consent Agenda Meridian Planning & Zoning July 2, 2015 Page 2 of 35 A. Approve Minutes of June 18, 2015 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting B. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: CUP 15- 011 CFT Retail Drive-Thru Building A by Charlie Shen Located Northwest Corner of N. Ten Mile Road and W. McMillan Road Request: Conditional Use Permit Approval for a Drive-Thru Establishment Within 300 Feet of an Existing Drive-Thru Establishment in a C-G Zoning District C. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: CUP 15- 013 CFT Retail Drive-Thru Building B by Charlie Shen Located Northwest Corner of N. Ten Mile Road and W. McMillan Road Request: Conditional Use Permit Approval for a Drive-Thru Establishment Within 300 Feet of a Proposed Drive-Thru Establishment in a C-G Zoning District Yearsley: Next item on the agenda is the Consent Agenda and on that is the approval of the June 18th, 2015, Planning and Zoning Commission meeting minutes, the Findings of Fact and Conclusion of Law for approval of CUP 15-001, CFT retail drive-thu building and, then, the Findings of Fact and Conclusion of Law for approval of CUP 15-013, CFT retail drive-thru. So, with that can I get -- if there is no comment or concerns, can I get a motion to approve the Consent Agenda? Oliver: Mr. Chairman? Yearsley: Commissioner Oliver. Oliver: I move to approve the Consent Agenda for June 18th, 2015. Fitzgerald: Second. Yearsley: And that should be just probably we approve the Consent Agenda, because that -- the June 18th is for the meeting minutes. Oliver: Sorry. Fitzgerald: 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. Yearsley: Before we go onto the next section for the public hearing, let me kind of explain the process that we will be going through with this. So, we are going to open each item Meridian Planning & Zoning July 2, 2015 Page 3 of 35 one by one. We will start off with the staff report. The staff will describe the project and how it adheres to the Comprehensive Plan and Uniform Development Code with staff's recommendations. Then the applicant will have an opportunity to come forth and to present their application and to make -- respond to any of the staff comments. The applicant will have up 15 minutes to do so. After the public -- or after the applicant we will allow the public to comment on the applications. In the back there is a sign-up sheet, if -- anyone wishing to testify they can -- if they are testifying for themselves they will be given up to three minutes. If they are testifying for a larger group and there is a show of hands, they will be given up to ten minutes. After all the public testimony has been heard, we will -- we will allow the applicant to come forth and to respond to the public comments and he will be given up to ten minutes. After that we will be -- we will close the public hearing and at that point the Commissioners and I will have an opportunity to discuss and deliberate and hopefully make a recommendation to City Council. Item 4: Action Items A. Public Hearing: PP 15-009 Kentucky Villas by C4 Investments, LLC Located 835 W. Victory Road Request: Preliminary Plat Approval Consisting of Eight (8) Building Lots and Two (2) Common/Other Lots on 3.87 Acres of Land in the R-4 Zoning District Yearsley: So, with that I would like to open the public hearing on PP 15-009, Kentucky Villas, and let's begin with the staff report. Watters: Thank you, Chairman Yearsley, Members of the Commission. The application before you tonight is for a preliminary plat. This site consists of 3.87 acres of land. It's located at 835 West Victory Road, on the south side of Victory, west of Stoddard Road, zoned R-4. Adjacent land use and zoning. To the north is West Victory Road and rural single family residential properties, zoned R-1 in Ada County. To the east is rural single family residential agricultural property, zone R-8. To the south are single family residential properties in Kentucky Ridge Estates Subdivision, zoned R-4, and to the west is South Kentucky Way and single family residential properties in the development process in the third phase of Kentucky Ridge Subdivision, zoned R-4. This property was annexed with the Victory South application. The Comprehensive Plan future land use map designation is low density residential. The proposed preliminary plat consists of eight building lots, including a lot for the existing home, one common area lot and one other lot for a private street. The plat is proposed to develop in one phase. The gross density for the development is 2.07 dwelling units per acre, consistent with the low density residential future land use map designation. The average lot size is 13,065 square feet, with homes starting at 1,400 square feet in size. There is an existing home on this site. You can see it here at the northeast corner of the property. There is a barn and an outbuilding also on the site. The home is proposed to remain on a lot within the subdivision and the barn and outbuildings are proposed to be removed. Access to this property is currently provided via Victory Road. Access for the development is proposed via Kentucky Way, a collector street, via Victory Road. A private street is proposed for access off of Kentucky Way for Meridian Planning & Zoning July 2, 2015 Page 4 of 35 the proposed lots with a gated entry. The existing access via Victory is required to abandoned with development of this subdivision. The master street map depicts a future three legged roundabout at the northeast corner of this site at Stoddard and Victory. Right here you can see where Stoddard stubs into Victory. A leg of the roundabout is not planned south of Victory, but the roundabout itself will encroach on this property slightly. A 25 foot wide street buffer and detached sidewalk is required along Victory Road and a 25 -- or, excuse me, 20 foot wide buffer is required along Kentucky Way. When the development west of Kentucky -- the third phase of Kentucky Ridge, it came through as Revolution Ridge, you may remember that, was required to construct a detached sidewalk on the east side of Kentucky Way, which is where this property lies. So, there will be a sidewalk constructed there, if it hasn't been already on this site. Because this site is below five acres in size, open space and site amenities are not required to be provided. The common area shown on the plan along Kentucky Way is for an existing ACHD storm drainage easement. That is this large area right here that's seeded. The applicant has submitted a couple of typical sample building elevations for future homes within this development. Building materials appear to consist of a mix of horizontal, vertical and shake siding, with stone accents. The rear and sides of structures on lots that face Victory and Kentucky Way are required to incorporate articulation in material, color, modulation and architectural elements, horizontal and vertical to break up monotonous wall plains and roof lines. Six foot tall solid fencing is proposed along the north boundary of the site at the back edge of the buffer along Victory Road. Existing fencing is depicted on the plans along the east boundary of the site and white vinyl split rail fencing is depicted along the south and the west boundary of the site, which is proposed to remain. Written testimony has been received from Jim Conger, the applicant's representative in response to the staff report and also from Rick and Charlene Fisch. Staff is recommending approval of the proposed plat with the conditions in the staff report and staff will stand for any questions Commission may have. Yearsley: Are there any questions? Thank you. Would the applicant like to come forward. Please state your name and address for the record. Lopez: Good evening. My name is Marcel Lopez. Excuse me. Go ahead. Watters: Give me just a second, Marcel. Lopez: My name is Marcel Lopez. I'm with Conger Management Group, located at 4824 West Fairview, Boise, Idaho. I'm here and I represent the -- the applicant. Let's see. So -- okay. Bear with me just a minute. Just want to thank you for the opportunity to speak this afternoon. Also wanted to thank the city staff, Ms. Watters, for all her assistance and guidance through this application process. Ms. Watters has explained our application in detail, so I won't go through -- through those tonight. With the exception of the recommendation for a pathway along Lot 10, we are in agreement with the conditions of the staff report. The report recommends a pedestrian pathway stub within a 15 foot wide common lot to the undeveloped property to the eastern future connection. The path will be located adjacent to the south property line of Lot 10. Requiring a 15 foot common lot at that location reduces the width of the building lot to 50 feet and that lot would no longer Meridian Planning & Zoning July 2, 2015 Page 5 of 35 meet the 50 foot width requirement for the R-4 zoning. We don't believe a pathway stub is beneficial, as we are providing new sidewalk along Victory Road and adding a pedestrian pathway from the subdivision to the sidewalk, based on staff recommendation. The intersection at Stoddard and Victory is designated in the ACHD master street map for a roundabout. ACHD has requested approximately 3,200 square feet front easement at the northeast corner of the subdivision for roadway and sidewalks. We respectfully request the pathway stub be excluded, because pedestrians will have access to the east property via the Victory sidewalk and the roundabout, which is only about 300 feet or less. And that is what I have for tonight. Thank you again for the opportunity. I can stand for any questions. Yearsley: Are there any questions? Mr. Fitzgerald. Fitzgerald: On the -- where is the pathway you're connecting to Victory? I guess that's the question I have. I understand the Lot 10 one. If there is another pathway connection, where is that? Is it coming off of the private drive? Lopez: So -- yes. I don't know if I can point on here. So, at the end of the hammerhead on the north end of the property line we will -- oh, sorry. Watters: You need to push a color at the top, Marcel, first. Lopez: Okay. I'm going backward. Watters: Sorry. I just messed up your PowerPoint. Lopez: Anyhow, the staff has recommended a connection from the end of that hammerhead to the new sidewalk along Victory, which we have agreed to. That's -- Fitzgerald: I just wanted to make sure I understood that. Okay. Thank you. Yearsley: Any other questions? I have a couple. This has a tendency to be my kind of pet peeve. Why the private driveway? Lopez: I was not part of that decision process, unfortunately. For this size of a development a private drive just is more beneficial. It allows for better access. Yearsley: And from what I see the lot size are about a half acre -- or quarter acre size, but they are really long and narrow; is that correct? Lopez: They are fairly long, but there is -- 60 foot is required by the zoning requirement. Yearsley: Okay. All right. That's all I have. Thank you. Lopez: Commissioners, thank you. Meridian Planning & Zoning July 2, 2015 Page 6 of 35 Yearsley: I have a couple of people signed up. Colleen Cole. Would you, please, come forward if you want to testify. Cole: I'm speaking for the homeowners -- Yearsley: Please state your name and address for the record. Cole: My name is Colleen Cole. My address is 736 West Hartack, H-a-r-t-a-c-k, Court, Meridian, Idaho. 