The URL can be used to link to this page

2016 04-07Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting April 7, 2016 Meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission of April 7, 2016, was called to order at 6:00 p.m. by Chairman Steven Yearsley. Present: Chairman Steven Yearsley, Commissioner Rhonda McCarvel, Commissioner Patrick Oliver and Commissioner Ryan Fitzgerald. Members Absent: Commissioner Gregory Wilson. Others Present: Machelle Hill, Andrea Pogue, Sonya Watters, Bill Parsons, Josh Beach and Dean Willis. Item 1: Roll-Call Attendance: Roll-call _______ Gregory Wilson __X__ Patrick Oliver __X__ Rhonda McCarvel __X__ Ryan Patrick __X__ Steven Yearsley - Chairman Yearsley: Good evening, ladies and gentleman. At this time we would like to call to order the regularly scheduled meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission for the hearing date of April 7th, 2016, and let's begin with roll call. Item 2: Adoption of the Agenda Yearsley: Thank you. Next item on the agenda is the adoption of the agenda. We only have one change. The file number H-2016-0025, Dutch Bros has been requested to be renoticed and continued to April 21st. With that -- those changes can I get an approve -- motion to adopt the agenda as presented? Fitzgerald: So moved. Oliver: Second. Yearsley: I have a motion and a second to adopt agenda. All in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. Item 3. Consent Agenda A. Approve Minutes of March 17, 2016 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission April 7, 2016 Page 2 of 51 Yearsley: Next item on the agenda is the Consent Agenda and on that we have the -- approve the minutes of the March 17th, 2016, Planning and Zoning Commission meeting. Any comments to or changes to those meeting minutes? If not I would consider a motion to approve the -- or -- yeah. Approve the Consent Agenda. Fitzgerald: Mr. Chairman? Yearsley: Commissioner Fitzgerald. Fitzgerald: I move for approval of the minutes. Oliver: Second. Yearsley: I have a motion and a second to approve the Consent Agenda. All in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. Yearsley: Before we go any farther I wanted to explain the hearing process today. We will open each project -- each hearing action item one at a time. We will begin with the staff report. The staff will presented the findings regarding how it -- the items adhere to the -- our Comprehensive Plan and Uniform Development Code, with staff recommendations. After that we will have the applicant have an opportunity to come up and present their case for approval and to respond to any of the applicant's comments. The applicant will have up to 15 minutes to do so. After the applicant has had a chance to testify, we will open it up to the public. There is a sign-up sheet in the back for anyone wishing to testify. They will be allowed -- anyone wishing to testify will be allowed up to three minutes to testify. If they are speaking for a larger group or an HOA, they will be given up to ten minutes. After the public has had a chance to testify, the applicant will have an opportunity to come up and to respond to the public comments and he will be given ten minutes to do so. After that we will close the public hearing and the Commission will have a chance to discuss and to deliberate and, hopefully, be able to make recommendations to City Council. Item 4: Action Items A. Public Hearing for Dutch Bros. Coffee (H-2016-0025) by Steven Adamson Located 37 E. Calderwood Drive 1. Request: Conditional Use Permit for a Drive-Thru Establishment Within 300 Feet of a Residential Use and Per Requirement of the Development Agreement Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission April 7, 2016 Page 3 of 51 Yearsley: So, with that I would like to open the public hearing of file number H- 2016-0025 for the sole purpose to continue it to April 21st. Fitzgerald: Mr. Chairman? Yearsley: Commissioner Fitzgerald. Fitzgerald: I move that we continue file number H-2016-0012 to the hearing date of April 21st for allowance to renotice and repost the site. McCarvel: Second. Oliver: Second. Yearsley: I have a motion and a second to continue file number H-2016-0025. All in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. B. Public Hearing Continued from 3/3/16 for Gyro Shack at Fairview Lakes (H-2016-0012) by Fairview Lakes, LLC Located 1050 E. Fairview Avenue 1. Request: Conditional Use Permit for a Drive-Thru Establishment Within 300 Feet of a Residential District and Residence on 4.8 Acres of Land in the C-G Zoning District Yearsley: Next item on the agenda is the opening file number H -- oh, there it is. Sorry, I lost it in the -- H-2016-0012, the Gyro Shack and let's begin with staff report. Watters: Thank you Chairman, Commissioners. The first application before you tonight is a request for a conditional use permit. This site consists of .35 of an acre of land, zoned C-G, located at 1050 East Fairview Avenue. Adjacent land use and zoning. To the north is restaurant, retail, and daycare center uses, zoned C-G. To the east is a car rental office, zoned C-G. To the south is Fairview Avenue and vacant property zoned C-2 in Ada County and commercial property zoned C-G. And to the west is a drive aisle and a restaurant, zoned C-G. This property was annexed back in 2002 and included in the preliminary plat and conditional use permit and planned development for Fairview Lakes development. The final plat was approved in 2003, which included the subject property. Subsequent modifications to the planned development have been approved -- excuse me -- have been approved in previous years. The Comprehensive Plan future land use map designation is mixed use community. The applicant is requesting a conditional use permit approval of a drive-thru Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission April 7, 2016 Page 4 of 51 establishment for the Gyro Shack restaurant within 300 feet for a residential district and existing residents in the C-G district as required by the UDC. The proposed restaurant consists of approximately 400 square feet and will have outdoor patio seating. The restaurant, if you can see, is right here where my cursor is. The previously approved site plan for this site is on your left and that depicts generally the same layout as the proposed plan, but does not incorporate a structure. Because the square footage of the structure built on the lot to the east, the Enterprise Rent-a-Car, was below the anticipated 2,275 square feet shown on the previous site plan by 375 square feet, staff finds the proposed site plan is in substantial compliance with the previous plan. The proposed use and site plan complies with the specific use standards for drive-thru establishments as required. Access is proposed by a driveway along the west boundary of the site from East Fairview Avenue. Parking and landscaping is proposed on the site and shall comply with the conditions in the staff report. Building elevations are proposed as shown. The one on the left were submitted with the application. The one on the right is the final drawing that was recently submitted by the applicant. The final design of the building is required to comply with UDC design standards and the architectural standards manual. Written testimony has been received from Doug Tamura, the applicant, in agreement with the staff report. Staff is recommending approval with the conditions in the report. Staff will stand for any questions. Yearsley: Thank you. Are there any questions? With that would the applicant like to come forward? Please state your name and address for the record. Tamura: Mr. Chairman and Members of the Commission, my name is Doug Tamura. I'm the owner, architect and developer of Fairview Lakes and we are just here to concur with the -- conditions of approval from staff. So, just here to answer any questions. Yearsley: Thank you. Are there any questions? Fitzgerald: Mr. Chairman? Yearsley: Mr. Fitzgerald. Fitzgerald: Mr. Tamura, where are the -- in regards to the ordering -- the boxes or the phones, where is that going to be located? Tamura: Where those two cars are parked. Fitzgerald: It is -- so, there is going to be two -- Tamura: Yeah. They would have -- Fitzgerald: -- boxes? Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission April 7, 2016 Page 5 of 51 Tamura: Yeah. Fitzgerald: Okay. That's what -- I just wanted to make sure I was clear. Okay. Thank you very much. Tamura: All right. Thank you. Yearsley: Any other questions? No? Thank you. Tamura: All right. Thank you. Yearsley: I do not have anybody signed up for this application. Is there anybody wanting to testify on this? Given that, I won't have the applicant come back up. I would entertain a motion to close the public hearing on File No. H-2016-0012. 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 carries. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. Yearsley: Comments? McCarvel: Mr. Chairman? Yearsley: Commissioner McCarvel. McCarvel: I think it looks like a nice addition to the area. Kind of interesting, different elevations and the square footage seems to be in compliance with what was approved before. Yearsley: Thank you. Fitzgerald: Mr. Chairman? Yearsley: Commissioner Fitzgerald. Fitzgerald: Completely agree. I think it looks great. I like seeing something a little different and new that's out there, so -- and I think that the elevations are good, so I think I will be in favor. Yearsley: Thank you. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission April 7, 2016 Page 6 of 51 Oliver: Mr. Chairman? Yearsley: Commissioner Oliver. Oliver: I concur with everyone else. I like the concept the way it looks. It's a nice fit for what it is between. So, I think it will be a nice addition to that area. I'm in favor of it. Yearsley: Thank you. I agree. I think it looks good and so with that I would entertain a motion. McCarvel: Mr. Chairman? Yearsley: Commissioner McCarvel. McCarvel: After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony I move to recommend approval to the City Council of file number H-2016-0012 as -- Yearsley: Oh. Just to recommend approval. McCarvel: Okay. Hill: We are not forwarding it to Council. McCarvel: Thank you. I recommend approval of file number H-2016-0012. Fitzgerald: Second. Yearsley: I have a motion and a second to approve file number H-2016-0012. All in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries. Thank you. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. C. Public Hearing for Saint Ignatius School (H-2016-0028) by Roman Catholic Diocese of Boise Located 6180 N. Meridian Road 1. Request: Annexation and Zoning of 10.71 Acres of Land with a C-C Zoning District Yearsley: Next item on the list is the public hearing for file number H-2016-0028. St. Ignatius School -- Fitzgerald: Mr. Chairman? Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission April 7, 2016 Page 7 of 51 Yearsley: Yes. Fitzgerald: Before we get started I have to disclose -- I'm a member of the church that is proposing building the school and I don't feel like it will impact my ability to make a decision, but I will leave that to the other members of the Commission if -- I don't feel like I have a conflict, but I wanted to at least disclose that to you all. Yearsley: You don't have any financial benefit from this project? Fitzgerald: No financial benefit and I have no finances in it as of yet, so -- Yearsley: I don't see an issue. I guess I'd like to hear from the other Commissioners to see if they have an issue with that as well. Oliver: No issue on my part. Yearsley: Okay. So, I think we are good. So, I guess with that let's begin with the staff report. Watters: Thank you, Chairman, Commissioners. The next application is a request for annexation and zoning. This site consists of 10.71 acres of land. It's located in the county at 6180 North Meridian Road. Adjacent land uses and zoning. To the north is a church, zoned RUT in Ada County. To the east is future single family residential properties in Birkdale Estates, zoned R-2. To the south are residential properties in Hacienda Subdivision, zoned R-8. And to the west is North Meridian Road and vacant, undeveloped property in Paramount Subdivision, zoned R-8. A property boundary adjustment was recently approved, but has not yet been recorded in Ada County that will create the configuration of the property shown on the site plan. Currently the property is in two parcels, this large one and the smaller one here. This is what the proposed property boundary adjustment looks like on the record of survey and, again, it has been tentatively approved by the county, there is just some follow-up items, deeds to be recorded, tax parcel numbers to obtain that the applicant needs to do before they can gain final approval. The Comprehensive Plan future land use map designation for this property is mixed use community. The applicant has applied for annexation and zoning of 10.71 acres of land with a C-C zoning district, consistent with the mixed use community future land use map designation. There is an existing wireless communication facility -- cell tower. It is located over here at the northeast corner of the site. There are no other existing structures on the portion of the property proposed to be annexed. A conceptual site plan was submitted as shown. The applicant proposes to develop the site with a 54,464 square foot private school for kindergarten through 8th grade that is associated with the church on the adjacent property to the north. The school is proposed to be set back approximately 56 feet from the south property line. Exterior lighting is proposed to be directed away from the residences. Vehicular Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission April 7, 2016 Page 8 of 51 traffic and parking is oriented away from the residences also on the north and west portions of the site. So, this is the south boundary here where my cursor is at. This is Hacienda Subdivision down here. There are specific use standards that apply to development of education institutions. The proposed development is in compliance with these standards. Access is proposed via North Meridian Road at the west boundary of the site and via Rio De Nickel Way at the west end of the south boundary of the site. That is right here. A full access driveway already exists approximately 250 feet to the north on the church property. As you can see that's faintly right here. Because access is limited to arterial streets and these properties are under common ownership, staff recommends access for the school and the church via North Meridian Road is combined and access for the school is taken from the existing driveway or the existing driveway is closed and access taken from the proposed driveway in alignment with Director Street, unless otherwise waived by City Council. The applicant is requesting a waiver from City Council for access as proposed. Parking is proposed to be shared with the church per UDC standards for on-site parking. A minimum of 109 spaces are required. A total of 60 spaces are proposed on the site. A shared use agreement is required for the proposed parking in accord with UDC standards. Staff has no issue with this. A cross-access ingress-egress cross-parking agreement is required to be recorded. There is an irrigation canal that runs along the northern boundary of this site that is required to be piped as proposed. A 35 foot wide landscape street buffer is required along North Meridian Road, which is an entryway corridor into the city and a 25 foot wide buffer is required along the south and east boundaries adjacent to residential uses. A five foot wide detached sidewalk is required along Meridian Road. Staff is also recommending the sidewalk is extended off site to the north to connect to the existing sidewalk in front of the church. Currently there is an existing sidewalk just north from the north edge of the existing driveway. Staff is just recommending it be constructed along the frontage of this property here. A conceptual perspective drawing of the future school was submitted as shown. The building design is a single story, constructed primarily of brick with modulation in the facades and roof lines, which will compliment the design of the existing church and incorporate similar construction materials and colors. The final design of the structure is required to comply with the design standards listed in the UDC and the architectural standards manual. Written testimony was received from Tamara Thompson in agreement with the staff report. Staff is recommending approval with the requirement of a development agreement containing the provisions noted in the staff report. Staff will stand for any questions. Yearsley: Thank you. Are there any comments -- or questions? With that would the applicant like to come forward. Thompson: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, my name is Tamara Thompson. I'm with The Land Group. 