Loading...
2017 05-04Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting May 4, 2017 Meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission of May 4, 2017, was called to order at 6:00 p.m. by Chairman Rhonda McCarvel. Members Present: Commissioner Ryan Fitzgerald, Commissioner Steven Yearsley Commissioner, Treg Bernt, Commissioner Jessica Perreault and Commissioner Bill Cassanelli. Members Absent: Chairman Rhonda McCarvel and Commissioner Gregory Wilson. Others Present: Machelle Hill, Ted Baird, Caleb Hood, Sonya Allen and Dean Willis. Item 1: Roll-call Attendance __X___ Treg Bernt ___X___ Steven Yearsley ______ Gregory Wilson ___X___ Ryan Fitzgerald __X___ Jessica Perreault ___X___ Bill Cassanelli _______ Rhonda McCarvel - Chairman Fitzgerald: Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. At this time I would like to call to order the regularly scheduled meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission for the date of May 4th, 2017, and let's begin with roll call. Item 2: Adoption of the Agenda Fitzgerald: Thank you, ma'am. First item on the agenda is the adoption of the agenda. We do have one change that we will -- we will open Item 4-C, Speedy Quick, after the -- we move to pass Consent Agenda. So, that's the one change. We are going to continue that to June 1st. With that change can I get a motion to adopt the agenda as amended? Bernt: So moved. Yearsley: Second. Fitzgerald: All those in favor say aye. Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. TWO ABSENT. Item 3: Consent Agenda A. Approve Minutes of April 20, 2017 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission May 4, 2017 Page 2 of 43 Fitzgerald: Thank you very much. It has been moved and seconded to adopt the agenda and all in favor. We got that. Okay. Next on the agenda is the Consent Agenda. We do have the one change, but can I get it -- I think everybody has had a chance to review the minutes. Are there any changes? With that can I get a motion to adopt the Consent Agenda. Perreault: So moved. Yearsley: Second. Fitzgerald: I have a motion and a second. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? Okay. Thank you very much. MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. TWO ABSENT. Item 4: Action Items C. Public Hearing for Speedy Quick (H-2017-0031) by Blood, LLC Located 2560 S. Meridian Road Public Hearing 1. Request: Conditional Use Permit Approval of a Dispatch Center for Mobile Services in an L-O Zoning District Fitzgerald: So, now I would like to move on to H-2017. We are going to open this, so that we can continue it. It's the public hearing for Speedy Quick, H-2017- 0031 by Blood, LLC, located at 2056 South Meridian Road. Can I get a motion to continue that to June 1st? Cassanelli: Mr. Chair? Fitzgerald: Commissioner Cassanelli. Cassanelli: I move that we continue Item 4-C, H-2017-0031, Speedy Quick, until June -- what was the date again? Fitzgerald: June 1st. Cassanelli: June 1st. Yearsley: Second. Fitzgerald: I have a motion of the second. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion passes. Thank you. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission May 4, 2017 Page 3 of 43 MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. TWO ABSENT. Fitzgerald: Okay. At this time I would like to briefly explain the public hearing process for this evening. We will open each item individually and, then, start with the staff report. The staff will report the findings regarding how the item adheres to our Comprehensive Plan and Uniform Development Code, with the staff's recommendation. After the staff has made their presentation, the applicant will come forward and present their case for the approval of the application and respond to any staff comments. The applicant will have up to 15 minutes to do so. After the applicant has finished we will open the -- open up to public comment. There is a sign-up sheet in the back as you enter for anyone wishing to testify. Any person testifying will come forward and be allowed three minutes to testify. If that person is speaking for a larger group, like an HOA, and there is a show of hands to represent the group they are speaking for, they will be given up to ten minutes. After all testimony has been heard, the applicant will be given another ten minutes to close and respond to any comments that have come up during the discussion. After that we will close the public hearing and the Commissioners will have the chance to deliberate. I think as we get started we have a new system up here. If you point to the screen, click a color, you can use your markings in the screen. A. Public Hearing for Caven Ridge Estates (H-2017-0020) by New Cavanaugh, LLC Located South of E. Victory Road and East of S. Meridian Road 1. Request: Preliminary Plat Approval Consisting of Ninety-Three (93) Building Lots and Seven (7) Common Lots on 32.59 Acres of Land in the R-8 Zoning District Fitzgerald: But at this point I'd like to move to open the hearing on H-2017-0026 and we will stand for the staff report. Sonya, you want to get us started? Allen: Thank you, Chairman, Commissioners. The first application before you is a request for a preliminary plat. A development agreement modification is also requested, but it does not require Commission action. This property consists of 32.59 acres of land. It's zoned R-8 and it's generally located south of East Victory Road, east of South Meridian Road, and north of East Rumpel Lane. Adjacent land uses and zoning. To the north are single family residential properties in Cavanaugh Ridge Estates and Silver Water Subdivision, zoned R-8. To the south are also single family residential properties in Reflection Ridge, zoned R-8. And a gravel pit and storage facility, zoned RUT in Ada County. To the east are also single family residences in Reflection