83642. I'm the HOA president for Kentucky Ridge Estates. Yearsley: Okay. Cole: Okay? Thank you for your time tonight, Commissioners, attorneys, staff. Appreciate it. A couple points in regards to the Kentucky Villas project is I would like to bring up last year -- obviously, Kentucky Way is a residential collector road and last year the City of Meridian and ACHD waived the district policy of a 36 foot width road to the current 28 width road section of the hearings for Revolution Ridge and the Biltmore development. Without approval Kentucky Way has become the sole collector for Kentucky Ridge Estates, Revolution Ridge, aka Kentucky Ridge No. 3, Biltmore, aka Oakridge Estates, because they have changed their names. This also includes all the construction vehicles that we are having come in for all of the building that's going on. Subcontractors, utilities and contractors. Now, when the applicant submitted the preliminary plat requesting a gated driveway off the entrance of Kentucky Way and also resident -- our first resident Rick Fisch's property for this development, the driveway for this project was installed when Revolution Ridge, Kentucky Ridge Estates developer at that time was Conger Management Group. They installed the district required five foot detached sidewalk. At that time they put the driveway in. It wasn't on the final plat and it wasn't approved at that time. So, our questions are -- our concerns are why can't the entrance be off Victory Road into that subdivision. Why do they have to have a private road, which is -- you have to see our road and -- trying to advance it. The picture here is looking north. This is part of Kentucky Way. This is at the top of the hill at our first intersection. You can see Rick Fisch's house off to the right and, then, as you go down you will see the driveway is right by where that Jeep is driving. That Jeep is driving going north and that's where the driveway was put. As you can see how our road narrows, it's not a wide road, it's only 28 feet, and when we have two vehicles going and the way that it slopes down, it's going to -- I don't know how this entrance is going to work. That's why we are requesting that the entrance be off of Victory. The other thing is I -- if it is approved that they had -- can have this private road, the concern would be construction vehicles. How are construction vehicles going to get into this driveway because of the limited width, as well as the limited width of our road turning into that vehicle, because right now we have double dump trucks, concrete trucks, et cetera, and it seems like that would be a little difficult. Here is some other pictures of how the slope is on our road. We would request, if this is approved, that the construction vehicles enter off of 835 West Victory, which is the address of this property development. Here is the picture of the driveway as it was put in when they put the sidewalk in and they say they are going to have a gated access here. I guess our question is where is the gate going to be located Meridian Planning & Zoning July 2, 2015 Page 7 of 35 and what type of gate are they going to have, you know, for the access? Is it going to be automatic or -- because our concern is if people are turning left trying to get into the driveway what kind of access would that be. Obviously, the speed limit on Kentucky Way is 25 miles an hour and, unfortunately, many individuals exceed that speed limit. So, with all of our construction, et cetera, we have had some, you know, close calls with some of our construction vehicles and children. My recommendation is if they do approve this private gated entrance that Kentucky Villas would install speed bumps as a -- people come around the curve, otherwise -- for safety reasons, people going in and out of their driveway would be a hazard. This is something that we have a problem with. It's about 25 feet north of where the driveway is, is when Revolution Ridge put the sidewalk in they didn't put adequate drainage. So, we have overflow from our irrigation, from our pond, and from the lateral that -- or in our irrigation. Every time if it rains this is what happens to our road and right now I'm dealing with ACHD and the developer and pretty much the -- ACHD says the developer hasn't submitted the proper plans for -- to put a -- what they did is they put a sand window in and it doesn't allow the percolation of the water to drain. So, the recommendation would be that they don't start construction until we resolve this issue until it gets approved by ACHD, because when this happened -- it's a mess -- it's an ongoing mess. So, we would like to get that resolved. If they do put the driveway in we have our three rail fence and the question to the developer is what is their intent, are they going to put a fence on that common area, are they going to leave a three rail fence? Those are the questions we would like to get asked. If they do put the driveway in, obviously, they are going to have to take those five panels out for us. The last thing is the common area we believe is a wetland area and it's obvious -- it's nothing for many birds and animals -- animals -- it's been that way for years and they have already tore down most of the barns and they have cut down all the trees, so we still have all the wetlands left and that's going to be a common lot. They have designated that as a common lot. But what is the developer's intention for the common lot? Are they going to leave the -- you know, wetlands as they are? Are they going to put other landscaping or what is their intention for that? Because we, basically, feel that it's protected under federal regulation 404 or also known as the Clean Water Act. I'm talking really fast, because I only have so many minutes. That's it. Yearsley: Thank you. Any questions? Cole: Thank you. Oliver: Mrs. Cole? Cole: Sir. Oliver: Mr. Chairman. Yearsley: Yes. Oliver: Just ask you one quick question. Meridian Planning & Zoning July 2, 2015 Page 8 of 35 Cole: Certainly. Oliver: Because I know I have gone down this road before, but it's showing sidewalk that's leading down towards Victory. Cole: Uh-huh. Oliver: Do the students going to school, do they walk down to Victory to get onto the bus or does the bus go onto the subdivision? Cole: No. The bus -- they have to walk to Victory. Oliver: So, they would be using that quite a bit. Do you have a considerable amount of children in the subdivision that will be using that same sidewalk? Cole: Yes. Oliver: Thank you. Yearsley: Any other questions? Thank you. Next on the -- the list is Rick Fisch. Fisch: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, thanks for the opportunity to provide some input tonight. My name is Rick Fisch. My wife and I reside at 3378 South Kentucky Way in Meridian. We are in Kentucky Ridge Estates. We own the land parcel adjacent to the development to the south. Our north boundary is their south boundary. We purchased the property in 1996 and built a home in 1998. We knew at some point there would be development on that property and that's certainly not our issue at this time. However, what we didn't count on was that the area adjacent to our fence, according to this preliminary plat submission, is a single point of ingress and egress for vehicles servicing eight homes directly adjacent to our fence line and it's literally just a few feet away from where our grandkids play. The three rail vinyl fence that you will see, Sonya, at the -- there we go. Top photograph there. Take a look at that. That's the three rail vinyl fence. We erected that in 1998 and that was fine for the seasonal livestock that Frank Zabala had opposite our property, but we feel it's inadequate for reasons of safety, privacy, and noise abatement with this proposed new development. In the past year we have had development in two areas adjacent to our subdivision. One to the south, which is -- as Colleen mentioned, is -- started out as Biltmore. I think it now is referred to as Oakwood Estates. And, then, to the west is -- started out as Revolution Ridge and is now referred to as Kentucky Ridge 3 and 4, 1 believe. The point I'm trying to make is that in both cases the developers voluntarily installed six foot vinyl privacy fence around the entire perimeter of the developments. So, I really have just one point to address tonight and it's our only request and that is that a six foot high vinyl fence, like the developer is proposing along Victory Road, according to the application, be required also along our north or their south boundary for safety, noise abatement and privacy, as a condition of plat approval. Again, referring to the photographs, the fence line you see on the kind of unkept side there on the right-hand side, that's the area that they are planning to put a Meridian Planning & Zoning July 2, 2015 Page 9 of 35 road along to access these eight homes. Lower left, that's where our kids play. That fence is right behind it. That road would be right behind it. And, then, the third photograph there you see in the second fence in the background that's the six foot privacy fence at both Biltmore and Revolution Ridge or Kentucky Ridge 3 and 4 have put up around their entire perimeter. So, that concludes my remarks and I will stand for any questions if you have any. Yearsley: Are there any questions? Thank you. Fisch: Okay. Thank you. Yearsley: I don't have anybody else signed. Is there anybody wanting to testify on this application? Please come forward. And, please, state your name and address for the record. Zabala: Sure. My name is Chris Zabala. I live at 708 South Owyhee in Boise. I'm here representing Alex McNish who owns 835 West Victory -- a portion of it. There is several portions, though, and she has the house there and, really, the only thing I would like to address is the walkway that's proposed. If there is any way to use the hammerhead and that access off of Victory where the new sidewalk is, that would be great. Just from the access point with the new roundabout that will come in, access off the hammerhead -- this is what we are pulling around where her current driveway is, if you pull around that way, and, then, if we had to modify those lots just the way -- I mean you have to see her place. didn't bring a -- but just from an access standpoint if we have to add that 15 feet in there, then, it changes her whole deal and I'm just representing her from a fiscal standpoint and will be the one modifying her house -- I'm a builder in Boise. So, when that time comes will just -- anyways, I'm just seeing if there is any way we can get around that access point. Yearsley: Okay. Any questions? Thank you. Zabala: Thanks. Yearsley: Anybody else? With that would the applicant like to come forward? And, again, please, state your name and address for the record. Lopez: Again Marcel Lopez. Conger Management. 