462 East Shore Drive in Eagle. We have read the staff report and are in agreement with the conditions of approval. We will be asking City Council for a waiver for the secondary access. It aligns with Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission April 7, 2016 Page 9 of 51 access to -- on the other side -- on the west side of Meridian Road and we currently have a traffic impact statement that ACHD is reviewing that gives good arguments for -- for that access for both emergency vehicles and just for left stacking coming -- coming -- that would be southbound at Meridian Road, so -- the boundary line adjustment was approved with the county. We should have that recorded next week, well in advance of the City Council hearing. And with that we respectfully request your approval tonight -- or your recommendation for approval tonight. Yearsley: Thank you. Are there any questions? Oliver: Mr. Chairman? Yearsley: Commissioner Oliver. Oliver: Just one question I'm sure you can answer quite easily, but the access on Meridian Road, I assume that that's ACHD's responsibility and you have talked to them about putting in the caution light for a school zone? Thompson: Yes. Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Oliver, that is something that is in the traffic impact study. The scope of that talks about the safe -- Safe Ways To School Act and that kind of thing for -- for students. Oliver: So, I assume that will happen at approximately about the same time the school is finished, that those lights will be in place? Don't know? Thompson: Let's hope. Oliver: Yeah. Thompson: That's just -- that's part of the -- what's in that ACHD report and we don't have their -- analysis back yet, so I don't know. Oliver: Okay. Thompson: I don't want to answer for them. Oliver: Thank you. Yearsley: All right. Any other questions? McCarvel: Mr. Chairman? Yearsley: Commissioner McCarvel. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission April 7, 2016 Page 10 of 51 McCarvel: You're in favor -- in agreement with the sidewalk continuing on that piece of land there? Thompson: Yes. Mr. Chairman, Commissioner McCarvel, yes, we are. It makes sense to make that connection. There is just a small little portion there where that residential house is. Yearsley: Anything else? No? Thank you. Thompson: Thank you. Yearsley: I have one signed up. Elaine Powell. You don't want to testify? Okay. All right. I don't have anybody else signed up. Anybody else would like to testify on this application? I guess with that I would entertain a motion to close the public hearing on file number H-2016-0028. 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: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. Yearsley: I think I will go first this time. I think it's a beautiful school. I think it's a great location right next to the church and common -- you know, common amenities. I think it will be a great addition to the area, so -- McCarvel: Mr. Chairman? Yearsley: Commissioner McCarvel. McCarvel: I agree. I think anytime we can get more schools around here the better and I think it looks great and I -- I would be, I guess, in favor of allowing the two access to Meridian Road if that's approved by ACHD. Yearsley: Okay. Fitzgerald: Mr. Chairman? Yearsley: Commissioner Fitzgerald. Fitzgerald: I -- I would echo what Commissioner McCarvel had said. I think the double access is good. I think there is -- the flow of traffic would be better with the double access and it would be safe for kids with the light kind of matching up Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission April 7, 2016 Page 11 of 51 with the -- walking across from Paramount. I think that -- the safe routes to schools, I think that would make some sense, so I hope the Council will take that into -- under advisement, but I think it's -- it's a beautiful project. I think they have done a good job and it's taken some time to get here, so I think it's great. Yearsley: Thank you. Oliver: Mr. Chairman? Yearsley: Commissioner Oliver. Oliver: I'm also in agreement. I think that it's a nice design. As being an educator I would be jealous to have a school like that to work at. I think it's a nice layout and I'm sure it will fill up fast, so I'm in agreement. Yearsley: Thank you. I guess with that I would entertain a motion. McCarvel: Mr. Chairman? Yearsley: Commissioner McCarvel. McCarvel: After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to recommend approval to the City Council of file number H-2016-0028 as presented by the staff report for the hearing date of April 7th, 2015 -- 2016, with no -- with no modifications. Yearsley: I guess you can add a recommendation -- McCarvel: Yeah. With staff recommendations. Yearsley: Okay. I guess did you want to add the recommendation to leave the second -- McCarvel: And to -- yes. And to -- thank you. To recommend approval of the two accesses to Meridian Road as recommended by ACHD. Yearsley: Okay. Oliver: Second. Fitzgerald: Second. Yearsley: I have a motion and a second to approve file number H-2016-0028. All in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries. Thank you. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission April 7, 2016 Page 12 of 51 D. Public Hearing Continued from March 17, 2016 for Kenners Subdivision (H-2016-0018) by Kouba Homes, LLC Located East of N.Locust Grove Road, North Side of E. Fairview Avenue 1. Request: Annexation and Zoning of 0.932 Acres of Land with an R-8 Zoning District 2. Request: Preliminary Plat Consisting of Eight (8) Building Lots and One (1) Common Lot on 1.28 Acres of Land in the R-8 Zoning District Yearsley: Next item on the agenda is file number H-2016-0018, Kenner Subdivision, and let's begin with the staff report. Beach: Good evening, Chair, Commissioners. Before you this evening is an application for annexation and zoning and for a preliminary plat. Excuse me. The site consists of 1.28 acres of land for the preliminary plat, 0.231 acres of land, which is currently zoned R-8, and 0.932 acres of land as part of the requested annexation, which is currently zoned RUT, located east of North Locust Grove Road on the north side of East Fairview Avenue. So, as you see here where my cursor is this parcel here was annexed and was part of the Wingate Park Subdivision and is now being replatted as part of this Kenner Subdivision. So, the adjacent land use to the north is Wingate Place Subdivision No. 2, zoned R-8. To the east is Wingate Place Subdivision No. 2, again, zoned R-8. To the south is Dove Meadows Subdivision No. 2, zoned R-8. And to the west is Mirage Meadows Subdivision, which is zoned R-4. All of which, as I said, are single family homes. The history, as I said, the 0.231 acres were annexed and zoned in 1993 as Lot 23, Block 1, of Wingate Park Subdivision. An 18.8 acre, 74 lot, single family residential subdivision and in 1996 that parcel was approved with the Wingate Subdivision No. 2 final plat. The Comprehensive Plan future land use map for this is medium density residential. The applicant has applied to annex and zone a total of, as I said, 0.932 acres of land with an R- 8 zoning district. The proposed zoning is generally consistent with the comprehensive future land use map designation of medium density residential. The property is contiguous to land that has been annexed into the city and is in the area of impact. Because the property is felt consistent with the surrounding properties staff is not recommending a development agreement with the subject application. The applicant has submitted a concurrent preliminary plat that consists of eight building lots and one common lot on 1.28 acres of land in a proposed R-8 zoning district. The proposed gross density of the subdivision is 6.25 dwelling units per acre, with a net density of 8.1 dwelling units per acre, generally consistent with the R-8 zoning district. In 1996 a portion of this property, as I said, received plat approval as part of the Wingate Subdivision No. 2 and the subject lots being replatted from a single lot into two lots as part of the Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission April 7, 2016 Page 13 of 51 proposed development. Staff has reviewed the proposed plat for compliance with the applicable standards listed in the UDC and for the R-8 zoning district and all of the lots comply with those standards. The lots range in size between 5,001 square feet and 6,215 square feet, with an average lot size of 5,374. The proposed plat exceeds the minimum lot size requirements of 4,000 square feet for R-8 zoning district. You see here on the plat the subdivision will take access via two existing stub streets, East Oakcrest Drive here on the east side and Dixie Avenue here on the north. An existing property may have the rights to use North Dixie Lane to access the property. Prior to signature on the final plat the applicant shall provide proof that any right to access North Dixie Lane has been relinquished and Dixie Lane runs adjacent to the -- to the west side here. Lots 3, 4, 5 and 6 of Block 2, take access from a common driveway and for all lots to take access from a common driveway in exhibit depicting the setbacks, building envelope and orientation of those lots and structures shall be submitted with the final plat application and include a note on the final plat that addresses access across -- that addresses access across the lots and the responsible party for maintenance of the common area. As I said, the subject property abuts a 30 foot wide common lot, which is Lot 1, Block 6, platted with the Wingate Place Subdivision No. 2 on the west boundary. So, that area where the Dixie Lane was -- or is I should say. With the development of a storage facility generally south of the proposed development -- going back to the aerial for this. Storage facility here. Generally south of the proposed development a multi-use pathway was constructed along the east boundary of the facility that provides pedestrian connectivity to the Fred Meyer shopping center adjacent to East Fairview Avenue. Staff is of the opinion that pedestrian connectivity could be enhanced in the area if the applicant constructs a ten foot asphalt pathway within the abutting common lot, approximately one hundred linear feet of pathway. Staff encouraged the applicant to coordinate with Wingate Place Subdivision No. 2's HOA on the construction and maintenance of that multi-use pathway of Lot 1, Block 6. There is an existing home and associated outbuildings on the site that will be removed as part of this development. Kouba Homes plans to construct single family homes using a variety of styles and materials. Staff is supportive of the elevations proposed with the development of this subdivision. Written testimony was received by Donna Ahmed, who is the applicant's representative, in response to the staff report. Staff is recommending approval with the conditions listed in the staff report and with that I will stand for any questions. Yearsley: Thank you. Are there any questions? With that we would like the applicant 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. And I'm here representing the applicant. He is also in the audience if you have questions that I can't answer, I'm sure he will come up and give it his best shot. Staff has pretty much explained what we want to do. I won't try to go over too many of the particulars. Just to present a brief history and -- of this piece of ground. It's a remnant piece of ground. It's Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission April 7, 2016 Page 14 of 51 been surrounded by development that started in 1990, that's when Mirage Meadows stubbed a road into this property. That would be East Oakcrest. In 1996 and '97 both Mirage Meadows -- or, excuse me, Wingate and Dove Meadows were developed, which, basically, surrounded this piece of property. The property was situated such that the road connection couldn't be made between Dixie and East Oakcrest, that both stubbed into his property, but with this subdivision we will make -- finally make that connection. We will also be able to take the lot that was part of Wingate Meadows, that lot that was .3, and remove the utilities out of that lot and put them back in the road in order to -- in order for the utilities to be served to Wingate Place they had to be located on that buildable lot with a revocable easement once that road got extended. We will now move the sewer and water back out into the road right of way where it should be and that lot, then, becomes buildable again. Staff has brought up the continuation of the path along what is existing Dixie Lane. We are in agreement. We think that's a good improvement for the neighborhood and the developer will definitely work with the association to get that portion of the path in. And with that I will stand for any questions. Yearsley: Thank you. Are there any questions? No? Thank you. Tealey: Thank you. Yearsley: I have one person signed up. Susan Chamblee. Chamblee: Good evening, Chairman, Commissioners. Yearsley: I need you to speak in the microphone so we can get it recorded. Chamblee: Good evening, Mr. Chairman and Commissioners. Yearsley: Thank you. Chamblee: I just have a couple questions -- Yearsley: Name and address for the record. Chamblee: Susan Chamblee. 