Ridge, zoned R-8. And to the west is vacant undeveloped property, zoned for future single family residential uses, zoned R-8. This property was annexed back in 2006 with the Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission May 4, 2017 Page 4 of 43 development agreement and included in the preliminary plat for Tanana Valley Subdivision, which was later replatted is Cavanaugh Subdivision. Since that time individual parcels have been sold off and are now under different ownership and are being developed separately, rather than as a single master planned development as envisioned originally. The property north of the canal is almost fully developed with multi-family and single-family residential homes. The property south of the canal, except for a 22 acre parcel on the west side of Standing Timber Way and a four and a half acre parcel where the existing home is located, is owned by the subject developer. Most of the site amenities for this development were located north of the canal and those south of the canal where on the property where the existing home is located that is now under private ownership and that, if you can see my pointer here, is that large parcel right in the middle there. For this reason staff requested the applicant submit a new preliminary plat for the remaining areas south of the Ridenbaugh Canal owned by this developer that contains its own amenities . Property boundary adjustments have been approved have resulted in the current property configuration. And, then, just to point out here, this little blue line along here is the Ridenbaugh Canal property. This road that comes down here from Victory is Standing Timber and is designated as a collector street and it comes out to Rumpel Lane along the south boundary of the property here to Meridian Road. The Comprehensive Plan future land use map designation for this property is medium density residential , which calls for three to eight dwelling units per acre. The applicant is requesting a modification to the current development agreement, which encompasses all of the former Cavanaugh preliminary plat, to remove the property owned by this developer and proposes a new development agreement just for the subject property. A concept plan was submitted that depicts how the 47 acres owned by the applicants, located on the east and west sides of Standing Timber Way that's shown in color, is proposed to develop. A preliminary plat is proposed for the property on the east side of Standing Timber that consists of 93 building lots and seven common lots on 32.59 acres of land in an R-8 zoning district. The plat is proposed to develop in five phases, as shown here on the concept plan. The average lot size is 10,505 square feet, with a minimum lot size of 6,955 square feet. The proposed plat complies with the UDC dimensional standards, except for at the face of Block 4, which is the block that lies along the southern boundary of the plat here. It does exceed the maximum block length allowed in residential districts. The applicant has submitted a concept of how the plat could be redesigned to comply with block length standards and that is this drawing here. As you can see it comes down and cul-de-sacs here and, then, there is another cul-de-sac and comes around here. So, that does take care of the block length issues and staff is in agreement with that proposed plan. Access is proposed via local streets, from Standing Timber Way, a collector street, via East Victory Road. Access will eventually also be provided via Rumpel Lane, currently a private street at the southern boundary of this site. When the property to the east -- excuse me -- west develops and a signal is planned for the Meridian Road- Rumpel Lane, which will probably eventually be renamed Harris Street to match that on the west side of Meridian Road at the intersection there. Until such time Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission May 4, 2017 Page 5 of 43 access via Rumpel will be for emergency access only. There is one additional item that is not in the staff report that staff recommends is included as a condition of approval and that is that the proposed plat needs to be revised to provide street frontage and access in accord with UDC standards for the parcel where the existing home is located and that was, again, on this large parcel right here via a local street. Direct access by the collector street Standing Timber is not allowed, so the applicant has indicated that they will make those revisions. A ten foot wide multi-use pathway is proposed as an amenity along the south side of the Ridenbaugh Canal along the north boundary of this site and you can see that along the top of the screen here. Other amenities proposed consist of a swimming pool and a large open grassy area here with a structure containing restrooms and storage. A large open area, again, where those amenities are located, will also include playground equipment and internal pathways. All amenities are required to be constructed with the first phase of development. Parkways with attached sidewalks are proposed throughout the development. Fencing is required to be installed between the pathway and the canal to deter access to the waterway for public safety. Conceptual building elevations were submitted for the restroom facility and the storage building at the swimming pool as shown and conceptual building elevations for future homes within the development are also proposed as shown. Written testimony has been received from Kristi Watkins, JUB Engineers, the applicant's representative, in response to the staff report. They are in general agreement with the staff report. Staff is recommending approval with the conditions in the staff report. Staff will stand for any questions. Fitzgerald: Are there any questions of staff? Yearsley: Mr. Chairman? Fitzgerald: Commissioner Yearsley. Yearsley: I -- could you go back to the plat? It looks like -- now does -- does ACHD allow the narrow right of ways? Because it looks like the right of way narrows for the newer phase. Is that -- Allen: Chairman Yearsley, Commissioners, I did not notice that there was a reduced street section. ACHD has reviewed this plat, though, and has provided comments on it. Yearsley: Okay. I was concerned that it might be a private street versus -- Allen: No, it's not. They are all public streets. Fitzgerald: Additional questions? Cassanelli: I have a question. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission May 4, 2017 Page 6 of 43 Fitzgerald: Commissioner Cassanelli. Cassanelli: The -- the block that you mentioned down -- down below and in the revised drawing to show the two cul-de-sacs, what -- what is the issue with the -- what's -- what's the issue having it from the -- on the original proposal, this one that's up here? Allen: Commissioners, the UDC restricts the length of block faces. So, that would be -- if you can see my pointer here. From this location here, there is no break in this bottom block length. As you can see there is no vehicular connections. There is one pathway connection clear to the end here . The UDC - - the UDC restricts block length to 750 feet or it may extend up to 1,000 feet with the provision of a pathway for pedestrian interconnectivity. The provision -- or the code also allows for Council to approve a block length at a maximum of 1,200 feet if there are existing conditions that might make it difficult for the applicant to comply with the block length standards, such as an existing urban development that abuts this site and this does have Reflection Ridge that abuts on a portion of the south boundary and also like large irrigation facilities or some kind of grade issues that might prevent them from complying with that. But this -- this particular block measured approximately 1,450 feet in length. So, it was definitely an issue and definitely against our code. But the applicant has submitted a revised plan that does look like it will work for both parties and with the grades on the site. Cassanelli: Thank you. Hood: Mr. Chair? If I could maybe -- Fitzgerald: Absolutely. Hood: -- tack a little bit on -- on Sonya's comment. The reason that we restrict the block length for that is they tend to become a racetrack. If they are straight without those breaks of intersections, pathways -- that's why the 750 is the ideal block length or no more than 750, but up to 1,200 where there is a physical constraint why you couldn't do a 90 degree turn or whatnot. But that's -- that's the reason that that -- the block length standard is what it is. Fitzgerald: Further questions for staff? Would the applicant like to come forward? If you can -- name and address for the record, please, ma'am. Watkins: Thank you, Chairman, Commissioners. My name is Kristi Watkins. I'm a planner with JUB Engineers at 250 South Beechwood in Boise. Sonya did such an amazing job explaining this I'm not sure I can add a lot to it. It hasn't changed a lot from the originally approved plat in 2007. A little bit of layout differences, some grade changes, that kind of thing. But, otherwise, it's still Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission May 4, 2017 Page 7 of 43 pretty much the same as what was approved previously. We intend to comply with all the conditions that were set forth in the staff report , ACHD and the city. The access for the house -- the developer and I were just discussing that the piece that -- Lot 1 right there, that can access that lot quite easily. So, we will just put a little private driveway in through there and it shouldn't be an issue at all. So, that's not a problem. And, like I said, we have -- we have worked quite a bit today on the new layout, with a lot of back and forth, and we finally came to one that seems to satisfy everybody, so with that I guess I will stand for any questions. Fitzgerald: Are there any questions for the applicant? Perreault: Mr. Chair? Fitzgerald: Commissioner Perreault. Perreault: I'm sorry, did you say that -- that there could be a private drive on the south side of that -- that lot through -- through Lot 1? Is that a common area lot? You put a private drive through there? Watkins: Yeah. It's a common lot. So, we would put in something there for that person. Yearsley: Mr. Chairman? Fitzgerald: Commissioner Yearsley. Yearsley: Maybe you can help me. Do you know why the -- the reduced right of way is -- is shown? Watkins: You know, it's funny, I hadn't noticed either until you said that. It must be an alignment issue with the previous phase that's there. I'm not quite sure what the lane widths are in that other phase, so I'd have to look into that. I do know that these do meet the ACHD standards. In the staff report that they presented they didn't have any issues with the lane widths that we are presenting, so I'd have to look at that and see what caused that to happen. Yearsley: Thank you. Watkins: Uh-huh. Fitzgerald: And I have a question for staff or for the applicant. Was there a discussion of the DA on both this parcel and the next -- and the parcel they are bringing next -- at the next meeting or is that going to be part of our discussion tonight? Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission May 4, 2017 Page 8 of 43 Allen: Commissioner Fitzgerald, Commissioners, if I'm hearing your question right -- Fitzgerald: The development agreement -- I guess modification to include the other parcel that they own to the -- to the west? Allen: Yes. All of the property that is owned by this developer will be contained under the new development agreement and excluded from the existing development agreement. Fitzgerald: I just wanted to make sure the Commissioners were aware of that. Any other questions for the applicant? Cassanelli: I have one more question. Fitzgerald: Commissioner Cassanelli. Cassanelli: This is more for staff actually. With the -- putting in the driveway and reducing the size that common lot, will that change any of the percentages? Will that impact anything on the common areas? Allen: Yes. It will slightly reduce -- reduce their overall common area. So -- Cassanelli: Will they still meet minimums? Allen: It will be looked at, as well we want to make sure and not increase the number of building lots. Fitzgerald: Any additional questions? Thanks, Kristi. Appreciate it. Watkins: Thank you. Fitzgerald: Currently I have no one signed up to testify on this application. Is there anyone in the audience that would like to testify? Sir, please, come forward. State your name and address for the record for us, please. Bedient: Good evening. My name is Dennis Bedient. I live at 3480 South Andros Way, which is directly north of the proposed subdivision. Perreault: Can you speak into the microphone? Bedient: Oh. Sorry. Perreault: Thank you. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission May 4, 2017 Page 9 of 43 Bedient: Have no difficulty whatsoever with the development. I think it's a good plan, with one exception, and that has to do with Rumpel Lane. Without having Rumpel Lane improved to a residential collector as it's designated by ACHD, it's going to limit the traffic available to go that direction and , then, impact Standing Timber and ultimately Victory Road. ACHD did a traffic study on January 26th, which, arguably, could be the worst day to do a traffic study. Our concern is that trying to get out onto Victory from Standing Timber, particularly at the busy peak times, is going to be impacted severely by not having Rumpel Lane be extended out to Meridian and widened and become a residential collector. I have looked at the draft of the ACHD preliminary traffic report and -- Perreault: Excuse me, sir. I'm sorry. We are having trouble picking up your voice on the mikes. Bedient: Oh, I'm sorry. Perreault: Can you bring both of the microphones towards you. Bedient: I have the preliminary ACHD traffic impact study that was done on January 26th and looking through that document there is several areas in question relative to the actual traffic counts, the potential impact of the development -- not only this one, but the existing 38 lot development, phase one, of this proposal that was not included in that study. So, there is just a number of issues relative to traffic that we are very concerned about impacting -- particularly Victory Road by not improving Rumpel Lane. So, I would encourage you to review Rumpel Lane and what may be done to have that included in this development. Fitzgerald: Thank you very much. Any questions? Thanks you very much. Appreciate it. Anyone else in the audience like to come forward and testify? Kristi, do you want to close and maybe respond to that comment? Watkins: Thank you again, Chairman and Commissioners. So, I have talked with Austin Miller over at ACHD regarding their concerns on Rumpel Lane. They are meeting with the board on May 24th to discuss those concerns. The piece that they are talking about is actually not our property, so Mr. Miller has told us that they don't have the authority to require that we make the improvements . It's assumed that the property to the west there that we do not own will hopefully be built out shortly. This property is looking at an estimated build -out -- complete build out by 2020. So -- oh, sorry. I will talk a little louder. So, they are hoping to build out this entire property by 2020 and, in the meantime, this other property may develop as well and they will be required to make the full improvements on Rumpel Lane out to Meridian Road. So, they are kind of hoping that these two things happen in conjunction with each other and that as this piece of property is building, the other one, then, will come in and it will just ultimately create that extension. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission May 4, 2017 Page 10 of 43 Fitzgerald: Kristi, one question for you. Watkins: Okay. Fitzgerald: So, currently the -- the plat -- or the way that it's structured now, the road is an emergency access only; is that correct? Watkins: That's correct. Fitzgerald: Is there bollards on it? Is it -- is there -- Watkins: It's a dirt road. Fitzgerald: Okay. So, it's unimproved? I just want -- okay. Watkins: It's not a comfortable road to just travel on. Fitzgerald: Okay. Any other questions for the applicant? Thank you very much. Watkins: All right. Thank you. Fitzgerald: With that, Commission, can we get a motion to close the public hearing? Bernt: Mr. Chairman, I move that we close the public hearing on -- Perreault: Second. Fitzgerald: I have a motion and a second. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? Okay. MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. TWO ABSENT. Fitzgerald: Thoughts? Anyone want to kick this thing off? Cassanelli: I will jump in. Fitzgerald: Commissioner Cassanelli, go ahead. Cassanelli: I think the project -- I think the project pretty much makes sense. Fits in with the existing projects around there with the changes to the -- to that -- the block that need to be made. The -- all the -- you know, everything that's in there, the elevations of the homes and whatnot, the amenities, I -- I think all look pretty good. I do kind of share some concerns and -- and we have -- I haven't seen ACHD's review, but I guess I kind of can see a concern on that as this is Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission May 4, 2017 Page 11 of 43 built out where more traffic flows out to Victory. I think that will become a challenge. Yearsley: Mr. Chairman? Fitzgerald: Commissioner Yearsley. Yearsley: I actually -- you know, I like this. I think it looks good. I like the amenities that they are providing, you know, and it's -- it's hard to imagine -- they build this in phases and so, you know, over time hopefully they will start building the other phases, so they can actually have that other access before traffic gets too bad. They are showing five phases. So, you know, depending on how fast the economy goes, you know, will dictate how fast those phases get b uilt, so -- and those collector roads can handle quite a bit of road -- traffic. So, I -- I don’t know if I'm too concerned for the traffic at this point, so -- I'm for the project. Perreault: I agree with Commissioners Cassanelli and Yearsley. Fitzgerald: Commissioner Bernt? Bernt: Yeah. Me as well. Fitzgerald: Okay. With that thoughts? I don't make a motion to this situation, guys, so -- Yearsley: I know. So, Mr. Chairman? Fitzgerald: Commissioner Yearsley. Yearsley: So, the one motion that we are -- or one item that we are supposed to add onto this was to -- Fitzgerald: Include the street frontage or be a local street for the -- Yearsley: For the private lot. Fitzgerald: -- private lot. Yearsley: Okay. Mr. Chairman? Fitzgerald: Commissioner Yearsley. Yearsley: After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to recommend approval to the City Council of file number H-2017-0020 as presented in a staff report for the hearing date of May 4th , 2017, with the Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission May 4, 2017 Page 12 of 43 following modification: That the existing private lot provide access off of a residential street and not the collector. Bernt: Second. Fitzgerald: I have a motion and a second. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? Congratulations. Thank you. MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. TWO ABSENT. B. Public Hearing for Hastings Subdivision No. 3 (H-2017- 0032) by Encore Development, LLC Located 2100 & 2160 W. Everest Lane Recommend Approval to City Council with Modifications – Schedule for City Council June 6, 2017 1. Request: Combined Preliminary / Final Plat Approval Consisting of Eleven (11) Building Lots on 3.48 Acres of Land in an L-O Zoning District Fitzgerald: Okay. Moving on. Open the public hearing on H-2017-0032 and, Sonya, this is you again? Allen: Yes, it is. Thank you Chairman, Commissioners. The next application is also a request for a development agreement modification and it does not require Commission action and a combined preliminary and final plat application. This site consists of 3.48 acres of land, zoned L-O, limited office, located at 2100 and 2160 West Everest Lane. Adjacent land uses and zoning. To the north is West Chinden Boulevard and a golf course with single family residences zoned R-8. To the south is West Everest Lane, a private street, and single-family residences zoned R-4. To the east is a school, zoned L-O. And to the west is a daycare and office uses, zoned L-O. This property was annexed with a development agreement back in 2002 and included in the plat and planned development for Lochsa Falls Subdivision. The property was rezoned to L-O in 2006. The Comprehend Plan future land use map designation is mixed-use community. The applicant is requesting a modification to the development agreement to remove the number of office buildings that can be constructed within the overall development. It's currently restricted to a maximum of 11. A combined preliminary and final plat is proposed consisting of 11 building lots on 3.48 acres of land in the L-O zoning district. This is a resubdivision of Lots 44 and 45, Block 49, of Lochsa Falls Subdivision No. 12. The preliminary plat is shown there on the left and the final plat is on the right. The proposed plat is in compliance with UDC standards. A ten foot wide landscape street buffer and sidewalk is required along West Everest Lane, a private street, as proposed. A cross-access easement is proposed between all lots within the subdivision. Written testimony - - oh, excuse me. The applicant did submit a revised plat that was not in the Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission May 4, 2017 Page 13 of 43 original application submittal. The only change, as you can see here, is this lot line between 12 and 19. It shifts slightly to the north. Other than that it is the same. Written testimony has been received from a few folks . Cheryl Walston. Josh and Sara Liddell. Thomas Mannschreck with Thomas Development Company. Tom Rudd. The main concern from the testimony is in regard to the existing access and high-volume traffic in this area via Everest Lane, the private street. There has also been parking issues along Everest Lane that the Fire Department and Code Enforcement are following up on with the business owners association out there. Staff is recommending approval with conditions, as the plat is in compliance with UDC standards. Staff will stand for any questions. Bernt: What are the conditions? I'm sorry? Allen: Excuse me? Bernt: That condition? What was the condition? Allen: The conditions in the staff report. Exhibit B. Fitzgerald: Are there any additional questions for the staff? With that would the applicant like to come forward? Please state your name and address the record for us. Kehrer: Kelly Kehrer, KM Engineering. 