Loading...
2015 12-17Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting December 17, 2015 Meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission of December 17, 2015, was called to order at 6:00 p.m. by Chairman Steven Yearsley. Present: Chairman Steven Yearsley, Commissioner Patrick Oliver, Commissioner Rhonda McCarvel, Commissioner Ryan Fitzgerald and Commissioner Gregory Wilson. Others Present: Machelle Hill, Andrea Pogue, Bill Parsons, Joshua Beach and Dean Willis. Item 1: Roll-Call Attendance: Roll-call ___X__ Gregory Wilson __X__ Patrick Oliver ___X_ 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 December 17, 2015, and let's begin with roll call. Item 2: Adoption of the Agenda Yearsley: Thank you. So, the next item on the agenda is the Consent Agenda and -- oh, sorry. To adopt the agenda. I'm getting ahead of myself. We do have a little change on the agenda. Public hearing item number C, Citadel Storage, will be opened just for the sole purpose of being continued to January 7th. So, with that I would -- can I entertain a motion to approve -- or adopt the agenda as amended? Fitzgerald: Mr. Chairman? Yearsley: Commissioner Fitz -- Fitzgerald: I will just go with Fred. Yearsley: Okay. Yes. Fitzgerald. Fitzgerald: I would move for adoption of the agenda with the minor change for opening of Item C just for continuation. McCarvel: Second. Yearsley: I have a motion and a second to adopt the agenda. All in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carried. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission December 17, 2015 Page 2 of 34 MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 3: Consent Agenda A. Approve Minutes of December 3, 2015 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting B. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: Una Mas Drive-Through (H-2015-0020) by Glenn Walker, NeuDesign Architecture Located 3490 E. Tecate Lane Request: Conditional Use Permit Approval for a Drive-Thru Establishment Within 300 Feet of Another Drive-Thru Establishment in a C-G Zoning District C. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: Culver's (H-2015-0013) by Glenn Walker, NeuDesign Architecture Located 3494 E. Tecate Lane Request: Conditional Use Permit Approval for a Drive-Thru Establishment for Culver's Restaurant Within 300 Feet of Another Drive-Thru Establishment in a C-G Zoning District Yearsley: Next item on the agenda is the Consent Agenda and for this we have the -- to approve the minutes of December 3rd, 2015, Planning and Zoning Commission meeting. Approve the Findings of Fact and Conclusion of Law of approval of Una Mas drive-thru. File number H-2015-0020. Findings of Fact and Conclusion of Law for the approval of Culver's, file number H-2015-0013. If there is no changes to the meeting minutes, I would entertain a motion to approve the Consent Age nda. Oliver: Mr. Chairman? Yearsley: Commissioner Oliver. Oliver: I move to approve the Consent Agenda. McCarvel: Second. Yearsley: I have a motion and a second to approve the Consent Agenda. All in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Yearsley: Before we go onto the next items, let me explain how this process is going to work today. We will open each item up one at a time. We will start off with the staff report. The staff will prepare -- or will present their findings as an explanation of the application, a description of the project, and present their recommendations for approval -- or their recommendations. At that point we will have the applicant come forward and state Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission December 17, 2015 Page 3 of 34 their case for approval. If there is any changes that they have against the conditions from planning, they will present that to their -- before us tonight. After that we will open it up to the public testimony. There is a sign-up sheet in the back for anyone wishing to testify. After -- the individuals wishing to testify will be given up three minutes to do so. If they are speaking for a larger group, if there is a showing of hands or an HOA, they will be given up to ten minutes. After the public has had a chance to testify, we will open it -- the applicant will come forward again and have a chance to rebut the comments. At that point after the applicant is done, we will close the public hearing and, then, we will discuss and deliberate and, hopefully, make a recommendation. Item 4: Action Items A. Continued Public Hearing from November 5, 2015 for Edgehill Subdivision (H-2015-0005) by JUB Engineers, Inc. Located at 1393 & 1405 W. Victory Road 1. Request: Annexation and Zoning of 40.19 Acres of Land with an R-4 Zoning District 2. Request: Preliminary Plat Approval Consisting of 116 Building Lots and 7 Common Lots on 40.19 Acres of Land in an R-4 Zoning District Yearsley: So, with that I would like to open the continued public hearing from November 5th, 2015, of file number H-2015-0005, Edgehill Subdivision, and let's begin with the staff report. Parsons: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. As you have stated, this project was continued from the November 5th, 2015, Planning and Zoning Commission, for the sole purpose of allowing the applicant time to obtain ACHD's staff report for your consideration. If you recall there was quite a few neighbors that showed up at that hearing and they did testify to some of the traffic concerns. So, again, this body felt obligated to kind of postpone this project until we received that information. Tonight I am proud to present to you that we have received the final draft report from ACHD. The actual preliminary plat that was presented to you back on that hearing date that you see here on the slide has not changed from ACHD's recommendation. So, everything that was presented to you, this layout, everything has been per ACHD's policies and they have approved the subject plat with the conditions as stated in their staff report. I do want to touch on the three items that I heard. I had a chance to read through the minutes and some of the transportation issues that I read through and summarized for you that was discussed at that hearing. One was the timing for the roundabout at the intersection of Victory and Linder and that's not planned in -- it's on the map and there is no funding or anything for that at this time. So, it -- it won't happen for quite some time. The other item was the alignment of south -- I believe that is High Grade Avenue, which is the -- a local street that is tying into Victory Road here. I know a couple of these -- these residents were concerned about the alignment of that stub street and the cars projecting headlights Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission December 17, 2015 Page 4 of 34 into their driveway. Based on ACHD's recommendation and approval, that driveway is going to stay in that location as your seeing it before you this evening in the modifications to that. The third item that was of concern for the residents was whether or not Victory was going to have a left turn lane into the development off of Victory Road onto that same intersection here and so after ACHD concluded their traffic study they did find that that did warrant a left turn lane off of Victory into the subdivision from Victory Road. So, that was a condition placed on the applicant to construct that as part of their development and that is in the ACHD staff report. So, with that -- hopefully you have that in your packet and you had a chance to look that over. Again, staff is recommending approval of the project and I'd stand for any questions you might have. Yearsley: Are there any questions? Bill, I just have one question. On that entrance road with ACHD's approval, does it not get -- does it give us any leeway to move it left or right or I guess east or west a little bit? Parsons: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, I've had a chance to read through the staff report that they presented. If I can go back to the aerial real quickly. As you can see here -- and in the staff report from ACHD there is an existing road, which is I think Model Farms Road and there is another lane -- another road here. And so typically ACHD's policies, when you have a road typically they like to have 660 feet of separation before the next road intersects and because of the close proximity to these two roadways, there is no way for that to meet their policy, but they have given the applicant actually a waiver from their policy that supported that in order for that connection to happen. There still may be some opportunities to do that with the final plat process, but I didn't have a chance to speak with the applicant's representative tonight and it looks like ACHD seems to be pretty set on that location -- Yearsley: Okay. Parsons: -- based on what I have heard, but maybe she will have something she can add to that as well for you. Yearsley: Okay. Thank you. With that would the applicant like to come forward? Please state your name and address for the record. Watkins: Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Commissioners. And Bill. Thank you. My name is Kristi Watkins. I am from JUB Engineers at 250 South Beachwood Avenue in Boise. I really don't have a lot to add to that. Again, we accept all of the staff conditions and the traffic impact study was reviewed by ACHD, and we, excuse me, accept their conditions also. The one issue I guess that I want to address is the location of High Grade Avenue. After speaking with staff at ACHD, they said that they did have a chance to speak to homeowners. They determined that the location of High Grade actually comes out into alignment with their garage and there is a significant amount of landscaping. I understand that. I have not seen it myself. But -- that will reduce the glare as people turn out onto Victory. And, then, the property also has two driveways. So, Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission December 17, 2015 Page 5 of 34 access into and out of their property shouldn't be a problem, shouldn't be hindered by that roadway right there. So, they didn't seem to have an issue with where it was located. Yearsley: Okay. Watkins: But if there is any other concerns that you guys have I would be happy to stand for questions. Yearsley: Are there any questions? No? Thank you very much. Watkins: Thank you. Yearsley: I do not have anybody signed up to testify. Is there anybody out in the audience that would like to? Please come forward. Please state your name and address for the record. Mortensen: Okay. My name is Dan Mortensen. I live at 3145 South Linder Road, which is the northwest corner of that intersection. I have several concerns. I understand that the sewer is going to come up Linder, so is everybody going to be able to hook onto that or is it just a straight shot. Number one. And, number two, the roundabout that was proposed will it interfere with the irrigation system, because it -- a lateral comes down to that corner, goes south, north, east and west all from that corner. So, I don't know how that's going to be addressed. My understanding is that the highway district is not going to sign off until there is a roundabout there, but the roundabout doesn't make a hell of a lot of sense to me. I think that's all I have. Yearsley: All right. Thank you. Anybody else? Please come forward. Bird: My name is Ed Bird. 1570 West Victory. We are on the southeast corner -- or northeast corner. My question concerning your protected turn from Victory on the south side going into the new subdivision. Does that mean Victory is going to be widened at this time? Because it's a very narrow road right now. So, is the developer going to take 20 or 30 feet off from the south side? So, does that mean 20 or 30 feet coming from the north side at this time also? Yearsley: We will have the -- actually, we will have the applicant explain how they are going to do the -- Bird: Well, if they have it protected they have to have some kind of a wider road than they have now. Yearsley: Right. Bird: So, if they are going to take it from the south side, logically they would take some from the north side also? Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission December 17, 2015 Page 6 of 34 Yearsley: They would only take from what they actually own. Bird: Okay. Yearsley: They -- they can't take from property that's not theirs. So, I would imagine that they would have to widen towards their side, but we will have the applicant when she comes up to rebut to clarify that when she comes up. Bird: Okay. Thank you. Yearsley: Thank you. Anybody else? Please come forward. C.Bird: My name is Cindy Bird and I live at 1570 West Victory Road in Meridian. And I just want to make sure that you guys have these letters that we have written to ACHD about the roundabout. Can I hand them to you? Yearsley: Will you hand them to the clerk. We need to -- we have to be on the record, so -- C.Bird: And there is one more paper there that shows how the roundabout would cut into our homes and take our homes and I spoke this a month ago and we have three homeowners and they are building 116 new homes and it makes -- for us as homeowners who have been there -- Mortensens have lived there for 59 years. We have lived there for like 25 years and our neighbors, too. And what concerns me is they are willing to take out our three homes to put up 116 new homes. Now, in my letter, which I will hand to you guys now, you know, I talked to commissioners, two different ones, and what I heard -- in my letter it's like what makes sense to me is that at Ten Mile and Victory that's where they would put the roundabout. There is no homes there. But what I heard from one of the commissioners is that they put in a very expensive stoplight and so since they have done that I said why wouldn't they think about that before they did the stoplight to do the roundabout. But he said that would be the ir next move would be the roundabout. Why wouldn't they do that first if -- that they are willing to take out three of our homes, so they -- they might be able -- they will do -- or are considering doing a roundabout at our intersection. So, they will take out three of our homes, but they won't consider a roundabout at Ten Mile and Victory. So, that concerns us, because those are our homes. That's where we live. That's where we have raised our kids. That's where we have had our lives. And so -- and I said this last time and I will say it again, they are willing to get rid of our three homes, which we have lived in, to build 116 new homes, instead of making a consideration of doing something different. You know, cutting more into their property, which I understand would take away homes, but I don't -- that's what I have to say. Thank you. Here is the letters. Yearsley: Thank you. Is there anybody else that would like to testify? Please come forward. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission December 17, 2015 Page 7 of 34 Thompson: Susan Thompson. 1300 West Victory Road, Meridian, Idaho. So, first of all, I thought at the last meeting there was a discussion about water and they were supposed to come today and not only have the transportation -- or the Ada County Highway District traffic study, but they were also going to tell you how they were going to get water to that subdivision, because there is no city water over there. Anyway, I haven't heard any mention of water, so -- I am -- our property is directly across the street from whatever they are calling High Road or something like that. The entrance that they want to put off Victory. First of all, I'm not absolutely sure that -- that the exit is directly in front of our garage. I think the entrance might be directly in front of our garage, but I think that the exit is directly in front of our front window and our bedroom window. Our office window and our bedroom. And we do have trees there and stuff and it's -- I'm sure it's not going to be a huge obtrusiveness, but perhaps if it was scooted a teensy bit to where maybe the exit lights -- or the exist was in front of our garage versus the front of our house. And, then, the entrance would be -- well, a little further over toward the west. Also I had a suggestion that there does -- that actually what if there wasn't an entrance there at all and they connected with Cobble, like I think was supposed to be one of the original ideas was that they connected that part with Cobble, which is over here. I realize that isn't developed, but it's going to be at some point. This guy has his -- yeah. He has his property for sale right now, that two acres, so at some point they are going want to develop that and he already has like a roadway and Cobble is right across the street from that. That stub right here that's going to go right of his property. Kentucky Ridge also has a stub that's going to go right up to that same property and so those two stubs and, then, hook it up to Cobble straight across the street, they will take the street into Kentucky Ridge and, then, it would take you straight into Edgehill also and, then, there wouldn't have to even be a entrance between Linder and Cobble at all into that. There is like 11 driveways on the other side of the road -- on our side of the road that -- that takes you into homes. So, anyway, that would just be my suggestion and, then, again, like I said, I do have a question about the water, because that wasn't brought up at all, about where the city water was going to come from, so -- thanks. Yearsley: Thank you. Is there anybody else? Please come forward. Bennett: I'm Terry Bennett from 3235 South Linder, on the corner of Victory and Linder. There is two more subdivisions that are being planned and put into effect on Amity and Linder and that's going to cause more traffic going down Linder and I haven't heard any -- any talk about the added traffic from those projected subdivisions and I was wondering -- Yearsley: Can you speak into the microphone just a little bit, so it's easier to -- everyone to hear? Thank you. Bennett: I was wondering why I haven't heard anything from ACHD about those, what they would think -- how much traffic would they put on Linder, because of those planned subdivisions also. That's just -- that's just up a section from Victory, so -- you know. And I asked about the -- the survey that went on on Linder and they said that at this time they haven't even gotten very many cars going up and down Linder, but if -- if you approve those and they are already -- they seem to be already approved and -- at least the one on Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission December 17, 2015 Page 8 of 34 the west side of Amity, it seems to me that more -- more traffic would be going down Linder. So, I'd like to -- you know, I'd like to know why or when they would think that the roundabout would go in at Victory and Linder with that -- with those subdivisions added to this one as proposed. Yearsley: Okay. And we will have the applicant -- I don't know that, so we will have applicant address that. Thank you. Anybody else? Please. Paulson: I'm Ron Paulson. 1500 West Victory Road, Meridian. The proposed left-hand turn lane. Are they going to go into our property to take that? Do we know or is that -- Yearsley: At this point they -- they would have to buy property from you to do that if that was the case. But at this point they would probably go on th eir side to do that. So, they couldn't actually use your property, they would -- they would have to stay within the right of way or use their property to make that widened. Bennett: Okay. Another issue I have -- and I noticed this time when I came home is looking at that proposed entrance, because that subdivision being right across from our driveway, we have had people use our driveway as a turnaround. How many people are going to use our driveway, because they forgot something at their house or something and go back into their subdivision. I think it should -- is it possible to take phase one and switch it with phase two, possibly, since they are coming up Linder with the sewer and whatnot and that would allow for that other piece of property to be sold and brought into this road connection where it should be, where it was -- at Cobble. Yearsley: We will have to ask the applicant. Bennett: Thank you. Yearsley: Thank you. Anybody else? Please. Oh, no. You have already testified. You're not allowed twice. Sorry. With that would the applicant like to come forward? Again, name and address for the record. Watkins: Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, again. Kristi Watkins. JUB Engineers. 