2005 East Oakcrest Drive. Yearsley: Thank you. Chamblee: My house sits at the very end of the end street right next to this property. My concerns are fairly obvious. Noise control -- noise decibel control. Timing for work. When are they going to be working? We were at a dead end, a very quiet neighborhood. My little itty bitty grandsons were able to play. Now that's going to be opening up. There is going to be big work trucks coming and going. Obviously dust. I am for the project. Absolutely. I would like to see this Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission April 7, 2016 Page 15 of 51 go through. But as I'm going to live and die in this house. This is the last house I'm going to own, and I just want to make sure that while this construction is going on that I am not going to be upended so much so that I'm going to be living with a year's worth of dust six inches thick on my property and big heavy duty trucks that are coming and going. Parking is at a minimum at that dead end street, pulling in and out, and until -- I just moved in four months ago and until I get situated and get my cars in my -- my garage, parking -- we are parking on the sides of the street. So, my main concern, really, is the noise level, the working equipment that's going to be coming and going, the dump trucks, the decibels -- I'm retired. I worked my whole life. I'm 65 years old. I don't get up before 9:00 o'clock and I just know that they are not going to start after 9:00 o'clock, they are going to get started earlier than that and I can appreciate that, but I at least wanted to have my say to let the developers know that I'm all for them for doing this, help out in any way that I can, if they want coffee I'm there to give it to them, but I still would like to be able to enjoy the property that I bought for the reason that I bought it. And that's all I have to say. Yearsley: Thank you. Chamblee: Thank you. Yearsley: Anyone else that would like to testify on this application? Would the applicant like to come forward? Tealey: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, if she will offer donuts we will definitely be there. I'm -- I'm certain that the City of Meridian has hours of construction and I'm sure that the owner hearing that concern will pay particular attention. For the first couple of months I'm sure it's going to be something out of the ordinary with the building of the road and the utilities, so that will be out of the ordinary. But I don't believe -- I think we can restrict building hours to at least 8:00 o'clock in the morning -- start later than 8:00. If there is any other questions I would be glad to answer them. Yearsley: Two would be traffic and dust. I guess those were the other two that I have. Tealey: Traffic -- Yearsley: And, basically, construction traffic I think is what she was talking about. Just making sure -- Tealey: Yeah. But once the -- once the road is built -- you know, I mean we are going to have to have traffic -- like I said, with the larger trucks and the equipment while the road is being built, but they park all that stuff on site and once they make the connection in there and we get the homes being built, all of Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission April 7, 2016 Page 16 of 51 those construction traffic for the homes will be on the lots themselves, so they won't be taking up any parking on the public streets. Yearsley: Okay. Any questions? Thank you. I would entertain a motion to close the public hearing for file number H-2016-0018. 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 granted -- approved. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. Yearsley: Comments? Fitzgerald: Mr. Chairman? Yearsley: Commissioner Fitzgerald. Fitzgerald: I -- I mean these kind of run in lots. I think it's great to connect the two subdivisions and maintain the access that will actually probably benefit the access to Fred Meyer and, ma'am, I think -- we understand where you're coming from and I think it will be short lived. I guarantee you if you call the police they will be out there -- if they are building before that time -- that's what I was told, when you -- if there is a noise complaint call the police. So, I think that would be short lived and I -- the developer will take care of it. Hopefully it will be quick and fast, so -- Yearsley: I'm sorry, I can't have you -- after the meeting we can talk, but at this point I can't have you come back on the record after the public hearing has been closed. Fitzgerald: So, I think it's a great project. I mean it closes the loop on something that should have been taken care of a while ago and probably is not in the best shape at this time, so I think it's an improvement for probably all the neighbors and -- even though it will be a short disturbance for you, ma'am, it will be a better situation overall. Oliver: Mr. Chairman? Yearsley: Commissioner Oliver. Oliver: I agree. I also think that -- I think we all know it was coming. It was going to be something some day and here it is, so I think we just have to kind of grit our Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission April 7, 2016 Page 17 of 51 teeth and bear with us for a short time before it actually -- the dust settles and everything comes together, but I think it looks good. I think it will fit where it is and I think it will work out to complete that area, so I'm in favor of it. Yearsley: Thank you. McCarvel: Mr. Chairman? Yearsley: Commissioner McCarvel. McCarvel: Yeah. I think filling in all these -- these little remnant lots are great when we can make it happen. I think, you know, the dust from the empty lot will be short lived, but it does happen in the meantime with the construction and it will be a better property afterward, adding value and connectivity to all the neighbors. Yearsley: Thank you. I think it's a good project. It's a good in-fill project. I would just ask that the owner -- as a neighbor that's in favor of your project that just at least try to coordinate with her and make sure -- try to address her concerns as she's through the construction. I think doing that I think you will make friends and -- and move forward with that. So, I think I'm in approval as well. So, with that I would entertain a motion. Fitzgerald: Mr. Chairman? Yearsley: Commissioner Fitzgerald. Fitzgerald: After considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move to recommend approval to the City Council of file H-2016-0018 as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of April 7th, 2016. Oliver: Second. Yearsley: I have a motion and a second to approve file number H-2016-0018. All in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. E. Public Hearing for Church of God 7th Day (H-2016-0026) by Neudesign Architecture Located 1827 NW 3rd Street 1. Request: Modification to an Existing Conditional Use Permit for the Purposes of Altering the Building Materials for the Accessory Structure from the Originally Approved Canvas Walls to Prefabricated Steel Panels on 6.34 Acres of Land in the R-8 Zoning District Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission April 7, 2016 Page 18 of 51 Yearsley: Next item on the agenda is the file number H-2016-0026, Church of God, and let's begin with the staff report. Beach: Very good, Chair, Commissioners. This is an application for a modification of an existing conditional use permit. The site consists of 6.34 acres of land, which is zoned R-8 and located at 1827 Northwest 3rd Street. The adjacent land use and zoning. To the north is single family residential properties which are zoned R-4. To the east is undeveloped land, zoned RUT in Ada County. To the south are commercial properties zoned L-O. And to the west is a manufactured home park, which is zoned R-8. In 1997 a conditional use permit was approved to allow the construction of an 84 foot by 60 foot wide metal building with canvass sides. The Comprehensive Plan future land use map for this area is medium density residential. So, the applicant is requesting a modification to the conditional use permit that was approved in 1997 for the General Council Church of God, Seventh-Day with a steel building with canvass walls, as I said, and the building is used for a one week period during the year for their annual camp meeting, so it's use is very limited. A church use is currently established on the site and the modification to the existing conditional use permit is solely related to the type of building material that is approved for the structure. So, as I said, the church is here, established, and this is strictly for the materials for this camp meeting structure. The site plan shows the footprint of the existing building. The building will not be enlarged or moved as part of this application. New paving is also depicted on the submitted site plan. Staff recommends that this area not only be paved, but also be improved with additional parking in accord with the UDC standards. Further, staff recommends that a bike rack capable of supporting ten bicycles be installed with the new parking area. Because staff is recommending that additional parking be added with the subject application, the new parking area must also comply with the landscape standards set forth in UDC. With the submittal of the certificate of zoning compliance application the site plan shall be revised to include the requested changes. The applicant will also be required to obtain, as I said, certificate of zoning compliance and design review approval for the design of the site and the site will need to meet the requirements set forth in the UDC and administrative design review for the building will also be -- will not be required, because the property is screened from the adjacent properties. The applicant will need to coordinate with the building department and the fire department to meet their performance prior to receiving certificate of occupancy for the structure and with those conditions staff is recommending approval of the application. Yearsley: Thank you. Are there any questions? Would the applicant like to come forward? Please state your name and address for the record. Walker: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Council, Glenn Walker. Business address is 725 East 2nd Street, Meridian, Idaho, and the project is -- Josh kind of summed it up pretty good, but it's an existing facility located kind of to the north of Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission April 7, 2016 Page 19 of 51 their property, pretty much screened from any street view. The project is going to be used for church activity one week out of the year, so it's very limited use. The church has been using this facility in the past. They just changed the exterior materials from a canvass to a metal siding, metal building, is really what it is. As Josh mentioned we will agree to the staff report and we will also submit for building permit and get Fire approval as well. So, with that I will take any questions you have. Yearsley: Thank you. Are there any questions? No? Thank you. Walker: Thank you very much. Yearsley: I do have one person signed up. Is it Jacob Wardle? Okay. Anybody else that would like to testify? With that, no one wanting to testify, I would entertain a motion to close the public hearing on file number H-2016-0026. 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: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. Yearsley: Any comments or thoughts? Fitzgerald: Mr. Chairman? Yearsley: Commissioner Fitzgerald. Fitzgerald: I think it -- it's a pretty simple situation of -- and they are upgrading the facilities as -- to bring them into standard and get Fire approval I think it makes sense, so -- Yearsley: Thank you. Oliver: Mr. Chairman? Yearsley: Commissioner Oliver. Oliver: Having lived in that area right -- real close to where they are wanting this to be done, I never noticed it, even when they had their one week, it was never a thing that you even heard. So, I'm in favor of it. I think it will be just a nice addition to fix it. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission April 7, 2016 Page 20 of 51 Yearsley: Thank you. With that, no other comment, I would entertain a motion. McCarvel: Mr. Chairman? Yearsley: Commissioner McCarvel. McCarvel: After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to recommend approval to the City Council of file number 2016-0026 as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of April 7th, 2016. Fitzgerald: Second. Yearsley: I have a motion and a second to approve -- Parsons: Mr. Chairman? Yearsley: Yes. Parsons: I don't mean to interrupt, it's just your approval tonight on it. It just a modification to the conditional use permit, so it's just your authority this evening. McCarvel: Recommend approval period. Fitzgerald: Second. Yearsley: Okay. I have a motion and a second to approve file number H-2016- 0026. All in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries. Congratulations. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. F. Public Hearing for UDC Text Amendment - Common Open Space (H-2016-0024) by EGC Development, LLC 1. Request: Text Amendment to the Unified Development Code (UDC) as Follows: 1) UDC Section: Common Open Space (UDC-11- Yearsley: Next item on the agenda is file number H-2016-0024, a UDC text amendment, and let's begin with the staff report. Beach: Good evening, Chair, Commissioners again. This is an application for a UDC text amendment. Summary of the request. The applicant is requesting approval of a UDC text amendment to update Section 11-3G-3A of the Unified Development Code. Specifically the request change is to reduce the percentage of required open space to five percent for a residential development that is composed entirely of lots in excess of 16,000 square feet. A little history. The Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission April 7, 2016 Page 21 of 51 applicant recently received approval to develop the Birkdale Estates Subdivision, which is relatively close to the St. Ignatius School that was presented a little bit earlier. At that time the application was submitted the city was in process of proposing an update to the same section of code the applicant is proposing to modify. Staff recommended a reduction to common open space based on the following criteria: Residential lots had to be an average of 10,000 square feet or more or the development had to be within a quarter mile of a city regional park or an eighth of a mile to a city community park. The applicant was aware of this proposed change and proposed an open space for their subdivision of 6.6 percent and understanding that it was contingent upon the City Council's approval of that text amendment. The portion of this -- the amendment was not approved by Council and subsequently the project was approved to comply with the common open space ordinance in effect at the time of the final plat approval, which currently requires them to meet the ten percent standard. The applicant has elected to pursue modifying the ordinance rather than comply with the current open space standards, thus the final plat application has not been submitted to the city for review or approval of the Birkdale Estates Subdivision. The primary difference between the two proposals is the applicant's proposal specifies a minimum lot size, which staff's approval did not. Further, staff's recommendation includes a minimum proximity of the development in relationship to a regional and/or community park and the applicant's does not. Staff supports the applicant's proposal and has analyzed the request with other provisions in the UDC to insure the proposed change does not conflict with other sections of the code. Based on this analysis staff has concluded that this change will not affect any other sections and staff is recommending approval. We did receive written testimony from the applicant Jeremy Garner in response to the staff report. Stand for any questions. Yearsley: Thank you. Are there any questions? If not, would the applicant like to come forward? Please state your name and address for the record. Garner: Chairman, Members of the Commission, my name is Jeremy Garner. 13601 McMillan, Boise, Idaho. 83713. First of all, I want to thank staff for -- I think -- I think he pretty adequately described exactly kind of what brought this about and the history behind why we realistically need to have this at five percent in order for us to make our -- our current project work. We have, essentially, one lot that we really wouldn't be able to sell and it pretty much kills our project. But we -- we also, in talking about this approval, I think I will add the fact that there are a lot of in-fill properties that we are finding out here in -- in Meridian, smaller, you know, ten, 15, 20 acre properties, that if we did have less of an open space requirement, we could come in with that type of product that is a 16,000 square foot, you know, third acre, half acre lot that I think meets the needs and really I believe supplies more of a -- I guess a more appealing product out there for the -- that next step up in families that want to have maybe a little bit more space in their backyards and still, you know, require an amenity there. So, that's kind of Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission April 7, 2016 Page 22 of 51 the history behind that and that's why we are trying to get this pushed through before we put our final plat application in. Yearsley: Thank you. Garner: Any questions? Yearsley: Are there any questions? No? Thank you very much. I do have one person signed up. Robert Neilson. Would he like to come forward? Please state your name and address for the record. Neilson: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Commissioners. My name is Robert Neilson. I live at 3508 East Quinn Drive, Meridian, Idaho. Two weeks ago I by chance came across the request to amend this UDC section and having read it I was a little concerned with what was being proposed. I believe that the proposed change to the UDC is flawed and recommend that this request not be approved. Usable open space is an important element of livability, community, and residential quality in Meridian neighborhoods. Large reductions in usable open space is contrary to these elements that help make Meridian a great place to live and raise families. The reason given for the change in the application is, quote, common open space is not critical, because large lots typically provide a large amount of private open space. Thus lessening the need for common open space. A reduction from ten percent common open space to five percent is a very large reduction and a 16,000 square foot lot is not really a very large size lot. Under the proposed change it is possible that the landscaping buffer along collector or arterial streets could meet this five percent requirement, with the result there would be no usable common space provided. With existing setback requirements, a large footprint house can be built on a 16,000 square foot lot, with very little private open space. So, if we are going to look at a large reduction in the common space requirement as proposed in the UDC, there may also be a need to restrict the size -- the footprint size of a house and/or increase -- draw increases in setback requirements to assure that there was a large amount of private open space. Sufficient usable common space is needed to help achieve and maintain the sense of community in new subdivisions. It provides needs that are not met by private open space. Approving this change will result in a race to the bottom where five percent open common space will become the new norm, increasing developer profits, but reducing visibility, community, and residential quality of new subdivisions. Rather than changing the -- the Uniform Development Code applicable to the entire city, to me it makes a whole lot more sense to have developers request a variance in the common space requirement from the ten percent to some lower number, if that's what they want to try and do, but -- and where it can be justified. For example, where there might be a city park within easy walking distance for children. But to change the UDC for the entire city to lower that common space -- open common space requirement I think is a mistake and for these reasons I recommend that you do not approve the -- the request. Thank you. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission April 7, 2016 Page 23 of 51 Yearsley: Thank you. Is there anybody else that would like to testify on this application? Please come forward. State your name and address for the record, please. St. Charles: Hi. I'm Joann St. Charles. I'm at 3482 West Yesternight Street in Meridian. 83642. And I do agree with the last person's testimony. This will be kind of similar I guess. I also wondered why we were changing a code instead of -- instead of just asking for a variance on a case-by-case basis. I'm wondering how this code change furthers livability and quality of life in Meridian and I would like to argue that private open space and shared open space are very different things. Each is valued for different reasons. Private open space offers the privacy and isolation, if you want it, and shared open space offers the connections to the community and opportunities to meet neighbors that we might not otherwise meet. In my own neighborhood I can think of six people that I met just because we have shared open spaces and I respectfully request that Council consider granting a variance based on circumstances, such as proximity or -- and access to other public parks, instead of making a change for the overall code. Thank you. Yearsley: Thank you. Anybody else? I guess with that would the applicant like to come forward? Fitzgerald: Mr. Chairman? Yearsley: Yes. Fitzgerald: While he is coming forward can I ask Josh and Bill a question while they are -- while he is coming forward? Yearsley: Okay. Fitzgerald: Is there -- in the discussion with staff and the applicant was there a discussion -- I know Boise uses density in-fill bonuses. Was there a bonus discussion about -- instead of changing it in reduction, was there a bonus discussion about in-fill, instead of going the route of completely reducing this down from ten to five? Was there a discussion about in-fill instead of -- I guess that's my question. Instead of -- we are making a pretty blanket decision here and we always need to -- we all know we will have in-fill a lot more in Meridian in the coming years. I guess my question is was that -- has the bonus question come up at all? Parsons: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, it didn't. Not with this applicant. But when I was before City Council discussing how we would address open space and it was certainly addressed in the concerns you raised when we brought it forward to you. Council asked us to look at that. So, with a future Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission April 7, 2016 Page 24 of 51 UDC text amendment we are going to find more creative solutions to offset some of these open space requirements. The reason why staff feels comfortable with this proposed change at this time is because it really affects our R-2 residential developments. A couple of you have been on this chair long enough to know that -- or up on this podium long enough to realize that most of our residential developments in Meridian are either R-8 or R-4 and that's -- those type of developments won't even be eligible for the reduction in open space. It really is for these larger lot developments, which are R-2. I have been with the city for almost nine years and I have done two plats that had R-2 designations on them. So, they are pretty rare and most of the time, as the citizens pointed out, they are larger homes, they are your 3,000, 3,500, 4,000 square foot homes that sit on these lots, because that's what -- these lots have higher home prices on them, they get these larger homes on them, so that's why we feel comfortable. I don't think we are degrading our neighborhoods. The one thing that didn't come up in -- in Josh's presentation -- and I don't disagree with the audience, if -- in this particular case with Jeremy's project, they didn't front on any arterial or collector roads, so they didn't have any buffer requirements. But keep in mind we are not changing the amenity requirements. So, even if this development came in and they had to have site amenities, they still have to comply with our site amenity requirements. They still have to put that on a common open space. It just can't be on a buildable lot. So, even if they are against a buffer -- a collector road buffer, an arterial road buffer, arterial road buffers are -- you can only count half of that buffer width towards your open space. On collector roads you can count all of it. So, there is a little flaw there in our current open space standards, but the site amenities themselves would have to be on a separate common lot. So, in most cases there is a pretty good chance that you may get more than five percent. We are just saying this is the minimum, but if there is an annexation that's not and if you don't feel that five percent is appropriate for that development, you can certainly make the recommendation they provide seven or six. This is just establishing a minimum baseline in code. It's your discretion, City Council discretion to require more if you want -- if you choose to. So, that's why, again, we feel comfortable it only relates to our R-4 -- or, excuse me, R-2 standards development, so that's where we fall. But I can rest assure you in about six months we are probably going to look at maybe doing some kind of alternative compliance to our open space standards, so that -- just as the neighbor pointed out, there has to be -- if you want less open space you got to provide better amenities and vice-versa. There has to be a give and take there and we have to find that fine balance -- we have to find that balance and so you should see something I think in the next six months that addresses that. So, with that I would stand for any questions or let the applicant rebut the citizens' testimony. Garner: I don't really have any rebuttal necessarily, other than the fact that we would even entertain going up to 19,000 square feet minimum, instead of 16. That was a recommendation for staff. And I also understand, you know, the UDC is for everybody, but my questioning of staff was how do we get this project Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission April 7, 2016 Page 25 of 51 through and still allow us to -- to not have to get to that ten percent, but use the 6.6 percent that we actually have currently and still be able to sell that lot and this is kind of the recommendation that was given to us and so we thought, well, that's -- that would be good, because we may also at some future point come in and be able to -- to look at these little in-fill properties and look at them and say, okay, well, if we have five percent in there, you know, maybe we do get another lot in there at 16 or 19 thousand square feet or whatever it happens to be, so -- but that's -- that's my rebuttal that -- and, really, it doesn't really only apply to the R-2 density, so I don't have anything else. Thank you. Yearsley: Thank you. I would entertain a motion to close the public hearing on file number H-2016-0024. Oliver: Mr. Chairman? Yearsley: Commissioner Oliver. Oliver: I move to close the meeting on file number H-2016-0024. Fitzgerald: Second. 