9233 West State Street, Boise, Idaho. And I'd just like to thank Sonya for the fine job on the presentation and we are excited to bring this before you guys. We -- honestly, I can't really add anything more at this point, so I would be happy to stand for any questions. Fitzgerald: Any questions for the applicant? Commissioner Perreault? Perreault: I imagine you have heard the concerns regarding the traffic and the parking. Would you share your thoughts on that? Kehrer: Sure. You know, the first thing is -- is that in terms of parking within this development, we are near -- you know, we have done some preliminary layouts and we are parked at a much higher ratio than any of the neighboring properties with four parking stalls per thousand square feet of building and so that in itself we are going to be much more self -contained. I guess the other part of this is that, you know, you're going to have traffic on a commercial street and this will add additional traffic. However, it is not a long run of commercial d evelopment, it's not -- and it's a pretty standard size and volume that you would see on this type of street, so I don't feel like we are adding an additional strain. Further, this project was always planned as additional office area within the development and so we are just simply continuing on and, lastly, with offices it's about the lowest impact use in terms of traffic, so -- Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission May 4, 2017 Page 14 of 43 Yearsley: Is this road, since it's a private road, is it maintained by the homeowners -- or not the homeowners, but a business association of the -- the owners who own businesses along that frontage? Is that how that's maintained or do you know? Kehrer: I believe it's the overall subdivision association, but I'm not positive. I'd have to verify that. Yearsley: Because it looks like some strategically placed no parking signs might make that a little bit easier to get through that area. So, that's -- that's all I had. Thank you. Fitzgerald: Okay. Additional questions? Cassanelli: Mr. Chairman? Fitzgerald: Commissioner Cassanelli. Cassanelli: So, the request to remove the number of 11 office buildings; is that correct? So, what is the ultimate plan? Kehrer: You know, right now we are showing 11 lots on our -- our parcel and so it really depends on user interest in terms of the number of buildings that we ultimately have. You know, the things to realize with commercial development is it's more about your -- your overall square footage in terms of traffic generation and it's less about the number of build ings. You know, one large facility that's 10,000 square feet versus, you know, ten smaller buildings, you end up with roughly the same traffic impacts. So, the number of buildings really doesn't matter in the overall, so -- Cassanelli: It's still to what individual -- the plan is still individual office buildings in -- Kehrer: Yes. Absolutely. Cassanelli: Okay. It's just maybe 12? Kehrer: Yeah. Cassanelli: The cap is 11. Kehrer: Yeah. The cap. And so we were just removing the -- the number designated in the development agreement is what was proposed. Perreault: Those would be built by the developer and leased or are they being owned and built by the individual businesses? What's the plan for that? Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission May 4, 2017 Page 15 of 43 Kehrer: Both. I think the developer may build some of his own and, then, sell some of them. Absolutely. Perreault: Okay. Mr. Chair, can I ask staff a question? Fitzgerald: Absolutely. Perreault: What -- if there were to be improvements required to Everest, how would that look in terms of the individual property owners along that street on the north side? I mean whose responsibility does that become? Allen: Chairman, Commissioner Perreault, Commissioners, it's not a public street, it's a private street, and so they would -- if they were to improve it as a public street there would have to be additional right of way obtained from those property owners. There is a common lot along the south side of Everest Lane as a landscape buffer to those residences. So, really, any additional right of way would have to come off the north side of Everest and , then, the two -- everything to the west of this property that's purple here is already developed, as well as to the east, so it -- Perreault: And does this plan allow for that expansion of the street on the north side? Allen: The proposed plat? Perreault: Uh-huh. Allen: They have not submitted a site plan to us. It's only a preliminary plat. But it would be rather difficult to go back now and try to get right of way from those adjacent properties to the west, as it's already been built out. Perreault: That was my next question. Allen: Yeah. The fire department is -- they have visited the site. They are contacting the business owners association out there and they are contemplating going out there and -- or having them stripe the curbs no parking and , then, also put signs up. So, I'm guessing that's ultimately what's going to happen. Fitzgerald: And, Sonya, that's -- it's code enforcement when it comes to public roads. I mean it's a private road; correct? So, how does that figure in -- Allen: It's more of a public safety issue with the fire department. If they can't get through the streets to access an emergency, that's -- that's a problem, which may, then, become code enforcement. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission May 4, 2017 Page 16 of 43 Fitzgerald: Okay. Cassanelli: Question for staff. Is there -- is there clear current access from Everest onto that Dry Lake Lane and going into Lochsa Falls to the south? Or is that restricted? There is a -- Fitzgerald: So, there is also an access to the -- to the east that's currently closed off right now, but there it will reopen when that development is done being built -- Cassanelli: So, there will be a straight shot all the way through from Long Lake to Linder on that. But, then, there is also the access to Dry Lake. Fitzgerald: And there is an access onto Chinden right now, actually, in 1793? Yeah. That's the Black Rock. Any additional questions for staff or for the applicant? Thank you very much. Kehrer: Thank you. Fitzgerald: I have a few people signed up to testify. I will start with Tom Mannshreck. Mr. Mannshreck, you want to state your name and address for the record for us, please. Mannschreck: Good evening, Commissioners. My name is Tom Mannschreck. My business address is 413 W. Idaho, Suite 200, in Boise. My wife and I own the -- about a 10,000 square foot office building on the westerly end of phase one. I think Commission has started to focus in on what the real issues are here. First, I'm not opposed to the development. The development as presented tonight I believe is premature for a couple of reasons. Public safety issues have been brought forth by the width and the geometry of Everest Lane. Public safety issues are very clearly part of your Comprehensive Plan. The Unified Development Code very clearly says that when public safety issues are present in a proposed development that the planning staff and director have the opportunity to request a traffic study and/or parking study to see what the impact of the proposed development might be. There was a comprehensive traffic study done at ACHD's request in 2012 on a very global basis, suggesting about 20 -- almost 30,000 new vehicle trips in this part of town could be generated . I don't know whether that has or hasn't occurred . What I do know is that the Challenger school is doing very, very well. The daycare center, whose the owner is here tonight, is doing very, very well. Everest Lane is a very narrow, small, private street that was not designed to carry the traffic capacity that it's currently carrying, let alone 45,000 square feet of office space will generate several hundred vehicle trips a day on an already overloaded street. The question regarding right of way is a good one. We do not have an owner's association formed yet for the buildings in our subdivision. I can tell you that all of the owners have met and -- and are collectively interested in helping solve a problem. I don't have the authority tonight to say that right of way dedication is a Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission May 4, 2017 Page 17 of 43 no brainer. It certainly can and should and will be talked about. Off-site impacts are a very -- our day job is developing apartments and I know from off-site impacts -- off-site impacts are a very customary entitlement process in a city. I believe that the magnitude of office buildings that are constructed here is creating a public safety issue on Everest Lane, which should be looked at by a traffic study and certainly if increased right of way and if street improvements are needed our owners -- the owners of our buildings would be willing to consider that and I would be happy to work with the city and staff in any regard. Thank you. Fitzgerald: Questions for Mr. Mannschreck? Thank you, sir, very much. Mannschreck: So, our request is to defer the action pending further study and direction from staff relative to traffic and parking. Just so I'm clear. Thank you. Fitzgerald: Thank you. Next on the list I have Robin Findl. How are you, ma'am? Findl: How are you? Fitzgerald: Good. Please state your name and address for the record for us. Findl: Robin Findl. 2210 West Everest Lane, Meridian, Idaho. I own the child care center directly -- that's going to be impacted to the east of the -- or the west, excuse me, of the new development. I'm not against the new development. I actually would like to expand my business and purchase a piece of that property. However, I am concerned about the amount of traffic and I don't -- I'm assuming you have these pictures of what is happening on a daily basis? Fitzgerald: Ma'am, if you could provide those to Ma chelle and she can pass them down. Thank you very much. Findl: So, I'm not really -- I'm not against the development at all. I am against the amount of traffic that we are going to generate with that very narrow street and we have children that walk from Willow Creek along the grassy area there to and from school and I think the picture is going to show you have people parking on sidewalks right now. You have people parking up against the curbs. And, then, there is only one lane of traffic that can go through. Challenger has -- at full capacity they will have about 795 I believe students . I am full capacity at 200. That's quite a few cars every day. And I guess my other concern would be if -- if it does stay this existing as it is with the 11 lots, I am a little concerned about how far -- if it's ten foot from my playground -- if it's ten feet away what is going in next to me and how I'm going to be able to control and keep the children safe for having like from here to this gentleman who is going to be standing out there smoking and, you know, we have a lot of rules. I'm a NAUIC nationally Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission May 4, 2017 Page 18 of 43 accredited center and those are the types of things that I can't have, so that's why I'm here. Fitzgerald: Thank you. Are there any questions? Yearsley: I actually have a question for you. So, I guess I'm -- I'm still kind of confused. Is this all -- is part of the Lochsa Subdivision HOA or who owns this -- this just roadway? It's a private road, so someone's got to own it or maintain it. Findl: My understanding that perhaps Marty Goldsmith may own It. He originally owned that whole area or -- I don't know who owns it. I don't know if anybody really knows who owns that piece of property. Bernt: I'm guessing Tom does. Fendl: Oh. Okay. Mannshreck: The answer is I don't know either, but the -- the association that we are in right now is not an association. It was never formed and never implemented, so there is no maintenance agreement with our association and the single family lots to the south. One of the things that -- that could be a condition of approval would be a requirement that at least for this