4824 Fairview Avenue, Boise, Idaho. Chairman. Commissioners. I just wanted to try and address some of the concerns that -- that I heard tonight from the -- from the neighbors and the neighborhood. Just as a general -- Kentucky Way was developed under the Kentucky Ridge Estates. We don't have any control over the development of that. ACHD has reviewed our application and for the most part have approved our development. They are not requiring curb and gutter along Kentucky Way. The other aspect is the lady mentioned the wetlands. In fact, it is an ACHD drainage easement, it is not a wetlands. We do not have control over the development of that portion of the property. It will remain as it is. ACHD has asked us to aid them, because it's filled with silt over the years, because as the one lady mentioned, Meridian Planning & Zoning July 2, 2015 Page 10 of 35 runoff coming into it from other parts of the subdivision and that's what kept it from operating or functioning properly. So, they have asked us to help them in the development. So, we will be returning that. We will also be -- there is a -- I don't know how to point from here, but in the northeast -- excuse me -- northwest corner of the property where Kentucky Way and Victory Road intersect there is the pipe -- this can go back -- sorry. There we go. Okay. There is a pipe that we will be extending, which is part of the drain that comes underneath the roadway there that will allow it to function better. So, we don't have control over that. It's, again, an ACHD easement. We won't be modifying it, other than the repair in trying to get it to work better. Again, the access -- there is a curb cut there existing. We are proposing to use that rather than create another one and I believe access from Victory is just prohibited. We can't do that. So, unfortunately, you know, we just can't modify access there and using the existing curb cut is -- is the plan. As far as the gate, I believe the requirement for the city is that it has to be 50 feet from the edge of the main entrance, so that gate will be located 50 feet northeast of that main entrance. What will it look like? It will meet the requirements for the design based on the city code and, then, as far as the privacy fence, you know -- I'm sorry -- Mr. Fisch requested a privacy -- we can't erect privacy fence on his property and being that that is his fence, you know, we just don't have that authority to do so. Common lots, in my understanding in the City of Meridian are required to have open rail; is that correct? Anyhow. So, we wouldn't be able to erect something for the neighbor that would provide that privacy. Unfortunately, he would have to do that for himself. Speed bumps. Again, you know, the private road is fairly short, so for people coming out they will be required to stop there. If -- they have got a request into ACHD to put speed bumps along Kentucky Way, you know, we support them in that, but we can't be obligated for that, because it's already been approved under the previous development. And I believe that's all the comments that I had. Yearsley: Any questions? Oliver: Mr. Chairman? Yearsley: Commissioner Oliver. Oliver: I'm still a little bit confused, I guess, but Lot 10 is the one with the existing home on it? Right. Right there. Lopez: Yes. Oliver: And that's Lot 10? And that's where the city was asking you to put in a -- Lopez: No. I believe that's eight -- Lot 8 is the existing house in the northeast corner. Lot 10 is where the city has requested the pathway for access to the -- to the undeveloped property to the east. Oliver: And doing so would make that lot not usable? Meridian Planning & Zoning July 2, 2015 Page 11 of 35 Lopez: Correct. Oliver: So -- and, then, also again, where the hammerhead is at the end, you would extend that to the east? Lopez: We would extend a pathway somewhere along there. Probably closer towards the northeast corner of the hammerhead, so we would extend a pathway -- a pedestrian pathway to connect to the proposed sidewalk that would front Victory. That, combined with the new proposed roundabout, would provide the connection to that east -- eastern property. Oliver: And I believe you said that where that is -- you said there is no way of connecting that to Victory, according to what you said. Is that true? Is that at the end of the -- at the end of the hammerhead there is no way of having an entrance there? Lopez: At the end of the hammerhead? Oliver: Yeah. Lopez: I believe we are prohibited from accessing Victory and I believe that's an ACHD requirement. Oliver: And the last question. I believe we have colored photos somewhere that we just saw that had shown Mr. Fisch's property and you can see down at the bottom right-hand side where there is a smaller three foot, I guess, or four foot vinyl fence and, then, in the background is the six foot solid fence. Lopez: Correct. Oliver: And that's not something you're able to do with your subdivision to keep his three foot and, then, have the six foot? Lopez: We -- it is my understanding city requirement is that we cannot erect a privacy fence in a common lot. So, along the driveway where he's requesting that is a common lot. We wouldn't be able to erect a privacy fence on that portion. My understanding is that three rail vinyl fence existing is his fence, so he would have to replace that with a privacy fence. Oliver: Okay. Thank you. Yearsley: Any other questions? Watters: Commissioner Oliver, may I respond to the fencing issue? Oliver: Yeah. Meridian Planning & Zoning July 2, 2015 Page 12 of 35 Watters: A six foot tall solid vinyl fence would be allowed adjacent to the private drive. The restriction falls into if there is a pathway or an open space area, it doesn't fall into the common lot for a private driveway. So, they would be allowed to construct a six foot tall solid vinyl fence, they just couldn't construct it within 20 feet of the right of way for Kentucky. Oliver: So, they could. Watters: Yes, they can. Oliver: Yes. So, they could actually -- if you go back to the photo of the layout of the subdivision, they could take -- Watters: They could construct it clear along the north and the northwest boundary. Oliver: Right. They would be able to do that. That's -- thank you for -- that was my concern. Fitzgerald: So, the 20 foot is the vision triangle for you to see, basically, is what you were saying? Watters: Is foot -- yes. Six foot tall fences aren't allowed within the front yard area. It's front setback areas. Fitzgerald: Okay. Lopez: Thank you. Oliver: Appreciate it. Yearsley: I have a question. You said ACHD has asked you to help with the storm drainage of that area. Can you elaborate exactly what that means? Lopez: Yes, Chairman. Let me find their staff report real quick. So, what ACHD has requested for the storm drain is clean out of the facility and reconstructing to meet current conditions. Basically, my understanding is that, again, it's filled with silt from runoff from Kentucky Way and so the silt has prevented the retention pond from functioning properly, so it fills up and doesn't drain as well or as quickly as it could. And, you know, they have requested that we clean it out, basically, and remove all the silt and reengineer the bottom of it so that it drains properly the way it's supposed to. What that entails I don't know in great detail. Yearsley: Okay. So, reengineered you're talking about putting in sand in the bottom; is that correct or do you know? Lopez: I don't know. I'm sorry. Meridian Planning & Zoning July 2, 2015 Page 13 of 35 Yearsley: Okay. Trying to just go through my notes. They did ask -- apparently there is an existing driveway off of Victory right now into that house; is that correct? Lopez: Chairman, there is an existing -- it's not really much of a driveway. It's a couple of ruts coming off of Victory. Yearsley: Okay. Lopez: It hasn't been used since -- since we acquired the property, but -- Yearsley: How is that property accessed then? How is it accessed? Lopez: There is two separate parcels. The house itself, existing house, gets access off of Victory. But our parcel is -- is a driveway with just a couple of ruts from prior use, but it's not used on a daily basis. Yearsley: So, what you're saying is you don't own the house. Lopez: We do not own the house now. Yearsley: Okay. Because one other question was is could you do your construction access off of Victory and I guess -- and that's not a permanent access, that's just a construction access. Lopez: Potentially. Potentially. We would have to get approval, but it potentially is. Yearsley: Okay. I think that's all I have. Any other questions? Fitzgerald: One question. Marcel, is there a -- is that pasture land currently? I mean it's not -- what is the use? The easement that is there now, it's ACHD -- it's not owned by them, it's just an easement; correct? So, is it just pasture land? Lopez: Currently -- Commissioner, currently it's not used for anything. It's vacant. Fitzgerald: Okay. Has there been an historical use for it in the past? Lopez: Mr. Zabala could answer that better for you, but I believe it hasn't been used for -- for many years now. Fitzgerald: Okay. Thank you. Yearsley: Thank you. I think that's all. Lopez: Thank you. Meridian Planning & Zoning July 2, 2015 Page 14 of 35 Yearsley: Can I get a motion to close the public hearing on PP 15-009, Kentucky Villas? Fitzgerald: Mr. Chairman, so moved. Oliver: Second. Yearsley: I have a motion and a second to close the public hearing. All in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carried. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. TWO ABSENT. Yearsley: So, comments? Thoughts? Oliver: I will just go ahead. Mr. Chairman, there is some concerns I have and, of course, one of them is the safety of the children, knowing that there are already two other subdivisions that are in the process out there, I guess I look at it that if Kentucky is going to be used for more construction equipment coming down there, I worry about the safety of the kids on the sidewalk. I do understand the fact that having a six foot vinyl fence would be important. I think that's important that we look at that and I still -- I'm thinking hard about that, the question of the access there. Fitzgerald: Mr. Chairman? Yearsley: Commissioner Fitzgerald. Fitzgerald: I do appreciate the applicant willing to work -- or, you know, taking advantage of the ACHD opportunity to fix the drainage problem. It sounds like something they could work together with the community on, so there is no more water in the road. I think that would solve a problem for everybody. I do know that this -- this owner does have the right to develop their property and their only access is going to be through Kentucky Way. It's -- because of the roundabout they are not going to get access to Victory at all. It's just not going to happen. ACHD wouldn't approve that, so I think -- I understand that and appreciate the applicant bringing the pathway off the hammerhead, I think that makes sense. The lot -- I understand why they don't want to do it. It makes it almost -- it makes it nonbuildable. So, I -- I would tend to lean in giving them that ability and I might even ask in maybe response to that, ask that they build a six foot fence. Would be part of my stipulation in thinking through it. Yearsley: Yeah. I guess I'm a little conflicted. I -- first of all, I don't like private driveways and just because what it's doing is the applicant is actually pushing the expense of the maintenance of the roadway onto the homeowners down the road. That's my pet peeve. But it's allowed in the ordinance and so I can't do much about that. I do agree, the developer does have an opportunity -- you know, has a right to develop his property. A couple other things that was brought up I want to just comment on is Victory Road is a major collector, an arterial, and so access off of that is really controlled and that's not what they want is to have a whole bunch of different accesses off of those roadways. So, Meridian Planning & Zoning July 2, 2015 Page 15 of 35 unfortunately, the access is going to be where it is. I still think there is an opportunity the applicant can do his construction access off Victory. It's not something that we would condition in our -- in our staff report, but I think it's something that I think would be helpful if the applicant would pursue that. The speed bumps. ACHD has to approve speed bumps. So, that is something that we can't say to install with a condition of ours. So, that actually has to come from ACHD. Drainage. That one really kind of conflicts me, because it is a nice wetland area and what ACHD is probably -- and this is just an assumption of what they are wanting to do is come in, take all the material out, and put in sand with steep banks and it won't look as pretty as it is now. It very well could be considered a wetland and I would actually bring that up to ACHD before they make any improvements, because that could be an issue that they have to deal with if they ever want to make improvements to that. The pathway along Lot 10 -- I like the idea of having the connectivity between the subdivisions. However, it will make that -- basically they will end up losing a lot, more than likely. I guess I'm still in favor of the pathway, but that's not a big issue to me. I do believe that the six foot vinyl fence is important and I think that would be something that they should put on their property. So, I think that's trying to address my comments from that, so -- if there is not any other comments, I would entertain a motion. Fitzgerald: Mr. Chairman? Yearsley: Commissioner Oliver. Fitzgerald: Or Fitzgerald. Yearsley: Or Fitzgerald. Sorry. Fitzgerald: I will be Oliver today, if he's okay with that. I would -- after considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move to recommend approval of file PP 15-009 as presented in the staff report with two stipulations. One, that the applicant build a six foot vinyl fence along Mr. Fisch's property up to the vision triangle and that we give them forbearance on Lot 10. Yearsley: So, the removal of the -- Fitzgerald: Of whatever staff -- Yearsley: Removal of the pathway. Fitzgerald: Pathway for -- on Lot 10. Yearsley: Okay. Oliver: I know what you're waiting for. Meridian Planning & Zoning July 2, 2015 Page 16 of 35 Yearsley: Well, at that point, if there is not a second, the motion dies. So, I would entertain another motion if someone else would so please. I guess what is your -- your concern? Fitzgerald: I will see if I can help you. Oliver: I just think it's -- it's hard to think that he is going to lose a lot, for the most part. Yearsley: Well, his -- Fitzgerald: Part of the condition is to give him forbearance on that. Yearsley: To remove that condition to make that so he can keep that lot. Oliver: Yeah. That's what I -- yeah. I see his point and I'm also seeing what the staff recommended. Yearsley: Oh. You're thinking to keep the -- yeah. I will go ahead and second it and leave it up to City Council. Yearsley: I have a motion and a second to approve file number PP 15-009, with conditions. All in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. TWO ABSENT. B. Public Hearing: CUP 15-012 Verraso by Chad Olsen Located 3491, 3495, 3565 and 3567 Modelo Lane Request: Conditional Use Permit Approval for a Multi -Family Development Consisting of Thirty (31) Residential Units on 2.75 Acres of Land in a C-G Zoning District Yearsley: Next item for public hearing is CUP 15-012, Verasso, and let's begin with the staff report. Watters: Thank you, Chairman, Members of the Commission. The next application before you tonight is a request for a conditional use permit. This site consists of 2.75 acres of land. It's currently zoned C-G and is located south of East Ustick Road on the west side of North Records Way, which is just, basically, at the southwest corner of Modelo, which is a private street, and Records. Adjacent land use and zoning. To the north is Modelo Lane and vacant undeveloped land zoned C-G. To the south is also vacant undeveloped land zoned C-G. To the east is North Records Avenue, which is a collector street, and rural single family residential properties, zoned RUT in Ada County. And to the west is a commercial development. Norco is immediately to the west, zoned C-G. This property was annexed back in 2005 with a C-G zoning district. A development agreement was required as a provision of annexation. This property was later platted as four building lots in Una Mas Subdivision. The Comprehensive Plan future land use map Meridian Planning & Zoning July 2, 2015 Page 17 of 35 designation for this site is mixed use regional. A conditional use permit is requested for a multi -family residential development in a C-G zoning district. This development consists of 31 three bedroom residential dwellings and a leasing office on 2.75 acres of land. The residences will be constructed as attached units in sets of two, with shared common area and amenities. Because the units are not on individual lots, it is considered a multi -family development. Access for the lots on the north side of the MEW is proposed via Modelo Lane, a private street, and access to the lots on the south side of the MEW is proposed via a driveway from North Records Avenue. Grass Crete is proposed along the west side of the site for an emergency access connection Modelo and the driveway. That is this patched area here you see. The specific use standards for multi -use developments apply to development of this site. The proposed plans comply with the private and common open space, as well as the site amenity requirements. A property management office is proposed in one half of the structure at the corner of Modelo and Records Avenue. That is this structure right here, if you can see with my arrow there. A clubhouse and meeting area is proposed within the office, along with veranda and walkways through the MEW, with fountains as amenities for the development. The MEW is proposed to be separated and screened from Records with a five foot tall wall. The wall will have a wrought iron gate on the west end for an open view of the courtyard and pedestrian access gates on the east end on either side of the wall. Here is a concept drawing of what it will look like. The common area is proposed to be constructed concurrently with the adjacent dwelling. The drawing here on your right is, basically, a site plan showing the sidewalk along Records and, then, the gate entrances to the courtyard area. Building elevations were submitted for each of the four types of residential structures as shown, proposed along with an elevation for the combined office and dwelling. Construction materials consist primarily of stucco with cement board and metal or composition shingle roofing. A detail view of the homes from the street and the driveway, as well as from the internal MEW was also submitted that shows the mix of building types as shown. This color drawing shows the view of the homes for Modelo Lane. Staff recommends that all structures incorporate a minimum of two different material types, along with stone or brick accents on the street facing out elevations to enhance design and variety in accord with the design standards and guidelines. Additionally, a cohesive color scheme featuring a minimum of two field colors, a trim color, and a front door color, with coinciding garage colors should be used. Prefabricated steel panels are only allowed as an access material unless otherwise approved through alternative compliance. Written testimony has been received on this application from Chad Olsen, the applicant, in response to the staff report. Staff is recommending approval per the conditions in the staff report with the following exceptions as recommended by staff. A new condition is added that required a cross -access easement to be provided to the property to the south in accord with UDC 11-3A-3, which requires cross -access to be granted to adjoining properties where access to a local street isn't available. The applicant should work with the property owner to the south in determining the location of the cross -access easement. Second, the removal of condition number 2.1.1, which required mainline extensions in Modelo and the private driveway. The applicant is currently working with Public Works on main sizing and routing. Third, at the applicant's request and as agreed upon by staff, modify the following conditions: Remove condition number 1.19, which requires a private street for access to the dwellings along the southern boundary of the site. Planning and emergency service agrees that a Meridian Planning & Zoning July 2, 