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: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. Yearsley: Comments or thoughts? Oliver: Mr. Chairman? Yearsley: Commissioner Oliver. Oliver: I just want to thank staff and thank you for -- for helping us understand -- help me understand a little bit more what we are looking at, because I'm probably like a lot of the audience thinking this is going to be everybody, but getting the explanation from Bill helps us understand exactly what we are looking at and makes a lot more sense to it, so I would be in favor of it. Yearsley: Thank you. You know, I grew up on a large lot and with no common space and, you know, we all played at the neighbor's yard or they played at our yard and -- and I think it -- having the larger yards, even if you have a larger home, you still have a lot of yards associated with 16,000 square feet or more. So, I think the reduction is -- is somewhat warranted for that unique style of -- of subdivision, so -- Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission April 7, 2016 Page 26 of 51 Fitzgerald: Mr. Chairman? Yearsley: Commissioner Fitzgerald. Fitzgerald: I -- I grew up something similar to the way you did as well, but I think it probably would have been nice to have -- we ended up in someone's common area somewhere eventually. I think my comment -- or my question to Bill is -- kind of where my thoughts are is I understand that was why I wanted to feel it out a little bit, but I -- I'm still concerned about making blanket reductions and if the Commission wants to go this direction I think -- then I will go along with you. I just -- it -- we have got to figure out a way -- and saw that we are working on it -- to figure out how to do in-fill better in Meridian and I think we haven't gotten there where we are -- we haven't had to do that very much yet and so this is kind of one of those -- Commission, will go along. It's just -- it doesn't make me -- it makes me a little bit uneasy that we make these blanket changes to the UDC, but I think with the bigger area -- or bigger lot sizes I understand where they are going. It's harder to develop those and I -- and they are pretty rare as Bill has attested to. So, it sounds like that's where we are headed and I will hear from Commissioner McCarvel. But it's still -- we have got to figure out a good way -- whether that's density bonuses or in-fill bonuses of some kind -- I don't know what they look like, but it sounds like Bill is on it. So, I will be interested to see how that comes out. Yearsley: Thank you. McCarvel: Mr. Chairman? Yearsley: Commissioner McCarvel. McCarvel: I'm struggling with this at the moment. I'm not sure that a blanket way to go is -- blanket with the UDC is the way to go and I personally live where there is one acre lots and fairly large homes and fairly large homes brings lots of kids and they don't -- I mean it's good for them to I think have some common space to go to just community wise and getting to know your neighbors. Yeah, I'm really not -- I just think a case-by-case basis is a little better to go with as just when you look at are the lots next to other common -- you know, other park spaces or something of that nature, because it's not just you got to be invited to somebody else's house and common areas kind of invite the whole community, so I'm just struggling with what these percentages actually look like in real life I guess. So, I guess I need to be persuaded. I'm leaning not to have just a blanket change to the UDC and overriding the City Council at this point. Yearsley: Well -- and this still has to go the City Council for approval -- McCarvel: Yeah. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission April 7, 2016 Page 27 of 51 Yearsley: -- if I am -- McCarvel: Yeah. Yearsley: So -- so, we -- I don't know. I think one of two things. The one thing that I heard from the audience is the concern that your open space could be -- could be included in your landscape buffers, you know, which is a potential and maybe that would be a compromise that you could put a provision in there that landscape buffers are not included in that five percent for this style of home. Fitzgerald: And I would be -- that would make me a lot more -- Yearsley: Because that way you still require them to have some open space and it's like Bill had commented that they still have to meet the amenity requirements. Fitzgerald: Absolutely. Yearsley: And they have to have some common area for the amenity, so -- Fitzgerald: It would also take care of this applicant's situation who doesn't have a street -- Yearsley: Right. Fitzgerald: -- to deal with. Yearsley: Yeah. Fitzgerald: So, I -- Mr. Chairman, I think that would be -- that would at least make -- and I'm not sure if we can make us on the dais, but that would make me feel a little bit more comfortable that it -- this does not pertain to a -- you know, a street buffer, that that can't be included in this five percent, so -- Yearsley: Yeah. Is that -- I guess, Bill, is that something that we could make a motion -- I mean a modification to? Parsons: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, absolutely. We can add that as part of this change. Yearsley: Okay. Parsons: Before it goes to Council we will make those changes that it can't include the street buffers as part of your open space with R-2 developments or residential developments that have 16,000 square foot lots if that's your pleasure. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission April 7, 2016 Page 28 of 51 Fitzgerald: Okay. That would be my -- Oliver: I would just like to add one more thing, Mr. Chairman? Yearsley: Absolutely. Commissioner Oliver. Oliver: I think it also says in here in number two the development will have to be within a quarter mile of a city regional park or an eighth of a mile of a city community park. I know growing up -- I didn't grow up in a large lot, but as kids we walked down to -- an eighth of a mile to go to a park, that's just as good. I mean that -- that's not very far at all. We had to walk that much or more to a park. Yearsley: Yeah. Oliver: I think having that in there that's going to fill that extra little gap. Beach: Just a point of clarification. Those were the -- the one and two in your -- in your hearing outline -- Yearsley: Uh-huh. Beach: -- that was proposed by Bill in the UDC changes that were not approved. Oliver: That were not approved. Beach: Yeah. The ones on the screen are the ones that we are proposing this evening. Just to make sure you understand. Oliver: Okay. Yearsley: So, I guess -- I'm not quite sure where we want to go with this. If we are ready to make a motion or do we still need to talk or -- or do we want to continue this and talk about it further or -- or what are your thoughts? Fitzgerald: I understand that this a minimum. There is a minimum requirement, we could always require more -- Yearsley: Right. Fitzgerald: -- which is -- which is -- makes it a little bit easier. I think the gentleman brought up the street buffer is a big deal and -- I mean in most cases -- and we talk about -- we live in certain areas that didn't have those common areas and I think they are valuable and I think most of these neighborhoods that have bigger houses like common areas, because it makes it a prettier, more -- you know, it beautifies a community and so that's my only concern about, you Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission April 7, 2016 Page 29 of 51 know, making it a blanket change, but I would go with Bill, he's probably only approved two of these in the last however many years. Yearsley: Yeah. Fitzgerald: So, I'm not -- that lessens my concerns, but I think adding the street buffer component, that that's included in the five percent makes me a lot more comfortable, so -- Yearsley: And I like it, too, just for the fact that it does require common area, not landscaping buffers. Fitzgerald: Yeah. Yearsley: So, I guess based on that are we ready to make a motion? Fitzgerald: Commissioner Oliver, are you comfortable with that? Oliver: Yes. Fitzgerald: Okay. Mr. Chairman? Yearsley: Commissioners Fitzgerald. Fitzgerald: After considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move to recommend approval to City Council of file number H-2016-0024 on the hearing date of April 7th, 2016, with the following modifications: That we make the changes that it says -- or provide five percent common open space if the entire development is comprised of building lots a minimum of 16,000 square feet, notwithstanding -- I guess not including landscape buffers along streetways -- or streets, arterials -- Parsons: Just arterials and collectors. Fitzgerald: Arterials and collectors. Thank you. McCarvel: Second. Yearsley: I have a motion and a second to approve file number H-2016-0024. All in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries. Thank you. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. G. Public Hearing for Maverik (H-2016-0027) by Maverik, Inc. Located 1515 E. Fairview Avenue Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission April 7, 2016 Page 30 of 51 1. Request: Annexation and Zoning of Approximately 3.907 Acres of Land with a C-G Zoning District Yearsley: Next item on the agenda is file number H-2016-0027 for the Maverick gas station and let's begin with the staff report. Beach: This is an application, as you said, for an annexation and zoning. The site consists of 3.907 acres of land, is currently zoned C-2 in Ada County and is located at 1515 East Fairview Avenue. To the north is East Fairview Avenue and commercial property, zoned C-G. To the east is North Locust Grove Road and commercial property and vacant property, zoned C-G and RUT in Ada County. To the south is single family residential homes in the Keziah Subdivision, zoned R-40. To the west is developed commercial property zoned C-G. There isn't history on this. As you see it's in the county and so this will be recordable to annex this. So, the Comprehensive Plan future land use map designation for this specific parcel is commercial. The applicant has applied to annex and zone a total of 3.907 acres of land, with a proposed C-G zoning district. The proposed zoning is generally consistent with the corresponding future land use map designation of commercial. The applicant proposes to develop a convenience store and fuel sales facility and future commercial buildings on this site. So, moving here to the site plan, the Maverick would be on this northern portion and a future commercial would be on the southern portion. Having said that, it will -- with this annexation there is not a concurrent preliminary plat, so this is all one parcel still, just so you understand. In order to insure the site develops as proposed, the intermediate, nonconforming uses and environmental concerns, staff recommends a development agreement as a provision of annexation with the conditions included in your staff report. A concept plan is included and that shows how the site is proposed to develop, with two commercial building lots, one of 5,046 square feet and one of 4,239 square feet. A convenience store, fuel sales facility, and associated parking. The south half of the development is slated for future development and a proposed concept plan is only a graphic representation for how the site could develop in conjunction with the Maverick store. The design of the site must comply with the design review standards listed in the UDC and the guidelines contained in the Meridian design manual. The specific use standards for the fuel sales facility listed in the UDC apply to the development of this site. In accord with the UDC, business hours of operation within the C-G zoning district are limited from 6:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m. when the property abuts a residential use or district and as I mentioned here you see on the aerial that it does -- the south portion is a residential subdivision. The applicant does indicate the intent of -- the applicant is to have a 24 hour use. However, a concurrent CUP application was not submitted with the subject annexation request. So, understanding that, the Maverick store could gain approval for a 24 hour use if they obtain approval for a conditional use permit for such. There are several nonconformings associated with the site. First thing, billboards. Currently the site is developed with four billboards, which we consider illegal signs under our code. The city's code does not allow for billboards. They Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission April 7, 2016 Page 31 of 51 were approved within the -- in Ada County. Upon annexation they become illegal -- illegal signs. So, currently -- let me clarify. They are not illegal now, because they are in the county. Upon annexation they would become illegal signs having not been approved by the city and so as I said under the city's ordinance the signs are prohibited and deemed illegal must be removed within 60 days of annexation into the city. The applicant has requested the Council allow three of the existing billboards to remain on the site to carry out the remainder of the existing lease, which in this case is 11 years. The next nonconforming is the vehicle wrecking or junk yard as our code designates that use. A junk yard use is prohibited in the C-G zoning district and staff recommends that it also cease within 60 days of annexation into the city. The next nonconforming is the fencing. The site is currently surrounded by steel fencing and this material is not allowed to be used as fencing material per the UDC and must be removed again within 60 days of annexation. Next is landscaping. Currently the site does not meet the landscape standards set forth in UDC. This property is slated for redevelopment. Any new development proposed for the site must comply with all the standards and because of this the property is a single parcel the applicant will be responsible for installing the entire perimeter landscaping, which in this case is a 25 foot wide landscape buffer along Fairview and a 25 foot landscape buffer along Locust Grove and the southern boundary as well with the first phase of development. A landscape plan, as I said, was not submitted as part of the application. However, all landscaping should comply with the standards of the UDC. A 25 foot wide street buffer is required on both of them, because they are arterial roads and along the southern boundary because it's a residential and, as I said, it's the R-40 zoning district, which is that Keziah Subdivision. If desired, the applicant can request Council waiver to reduce -- to reduce the 25 landscape buffer along the south, but at this time the applicant has not asked for a reduced buffer. Due to the existing waterway along the south boundary, there is a good chance that there is an existing irrigation easement along said boundary and code allows a five foot wide landscape buffer with -- outside of the easement where the buffer is encumbered by easements or the restrictions. The Department of Environmental Quality is the department of the Idaho state government responsible for administration of state and federal environmental laws and regulations, including those related to air and water quality. Due to the length of time that the vehicle wrecking and junkyard use has been in place on the site, staff is concerned with the environmental quality of the soil on site. Staff recommends that the phase one and phase two environmental assessment be performed on the site to insure that there are no contaminants in the soil. If contaminants are found the applicant should work with the applicable federal and state agencies to remediate the site to the applicable standards prior to submitting a certificate of zoning compliance application. Having said that, I did reach out to the Department of Environmental Quality and it did not indicate that there had been any violations