250 South Beachwood in Boise. I think I have got seven notes that I took here, so I will start at the top. Sewer will be brought down Linden. Whether or not those neighbors will be able to hook up to it I guess is an agreement they need to come up with the city to determine if they can get stubs and whatnot when it's being laid. Second one. We will be widening the road from the center line of Victory 35 feet into our property. We won't be doing anything on the north side, it will only be improved on the south side, so the turn lane will have to be maneuvered into that space that will only be taking 35 feet to the south from the center line of the property. That's all ACHD required us to do. As far as the roundabout is concerned, again, it's in their capital improvement plan. It's not in their five year work plan and according to the traffic impact study and what they reviewed, there isn't enough traffic to even warrant a signal at that intersection, so I highly doubt that it would warrant a roundabout at this time. So, I don't see that happening anytime in the Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission December 17, 2015 Page 9 of 34 near future. They don't have -- like Bill said, they don't have funding for any kind of a project of that magnitude. Water, as was stated in the conditions -- let's see. I have that written down here. 2.1.2. The parcel that's currently not serviceable with domestic water. The development falls in pressure zone five, in which there is currently no supply in the area. Zone five water will be available to the parcel with construction of both a city water line project and the construction of future phases of the Biltmore Subdivision, including off - site improvements. This city project is projected to be constructed in 2016. Biltmore improvements are dependent upon the developer's schedule. So, we would be kind of at their mercy as far as when that all gets finished. We are not in a big rush, so we are willing to wait for those things to happen. We certain ly can evaluate the ins and outs at that entrance and see if we can't line it up a little bit better. I have the diagram that shows the dimensions and I'm not sure how much flexibility we have one way or the other to stay within ACHD's requirements, but we can certainly look at that. As far as why there needs to be two entrances, we can't guarantee that the other property will be developed, so we have to provide those ins and outs ourselves. According to the fire department usually what makes the requirements on a property you have to have two exits for safety reasons, so that they can pull their trucks clear through and they don't have to do turnarounds or those kinds of things. So, there are two exits out to the main road because of that reason. We just don't have the control over when those other properties will be developed. And, then, ACHD has reviewed all the traffic impact studies for all of the subdivisions that are going in out there. That's part of the requirement. Something they have to do. They know these other subdivisions are coming and they approved what we proposed based on the amount of traffic that was proposed to come from our subdivision and I can only assume that they take those other traffic impact studies into consideration also. I can't answer for them, so I don't know. But that's what I wrote down. Did you have any other questions or concerns that came up that I didn't catch? Yearsley: That's all the ones I have got. Are there any other questions? Oliver: Mr. Chairman? Yearsley: Commissioner Oliver. Oliver: If I could just get some clarity on it. When we are looking at -- you said 35 foot from the center line? Then I can't remember from the last time we talked that there will be a sidewalk there or not? On Victory. Watkins: There is -- yeah. I mean we usually have to approve to Meridian's guidelines and they usually require that we put in a sidewalk, so -- Oliver: So, since you're pushing back -- Watkins: Uh-huh. Oliver: -- with -- for that turn lane -- Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission December 17, 2015 Page 10 of 34 Watkins: Uh-huh. Oliver: -- will that push that sidewalk into those front lots, two, three, four -- Watkins: This -- this layout here should include that 35 feet. Oliver: Oh, it does show it? Watkins: Yeah. Oliver: Okay. Okay. Yearsley: And, then, I just want to clarify to you also that -- that you have provided enough space on your property for a future rou ndabout, so there was property taken out of your property for a future roundabout as well; correct? Watkins: Yeah. I believe that's why that common lot sits the way that it does right there, so that at some point in the future it can be changed. Yearsley: Okay. Oliver: Mr. Chairman, if I could ask one more question. Yearsley: Absolutely. Oliver: I don't know if this is for you or the staff, but the water line isn't there yet. Watkins: Right. Oliver: But it is on Linder somewhere. Watkins: Uh-huh. Oliver: Okay. So, when it does reach to your subdivision, will the people that are already residing on Linder have an option as whether they want to hook up or is it mandatory that they hook up? Parsons: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, it's not mandatory that they hook up. They could request that through annexation. We typically don't like people to use our utilities unless they are annexed into the city or if there is some circumstance where ACHD goes in there, widens the -- widens the road in front of that home and takes their septic or well, then, we have what we call a hook up agreement with that homeowner that when they are contiguous to city limits or when they are ready to redevelop or annex in, that they -- they do all of that or when they are contiguous they will annex into the city and become part of the city. Currently right now I will let you know -- I mean recently -- about a month ago, as you know, we came forward with south Meridian annexation, about 1,322 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission December 17, 2015 Page 11 of 34 acres. So, the extension of that Linder Road sewer main is part of phase four of that project. So, we are looking at a minimum four -- or phase two, but it's four years out, unless a developer buys all of these properties and resubdivides them into the cit y, then, they would have to extend that line. So, right now that sewer is probably quite a ways out. And going back to the resident that brought up the water issue. Currently this developer here is responsible for that well site and that water -- water line. That's where water is going to come, from this direction to feed this development. So, this project is contingent on another development happening or they go in and do it and extend it themselves. So, I mean timing on this could be a couple years out and that's -- I think that's what I discussed the last time we had this up. It's 12 to 18 months out before they can even do anything to service the development. So, I don't -- I don't know if that helps answer some of the questions that the community had and kind of shed some light on that, but it's going to be a while. Right now we are just at preliminary plat and any developer is going to have to come back and at multiple applications, final plats, several phases to get this done. So, you know, long story short, yeah, we can't service it right now and that is something that we brought up at that hearing is, yeah, we can service it when these things happen. And that's usually how development works. So, if you have any other questions I would just go ahead and turn it back over to the applicant. Just wanted to provide some clarity on that. Yearsley: Anymore questions? No? I think you have answered most of mine. Thank you. Watkins: Thank you. Yearsley: I would open -- I would entertain a motion to close the public hearing on H-2015-0005. Fitzgerald: Mr. Chairman, so moved. McCarvel: Second. Yearsley: I have a motion and a second to close the public hearing. All in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Yearsley: Before we start I just want to make sure that everyone has had a chance to see the letters provided by the public testimony and had a chance to read those. Okay. Thank you. Any comments or thoughts? Barring that, I would go first. So, you know, it is tough when -- when city starts to impede on country. I watched it growing up happening into my neighborhood as a child and, you know, it happens and it's kind of tough to lose your way of life. So, in regards to the roundabout, before any roundabout can happen ACHD has to buy property and it's not a done deal, they have to come to you and say we would like to put in a roundabout, we would like to buy your property. You have an option to say yes or no to do that or workout an arrangement of somehow to make your size -- Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission December 17, 2015 Page 12 of 34 yourself whole. The highway district does have the option to do eminent domain, which is by force. But you can contest that as well. So, I mean there is some options. Opposing the roundabout is a good start and so -- and it appears at this point that the roundabout is not in the near future. So, you're probably five to ten years out, more than likely, with a roundabout. They may do an interim signal initially. It's hard to say what's going to happen as traffic gets busier out there. With the irrigation and a roundabout or even any improvements out there, they have to keep the irrigation whole, so they just can't just cut it off or -- because they would have to figure out how to reroute all that irrigation to make sure it goes where it needs to go. I think the water in the entrances -- I think we are pretty well covered. And sewer. I think it's a good -- it's a good looking subdivision. I think they have done a good job with what they had. And so I think with that I'm -- I'm in favor for the application. McCarvel: Mr. Chairman? Yearsley: Commissioner McCarvel. McCarvel: I agree. I mean part of the ACHD and everybody having enough information to build for the future is having these preliminary plats in place. I would guess they got to take a look at, you know, all this and the more we get to the preliminary steps done for them to really take a look at where these homes are going to be and what developers are intending I think it's -- this is just the start of things that are coming in the future. So, I think this is a good start. Yearsley: Thank you. Fitzgerald: Mr. Chairman? Yearsley: Commissioner Fitzgerald. Fitzgerald: And I would agree. I think the -- and I would let the neighbors -- I'd have you go and take a look at the capital improvement plan that they have out there. The roundabout isn't even listed in there and it goes up to 2031. They still don't have the budget or the -- they have the light listed for 2021, but not -- and I hope to God by that time they have a light. They weren't even thinking about lights for awhile. So, I -- I understand the concerns and the applicant is also losing some of their property in this situation as well where they are giving up to widen that road to the south, so they could put that left turn lane in there and so I would hope you guys will go to ACHD and let them know about your concerns and fight that process if you can and I think in that regard it is an expansion of neighborhoods and I went through this in my neighborhood when I was a kid as well and so I think the applicant has done a good job of laying out options and it's a good looking subdivision. So, I will be in favor. Yearsley: Thank you. With that, if there is no more comments, if no one else would like to comment, I would entertain a motion. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission December 17, 2015 Page 13 of 34 Wilson: Mr. Chairman? Yearsley: Commissioner Wilson. Wilson: After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to recommend approval to the City Council of file number H-2015-0005 as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of December 17th, 2015. Fitzgerald: Second. Yearsley: I have a motion and a second to approve file number H -2015-0005. All in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries. Thank you. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. C. Public Hearing for Citadel Storage at Ten Mile (H-2015-0026) by Citadel Storage, LLC Located Southwest Corner of W. Chinden Boulevard and N. Ten Mile Road 1. Request: Annexation and Zoning of 16.23 Acres of Land with a C-C Zoning District 2. Request: Conditional Use Permit Approval for a Self-Service Storage Facility in a C-C Zoning District 3. Request: Preliminary Plat Approval Consisting of Two (2) Building Lots on 14.56 Acres of Land in a C-C Zoning District Yearsley: Next item on the agenda is the public hearing for file number H-2015-0026, Citadel Storage. We are going to open this one only for the sole purpose of continuing it to January 7th, 2016. So, with that I would entertain a motion. Oliver: Mr. Chairman? Yearsley: Commissioner Oliver. Oliver: I move that we change the hearing date for -- Yearsley: Continue. Oliver: Continue the hearing date for Citadel Storage at Ten Mile, H-2015-0026, to January 6th? Yearsley: 7th. Oliver: 7th. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission December 17, 2015 Page 14 of 34 Yearsley: 2016. Oliver: 2016. Fitzgerald: Second. Yearsley: I have a motion and a second to continue public hearing H-2015-0026. All in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. B. Public Hearing for Cherry Crossing Drive Thru (H-2015-0023) by Jeff Hatch, Erstad Architects Located Northwest Corner of N. Linder Road and Cherry Lane 1. Request: Conditional Use Permit for a Drive-Thru Establishment in the C-N Zoning District Yearsley: So, apparently I missed the public hearing B, so we will start -- go back to that one right now. So, let's open the public hearing for file number H-2015-0023, Cherry Crossing Drive-thru and let's begin with the staff report. Beach: Good evening, Chair, Commissioners. This is a -- as you said is a conditional use permit. The site is -- consists of 2.01 acres of land, zoned C-N, which is located at 1756 West Cherry Lane, at the northeast corner of West Cherry Lane and North Linder Road. The adjacent land use and zoning. North there are single family residences, zoned R-4. East is the Total Woman's Fitness, zoned C-N. South is the West Cherry Lane and a multi-tenant commercial building, zoned C-N. And west is single family residences, again, zoned R-4. A little history on the property. The subject property received preliminary plat and conditional use permit approval in 2001 and, then, final plat approval in 2002. And in 2005 the subject property also received certificate of zoning compliance for the site to construct the existing multi-tenant building and although the drive-thru is constructed, the city does not have any records of a drive-thru use being established on the property, thus, the reason for the conditional use permit this evening. The Comprehensive Plan for the future land use map designates this property as commercial. The occupant has applied for a conditional use permit for a drive-thru establishment within 300 feet of a residential use. Access to the site is from West Cherry Lane and from West Emerald Falls Drive here to the north. The applicant is proposing the hours of operation for the drive-thru from 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m., Monday through Saturday and 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. on Sunday. The UDC restricts the hours operation in the C-N zoning district from 6:00 a.m. to 10:00 and the applicant, like I said, is proposing 7:00 to 10:00. Therefore, staff is recommending a restriction on that and we have done so in our staff report. But they are proposing -- what they are proposing is in compliance with the UDC. Building elevations were not required Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission December 17, 2015 Page 15 of 34 as part this project. Staff is in approval -- or is recommending approval of this application and staff will stand for any questions you have. Yearsley: Are there any questions? Fitzgerald: Mr. Chairman? Yearsley: Commissioner Fitzgerald. Fitzgerald: Josh, is there a -- is there a drive-thru working right now? Is it -- Beach: There is. Fitzgerald: And it just didn't go through the process -- Beach: Correct. Fitzgerald: -- initially? Okay. Thank you. Yearsley: Any other questions? Do we have a site plan showing the drive-thru area? Beach: We do. It's a fairly rough site plan here, but -- so this is the -- this is the drive-thru. This is -- north is to the left. The drive-thru is here. The applicant will have to come back through for a certificate of zoning compliance to make sure that this site meet the UDC. Some improvement is showing the drive-thru window, the menu board, the speaker location, those types of things. Those are noted in the staff report as well. There is currently an approximately 35 feet landscape buffer to the homes on the west, as well a block wall. So, there is a fairly -- a fairly good size buffer there. Did receive one phone call from a property owner on the north with some concerns about traffic. Mostly she indicated that the pizza delivery drivers were cutting through there at a fairly rapid pace, but it didn't have anything to do specifically with this application, so -- Yearsley: Okay. Fitzgerald: Mr. Chairman? Yearsley: Yes. Fitzgerald: Josh, is there a speaker box that is there and how high is that wall? Beach: Two questions I am not sure I have the answer to. I know there is -- there is a speaker location, because the actual -- the application received conditional approval to operate and is operating now, so I'm assuming that they have a speaker and I don't know exactly. Typically they are a six feet tall block wall. Fitzgerald: Okay. Thank you. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission December 17, 2015 Page 16 of 34 Yearsley: Any other questions? Would the applicant like to come forward? Please state your name and address for the record. Hatch: Jeff Hatch with Erstad Architects. Our address is 310 North 5th Street, Boise, Idaho. 83702. Chairman Yearsley and Commissioners, thank you for reviewing the consideration of this drive-thru this evening. As the staff indicated, this drive-thru was built when the facility was constructed, because it's -- in talking with the client it was actually operated in a couple previous businesses. I don't know if they were aware that it hadn't gone through the correct proper paperwork to actually make it official. Something that's been brought to the attention of the current property owner and this is something that he wants to address -- one, for resolution with the city, but also for future tenants to provide the opportunity of use. The speaker box was also installed at -- at the time of the existing construction of the facility as well, so the median and everything that was derived for that facility is all existing. We are not proposing any construction at this time, other than the function of the facility. Are there any specific questions that I can address? Yearsley: Are there any other questions? No? Thank you. Hatch: Thank you. Yearsley: Is there anybody wishing to -- I don't have anybody signed up for this one. Is there anybody wishing to testify on this application? With that I don't think we need the applicant to come forward. So, I would entertain a motion to close the public hearing on file number H-2015-0023. Fitzgerald: So moved. McCarvel: Second. Yearsley: I have a motion and a second to close the public hearing. All in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Yearsley: Any comments? Oliver: Mr. Chairman? Yearsley: Commissioner Oliver. Oliver: I happen to live just right down the street from there and I was just right in that very vicinity tonight before the meeting and I never seen a problem with that area. Never seen a problem with it. And so I think the -- the facility of the person that's occupying that right now I think will be a nice addition to the community and I can't see a problem with it, so I'm in favor of it. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission December 17, 2015 Page 17 of 34 Yearsley: Okay. Fitzgerald: Mr. Chairman? Yearsley: Commissioner Fitzgerald. Fitzgerald: I would agree. I think -- I appreciate the applicant coming in and getting their ducks in a row in regards to working with the city to make sure they have all their I's dotted and T's crossed and I think the speaker box is pointing towards the commercial building and parking lot, so I think you're -- we are in a good spot there, so -- Yearsley: Thank you. If there is no other comments I would entertain a motion. McCarvel: Mr. Chairman? Yearsley: Commissioner McCarvel. McCarvel: After considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move to approve file number H-2015-0023 as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of December 17th, 2015. I further move to direct staff to prepare an appropriate findings document to be considered at the next Planning and Zoning Commission hearing on January 7th, 2016. Wilson: Second. Yearsley: I have a motion and a second to approve file number H-2015-0023. All in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries. Thank you. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. D. Public Hearing for Shine Bright (H-2015-0030) by NeuDesign Architecture Located at 2825 S. Meridian Road 1. Request: Conditional Use Permit Approval to Construct a 2,001 Square Foot Indoor Arts, Entertainment and Recreation Facility in the L-O Zoning District Yearsley: Next item on the agenda is a public hearing for file number H-2015-0030, Shine Bright, and let's begin with the staff report. Beach: Very good. This is a -- another conditional use permit. This is -- the property consists of 0.48 acres of land, which is zoned L-O, and located at 2825 South Meridian Road, which is north of Victory Road. The area property is developed with commercial businesses, retail, professional services. It's also zoned L-O, as well as a church to the north -- to the north, excuse me, which is zoned C-G. A little history on this. In 2004 the Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission December 17, 2015 Page 18 of 34 property received annexation, preliminary plat, and conditional use permit approval for what is called the Strata Bellisma Subdivision. The subject property also received CZC and design review approval in 2014 for the site and building. The Comprehensive Plan future land use map designation for the property is low density residential. The applicant is requesting a conditional use permit approval to operate a 2,100 square foot indoor arts, entertainment and recreation facility on the .408 acres of land in that zoning district, which is the L-O. Access to the site -- is provided to the site via West Maestra Street, which is the street here and from West Galvani Drive, which takes access from Victory. The hours of operation that are proposed from the applicant at 8:00 to 5:00, Monday through Friday, and L-O zoning district restricts the hours from 6:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m., so the applicant is well within that range. And due to the fact that the proposed use is within an existing building and no site or exterior building modifications are proposed, a full certificate of zoning compliance application will not be required to commence the proposed use on the site. Planning staff will review and approve the commencement of the use through a tenant improvement application submitted to the Community Development Department. All interior modifications associated with the use must receive all required permits and inspections from the building division of the Community Development Department prior to the operation of the dance slash fitness studio. Staff will stand for any questions you may have on the application. Yearsley: Is there any questions? Was there a site plan for this one as well? Beach: There is. I apologize. It's a little bit difficult to see. They have also given us a floor plan. It made it a little bit blurry. My understanding is this is the dance here. The applicant can address this a little bit further. There is two separate businesses that are going in. One is what they are calling a learning center. My understanding is that it's similar to a preschool-type use, as well as the dance studio and they are working with an architect to design the space so that it can accommodate both uses, so -- Yearsley: All right. Thank you. Any questions? Would the applicant like to come forward? Pogue: Mr. Chair? Yearsley: Yes. Pogue: I have a question for Josh. On the agenda it indicates that it's approval to construct a 2001 square foot indoor arts, but I noted in your staff report that it's a 2,100 square foot -- Beach: Yes. They are not constructed -- correct. And I believe it's -- the building itself is 2,100 square feet, which includes the space I believe directly to the south. So, that was an error on staff's part. Pogue: Okay. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission December 17, 2015 Page 19 of 34 Yearsley: All right. Parsons: Mr. Chair, for clarification, the building itself is approximately 4,300 square feet. So, they are only taking up a portion of that -- in that building, so just for the record. Yearsley: Okay. Would the applicant like to come forward? Please state your name and address for the record. Gaines: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Commissioners. My name is Pam Gaines and I am with NeuDesign architecture and we are 725 Northeast 2nd Street, Meridian. We are in agreement with what the staff has had to say. It is -- it's 2,001 square feet. It's the vacant space of an already constructed facility and it's strictly a tenant improvement. It -- we are adding an emergency exit door for the classroom area where they are going to be teaching skills like music and art and that sort of thing. But the reason we are here is because of the exercise facility in an L-O zone, so -- and they are one business, they just have two different uses. Yearsley: Okay. Is there any questions? Thank you. Gaines: Thank you. Yearsley: Again, I have no one signed up for this application. Is there anybody wanting to to testify? If there is no application -- or no one to testify, we don't need to have the applicant come forward, so with that I would entertain a motion to close the public hearing on file number H-2015-0030. McCarvel: So moved. Fitzgerald: Second. Yearsley: I have a motion and a second to close the public hearing. All in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Yearsley: Any comments? Fitzgerald: Mr. Chairman? Yearsley: Commissioner Fitzgerald. Fitzgerald: I think it fits into the neighborhood well. I don't think I see a problem with it at all. So, I think it fits with what's going on there in the surrounding community. Yearsley: Thank you. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission December 17, 2015 Page 20 of 34 Wilson: Mr. Chair? Yearsley: Commissioner Wilson. Wilson: I will also be voting in favor. I think there is a value added to the community and I like the looks of the project. Yearsley: All right. Thank you. With no other comments, I would entertain a motion. Fitzgerald: Mr. Chairman? Yearsley: Commissioner Fitzgerald. Fitzgerald: After considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move to approve file number H-2015-0030 as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of December 17th, 2015, with -- as stated. Wilson: Second. Yearsley: I have a motion and a second to approve file number H-2015-0030. All in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. E. Public Hearing for Birkdale Estates Subdivision (H-2015-0021) by EGC Development, LLC Located Northeast Corner of N. Meridian Road and E. Chinden Boulevard 1. Request: Annexation and Zoning of 10.06 Acres of Land with an R-2 Zoning District 2. Request: Preliminary Plat Approval Consisting of Nineteen (19) Building Lots and Four (4) Common Lots on 10.06 Acres of Land in a Proposed R-2 Zoning District Yearsley: So, at this point we would entertain a motion -- or sorry. I would like to open the public hearing on file number H-2015-0021, Birkdale Estates Subdivision, and let's begin with the staff report. Beach: Very good. This is the -- it's called Birkdale Estates Subdivision. They are applying for annexation and zoning, as well as for a preliminary plat. The site consists of 10.06 acres of land, currently zoned RUT in the county, located at the south corner of North Meridian Road and East Chinden Boulevard. To the north is a commercial property also zoned RUT within Ada County. The east residential and agricultural property, zoned RUT again in Ada County's jurisdiction. To the south is single family residential property in Saguaro Canyon Subdivision, which is zoned R -4. And to the west is single family Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission December 17, 2015 Page 21 of 34 residential properties in the Hacienda Subdivision, zoned R-8. And to the northwest of the property is an agricultural property slash church, which is zoned RUT again in Ada County. The subject property is platted as part of the Blythe Estates Subdivision within Ada County. The Comprehensive Plan future land use map designation is medium density residential for the property. The applicant has submitted an application for annexation and zoning, again, 10.06 acres of land, with a proposed R-2 zoning designation. A preliminary plat is proposed consisting of 15 single family residential building lots and five common lots on 10.06 acres of land for the Birkdale Estates Subdivision. Show you the plat here. I apologize. So, the applicant has applied to annex and zone a total of 10.06 acres of land with, again, the R-2 -- proposed R-2 zoning designation. The proposed zoning is consistent with the corresponding future land use map designation of medium density residential. The applicant has requested what's called a step down in density, which is allowed by the Comprehensive Plan. And the lega l description submitted with the application shows the boundaries of the property proposed to be annexed and zoned. The property is contiguous to land that has been annexed into the city and is within the area of city impact. Because this is a low densit y development staff is not recommending a development agreement with the annexation of this property. The proposed plat consists of 15 single family residential building lots and five common lots on, again, 10.06 acres of land. The average lot size in th e proposed development is 21,893 square feet. A step down in density is allowed by the future land use map, as long as the change is within one step of the map designation, of which this is. Medium to low in this instance. The proposed growth density of the subdivision is 1.49 dwelling units per acre, which is consistent with both the step down in density and the proposed R-2 zoning designation. Staff has reviewed the proposed plat for compliance with the -- excuse me -- the dimensional standards listed in the UDC and have found the plat to be in compliance with those standards. The minimum lot size for a single family detached dwelling in the R -2 zoning district is 12,000 square feet, with 80 feet of frontage. The plat as submitted complies with the dimensional standards of the UDC, with a minimum home size of 1,500 square feet. The proposed plat does not comply with the maximum block length standards listed in the UDC. Specifically the UDC allows a cul-de-sac to be up to 450 feet in length. The cul-de-sac here -- and I believe I have a slide where it's blown up a little bit better and it's approximately 680 square feet in length. So, the proposed length of the cul- de-sac is too long. In order to meet this requirement the applicant must provide a stub street to the property to the north. Now, the understanding that the proposed Bull Ranch Subdivision was denied last week, the applicant has expressed some interest in altering their plat. Originally they came forward with an application where the cul-de-sac was on the south and the through street was a stub to the -- to the property to the east and, again, the applicant has shown some interest in altering their plan, but that's up to the Commissioners' comfort level as to whether or not they would allow that this evening. Access to the site currently is from the Elk Ranch Lane, which is a private drive that connects to Chinden Boulevard, which staff has conditioned to be vacated as part of this plat and with a similar condition we have with the Bull R anch Subdivision, that that be vacated and will take access from the Hightower Subdivision and from Saguaro Canyon here to the south. At this time there is an existing six foot tall privacy fencing along the south portion and the west portion of the proposed subdivision and the applicant shall Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission December 17, 2015 Page 22 of 34 provide six foot tall fencing along the border -- the entire border of the subdivision, so the north and the east. The applicant has proposed 6.6 percent open space, 4.67 acres. Currently this does not meet the requirements of the UDC, with the understanding that the applicant knows that there is a -- a current proposal from staff to alter the UDC, with the understanding that this current proposal will only work if the UDC is approved and they will be tied to whichever code is in effect at the time of their submittal for their final plat. So, the applicant is proposing several amenities, including a pool, barbecue area, and as you see here a micropath connection. If the application does -- and is granted permission