2015 Page 18 of 35 driveway is sufficient for access and addressing purposes, with the provision of directional address signs off of North Records for these units. And revise number 1.1.10A to allow two mailboxes to be located in a safer area off of Records for the units on each aside of the development, rather than a central mailbox location, accessed via Records Avenue. Lastly, a modification to condition number 1.1.11 B to reflect a provision of 13,906 square feet of common open space in accord with UDC standards. That is all staff has, if Commission has any questions. Fitzgerald: Sonya, when you talk about two mailboxes, that's two clusters, one for each side of the building? Watters: Yes, Commissioner. Fitzgerald: Thank you. Yearsley: So, that cross -access, can you explain that a little bit? Watters: Yes, Chairman Yearsley, Commissioners. Because Records Avenue adjacent to the site along the east boundary is designated as a collector street, there is no local street access available to the property to the south. Therefore, city code requires that this property provide a cross -access easement to the property to the south for an access off of the collector street. Yearsley: Okay. That makes sense. Watters: We like to restrict access to collectors and arterials. Yearsley: No, I -- Watters: As well as ACHD does. Yearsley: It makes more sense. I was just trying to go through the conditions to make sure I understand them. Watters: Thank you. Yes. Yearsley: Sorry. Are there any other questions? Fitzgerald: No, that was mine, too. Yearsley: Can you go back to the -- the entry feature. Now, is there -- they are proposing a wall along the front and gates on the sides. Is there a sidewalk in front of that as well or do you know? Watters: Chairman Yearsley, Commissioners, yes, there is a sidewalk along Records -- Meridian Planning & Zoning July 2, 2015 Page 19 of 35 Yearsley: Okay. Watters: -- Avenue that will be required, as well as one through the MEW, through the center of the site. Yearsley: Okay. Watters: You can see here the little pathway. Yearsley: Okay. Fitzgerald: Does that one already exist? The sidewalk against the collector? Watters: Along Records? Yes. Fitzgerald: Yeah. Okay. Yearsley: All right. Thank you. Any other questions? Fitzgerald: One more. Can you put on that map right here where that cross -access would go, just so I understand it? Watters: I had left it open for the applicant to coordinate with the property owner to the south. Fitzgerald: Okay. Watters: However, it will probably be between -- there is a canal that's been piped here. It will probably be between this area and this area. Fitzgerald: Okay. Thanks, Sonya. Watters: Unless some -- some work is done to the pipe. Yearsley: Okay. Fitzgerald: Thank you. Yearsley: Would the applicant like to come forward? Please state your name and address for the record. Olsen: My name is Chad Olsen and I reside at 12790 West Telemark Street, Boise, Idaho. 83713. And we submitted this -- this project and it's kind of a unique multi -family project. It's not the traditional one. We have got much more luxurious style units here. Each unit is around 1,700 square feet and it does provide a nice mix, especially given the concentration of the area with the Regency being right there and we constructed a similar Meridian Planning & Zoning July 2, 2015 Page 20 of 35 project across the street on Ustick and Eagle and it was a very good success for us and we enjoyed working through the process on this with staff and found them very reasonable and not just staff, but like public utilities and emergency staff, which is the fire and police, and -- and really start the good spirit of trying to, you know, work on this project to make it a success and I think that our neighbors really enjoyed it at our neighborhood meeting. Our neighbors were very excited to see a multi -family project that was a little bit higher end, that felt a little more residential to them, as opposed to a multi- story structure and, of course, the location -- we really like the location, given the area with all that development. So, I'm here to entertain any questions that you might have and wish that we could have had that picture that you see on screen now a little larger, but given that's an entire street it was kind of hard to do. We did -- we did lay out each and every building, how it went. It's unique, because you see the back of the houses more than you actually see the front of the houses. So, the backs really had to be, you know, spectacular, because that's what you're looking at. So, without more speaking, if you have any questions, I can certainly do my best. Yearsley: Thank you. Are there any questions? I have, actually, just one. Go back one. Keep going back to the site plan. Sorry. I thought that was one. So, I have to admit I'm a little concerned on I guess two fronts. One is being so close to the back end of Norco with their entry -- you know, deliveries and stuff like that. And, then, Modelo Lane -- you know, from my recollection, that that's a fairly highly traveled access road. Has there been any concerns about people backing onto that private driveway? Olsen: Staff recommended to soften that for us to have a five foot sidewalk along that, which currently isn't there now and we agreed to do that. We also have 20 foot driveways there as well. So, between the 20 foot and, then, the extra five -- 25 foot of being able to -- you know, as you're backing out be able to look. Your first question had to do with the Norco parking lot. So, what you have there with that grass Crete is a really interesting product that allows grass to grow right through it, yet will give support to a big fire truck. So, that's really going to feel, you know, a real wide open space at 20 feet. Now, next to the parking hatch stalls that you see there is another ten foot space of landscaping that was completed by Norco as part of their project. And so you have got a good 30 feet there and, then, the parking stalls. So, it really was -- it may not look as -- as bounty of a space, it really is quite a large amount of space between that. Yearsley: Are you proposing a fence in there between the -- for screening from lights and stuff like that? Olsen: On that back side we need to have access to that landscaped MEW and so on the back side we do have a wrought iron gate that would allow us to open that up if, you know, something needed to be done. Fitzgerald: Well, I was talking between the parking and the homes along the parking lot. Because if you have got people parking right there you're -- the headlights are right on the homes is what I was concerned with. Is there going to be a fence along that or is that all going to be open? Is that -- Meridian Planning & Zoning July 2, 2015 Page 21 of 35 Olsen: I don't -- I don't -- I'm not opposed to putting a fence there. I have about 20 feet and that's exactly what we need for the fire. But I can definitely look and see, but actually think it's a good idea and if we need to we could actually put a fence -- if we were permitted to do so. I think it's a great idea. Yearsley: Okay. And you might even talk to Norco, they might even let you put it on their property. Olsen: It's possible. Yearsley: Yeah. All right. I think that's -- I don't have any other questions. Thank you. As you can tell it's getting close to vacation time, so my brain is kind of gone this morning -- afternoon. I have no one signed up. Is there anybody wanting to testify on this application? So, with that -- I don't think we need to have the applicant come forward again. Fitzgerald: Mr. Chairman? Yearsley: Yes, Commissioner Fitzgerald. Fitzgerald: I move that we close the public hearing. Oliver: Second. Yearsley: I have a motion and a second to close the public hearing on file number CUP 15-012. All in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. TWO ABSENT. Yearsley: So, you know, I like the design. I like the layout. You know, this one is kind of a unique situation where you're butted up against right at the commercial. Most of the times we will actually have a little bit of a -- like it's on the other side. So, that kind of concerns me that you're right there in the commercial area, instead of like on the -- maybe on the other side of Records, you know, and having a roadway boundary. But -- I don't know. I like the project. I think it looks good. I would recommend a fence along that west boundary, but I don't know if it's something that I -- we can fill the condition if we want to. You know, I don't -- I will let you guys have your thoughts. Oliver: I agree with the idea that -- to fence in -- to agree with it, that they would work together with the developer to put that in. I also like the fact that -- the standards that they have held their buildings to. I think they look very, very nice, as well as they just don't look like something you would see -- well, we see quite a bit of. So, very much appreciative of the design there. I also like the ability -- the fact that, you're right, you may not be further away from Norco, but it's also -- what I think we are trying to achieve is having that residential and commercial where you can walk and they have got access to restaurants, Meridian Planning & Zoning July 2, 2015 Page 22 of 35 other areas right there that they have easy access to to just walk to. So, I think it would be -- it's a compliment to what is already there. Fitzgerald: Yeah. And I would -- and I agree completely. The applicant should be commended, because I think it's -- the project's well thought out, well designed. I think -- mean Norco is a -- mostly it's an 8:00 to 5:00'er pretty much -- I mean they may do some deliveries in the morning, but there is not much going on there at night and so I'm less concerned about that and I think there is a giant parking lot on top of those parking spots that are there that we don't see. I mean there is a pretty big distance, I believe, between there. Yearsley: I know all of their deliveries come in and out of that back end, so they are having a lot of tanks come in and -- Fitzgerald: And I have driven through that and it's pretty big and it's a pretty significant size, but I think in -- and per the applicant's comments, they have done this on the other side of Eagle, they know kind of what they are getting into and I think it's -- it's a walkable community, it's very well designed, I think it's well thought out and -- I mean I agree with you on the fence. If we put that on the property line I think that would be beneficial to everybody. I think it's a good project. Yearsley: And, like I said, I'm a little concerned about it, but it's the other way around, you know, the -- the homes are coming in after the commercial -- Fitzgerald: Yeah. Yearsley: -- so they know what they are getting into if they want to rent there, so that makes it a lot easier to swallow, so -- so, with that, I would -- any other comments? I would entertain a motion. Oliver: Okay. Mr. Chairman? Yearsley: Commissioner Oliver. Oliver: See if I can't get this. After considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, move to approve file number CUP 15-012, as presented in staffs report for the hearing date of July 2nd, 2015. And I would like to include the fence, so can I add that as a modification? Yearsley: Yes. That would be a modification. Oliver: With a modification that they include a six foot vinyl fencing to the -- the development and Norco. Yearsley: And, then, there were -- staff actually had other comments as stated in the report we got -- Meridian Planning & Zoning July 2, 2015 Page 23 of 35 Oliver: Do I have to list all of those individually or just include the staff recommendations? Including all staff recommendations, then, as well and -- do I have to add -- to recommend the staff to prepare the findings of fact and conclusions of law and order for the hearing date of July 16th, 2015. Fitzgerald: Second. Yearsley: I have a motion and a second to approve CUP 15-012. All in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries. Thank you. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. TWO ABSENT. C. Public Hearing: ZOA 15-001 Human Bean by Ada County Highway District Located 1648 N. W. 1st Street Request: Text Amendment to Table 11-2D-2 of the Unified Development Code to Include a Drive-Thru Establishment as a Conditional Use in the O-T Zoning District and a Modification to the Associated Specific Use Standards Listed in UDC 11-4-3-11 D. Public Hearing: RZ 15-010 Human Bean by Ada County Highway District Located 1648 N. W. 1st Street Request: Rezone of 2.08 Acres from the R-4 to the O-T Zoning District E. Public Hearing: CUP 15-014 Human Bean by Ada County Highway District Located 1648 N. W. 1st Street Request: Conditional Use Permit for a Drive-Thru Establishment in the O-T Zoning District Yearsley: All right. Next on the list is the public hearing for file number ZOA 15-0 -- oh, sorry. ZOA 15-001, RZ 15-010 and CUP 15-014. Is that correct on the -- the ZOA? Okay. That one kind of threw me. I apologize for that, so -- and let's begin with staff report. Wafters: Thank you, Chairman Yearsley, Members of the Commission. The applications before you next are a zoning ordinance amendment, a rezone, and a conditional use permit. This site consists of 1.17 acres of land. It's currently zoned R-4 and it's located on the south side of West Cherry Lane, between Northwest 1st Street and North Meridian Road. Adjacent land use and zoning. To the north is West Cherry Lane, an arterial street, and vacant undeveloped land zoned RUT in Ada County. To the south are single family residential properties R-4. To the east is North Meridian Road, an arterial street, and Whitewater Saloon, a drinking establishment, and other commercial businesses, zoned C-C and to the west is Northwest 1st Street, a local street, vacant undeveloped land zoned Old Town, O-T, and single family residential properties zoned R-4. This property was included in the Wilson addition to Meridian Subdivision plat that was recorded in 1948 Meridian Planning & Zoning July 2, 2015 Page 24 of 35 as Lots 1 through 8, Block 1. A commercial business and single family residential properties previously existed on this site until ACHD acquired the property for the recent split corridor project, at which point they were demolished. The Comprehensive Plan future land use map designation for this site is Old Town. The applicant requests an amendment to the Unified Development Code to include a drive-thru establishment as a conditional use in the Old Town zoning district. They are currently prohibited. Modifications to the associated specific use standards are also proposed as follows: One, to modify the requirement for the stacking lane to be separate lane from the circulation lanes needed for access and parking to allow stacking lanes to provide access to designation employee parking and, two, allowance for the stacking lane to be greater than one hundred feet in length without an escape lane when the entire stacking lane queue is visible from the entrance to the stacking lane. Any stacking lane greater than 130 foot would require an escape lane. The rezone request consists of 2.08 acres of land from the R-4 to the O-T zoning district, consistent with the Old Town future land use map designation. A conceptual development plan was submitted as shown that shows how the site may develop with a walk up and drive-thru coffee kiosk and two future pad sites for a small restaurant and retail restaurant uses. The small restaurant pad is the one shown here at the northwest corner of the site and, then, retail restaurant is the one to the south. A conditional use permit is requested for a drive-thru establishment in the proposed O-T zoning district for a 480 square foot coffee kiosk for the Human Bean, contingent upon the zoning ordinance amendment being approved to allow such use in the Old Town district. Development is required to comply with the specific use standards for drive-thru establishments listed in the UDC as amended with this application. Access is proposed via right -in, right -out driveway from North Meridian Road. No access to Cherry Lane is proposed or approved and two full access driveways via Northwest 1st Street, a local street, is proposed. Staff recommends only the northern driveway via Northwest 1st is approved. That would be this one right here. And a blanket cross -access easement is required across the site for access to the driveways and a cross -access easement is granted to the property to the south at 1611 North Meridian Road. That would be this property right here that fronts on Meridian, for future interconnectivity and a reduction in access points via Meridian Road upon redevelopment. Building elevations were submitted for the coffee kiosk and small restaurant. This is the coffee kiosk and, then, that is the concept for the restaurant. Building materials for the kiosk consist of a mix of reclaimed wood, bonderized metal siding and rusted metal roofing. Building materials for the restaurant consist of the same materials, with the addition of brick and metal awnings with rusted metal columns. The third building is proposed to be of similar design. All the conceptual elevations weren't submitted. Currently prefabricated steel panels are prohibited as a finish material, but may be approved as accent material or through alternative compliance. Staff recommends future buildings incorporated some kind of architectural features similar to the kiosk that has an appearance of a two story structure, so at least a portion of the building or be functionally two stories as desired in the Old Town area. Written testimony was received from John Rennison, the applicant's representative in response to the staff report. Staff recommends approval per the conditions in the staff report with a requirement of a development agreement. Staff is supportive of the applicant's proposed text changes to the UDC, except for the extension of the stacking lanes from 100 to 130 feet when the lane is visible from the entrance to the Meridian Planning & Zoning July 2, 2015 Page 25 of 35 stacking lane. Staff does not recommend approval of this change. Therefore, staff recommends the site plan is revised to reflect compliance with the current length requirement for stacking lanes. The Commission may want to see a revised site plan prior to making the recommendation to Council, otherwise, the site plan should be revised prior to the Council meeting. As part of the text amendment to the UDC staff recommends that a couple of new provisions are added that prohibits speakers in the Old Town zoning district and required stacking lanes to have sufficient capacity to prevent obstruction of the driveways and drive aisles, as well as the public right of way by patrons. Because this site is an entryway to the downtown area, staff recommends the applicant provide a garden wall with landscaping and an entry sign to the downtown area at the northeast corner of the site as proposed. Staff also recommends the applicant work with the Meridian Arts Commission and Meridian Downtown Development Corporation on determining and providing an appropriate piece of public art at the corner of the site in accord with the destination downtown vision plan for the northern gateway district. A decorative wrap is also required to be installed on the utility boxes at the northeast corner of the site to contribute toward the public art in the downtown area. In the applicant's response to the staff report he requested conditions number 1.1 C and 1.1 D be revised to reflect a partnership with MDC and MAC, Meridian Downtown Development and Meridian Arts Commission in regard to the provision of the public art in downtown entry signs at the northeast corner of the site. Staff is in agreement with this requested change. Staff will stand for any questions the Commission may have. Yearsley: Are there any questions? Fitzgerald: Mr. Chairman? Yearsley: Commissioner Fitzgerald. Fitzgerald: Sonya, the cross -access easement going to the south -- there is a house there; correct? Currently? Is there houses? Watters: Chairman, Commissioner, yes. Correct. Fitzgerald: So, is it -- do we -- you're leaving a landscape berm for -- currently and just leave the -- sorry. Watters: They would be required to provide a stub access here paved within the buffer and, then, upon future redevelopment of the site, if it goes commercial or whatever, then, they would take their access through that driveway, rather than access to Meridian Road. Fitzgerald: Thank you. Yearsley: Did -- sorry, I'm -- did you recommend that the south drive aisle to 1st Street be removed? Was that -- Watters: Yes, I did, Chairman. Meridian Planning & Zoning July 2, 2015 Page 26 of 35 Yearsley: Okay. I thought that's what I heard. Okay. Watters: We -- staff felt it would alleviate cut -through traffic from going through here and also just didn't really feel it was necessary. Yearsley: Okay. No, I'm okay with that. Would the applicant like to come forward. Please state your name and address for the record. Rennison: Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, John Rennison. 