reported as of last week when I spoke with them. It does not necessarily mean that there aren't, but they did say there had been no violations noted to DEQ. The property currently takes access from two existing access points onto Locust Grove Road and one onto East Fairview and so as Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission April 7, 2016 Page 32 of 51 you can kind of see here there are several -- shouldn't say several. Two on Locust Grove and one on Fairview. With the development of the property the applicant proposes to utilize the existing cross-access driveway to the west, constructed with the Intermountain -- excuse me -- the Intermountain outdoor subdivision and will utilize a shared driveway with 1375 East Fairview Avenue, which is this property right here. This will be the shared access. Not direct access to East Fairview is allowed with the redevelopment of this site. The UDC restricts direct access to arterial roadways, such as North Locust Grove and East Fairview Avenue. ACHD supports the two proposed accesses onto North -- North Locust Grove Road. Staff does not support the full access driveway proposed by the applicant, but does support the applicant's proposal to have a one -- to have one right-in, right-out access. The UDC requires the applicant to seek Council approval for the other access onto North Locust Grove. Some comments from ACHD that were added that are relevant. Fairview Avenue is scheduled in a planning document to be improved with curb, gutter and sidewalk between East 3rd Street and Locust Grove Road in 2016. Fairview Avenue is listed in the capital improvement plan to be widened to seven lanes from Meridian Road to Locust Grove Road between 2017 and 2021. The applicant should be required to dedicate a right of way to total 74 feet from center line of Fairview Avenue to accommodate future widening, which is approximately 16 additional feet at the west end and 13 feet at the east end. The segment of Fairview Avenue is in the capital improvement plan and the Fairview and Locust Grove intersection, so the applicant will be compensated for right of way dedication. The applicant will typically be required to construct a sidewalk on Fairview Avenue. However -- however, if the planned Ada County Highway District pedestrian improvement project on Fairview Avenue has been awarded to a contractor prior to submittal of the CZC, then, the applicant is not responsible for sidewalk improvements. If the Ada County Highway District project has not been awarded, then, the applicant will be required to construct a sidewalk in its ultimate location or provide a road trust to the highway district for the cost of that improvement. The applicant should be required to dedicate an additional 11 feet of right of way on Locust Grove for the Fairview-Locust Grove intersection project. This intersection, as I said, is in the capital improvement plan, so the applicant will be compensated for right of way dedication. The applicant should also provide adequate right of way at the corner of the intersection for future utility boxes and signal poles. A minimum five foot wide detached sidewalk is required adjacent to East Fairview Avenue and around all buildings, as well as those serving public streets in accord with the UDC standards. Locust Grove Road has an existing attached sidewalk. If additional right of way is needed by the highway district adjacent to North Locust Grove Road, the applicant shall construct a five foot -- excuse me -- a five foot wide detached sidewalk -- detached sidewalk on North Locust Grove. There is currently an attached sidewalk, which is inconsistent with -- with the UDC, nor is it consistent with the -- the remainder of the sidewalk on -- currently installed on North Locust Grove. Conceptual building elevations for the future building were submitted by the applicant. Building materials depicted on the plan for the building include stone Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission April 7, 2016 Page 33 of 51 veneer, rough sawn timber, and board and batten. The future building on this site will generally comply with the submitted elevations, including, but not limited to, the design standards set forth in the City of Meridian architectural standards manual. A certificate of zoning compliance application is required to be submitted prior to issuance of building permits. The applicant is required to obtain approval of a design review application for the proposed structures and site design for the self-service storage facility. Excuse me. The fuel sales facility. The applicant may be submitted -- the applicant -- the applications may be submitted concurrently with the CZC application. The application must comply with the design standards listed in the UDC as I said. Did not receive written testimony from the applicant on this, but staff is recommending approval based on the conditions listed in the proposed development agreement, as well as conditions listed in the staff report. With that I will stand for any questions. Yearsley: Thank you. Are there any questions? Fitzgerald: Mr. Chairman? Yearsley: Commissioner Fitzgerald. Fitzgerald: Josh, do you have the -- the staff give us a recommendation on the sign that have an 11 year lease left? The seems a little bit not Kosher. Beach: Yes. We are recommending that those signs be removed -- Fitzgerald: Okay. Beach: -- as part of this application. Fitzgerald: Okay. And fencing -- everything needs to come to compliance -- Beach: Correct. All of those nonconformings need to be corrected as part of the application. So, the metal fencing needs to come down, the landscaping material needs to be installed to meet our code. Potential environmental remediation of the site pending -- those that I mentioned. Fitzgerald: Okay. Beach: As well as the billboards. Fitzgerald: Perfect. Thank you. Yearsley: Thank you. Any other questions? Would the applicant like to come forward? Please state your name and address for the record. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission April 7, 2016 Page 34 of 51 Meyers: Todd Meyers. Maverick, Incorporated. 185 South State Street in Salt Lake City. Mr. Chairman and Commission, thank you for the opportunity to present this application. Maverick's interest in the property is leasing the northern portion of it and so the property owners representative is also here that talk about the southern property and also some of the nonconforming issues with the property. If I could go down the staff's conditions for approval real quick here, as far as the development agreement, Maverick will take the lead on having our attorney work with the city attorney to get that prepared. We will write that check just as soon as staff says we are approved to go. We would love to move with this project as quick as possible. B -- or, excuse me, A we have no problems with that. On B I believe we have revised the site plan to reflect the requirement of Ada County Highway District and so if it's not, then, it was just a misunderstanding and we can get that corrected. The 25 foot landscape strip, we can do that along the Maverick property. We would propose that it would only go to the second access on Locust Grove. So, with our development we would end -- we would do that drive lane going down to that access and so we would do the accompanying landscaping with that. The five foot sidewalk, no problems with that. The access -- we would hope that you would make a recommendation to City Council for approval of the accesses as shown on the site plan. They are compliance with Ada County Highway District and with all commercial businesses access is important and with our business it's probably a little bit more important and so we would hope that you would support that. Item C is we had our -- our neighborhood meeting -- I wish I could say the most exciting part about the application was that they were getting a Maverick, but I think, really, what it was is they were excited about all of the things that were going to go away. The salvage yard goes away. That would be part of the annexation. The fence would go away. As you just heard, there are some issues with the signage and that may not be as easy to go away on this. But I will have the owner's applicant talk about that. D. We already talked about the landscape buffer. C. Or, excuse me, E. We have also talked about that. F. One of the first things staff showed in the pre-application meeting is the plat for the property to the west and that plat shows that there is cross-access and we are happy to do that, but being that it's just on the plat, we were planning on doing a metes and bounds -- excuse me -- legal description with that, just -- we are not part of that plat, just in case we didn't get notified of any changes on it, we would want to have that recorded and that's just pretty much standard for us. Thank you. G. There is no problems with that. H. That's just standard practice. Whenever we buy or lease a property we are going to have a phase one -- in this case I'm pretty sure that phase one is going to say do a phase two and we just -- we do that automatically for our own protection. So, no problems with that. I. I is really the reason why we are making the application. We need water and sewer and so we will work with the city on that and the staff report indicated there are some projects. Our hope, again, is to move as quick as possible. However, if the annexation does take longer, maybe the city's project will go before us, I hope that's not the case. J we have already talked about. K, no problem with that. L, no problem. And, then, also just would like to note that we do intend to apply for a conditional use Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission April 7, 2016 Page 35 of 51 permit, so that we can operate 24 hours a day. And we have noticed that on our site plan what we have done is we have turned everything towards Fairview and -- which means it's away from the residential. With our stores the main area for noise is out by the gas canopy. So, we use the building itself to separate off from the residential. Happy to submit whatever lighting plan with that CUP and whatever those requirements are. With that I would be happy to stand for any questions. Yearsley: Are there any questions? Fitzgerald: Mr. Chairman? Yearsley: Commissioner Fitzgerald. Fitzgerald: Are you -- are you guys okay with the -- the donation of right of way, on both -- from center line, what they are requesting with that improvement coming? Does that impact your guys' site plan at all with the significant widening of Fairview? Meyers: Yeah. The -- the site plan that you have before us -- we did revise it after we received the staff report. I believe it came in on Tuesday -- Fitzgerald: Okay. Meyers: -- and that should reflect all of those dedications that are required by Ada County Highway District. Fitzgerald: Perfect. Thank you. Yearsley: I guess my question is maybe from the owner about the removal of the overhead signs. I don't know how we want to address that, but just kind of curious to what -- if there is objections have those removed or not or what -- what are you guys asking for? Meyers: That's probably a better question for them. For ourselves we want to have the property annexed, because we want water and sewer. Yearsley: Right. Meyers: The billboards do not benefit us in any way. However, if it -- the leases are there for 11 years and we would love to go there before 11 years, we would like to see this annexation take place this year. Yearsley: Yeah. Meyers: And so that would be our hope. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission April 7, 2016 Page 36 of 51 Yearsley: Okay. I guess we still have a few minutes to see if the applicant would like -- or the owner would like to come up and respond to that question. I think it's critical that we at least have that addressed. Gronbeck: Chairman and Commissioners, David Gronbeck. 802 West Bannock Street, Boise. 12th Floor. So, right now -- I represent the owner. Right now the -- the owner is bound by leases on three of the signs. The sign on the corner is owned by Lamar Company. We are under a month to month. And that one can easily be removed. Unfortunately, the other three -- the electronic billboard and the two along Locust Grove are under a lease for an 11 additional years. The owner is willing to sign any documents or, you know, assign the lease to the city at the last minute of the last hour for those leases, just to make sure you have assurance that they will go away in 11 years. But, unfortunately, until then he is bound by those agreements. You know, I look at this as an opportunity to remove a salvage yard from the middle of Meridian -- and sign a nonconforming use, but, unfortunately, we have got three that we are -- we are tied down to. Fitzgerald: Mr. Chairman? Yearsley: Commissioner Fitzgerald. Fitzgerald: There is no transferring of them to a different location, they have to be in that specific location? Gronbeck: We would -- we would sure like that. We have explored all the opportunities, even explored possibly buying out the leases, but, unfortunately, that's not economical and we are not going to be able to do that. Yearsley: Okay. Any other questions? We will have to mull over that one. Gronbeck: Okay. Thank you. Yearsley: Thank you. Beach: Mr. Chairman, if I may, we -- kind of from the bullpen here, we noticed that we would like to add or have you add an additional condition to this, that we did not see while doing the staff report. We do not currently have a requirement that there be a cross-access agreement between both of these parcels, just so that they are not split off from each other, we would like you to, if you would, add that condition, so that there is a cross-access -- recorded cross-access agreement between the Maverick -- proposed Maverick site and the southern commercial site. Yearsley: Okay. I have a few people signed up, but not wanting to testify. Is there anybody that would like to testify on this application? If not, I guess I would Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission April 7, 2016 Page 37 of 51 like the applicant to come forward and at least comment on the -- and maybe he did already -- about the cross-access easement, just for the record, that you're okay with having us add that additional -- Meyers: Again, access is critical for us. So, we will be the ones writing that cross-access agreement and so, basically, it would end up benefitting the Maverick parcel -- well, the Maverick portion of the parcel, the parcel to the south, but also we are going to have to work with property owners to the west. They are going to want something to sign this and so they would get that cross- access that would go on over to Locust Grove. Yearsley: Okay. I just wanted to make sure that we are okay with that. Is there any other questions? Fitzgerald: Mr. Chairman? Are you guys okay if the signs are -- remain there? I mean is it -- it's not the best or the most ideal situation, but is Maverick okay with that setup? Meyers: Yeah. We are aware of that limitation. Obviously, we don't like anything to block our sign, but we would love to go here and that's just one of the limitations of being there. Fitzgerald: Okay. Thank you. Oliver: Mr. Chairman? Yearsley: Commissioner Oliver. One more question. Sorry. If you would come back. We have one more question. Sorry, I didn't -- Oliver: I just want to get some clarity as far as what you said in your first -- when you were first up here. On the Locust Grove side you were only going to landscape to that first phase? Is that what you said? Yearsley: Second entrance. Meyers: I would love to say that we would only do it on the northern portion of Maverick. However, our request is that we are going to have both of these accesses, so I would imagine it's only fair that we would do all of the landscaping to that second access. Oliver: To the second access. Meyers: Yeah. Oliver: Okay. All right. Thank you. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission April 7, 2016 Page 38 of 51 Yearsley: Okay. Any other questions? Really quick. Fitzgerald: Josh, is that -- is there improvements all the way down right now? Beach: My understanding is that there is an attached sidewalk, but no landscaping. Fitzgerald: Got it. Thank you. McCarvel: And, Josh -- sorry. Mr. Chairman. Those two accesses that they are showing right now, those are the two that -- you're okay with or you want just one access? Beach: Staff is proposing recommending that there just be one. Having said that, the highway district did indicate that they were okay with both. McCarvel: They wanted both. Okay. Beach: But they have to request waiver for the second one to City Council. McCarvel: Okay. Yearsley: So, I guess I have a question for staff. So, we are kind of stuck between a rock and a hard place. Staff is recommending that they be removed. The applicant is saying we -- we would prefer not to remove it, because it's going to cost us a lot of money that we have to buy out the lease and they make the project undevelopable I guess is what -- what I heard. I'm not quite sure -- I guess do you have any comments or -- regarding that or -- what are your thoughts I guess? I'm just asking kind of as a staff comment on options I guess is what we -- Parsons: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, this was an issue that was raised very early on when this property came in for discussion at the pre- app. So, it really isn't a surprise to the owner as to what the city was going to require. There are options for you to take under consideration. Right now staff wants them removed. That's our recommendation. Under our sign ordinance there is a provision for nonconforming signs and that requires that if they are to remain on the property they need to get approval of a conditional use permit. That's one option. You can write into that saying that, you know what, obtain CUP approval to keep the signs in in accordance with the sign ordinance or you can stay with staff's recommendation, as you're aware, and say, no, we like that and let City Council take that under consideration. But the one other thing that the applicant needs to consider, too, I mean Maverick in particular, is those billboards, although they are nonconforming, if they stay they do restrict the signage that they want along those roadways, because now those signs are taking their frontage, their signage for their -- along their frontage of the street, so Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission April 7, 2016 Page 39 of 51 there is a couple issues that -- that need to get worked out and signage is important to businesses, so we still have to analyze that a little bit, but there are provisions in the UDC that allow nonconforming signs to remain and that's through approval of a conditional use permit. Yearsley: Okay. Parsons: And that's not proposed at this time, so you have that option as well. Yearsley: Okay. Parsons: But I wanted to put that out there to you. Yearsley: And that's why -- that's what I was just wanting to understand, so -- okay. I guess barring that, do we have any last questions from the applicant before we close the public hearing? Fitzgerald: Mr. Chairman? Yearsley: I -- okay. Fitzgerald: I was going to move to close the public hearing. Yearsley: Please. Fitzgerald: I move we close the public hearing. McCarvel: Second. Yearsley: I have a motion and a second to close the public hearing on file number H-2016-0027. All in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. Yearsley: Kind of a tricky one. Your thoughts or what you guys are thinking. Fitzgerald: Mr. Chairman? Yearsley: Commissioner Fitzgerald. Fitzgerald: I mean I -- that corner is brutal. It's an eye sore. It's -- it's not going to go away anytime soon. We -- the only thing I can say is if we start the clock and we require them to sign the lease over to the city in the last day of this thing, we guarantee that they go away and we get rid of a really ugly piece of property right now, which I'm sure that the neighborhood would like. So, I -- there is a part of me that wants to start the clock and get rid of those things, because there is -- Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission April 7, 2016 Page 40 of 51 I mean if it stays there those leases can be reup'd and they can be there for the rest of eternity. So, I have no -- I guess my druthers would be that we start the clock and sign it over to the city or whatever time that -- the lawyers can work that out so the city takes ownership of it and make sure they go away. And I think Maverick does a great job of putting together a nice product and I think they are good about light shielding away from neighborhoods. I think they do a good job of that. That's going to be a busy corner. I think it would be a lot better off than what it looks like now. So, I think I would support the dual accesses onto Locust Grove. I think it's hard to -- those are busy, they have cars going in and out when there is -- when people are getting gas and so I think that you need that second access to be able to access the property behind to the south, if that's where we are going to go. But I still -- those signs not going away doesn't make me very happy, so it's a hard one. McCarvel: Mr. Chairman? Yearsley: Commissioner McCarvel. McCarvel: Yeah. I think the dual access is -- especially if ACHD is in favor of it, I think it makes sense for both properties and as far as the buffer for the 24 hour business, I think that that property almost provides that -- makes that, you know, comply with the business hours and as far as the signs, I guess -- I wish I knew the number of what it -- dollar amount it would really take to buy out those leases. Are we really talking something prohibitive or is it prohibitive in -- in just one person's mind. I think we need to make those go away. Or at least start the clock on them. Yearsley: I guess -- I'm not sure if he wants to put that on the record or -- with that we would have to open the public hearing to do that again -- and I'm okay with opening the public hearing, because this is a -- it's a big corner and I think it might be worth asking. So, with that I would entertain a motion to open the public hearing. Fitzgerald: So moved. Yearsley: For the sole purpose of the signs. Fitzgerald: So moved. Oliver: I second. Yearsley: I have a motion to open the public hearing. All in favor say aye. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. Yearsley: Would the applicant like to come forward. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission April 7, 2016 Page 41 of 51 Gronbeck: Yeah. I apologize on that. I misspoke. We tried to buy out the leases and that's not an option. So, the one on the corner, like I mentioned, we are under a month to month, so we can get rid of that one right away. Those other three -- the owner of that sign is Canyon Sign and they are not interested at all in having us buy those leases out. They have got a sweetheart deal on the lease and that's kind of what it is. So, I apologize I misspoke. We have gone down that road. We have done what we -- you know, what we thought we could do and -- and, unfortunately, it's not an option. But I like your idea. Let's get the clock ticking, you know, get them out of there as soon as we can. So thank you. Yearsley: Okay. Parsons: Mr. Chairman, if I can just chime in on that issue one more time and I wanted to elaborate a little bit on that as far as getting the clock ticking. We discussed those options -- we discussed several options at the pre-application meeting and one was -- one thing that I told the owner's representative was, you know, staff changes. It's going to be hard for the city to track a 11 year lease and notify the owner it's time to remove your signs. But one other option that we did talk about was limiting that southern portion from developing until the signs were removed. If we have something like that in a development agreement, it's irrelevant as to the time frame for those signs. W e can say no building permits, no CZCs issued for that commercial lot until the signs are removed or the 12 -- the 11 years are up. At least put something in there -- give us some kind of hammer that staff will look at that and make sure, you know what, why -- don't approve anything -- let's put something in that development agreement, if we are going to go that route, and allow these signs to stay. Let's get something in that development agreement that prohibits anything else from developing -- let the Maverick go in, I'm fine with that, but let's halt something else on that site, either CZC approval or any kind of development on that site, any issuance of a building permit for that site until the signs are removed. That's something a lot more -- a lot easier for us to track than just, oh, they have to be removed in 11 years. I don't have anything in the system. A DA runs with the land, so anyone that looks at this site, opens up that development agreement and they see that provision, one says remove it in 11 years, well, what does that mean. Yearsley: Yeah. Parsons: But if it says don't -- if Maverick is there and they are operating it in the next ten years and there nothing else on that southern portion, at least in that DA there is something there that says, yeah, we can't do anything until the signs are gone and at least someone can verify that, you know. So, those were options that were discussed. So, I thought I would just say it like that for you as you take this under consideration. Oliver: Mr. Chairman? Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission April 7, 2016 Page 42 of 51 Yearsley: Commissioner Oliver. Oliver: Could we -- could we pull up the photo again that shows where the signs are? Okay. So, just, again, for clarification for me, the one sign that you said that you could get rid of, is that one right there that they are pointing at? That could be immediate. That one would be the most impactful out of the four for their business and if you could get rid of that right away that would certainly be a huge benefit to Maverick to have that one gone versus the other three that are still there would be not as impactful and wouldn't be much of a concern and to add to what Bill just said, do what we do on that second part and just say doesn't happen until they are gone. So, I think that's a good idea to move that direction. To put those in, get rid of that sign right away. Yearsley: Please. Come forward. Gronbeck: I hope you don't look at this as wanting our cake and eat it, too, but, you know, if we don't develop that back parcel, you know, it's just going to be a dirt lot. So, ideally, we would like to tie, you know, the removal of those signs to some agreement, whether it be an agreement where we assign the lease and it's recorded on a date to the City of Meridian. So, assign them on the last minute, the last hour of the leases, so the City of Meridian controls the signs at that point, something -- we are happy to -- to do something like that. We would just like the option to be able to develop that -- you know, it's much better to be developed than a dirt lot for the next 11 years, in my opinion. Yearsley: And I understand where you're coming from and I have a tendency to agree. I guess our concern is -- is the tracking of that 11 years, because that's really a long time from now and how do we track that to make sure that those get removed when the leases come, you know, undone, and that's -- that's kind of the struggle that we are trying to figure out I guess. Fitzgerald: Can I ask a question, Mr. Chairman? Yearsley: Absolutely. Fitzgerald: Bill, could we put a bond up? Parsons: Yeah. That's an option, too. Fitzgerald: If we can -- if we can let you build the lot and there is -- if there is money involved somewhere, somebody has to put up a bond, they are going to come and get their bond, and so that -- I mean that's -- I don't like the idea of a dirt lot that's in there for 11 years and it doesn't help the neighborhoods behind -- or the neighborhood behind get a buffer with -- between the Maverick and them and so -- that doesn't make any sense to me at least. But having money involved Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission April 7, 2016 Page 43 of 51 where there is actionable -- somebody is going to want their money back or -- a bond makes more sense to me. I don't know if you guys would be amenable to that or if we need to continue this conversation to a later date to talk about that, but that's something that I think we -- we got to have -- I get where staff is. I mean Bill may be the Mayor by that time, so -- Gronbeck: Or the policy might change. You might -- Fitzgerald: Exactly. Gronbeck: Who knows, you might want to use that for Amber alerts and some other things down the road. Fitzgerald: Exactly. Just having something that's tangible that the city can say we have an agreement. This would look like -- and there is a -- there is a surety bond that this gets done. These happen in development all day long. Yearsley: Would that be something that you would be agreeable to? Gronbeck: I would need to ask that question to the landowner. Yearsley: Okay. So, I guess -- do we want -- well, we can recommend that as a bond and, then, it would have to go to Council for approval and that way you have a chance to -- because we are recommending at this point and so the Council could make final action upon that or would you rather have us continue and have you come back with the owner in two weeks? Gronbeck: Yeah. I -- we, obviously, want to get this project moving as quickly as possible, whatever that takes. Do you have an idea on a dollar amount? Are you going to recommend, you know, a dollar amount on a bond or what's the thought there? Parsons: Yeah. Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, I think we -- you will have to get some bids for what the cost is to remove the signs and, then, we would have to times that by 110 percent and put up that amount of money. That's usually how -- how we look at it, how we handle things. Gronbeck: Run that by me one more time. I'm sorry. Because there would be no cost to remove the signs. I mean the sign company will have to come and remove those. They are valuable, so they will -- they will take -- I'm just trying to understand what the -- the dollar amount for that bond might be. Parsons: That's going to have to be something worked out between the attorneys and your client as to what a suitable amount is. Gronbeck: Okay. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission April 7, 2016 Page 44 of 51 Parsons: I mean typically -- Gronbeck: A couple bucks. Yearsley: Yeah. That's something that's not -- I don't know if I feel comfortable setting that price, but I think that's something that could be negotiated between the city's attorneys and your attorneys. Gronbeck: Okay. McCarvel: Mr. Chairman, one more question. Yearsley: Commissioner McCarvel. McCarvel: Is there nothing -- I mean in legal agreement anywhere that that -- I mean, obviously, the agreement was made when it was county property. I mean if the city annexed this I mean -- wouldn't that be all bets are off with that kind of an agreement? Fitzgerald: They have a contract, though. Yearsley: Yeah. They have a contract. I guess with that -- the contract is with the property. Whether it's annexed or not doesn't null and void -- Parsons: That's a private agreement, so, yeah, that has no bearing on -- McCarvel: So, it would hold up the whole thing. Parsons: All we can do is say we don't -- we don't support them staying based on our code. Or maybe not in the best interest of the city to annex the property in. Yearsley: Okay. Any -- any last questions? Fitzgerald: No. Yearsley: Okay. Fitzgerald: Andrea, are we -- I mean would that be something that the attorney -- the city attorney would say we will work with the applicant to develop a number that is amenable to the city? Pogue: We could do that, work on negotiating that. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission April 7, 2016 Page 45 of 51 Fitzgerald: Because that's -- I mean we can't do it here and come up with a number that makes -- Yearsley: No. No. Fitzgerald: So, that would be my -- Yearsley: And that's something that they could even potentially work out before they sign the agreement, they wouldn't have to do that prior to City Council next time, more than likely, so -- okay. Gronbeck: Okay. Thank you. Yearsley: Thank you. Please. Meyers: We -- we understand going into this the -- the time consuming part of this annexation is going to be the development agreement, because the development agreement is really where it's going to be laid out and attorneys are going to have to get involved to figure out what is legal, what is the best for recordkeeping. You know, we have kicked around some ideas. We haven't shared them with the city, but we are thinking the lease termination -- even though it's 11 years out, let's have it signed, delivered, and it's an exhibit in the annexation agreement. We have an interest to see them go. The city has an interest to go -- I realize -- you know, the difficult thing is that City Council -- it's not in place that's going to be here in 11 years and we don't want to put them in a bad situation, so we want to try to get this all cleared up in that annexation agreement, something that's going to work for both sides. I understand that doesn't mean I'm going to have that annexation agreement done is a month. It will probably take a little while. Yearsley: Yeah. Okay. Any last questions before we move forward? McCarvel: Mr. Chairman? Yearsley: Commissioner McCarvel. McCarvel: I move that we close the public hearing. Fitzgerald: Second. Yearsley: I have a motion and a second to close the public hearing. All in favor say aye. Motion approved. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission April 7, 2016 Page 46 of 51 Yearsley: Well, there is a lot going on with this property. I think we have kind of hashed it out. I would like to see this be developed into something rather than it is, because it is quite an eye sore. I just hope we put provisions in there to do the best for the city and for the adjoining neighborhoods -- neighbors and residents in the area. So, with that I would like to hear any other comment on what we want to move forward and consider. Maybe talking through a motion prior to making a motion, because it could be a little dicey. McCarvel: Mr. Chairman? Yearsley: Commissioner McCarvel. McCarvel: I just -- I think we are at the point where we just need to decide what do you want sitting there for the next 11 years, the junk yard or the three signs. Yearsley: Yeah. Fitzgerald: Mr. Chairman? Yearsley: Commissioner Fitzgerald. Fitzgerald: I agree. I -- Josh and Bill, I appreciate your guys' efforts on this. I -- and I would like to see it be a clean site right now and I'm sure the Maverick company would as well. But I think if you look at is non -- in the noncompliance on that site -- or nonconforming on that site, you take care of the majority of them with those three signs and they are not -- they are a little bit off the corner and so I like the idea of having a surety bond, having the leases assigned, all that stuff. I think it -- we -- and, then, putting the signed, sealed and delivered in the annexation agreement. I think all those things can put this -- it's not a perfect situation, but I sure as heck don't want that thing to sit there for 11 years and, then, the owner decides -- or maybe the owner is not even there anymore and he sells it to somebody else and they decide to sign on for another 20 years, so we get that sign and the junk yard for another 20 years. So, I -- I do -- we have got to -- we have to move forward with that corner, it's just -- it is an eye sore and I'm sure he would love it to go away as well, so -- I'm not sure if that's talking it through, but that's kind of where my thoughts are. Yearsley: Okay. Oliver: Mr. Chair? Yearsley: Commissioner Oliver. Oliver: I agree. It's time for it to go. It's been there for a long, long time. It needs to go away. I like the -- the elevations for the Maverick. I think it looks very, very clean, very, very nice. The idea of having that -- like I said earlier, the Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission April 7, 2016 Page 47 of 51 -- the one big sign going away that will be at that corner, getting rid of that, that will certainly help it. You are putting another person out of work besides the guy that -- that poor guy that fixes windows at that corner and waves to you every day. He's going away. I feel sorry for him. But overall I think it will be a nice addition if we could just get -- like I say, eventually deal with the signs until we can get rid of them and, then, do something about that second parcel to keep it from laying to just weeds or whatever and try to get that developed as soon as possible. Yearsley: Thank you. So, right now a couple of options that we need to look at is, one, staff has asked us to make sure we add a cross-access easement between both parcels and the adjacent parcel to the west I believe. Maverick has asked not to do the landscape buffer on the south portion of the property. We need to weigh that option of whether we want to allow that or recommend that to be done as part of this development. My guess that would be through Maverick's responsibility or the owner's responsibility to finish that out and, then, the other options would be consideration -- and I guess for -- for our purview they don't meet our standards, but we could make recommendation to Council that the signs be allowed to stay with recommendation of a bond and agreement in the development agreement or something like that. So, it's not something that we would make a motion, but more of a recommendation to Council. So, I think the first two are actual motions and the third one would be -- would be a recommendation. Fitzgerald: Mr. Chairman, could we tie that, in your opinion -- I think my -- my feeling is if we are going to do the improvements -- or allow them to skip without the improvements, that it be tied to the building permit on the second one. Yearsley: Oh, yeah. It would have to be done as part of the -- because the way I understand is -- I think once this gets approved I think Maverick is going to move forward with the purchase of the north property with a property adjustment -- Fitzgerald: Yeah. Yearsley: -- and, then, you know, they would be two separate parcels and so that parcel would have to meet the conditions and stuff like that. So, that would still have to be a condition that is met, but it's just when that condition is met. McCarvel: So, Mr. Chairman, they are finishing the landscape to the second entrance; right? Yearsley: Correct. That's what they are proposing. Or they are asking for, to make that -- that still is an option that we don't -- we can say, no, we want you to do the entire or -- or just to the second. McCarvel: Mr. Chairman? Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission April 7, 2016 Page 48 of 51 Yearsley: Commissioner McCarvel. McCarvel: Josh, can we go back to that picture -- exactly how far -- that's a pretty big chunk. Parsons: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, keep in mind that -- and just to kind of -- as you're making your deliberations, keep in mind this is a single parcel and so typically we -- that's why we said in our presentation all of that landscaping needs to be done, because it's not -- it hasn't been subdivided to create two separate parcels in order to phase this development. So, when they -- again, you can include that in your motion -- your recommendation, but staff's recommendation at this time -- Josh, does the DA provision require it all to be installed with the first phase of development? So, I'm not sure exactly what provision that is to modify, if you choose to do that as well, so -- maybe Josh can let you know which DA provisions you want to be modified before City Council. Yearsley: Well -- and I wasn't saying that we need to make that concession, but I was just saying that's what we have. Beach: That would be D. The letter D. Has to do with all the landscaping. So, as Bill said, this is one site. There is no indication that -- they have not indicated that they are going to subdivide this or create additional lots and so if you're wanting to let them off on that, we could possibly do that at certificate of zoning compliance or -- I mean it's hard to described that, because it's one lot. Yearsley: Okay. Beach: So, take that into consideration. Yearsley: So, if we do allow it, we need to tie it to occupancy of the second building or something to that effect. Beach: Or something. And, again, this is just a concept plan, so we are not even sure exactly how this portion is going to be developed and so it gets a little dicey as to how to require that at some future point. Yearsley: Yeah. Beach: Because there is no legal description for the second -- the southern portion of the property. Yearsley: Okay. Fitzgerald: When I -- at some point it's -- it's got to be a discussion between Maverick and the -- and the owner -- Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission April 7, 2016 Page 49 of 51 Yearsley: Yeah. Fitzgerald: -- about who is going to handle what and who is developing how and -- and so we just kind of got to say, hey, you got to do those -- the right thing here and landscape the whole thing. Who does it we don't care, as long as it's done properly. Yearsley: Right. And, like I said, I'm okay to say, no, we recommend that we leave it the way it is and -- all right. So, who is up to the task? Fitzgerald: Brutal. McCarvel: Mr. Chairman? Yearsley: Commissioner McCarvel. Fitzgerald: Taking one for the team. McCarvel: Yeah. After considering all staff and applicant and public testimony, I recommend to approve file number H-2016-0027 as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of April 7th, 2016, with the following modification: That the -- it includes recording a cross-access agreement between the adjacent property, Maverick, and the south property -- Yearsley: And the west property. McCarvel: Yeah. The adjacent west property. Yearsley: Okay. McCarvel: Maverick and the south property and that provisions be made in the development agreement for the three signs that are leased for 11 years, that provisions be made for imminent removal of those and no extensions be made past the 11 -- past the current leases. Yearsley: Okay. And a potential bond? McCarvel: And a -- yeah. And a potential surety bond -- whatever it is -- to make those go away. Yearsley: And, then, the one last question is the second access, so we want to make a recommendation on it? McCarvel: I think we -- oh. And that we allow the second access as approved -- as approved by ACHD. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission April 7, 2016 Page 50 of 51 Yearsley: Okay. Fitzgerald: Does that include incorporation of the leases into the annexation agreement or -- for the signs? Sorry. Yearsley: She talked about in the development agreement. Fitzgerald: Just wanted to make sure that we are clear. Second. Yearsley: So, do you guys have that before we make our -- you're clear on that? Beach: I think between the two of us we can draft a -- Yearsley: Okay. McCarvel: Enough information in that motion or -- Parsons: Yeah. Just for clarification -- Beach: Mostly Bill. Parsons: You want the billboard sign closest to the intersection removed? Yearsley: Yes. Parsons: You're okay with the three remaining, as long as we include the lease as an exhibit and a termination date with the assurance of a bond for the removal of that in conjunction with that piece? Yearsley: Yes. Parsons: And the amount to be determined between legal staff. Yearsley: Yes. McCarvel: Perfect. Yearsley: Perfect. So, we have a motion and a second for file number H-2016- 0027. All in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries. Congratulations. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. Yearsley: I guess one last thing. Bill, I will let you make those announcements.