to alter their plan, so the cul-de-sac is on the south, staff would be in support of a micropath - pedestrian connection to the east from the cul-de-sac, which, then, the applicant for the -- for reapplication of Bull Ranch would be required to continue tha t pathway with their project. The North Slough runs across the site and will be tiled as part of the development. I'm not sure if you can see here, but this is where the -- the slough is proposed. These four lots would be encumbered by that and that are a would not be a buildable area. Staff did not indicate in our staff report, but it makes some sense to staff that the open space be included in this lot, since the -- I shouldn't say a majority. It's a fairly large lot, but a large section of that lot would be nonbuildable, so it would make sense for some of that open space to be in that area, as opposed to this corner down here. But, again, staff did not indicate that in the staff report. I just thought I would mention that this evening. Again, because staff is not recommending a development agreement. We did not, in our staff report, tie the applicant to the proposed elevations, which I have in this slide here and staff would recommend that the Commissioners include a condition that this development be tied to the proposed concept elevations that the applicant has provided. Again, staff is recommending approval of the project and will stand for any questions you may have. Yearsley: Are there any questions? Fitzgerald: Mr. Chairman? Yearsley: Commissioner Fitzgerald. Fitzgerald: Josh, where is the pool? Beach: So, they are proposing the pool to be -- sorry, you can't see where I'm pointing on the screen. I will use the mouse. Here. Fitzgerald: Okay. So, is there parking for the pool? Beach: They are not -- they have not shown that. They will have to come forward with a CZC approval for the -- how the pool will be laid out and they are not proposing anything up to this point. We have seen some renderings, but not the -- the design has not been approved yet. Fitzgerald: Okay. If there is a parking lot does that take away from open space? Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission December 17, 2015 Page 23 of 34 Beach: Yes. Fitzgerald: Okay. Thank you. Yearsley: Any other questions? Just for clarification, in our recommendation if it is a favorable recommendation do we need to add a condition to tie the elevations? Okay. I just want to make sure that it -- Beach: Correct. Because it was not in the staff report, so that will be for the commissioners to add that condition. Yearsley: Okay. With that would the applicant like to come forward? Please state your name and address for the record. Tealey: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, my name is Pat Tealey. Office address 12594 Explorer in Boise. Rather than go back through all the stated facts, I will try to bring you up to how we ended up at this layout and this is not our preferred layout, but it was sort of dictated by the development to the east, which I understand has been turned down. So, we are back in the position of telling them where the roads ought to go. This is a lower density subdivision, a step down from the -- the anticipated three to eight units per acre. The applicant -- the owner has done market studies and they feel that this is the way they want to develop the ir ten acres. They have done a fairly good job of it. I believe most of the lots are under what they call reservation now. They have got -- they have got quite a bit of interest in this thing, so the sooner we can build it the sooner they can sell it. To go back, in our pre-application meeting with the city we had the northern road, the one that's shown with the cul-de-sac now, extended to the east and a cul-de-sac on the south road. The reason we did this was because if you -- if that south road is extended through the property to the east, we are going to end up with a road that's, basically, over a half a mile long straight out to Meridian, you know, and as it goes through their subdivision, which they propose, our sub, and, then, out to Meridian, we didn't think that was a good idea. That's why we proposed a cul-de-sac -- our road on the south. We had several meetings with the adjacent neighbor, thought we had an agreement and, basically, he -- he got his application in before we did and he sort of turned 180 degrees from what he was telling us he was doing at first and so we -- the only way he could respond, then, was show the road connection on the south and the cul -de-sac on the north. We would prefer they consider this thing and it's really fairly simple in my mind, back to our original concept where we put the cul-de-sac on the south and the connection to the property to the east on the northern road. This would satisfy, then, the -- staff's concern about -- well, the cul-de-sac length, basically. We are providing, as stated, a swimming pool and barbecue area as part of our common area. We understand that as it stands right now it doesn't meet the ten percent requirement, but we believe that the action that's going through the city right now we will bring this into compliance when we get to that point. All utilities are being provided. Sewer and water from the City of Meridian. The other utilities from the different utility companies and we are providing a pressure irrigation system for the -- or for the new owners. I guess at that I would stand for questions from the Commission. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission December 17, 2015 Page 24 of 34 Yearsley: Are there any questions? I actually have one. So, just clarification. Are you requesting that -- that we approve this based on swapping the two roads around? Tealey: That's correct. Yearsley: Okay. Tealey: A couple of reasons. One, like I stated, I think for a traffic pattern it is much better and the actual -- now, in our neighborhood meeting the plat that we presented to the neighborhood showed the cul-de-sac on the south and the connection to the north and I just think it's a better situation -- design situation. Yearsley: Okay. And I understand that. I just wanted to make sure that I -- I understood what you were saying is that that's what you wanted it to do. I guess my -- and I can't speak for the other Commissioners, it will be discussion after we close the public hearing. If we ask for a continuation for you to show us a new map, I don't know -- that may be an option. I don't know how fast you're wanting to move this forward. They may ask for that. Are you okay with that continuation if we -- I'm just making sure we understand the look and the feel of it. Tealey: Certainly. And that's a good question. A member of the ownership team is here. I guess maybe he could address that. I think it would depend on how long you're going to delay it. There are some considerations on timing. But as far as for the approval process, we don't really want to have you approve what we presented to you, so -- Yearsley: Right. Tealey: Because of the traffic and the connections that we prefer. So, if you could give me an idea of what you -- how long you're -- Yearsley: I would assume -- and this would be -- it would be January 7th, just to give you enough time to reconfigure the lot and we can have the owner come up in the public hearing process and have him testify to that. But I guess, you know -- and I won't know -- like I said, I'm just wanting to bring this out now, because I don't know the level of comfort to the commissioners, speaking for them, but all we would do is just continue it to January 7th. Tealey: Just in -- I got the nod from the owner. I guess January 7th would work for us. Yearsley: Okay. Tealey: And I think it's -- it's probably prudent that you do that. Yearsley: Okay. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission December 17, 2015 Page 25 of 34 Tealey: You know. As much as I would like to get your approval tonight, it is probably prudent that you do look at it. Yearsley: Okay. Are there any other questions? Fitzgerald: Joshua, I mean having different conditions of approval with the swap -- I mean micropaths and -- Beach: So, Chair, Commissioners, I was looking through the staff report as we were talking about this. There is some very minor changes that we would take -- we would remove, actually, several conditions. One, the stub street to the north will no longer be an issue, because that would be a through street, so that 450 foot the condition would be removed. We would remove the requirement that -- essentially, there is two conditions that are contingent on the existing micropath that they are proposing and we would remove both of those conditions. Everything else would stay the same. There really isn't -- there really isn't a whole lot of change, but this would affect the staff report and if you feel comfortable that those are things that you could remove this evening from -- conditions you could remove this evening from the staff report. Yearsley: Okay. And we can discuss that when we close the public hearing. Thank you. Beach: Thank you. Yearsley: I have Tom Riekea? Is that -- was that you? Okay. Sorry. Please come forward. Please state your name and address for the record. Riekea: My name is Tom Riekea. Spelled R-i-e-k-e-a. I live with my wife at 270 East Rio Colinas. Our home is the fifth one to the west of where this subdivision would begin . I didn't come out to deny anybody a nice new house. We moved here from El Paso and other places about three and a half years ago and we love it. We are natives of Minneapolis and in many ways, including the snow tonight, this seems a good deal like home. I didn't come here expecting to change your minds. I couldn't -- there were people that were going to come with me and they said, well, it won't matter what we say, they are just going to approve it anyway, because it's tax money. I understand the truth behind that, but I'm not content to just let it be like that. This looks to those of us who have pulled up to the back of a pickup truck that was loaded with some blueprints and so forth, had asked all kinds of questions and made all sorts of comments. What -- if you approve it, it -- it seems to us like it's kind of a dead end subdivision that there is nowhere that anybody can go, except through the two subdivisions that already exist. Probably in the long run I don't care if somebody else drives on the street. That doesn't -- that isn't part of my concern. The concern is the -- the mess that you make of two fully developed subdivisions while you're trying to put all of this together and, then, the fact that what I assume is Rio Colinas Drive, doesn't go anywhere. It probably will some day and it would seem to make a lot of sense to have that egress available now if you're putting all of this in. Nobody that I know in the subdivision is against progress or against nice new buildings