410 East State Street in Eagle. I think we are the last ones here. They are cleaning up outside behind here, so thank you for sticking around to hear our application and, hopefully, approve us -- pass this on to the Council. We are excited about it. This is a difficult little piece of property to work with, because of the access and because of, basically, what went on with the divided road segment -- you're nodding your head as if you get that already. I just wanted to emphasize, yeah, try getting in and out of this particular piece of property is very difficult. Right? There is basically your right turn in off -- and off -- onto 1st Street on westbound -- on Cherry -- excuse me. Eastbound on Cherry. Or your right turn into Meridian Road. And so we started first looking at this property -- others had it under contract, actually, to develop it. It's ACHD excess property. And it's been dropped numerous times by other developers that couldn't make it go. They couldn't find a user that would be willing to come in here. So, we have been developing some Human Bean stores around town and it -- as we started to study the site we determined that we believe it will work very well for coffee sales, because of the traffic movement, because of the commute pattern in the morning. So, we think it will work really well for that and that's why we are proposing it here. We think it can be successful. And, then, we do have some other tenants that were interested in coming in here, potentially on pad number two, future parcel number two there, basically in light of the fact that we will be a -- the Human Bean will be a trip generator, right, so there will be some traffic generated, some excitement there that they hope they can feed off of and be successful with their business. So -- so, that's kind of the overall picture, if you will. So, we are working with what we have and we are doing our best. To be short a little bit, staff has done a fantastic job in working with us to develop -- we have actually been working on this project for a number of months to develop the right plan and staff has been extremely helpful in helping us get there and get to this point. The one thing that -- that we didn't think on entirely was the length of the -- the stacking lane. This is the northbound stacking lane. Oops. Watters: Select a color at the top, John. Rennison: Pardon me? Watters: Select a color at the top of the screen. Rennison: This one? Watters: One of the colors. Meridian Planning & Zoning July 2, 2015 Page 27 of 35 Rennison: Oh. Okay. How do I go back to the -- I'm sorry. Watters: That's okay. No, that's fine. Rennison: I'm a rookie at your fancy gadget here. They don't use this over in Eagle. Don't get to Meridian very often. So, this -- this guy right here -- you know, I'm using my pencil here. I can write on the screen; is that correct? Watters: You should be able to. Rennison: I have got the button pushed and -- okay. Watters: Should be able to. Rennison: Okay. Watters: I don't know why it's doing that. Yearsley: It doesn't like the button. Rennison: I will pick a different color. This may be the trick. Blue. No. Okay. Wafters: I don't know. I'm sorry. Rennison: So, there is -- there is a -- this -- the northbound stacking lane -- right there. Thank you very much. The entrance off of Meridian Road on the south going into that stacking lane, we fiddled and fiddled with that little configuration there and in the end we resolved it the best -- the most site efficient, the best site efficiency is to have a stacking lane that runs as it does and it works out that it's a hundred -- it's over a hundred feet and it works out it's about -- under 130 feet. So, talking with staff we said, well, maybe we should just request the additional length and, then, I think when staff finally evaluated that -- we did submit the request and, then, staff finally evaluated that said, well, what we really got going on here is kind of a site specific condition and not something that they necessarily want to incorporate into the code long term. I get that and respective of that. Even -- we were talking earlier today about is there a way -- is there a mechanism for you guys to consider this matter site specifically to be able to allow us to potentially have this little longer stacking lane and we talked and we are not sure if there is a mechanism for you to even do that. So, to step back just a second, there is one simple one, it's put in an escape lane. But I'm not personally a strong believer in escape lanes. I think it just creates more pavement and they don't really get used and -- they might get used on occasion, but our particular tenant here is not in favor of them either. So, the end result for us to keep this configuration, add an escape lane, it would just be another lane of -- another ten foot of asphalt, it would cause the building to be pushed further into the -- into the site further away from street side, which is what the downtown core wants to promote the design standards with. So, we are not in support of adding that additional lane. If Meridian Planning & Zoning July 2, 2015 Page 28 of 35 there is any way to be able to allow the 130 feet for this specific project that would be fantastic. You know, short of that we may need to look at some alternative configurations there to get that drive lane -- or that stacking down under a hundred feet. So, we did actually sketch up a couple this afternoon and I forwarded them to -- excuse me just a second. I'm recovering from the summertime flu. I apologize. Sonya and I talked and sketched up a quick couple things and I sent it to her this afternoon and I'm not sure she was able to get them -- put them in the back side of this PowerPoint, but maybe she was. There we go. There they are. There is some -- two options here. The one on the left, sketch one, this is, basically, the same configuration, it just has an avenue left -- a left turn, if you will, to be able to shorten the length of that measured drive stacking lane. So, you know, we can implement that one. The end result for us, we just lose several parking stalls. That's probably okay for the use of the Human Bean. When we talk about the build out of the rest of the site, you know, we like to have as much parking as possible. Do we know exactly what that parking demand is yet? We don't, but we are just -- we'd like to preserve all the parking we can. The sketch on the right is something else that -- that was new. We had never looked at an alternative like this and I'm not so sure I'm that fond of it, but -- and I'm not so sure that my tenant is that fond of it, so I don't know that I want to commit to -- to one of these in particular tonight, because I would need to share that with -- with the -- with the other parties involved. But to this end I wanted to share with you guys that we have options here that are not a massive site overhaul. Sonya and I were talking earlier that we were concerned that maybe you might want to see, you know, this resolved and worked out -- the site plan revision resolved and worked out before passing us on to -- hopefully with approval passing us on to the -- to the City Council. So, we want -- we would like to develop this, if this is the direction you asked us to go. We would like to develop this plan before we go to City Council. One of these two options, depending on which one we -- result we would like to go with, but if that would be amenable to the board, we would like to do that, just so we can continue. We are on a time line to try to get this building up and constructed yet this year and before winter comes on and the build time is pretty short on these, but -- but still we need to get through the entitlement process and would rather not wait another month to come back to you to revisit this particular topic. So, that's why we sketched these up to demonstrate that this is doable and if you can allow us to work with staff between now and Council, then, we can address this particular item and, then, I don't know that I need to elaborate -- I don't want to lose my opportunity to talk about anything after we -- before you close the public hearing. think everybody has left the building and nobody seems to be too concerned about what we are proposing here. I believe you indicated that the few comments that I had were -- would be incorporated. We just had a few things. We talked to MDC about doing something cool on this corner and it was really brought up in the context -- very early conversations with Mr. Hood, who said, hey, this is one of our downtown entrances and this would be neat to do something nice on this corner and, you know, I immediately said agree. That would be fantastic. And so we had an initial meet with MDC committee a number of months ago and they were very open to it and I think everybody acknowledges that this corner is one of the entrances to the downtown core, so we would like to accomplish that in partnership with MDC and the arts commission. We don't really know what that wants to be yet. We don't really know what their vision is entirely, what it wants to be. But they have, you know, offered I believe to, you know, partner with us and this is Meridian Planning & Zoning July 2, 2015 Page 29 of 35 not something we are -- necessarily wanted to drive, but, moreover, just believe in it and that it's the right thing to do and we will participate in some fashion and like the opportunity to work out those details with MDC and the arts commission as we move forward. So, that was our one change to that item. And the other one was the street trees and I'm not sure I heard you hit on that one. Did you not? Watters: I did not. Rennison: You didn't. Watters: I did not say I was in agreement with that. Rennison: So, the other one was site specific condition of approval 1.1.13C, which talks about street trees along Meridian Road and Cherry Lane and the request in that condition was that we -- there is a lot more trees than -- we would essentially create a scenario in which -- the trees at maturity would touch all on Meridian Road and all on Cherry. I really like that concept for office use and so forth, but I'm not a big fan of it for retail use. The retail users just -- they go nuts when we talk about building green walls on our public corridors and so what we worked on this, we have offered some suggested changes to the language and I don't know if that shows up in front of you. No, it doesn't. What we would like to do is strike -- if you would consider this, we would like to revise condition of approval 1.13C to read as follows: Seating way finding signs and trash receptacles be provided along North Meridian Road and West Cherry Lane. So, all that did was, effectively, remove the additional trees. We do still propose to build the landscape plan as shown here, which does have trees, we are not asking to get rid of all the trees, these trees are I believe in conformance with the -- with the code, but as you can see here the -- they are clustered and they provide view corridors for business and that's very important