and that kind of thing. The one concern that keeps coming up to my mind -- you will Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission December 17, 2015 Page 26 of 34 probably write it off as being trivial, but it isn't in my mind. We lived in the Oakland, California, area at the time of what was called the Oakland fire -- Oakland Hills fire. That may not have been important news here, but the subdivisions that were built in the hillside were all built with one narrow road in and out within site of a freeway -- six lane freeway. Nobody expected a fire to jump six lanes, but it did, and there were people who were trying to get out of their homes who found it just absolutely impossible, because there was no moving traffic. It's all this narrow road. When you sit here tonight that probably seems like the last concern you ever have, but we know of scores of people who have died because they couldn't get out and I look at this and I see it's just dead end the way it is. Why not build the street all the way through to the east and use that for construction purposes and, then, whoever lives in these homes has got a way to the east, which would be quite normal for them to use and they can go through two other subdivisions that are fully developed and all built up. That's the kind of concern I have come with and, as I said, I don't expect that it's going to make any difference, but I'm just another somebody who cares about it and wishes that you would make some adjustments in this, so that it would be more viable. Thank you. Yearsley: Thank you. I don't have anybody else to testify on this application . Would somebody else -- please come forward. Fremgen: Hi. My name is Bill Fremgen. 5252 North Papago Place, Boise, Idaho, and I'm the owner of the property to the east of this subdivision, the one that you approved the development for called Bull Ranch. First off, I want to clarify the record. We did have a meeting with the Birkdale folks to try to conform our subdivision to their subdivision, because we believe their original proposal to have a cul-de-sac on the south end and a through road on the north side, was going to be substantially detrimental to our -- the economics of our subdivision and we proposed a shared drive via an easement on their property as a way to alleviate the impact on our property. They wrote us back a letter and declined, saying that it would impact the value of their lots and so, therefore, they weren't going to agree with the meeting that I held in my engine ering firm's office to try to reach an agreement. So, we had one meeting. They declined, said no thanks, so we are going to go our way. We got our application in, as he stated, before them. You guys in planning recommended -- you guys approved it. Council, for whatever reason, declined. We are seeking, you know, remedies to that at this -- at this time, but I -- I'm against the swap on the north to the south, because it will have substantially detrimental impact to my property without some kind of agreement for them to allow me to build out the lots on my south end, because the Hightower stub street I'm dealing with is a hundred foot depth and if I have to cul-de-sac there it's going to -- it's going to cause a huge problem if I'm building a subdivision that's consistent with the Comprehensive Plan as it currently exists , which is R-8. So, we did have -- the ACHD was finished. We had traffic calming in the middle of our through street on the southern end to deal with the concerns about a long, straigh t street, so that was already addressed and ACHD was very comfortable with that proposal. Also, we have, you know, plans to vacate the Elk Ranch Road going onto Chinden, which we also have rights to, so that will not be done until we get our development a pproved and through. I'm meeting with Bill and his boss tomorrow to try to understand where we take the process from here. Thank you. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission December 17, 2015 Page 27 of 34 Yearsley: Thank you. Anybody else? Would the applicant like to come forward? Tealey: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. There was a meeting at his office -- at his engineer's office. I did not attend. The owner attended. He can give you firsthand knowledge of it if you would -- if you would like. His layout at that time was dependent on us giving him 30 feet of ground, so that he could have a turnaround, so he could get more density down on the south. From what I understand, the reason that that subdivision got turned down is because there is too much density to begin with. So, again, I just think the cul-de-sac on the south serves the community better, there is -- you can see from the existing land use map or the assessor's type map in front of you, there is going to -- there would end up being over just about three -quarters of a mile of straight road up from -- from the east end of their subdivision out to Meridian and we just think it's a better layout. They thought theirs was a better layout, so I guess that's where we started to knock heads. Yearsley: Actually, just the gentleman in the back, he talked about building the road to the east for a different entrance on somebody else's property. Can you at least address that? Tealey: Our northern road will -- will provide access through that -- part of the Bull Ranch parcel to the east and, then, it will connect with roads that end up going out to Chinden Boulevard. Yearsley: But also just -- I want to explain that you can't actually build a road on somebody else's -- on property that you don't own as well. Tealey: Correct. Yearsley: Yeah. It's a building block situation. I mean they can't all develop at once and it can't all be done by one person, so -- Yearsley: Okay. Thank you. Tealey: Thank you. Yearsley: I guess were there any other questions? Thanks. I would entertain a motion to close the public hearing on file number H-2015-0021. McCarvel: So moved. Oliver: Second. Yearsley: I have a motion and a second to close the public hearing. All in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion granted. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission December 17, 2015 Page 28 of 34 Yearsley: Comment? I guess for me I'd kind of like to poll Commissioners' consensus. The applicant is asking to swap the roads around. What's your level of comfort of approving that and making the changes to the conditions or do we want to continue this to January and come back with a new layout for us to review? Oliver: Mr. Chairman? Yearsley: Commissioner Oliver. Oliver: I just have a real quick question again. Is it Elk Run? Beach: Elk Ranch Lane is a private lane that is available for use by both this ten acre parcel and the one to the east, so it was a condition that they re move access as part of the proposed Bull Ranch Subdivision. It's also a condition of approval that that be vacated. But, again, since the subdivision was denied it -- it takes both of them to vacate it, because they both have access to it, so -- Oliver: Yes. My question. Beach: Correct. Oliver: Can you go ahead and go forward with that without -- Beach: No. It would take both of them to redevelop in order for it to be -- Yearsley: And, then, I guess all we are doing is making them give up their access to that roadway I guess is what we are doing. We are not -- we are not saying that we have to get rid of it, we are just saying they are giving up their right to that access. Beach: So, the condition of approval for this takes away the access from this property, not from the property to the east. Oliver: But it would take both parties to communicate with each other to come to an understanding? Beach: Not necessarily, no. This -- so -- sorry. Let me explain a little further. The applicant to the east -- or the property owner that spoke to you would still, then, have access. Oliver: Uh-huh. Beach: And, then, once that property develops they would, again, have to remove their access and, then, it would be completely vacated. So, whoever comes in second to develop would have to completely vacate the property. But, again, it takes both of those -- both of those property owners who have rights to that private lane currently. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission December 17, 2015 Page 29 of 34 Oliver: Okay. Thank you. Go ahead? Yearsley: Oh, absolutely. Oliver: It's my opinion that I do like the reversal. I do like -- I would like to do this tonight, but I'm still more comfortable with seeing it brought back January 7th to look at it and get that kind of final feeling that this is the proper way it should look, then, I think we should go forward. Fitzgerald: Mr. Chairman? Yearsley: Commissioner Fitzgerald. Fitzgerald: I agree completely. I think that is a long road with -- the traffic calming can only do so much. That's a pretty -- and I know that there is -- when you get out towards Meridian Road there is some -- as the gentleman mentioned, there is elder couples and there is a lot of people walking and I think that's going to become a drag strip, so I'd rather see it reversed as well. So, I think I would be in favor of us continuing it to the 7th and taking a look at the final proposal and having it move from there. Yearsley: Okay. Commissioner Wilson or Commissioner McCarvel, just to kind of get your thoughts as well. Wilson: Yeah. I'm in that camp, too. I'd like to see it in the next P&Z meeting. Yearsley: Okay. McCarvel: Mr. Chairman, I agree. I think it seems like an easy flip, but, you know, there might be some things you notice when it's a nice picture in front of you. Yearsley: Okay. So, I guess with that I have a tendency to agree. I think I would like to have it come back. I do agree, I think that the swap is the better alternative. I know it's unfortunate to the adjacent property owner wanting to develop on his side, but given the conditions the way they are, I think it is in a more appropriate condition, so I guess with that I would entertain a motion. Pogue: Mr. Chair? Yearsley: Yes. Pogue: Just a comment. The public hearing was closed. Yearsley: Yes. Pogue: So, if you continue it will you reopen it? Will it be reopened? Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission December 17, 2015 Page 30 of 34 Yearsley: Yes, it will. Pogue: Yes. Yearsley: So, I would entertain a motion. McCarvel: Mr. Chairman? Yearsley: Commissioner McCarvel. McCarvel: I move to continue file number H-2015-021 to the hearing date of January 7th to allow time to get the plat redrawn. Wilson: Second. Fitzgerald: Do we need to open the public hearing first? Yearsley: Do we need to open the public hearing to do that? Pogue: I think so. Yearsley: Oh. Sorry. At that point I guess we need to have a motion to open the public hearing. So, I would entertain a motion to open the publ ic hearing on H-2015-0021. McCarvel: So moved. Fitzgerald: Second. Yearsley: I have a motion and a second. All in favor say aye. Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Yearsley: Now I would entertain that motion. McCarvel: Mr. Chairman? Yearsley: Commissioner McCarvel. McCarvel: I move to continue file number H -2015-0021 to the hearing date of January 7th, to allow for the preliminary plat to be redrawn for our viewing. Fitzgerald: Second. Yearsley: I have a motion and a second to continue file number H-2015-0021. All in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries. Thank you. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission December 17, 2015 Page 31 of 34 MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 5: Other Items A. Discussion on Ordinance No. 15-1664 by Andrea Pogue, City Attorney Yearsley: Last on the agenda is discussion from our city attorney Andrea Pogue on the new ordinance that was put in place, number 15-1664. So -- Pogue: That's correct. Thanks, Josh. So, on October 27th City Council approved an update to the city code regarding commissions. The purpose for the update was to create greater uniformity across all of the city commissions in term of primarily membership and length of term and absence requirements. It also was to enhance the public notice and access when vacancies occur or seat terms end and vacancies occur. So, the question for you primarily is what is the effective date for the rules I'm going to talk about and that is that they will only apply to you when your current term ends. So, nothing is really going to change the length of your term right now. Although the -- the new rules regarding absence or attendance is effective now. So, the prior code set forth Chapter 4, Title 2, for the Planning and Zoning Commission. It is now in Chapter 5. The new Chapter 1 is a section that pulls together all the relevant information regarding membership, rules and responsibilities, budget related information, that kind of thing. There was a lot of different information in each commission and it was really hard for the clerk's office I think t o oversee, you know, whose seat was coming up for, you know, a new term or not and what rules applied. So, hopefully, this new code really sorts this out. W ith regard to P&Z, the old size for this Commission was five members. Now it is a minimum of three to a maximum of nine. The appointment process is the same as it was for the prior code to the present code as to a first appointee. The Mayor's office will select and appoint forward an appointment to City Council for approval and it's a majority vote to approve that applicant. So, that's the same for when the first person is appointed. Going forward what has changed for P&Z especially is that up until now -- and your current terms are six year terms and that remains true for you. At the time your seat -- your term ends, though, should you seek to reapply, it would be for a three year term. So, that is the difference for Planning and Zoning. Other commissions always had three year terms. So, this is new for you. What happens is a little different also. When an incumbent term ends, they may, of course, reapply for it, but what will occur automatically is that a notice of vacancy will be published and the public will be invited to apply. That is the way the Mayor and City Council hopes to continue growing commissions, getting new blood in or at least getting the word out that these commissions turn over. If the incumbent wants to reapply they will most likely get reelected -- or reselected, of course, but, on the other hand, there may be some other commission that the Mayor is aware will be having a vacancy and from that potentially interested applicant that pool that she can maybe recruit someone, you know, to fill another vacancy on a different commission. So, it's just to get interest and kind of promote seats and locally do to the public. So, as I said, what is a little different is that -- so, I -- Mr. Chair, can I use your -- you as an example? Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission December 17, 2015 Page 32 of 34 Yearsley: Absolutely. Pogue: Okay. So, your chairman's term has expired or is going to expire and he has indicated interest in reapplying. So, he will submit the short note that's required to inform the Mayor of his interest to do so. But his seat will be noticed as a vacancy to the public and there will be a short period during which time other -- anyone else interested can submit a letter of interest to the Mayor' office. Now, for -- because of the rule change Mr. Chair will, hopefully, be reappointed and for this new code he will be in term one. That's how this will be viewed. So, the fact that he has previously served doesn't count. It doesn't affect the way we are going forward. So, he will be a term one incumbent, only requiring a majority vote by City Council to be approved. At the end of his new three year term, should he want to reapply again, which we will say he will, he would submit his letter of interest, successfully selected from the Mayor's office. He, then, goes into term two. It still would be a majority vote of City Council to approve him. When a commissioner gets to applying for term three, reapplying for term three or any term thereafter, there is a higher standard of approval by City Council. It must be unanimous approval. So, that's a slight change and that's the way that's going to go forward. Okay. So, now we get to our attendance. Yes. So, this commission has never had an attendance requirement. Other commissions have. Going forward it's all going to be uniform and the rule is that anyone who misses half the number of meetings held in any 12 month period will be automatically terminated. So, this is -- the other commissions were always vary bogged down between having an excused absence and an unexcused absence. So, it was hard to administer and hard for the clerk's office to track and so this sets a way to go forward with, you know, conditioning absences. So, we are putting sideboards on absences. If you're not going to meetings that will just be a checkmark in a box and we don't even -- aren't even sure who is really keeping conscious track of it. I think if you get to missing six meetings probably someone on the Commission or the chair, you know, will bring it up to the chair most likely and say do we need to do something or other, you know, and maybe it's kind of -- for the fifth meeting absence there might need to be -- you know, amongst yourself just like, hey, remember, you know, you don't want to get half the -- for you guys that would be nine or ten, you know, half the number of meetings that maybe you will work on and keep track of it yourself. You will have the burden on you than what this Commission has had to worry about in the past, but hopefully the track records being what they are there won't be a problem and, you know, it's just something to keep in mind. Yearsley: Can I just ask a question on that? Pogue: Yes. Yearsley: It says -- in the present code it says excused or unexcused for the half of the number of meetings. So, wouldn't that push us up to 12 automatically? Pogue: Correct. And after we talked I realized that. Yearsley: Okay. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission December 17, 2015 Page 33 of 34 Pogue: So, you have 24 meetings, so it's half the number of meetings held, so that's 12 for you guys. It would be six for the commissions that meet once a month. But also I don’t know if you ever have to hold special meetings, sometimes other commissions do, so it's really the total number of meeting held. They are not even going to care about a regular or a special meeting, it's just however many were held. But it's in any 12 month period. So, keep that in mind. Things will fall off, you know, as you go along, you know, so it's not a calendar year. Yearsley: Okay. Pogue: Any questions? That's it then. Yearsley: So, just so you know, I did ask to be reapplied. That doesn't mean that I'm guaranteed, because the Mayor may not select me. So, I asked if I could go through an interview again, so -- I believe next week -- or next commission meeting we will have elections, just heads up, so be thinking about that. Pogue: And I know that -- I just want to say the desire for this change was really to reach out to the public and bring the commissions and the work and, you know, the fact that there are vacancies happening over -- you know, just to keep it out there, because we do need new blood. There are those instances where, you know, we might be losing -- I know on our solid waste advisory commissions I have two commissioners who have collected institutional knowledge for that commission that goes back, you know, a decade and a half or longer really and, you know, you want to be creating maybe an applicant pool where just because an incumbent gets reselected, having had somebody express interest gives us the opportunity to maybe reach out to that person and say, hey, we do have a vacancy, are you still interested. So, it isn't for any current incumbent to get nervous about and I don't even know if there is going to be a -- I don't think so. Yearsley: I was joking. Pogue: Yeah. I hadn't heard that. Yearsley: Okay. So -- McCarvel: What's the likelihood of this Commission getting expanded? Pogue: I was wondering that as well. I think if the Commission desires that discussion to occur, let the chair know and I think you would, then, bring that to the Mayor's office for discussion would be what I would recommend or mention it to me and through me I could -- I could get it out there and get the discussion going. I think it would have to be -- that extra seat would have to be approved by City Council. Yearsley: We would actually have to go to two seats, wouldn't we, so -- don't we always need an odd number? Pl a n n i n g & Z o n i n g Pl a n n i n g & Z o n i n g Pl a n n i n g & Z o n i n g Pl a n n i n g & Z o n i n g Co m m i s s i o n M e e t i n g Co m m i s s i o n M e e t i n g Co m m i s s i o n M e e t i n g Co m m i s s i o n M e e t i n g De c e m b e r 1 7 , 2 0 1 5 De c e m b e r 1 7 , 2 0 1 5 De c e m b e r 1 7 , 2 0 1 5 De c e m b e r 1 7 , 2 0 1 5 It e m s # 7 A : E d g e h i l l S u b d i v i s i o n Zo n i n g & A e r i a l M a p s Ed g e h i l l S u b d i v i s i o n - P r e l i m i n a r y P l a t & P h a s i n g P l a n ( R E V I S E D ) La n d s c a p e P l a n Co n c e p t u a l B u i l d i n g E l e v a t i o n s It e m # 4 B : C h e r r y C r o s s i n g Dr i v e T h r u C U P Vi c i n i t y / Z o n i n g M a p Si t e P l a n La n d s c a p e P l a n It e m # 4 D : S h i n e B r i g h t C U P Vi c i n i t y / Z o n i n g M a p Si t e / L a n d s c a p e P l a n Fl o o r P l a n It e m # 4 E : B i r k d a l e E s t a t e s S u b . Vi c i n i t y / Z o n i n g M a p Si t e P l a n Si t e P l a n La n d s c a p e P l a n La n d s c a p e P l a n El e v a t i o n s