to us. And so with that I would try to answer any questions that you might have. Yearsley: Are there any questions? Oliver: Just one area of clarification Mr. Chairman, if I could. Yearsley: Please. Oliver: Just looking at the plan that we see here in front of us, the drive-thru is more than a hundred feet? Fitzgerald: A hundred and thirty. Rennison: Yeah. The stacking -- excuse me. From the cursor up to the window right there -- Oliver: Yeah. Meridian Planning & Zoning July 2, 2015 Page 30 of 35 Rennison: -- that is about 125 feet or 129 feet. Right in that. That's the length of that lane right now. Oliver: Okay. Yearsley: I have another question. In the staff report it asks that you provide a drive aisle to the property to the south. Are you in -- are you okay with that condition? Rennison: Thanks for reminding me on that. I did want to hit on that one. We are okay with the cross -access. That's fine, I understand. Access on Meridian Road -- we deal with this regularly on every -- just about every project and that's okay to facilitate that. What I probably would suggest is rather than us building that, that we provide the easement and set it up for -- so it can't happen in the future, but allow us perhaps to actually put the landscaping buffer in, which is -- which is, you know, generally, a design requirement. That would be our preference. I guess we have no idea when that property might redevelop and, furthermore, we haven't spoken with those -- those property owners and nor did they show up to the neighborhood meeting. So, I had no idea what their intentions are. They want to be there a long time. And, if so, then, if it were me I would prefer to have our plantings there and have the provision for the -- just to be able to construct that on their nickel at some future date. That's what I would -- that's what I would request. Yearsley: Could I propose an alternate solution to maybe meet with that owner and see if he wants a drive aisle or -- and, then, if that's the case, then, locate that drive aisle now or if he'd rather have the landscaping be put in and a future -- drive aisle in the future. I think that might be a more appropriate -- Rennison: That's a better idea. I like it. Yeah. Happy to follow through with that. Yearsley: Okay. Oliver: So, the first preference would be the one that we see right here, is what you would love to do. Rennison: That's correct. Oliver: And, then, the sketch one would be the alternate? Rennison: Sketch one is probably the preferred alternate for us. If we -- Oliver: If you have to do an escape lane. Rennison: Correct. Meridian Planning & Zoning July 2, 2015 Page 31 of 35 Oliver: But if you didn't have to have an escape lane the first one we saw would be the preference that you would like to have. So, as I'm reading this it has to be a hundred -- larger, longer? Yearsley: Less than a hundred. Rennison: Less than a hundred feet. Oliver: Okay. Less than a hundred feet. Yearsley: If it's over a hundred feet he has to have an escape lane. Oliver: Greater than a hundred feet in length would have to have an escape lane. Okay. Thank you. Yearsley: And I guess my question to staff is he asked is there any way to do a case by site specific waiver, I guess, or is that something that Council can do? I'm just -- Watters: Chairman Yearsley, Commissioners, there really is no provision in the code for a waiver on that requirement. Yearsley: Okay. Watters: And I don't believe a variance would be applicable in this situation. Yearsley: Okay. Fitzgerald: So, we either -- we change the zoning requirements to 130 or we go to sketch one or two. Watters: Yes. Fitzgerald: Got it. Oliver: And sketch one you feel is something that's doable with Human Bean? Rennison: I do. Yeah. We can facilitate sketch one. It's just not that efficient. It's -- it's one of these situations where we have got the code and we know what might really -- it's a common sense thing and it plays against the code in this particular situation and so I would rather not do it and if we could -- even if maybe Council could dream up a good way for us to feel good. Maybe we could pin it onto them. But if we need to we can do option one. Watters: Staff would prefer option one over option two if I may add that. Yearsley: Okay. And you're okay with losing the drive aisle to the south? Meridian Planning & Zoning July 2, 2015 Page 32 of 35 Rennison: Yes. That's okay. That was kind of intended for service drive for the inline building. Really it was a narrow drive and, frankly, that -- you know, might work out better to not have it. Staff made great comments with regard to its removal, but it may work out better to maybe not have it and free up some more functional stays on site, frankly. Yearsley: Absolutely. Rennison: So, we are in agreement with that and that's completely acceptable and the balance of the staff report is fine, too, so -- Yearsley: Okay. Are there any other questions? Thank you for sitting up here and discussing this with us, because -- since there is nobody else here to -- Rennison: That's the way it should always -- I like that. I prefer that, by the way, back and forth. We can get more stuff done. Yearsley: Yeah. Rennison: Thank you for your time. Yearsley: Thank you. I guess before we close the public hearing are there any last questions, comment, or anything you want to get answered before we -- Fitzgerald: That covered it. I just had one I wanted to ask staff about. Yearsley: Okay. Fitzgerald: A variance or something of that nature, so -- Yearsley: Okay. So, with that I would entertain a motion to close the public hearing on ZOA 15-001 and RZ 15-010 and CUP 15-014. Fitzgerald: So moved. Oliver: Second. Yearsley: I have a motion and a second to close the public hearing. All in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. TWO ABSENT. Yearsley: You know, I like the site. I understand his predicament. Fitzgerald: It's hard. Meridian Planning & Zoning July 2, 2015 Page 33 of 35 Yearsley: It is a tough deal. But I don't feel comfortable changing the code for one property on that. I don't have a problem allowing drive-thrus in the O-T zoning. I like the staff's recommendation to not have speakers. Fitzgerald: Yes. Thank you. Yearsley: I think that is -- is a great comment and for the most part -- I do agree to remove some of the trees. I think there is a point for trees and I think there is sometimes a point for fewer trees and I like the way it's laid out now. It gives them good sight triangles and view corridors. So, I would be amenable to allowing that. I'm trying to think what else. This one kind of has a lot of different comments associated with it. And I like the idea of the partnership with MDC and the Meridian Arts Commission as well. So, understand that this is a difficult corner and I think they have done a pretty good job laying it out and making it look good. So, I would also -- we talked about the -- having the condition that the homeowner -- or the developer work with the south homeowner for the location of the drive aisle or the cross -access easement aisle or if he's more wanting to have that be just landscaped, because, personally, if I was there and wanted to stay there, would rather have it landscaped versus not be landscaped. So, I think that's a change as well. So, I think those are my comments. Oliver: For me I am ecstatic about seeing that corner finally having something done. don't know how long I have looked at that and think something has got to go in there and I think that's a perfect fit -- perfect fit for what we need in that area and I would love to see it exactly the way it is here. I just -- I understand the escape, that we have to put that in. That's unfortunate. I wish we could change that. But I still think it will work wonderfully and I think it would be a beautiful addition to that corner of Meridian. So, I'm all in favor of that. Fitzgerald: Mr. Chairman, I think -- I mean you have exactly explained how -- my thought. I think there is -- if I was living next door I wouldn't want a drive aisle into my property, I would want it landscaped and I think -- it's a hard corner and it is the entry point of the downtown area. I think it's great you guys are working with MDC to put some artwork there, but you got to give the -- the person who is there the ability to see their building and there is multiple restaurant opportunities here. I think you got to control the landscaping a bit. I do commend staff for limiting how far we took the zoning changes. I think that was great. But this is a hard site and I'm with Commissioner Oliver in regards to this -- it's been there for a while and it's been not pretty for a long time. So, I commend you guys for trying to get some stuff there. But I -- I agree with all your comments. So, that's where am as well. Yearsley: Well, with that I would entertain a motion. Fitzgerald: This one is going to be fun. Oh, man. Do you want to go or -- Oliver: I can give it a shot. Meridian Planning & Zoning July 2, 2015 Page 34 of 35 Fitzgerald: You want to try it? Oliver: Mr. Chairman? Yearsley: Commissioner Oliver. Oliver: After considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move to recommend approval of file number ZOA 15-001, RZ 15-010 and CUP 15-014, as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of July 2nd, 2015, with the addition of all staff recommendations. Fitzgerald: Except -- Yearsley: The other two items that are not on the staff recommendations are the removal of the extra trees in the staff report and the cross -access -- working with the homeowners -- Oliver: Working with the homeowner to the south -- Yearsley: -- to the south for that cross -access location and/or -- Oliver: To decide to put in either the landscaping or the -- Fitzgerald: Drive aisle. Oliver: -- drive aisle. Yeah. I'd like to add that. Yearsley: Do you understand that? Watters: Yes. Thank you. Fitzgerald: Second. Yearsley: I have a motion and a second to approve the public hearing of file number ZOA 15-001, RZ 15-010, and CUP 15-014. All in favor say aye. Opposed. Motion carries. Congratulations. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. TWO ABSENT. Yearsley: Last motion we have. Fitzgerald: Mr. Chairman, I would move we adjourn. Oliver: Second. Yearsley: I have a motion and a second to adjourn. All in favor say aye. Opposed? Meridian Planning & Zoning July 2, 2015 Page 35 of 35 MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. TWO ABSENT. Yearsley: We stand adjourned. MEETING ADJOURNED AT 7:43 P.M. (AUDIO RECORDING ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS.) APPROVED - CHATRMAN DATE APPROVED f �-f " c% Ol t V-e-^ r V / Ce_ ATTEST: YCEE HOLMAN, CITY CLERK /�gti'SGD A(1�;UST' City of /�E IUII SANS; IDANO SEAL fy !y