development that is under consideration that an owners association be formed. I can tell you we are in contact with Marty Goldsmith in terms of what can be done, even under the existing conditions, to try to improve the road. So, yes, it is a private road. Yes, it is a common lot. The planning, the CC&Rs, the owners association documents, were just simply not executed and implemente d, but we are working with that. Bernt: Mr. Chair? Fitzgerald: Commissioner Bernt. Bernt: Got a question for you guys. What is -- the only access -- is this the only road that has access to like Challenger and all these businesses that you're talking about, is the only way to get to these business through this road? Mannshreck: That is the issue. Yes. That is the -- this is the only way in and out. Bernt: Thank you. Fitzgerald: Mr. Mannshreck, for -- in regards to -- your understanding is that that road will go all the way through kind of around -- or is that not the case? My understanding is -- I assume they continue to go around over by Black Rock Coffee. That won't -- Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission May 4, 2017 Page 19 of 43 Findl: Right. It doesn't go -- it doesn't go straight through to Linder. Fitzgerald: No, but it will have access. Findl: And have access. Correct. By Black Rock. Fitzgerald: Okay. And one of you maybe -- is there -- I know there is not a sidewalk on the south side of the road. There is a sidewalk on the north side; correct? Mannshreck: Yes. That's correct. Fitzgerald: At least in the -- until it's not developed. Correct? Mannshreck: Yeah. Fitzgerald: And, then, I don't -- those buildings are right up against that sidewalk, at least that -- at least that I'm aware of; correct? Mannshreck: Yes, that's correct. Fitzgerald: So, we are talking about right of way designation, that's -- or deduction, that's hard in regards to what would be given up if it's on the sidewalk. Mannshreck: Commissioner, Members of the Commission, there is actually less gray between the south side -- the back of the south curb and the fence for the Lochsa Subdivision than I had remembered, because I haven't been out there for a while. So, I'm not saying it's easy, but I'm saying it is doable and -- and I -- the due diligence that we have done so far is I think there is a discussion that could be had with the owners association. I don't -- I'm not suggesting it's a done deal, I'm not saying that the existing owner should be paying for a road improvement that is benefiting a new development. Those are all discussions that need to occur later, which is yet another reason we are requesting deferral. Fitzgerald: Thank you. Any additional questions for Mrs. Findl? Yearsley: Well -- and I actually have one follow up. Fitzgerald: Commissioner Yearsley, go ahead. Yearsley: Because it appears to me that the people parking on the -- Everest Lane is those people who are either businessing or frequen cing the current businesses, if not the case, and so it sounds like you're -- your businesses are creating the problem almost and I don't know quite how to fix that, but that's what Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission May 4, 2017 Page 20 of 43 it looks like to me. So, I guess I don't quite know where the question is going, but that's kind of what it looks like. Mannshreck: Commissioner Yearsley, Members of the Commission, I wouldn't be naive enough to say that -- that employees and guests are not parking on the street. The several times that I have been out there the last couple of months there is a whole ton of construction pickups parked up and down that street as well. Yearsley: Okay. Fitzgerald: Any additional questions? Perreault: Mr. Chair? Fitzgerald: Commissioner Perreault. Perreault: Were there any meetings had prior to the application in -- or to this meeting I should say with the owners -- the homeowners association? Have there been any meetings -- official meetings with the neighbors, other than just the ones that you have had as business owners? Mannshreck: Commissioner, I inquired of the Meridian City Planning Department, because I received no notice of any meeting. Perreault: Okay. Mannshreck: Apparently our lot is a bit outside the 300 foot radius. So, I was not aware of this until the lessee which is in our building, called and said help. Perreault: Okay. Mannshreck: This caught me completely by surprise. Fitzgerald: And I have one more question. Who is -- we don't know who is maintaining the property. Who did snow removal this year? I mean did somebody do snow removal on the road or was that Challenger or someone else? Findl: We all individually paid. That's why we are trying to form an association -- Fitzgerald: Okay. Findl: -- because we want our business park -- we -- we just don't have one. We had one at one point and, then, it just -- it went away, so -- Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission May 4, 2017 Page 21 of 43 Fitzgerald: Thank you very much. Mr. Mannshreck, thank you very much. I have Ray and Judy Lorreg? Is that right? No Ray and JP? Anyone else looking to testify on this application? Would the applicant like to come forward and close. Name and address for the record. Kehrer: Kelly Kehrer. KM Engineering. 9233 West State Street, Boise, Idaho. What I -- what I seem to be really hearing here in terms of the traffic issues is it really sounds like we have a parking issue and it's a parking issue with the neighboring development and we have got people parking out on the street, it's restricting things down to one lane and I don't really feel like it's our job to fix their problem and like I have already mentioned, we are planning on adding a higher parking ratio within our development as it is and so we don't foresee running into the same issues they have. The other thing I wanted to bring up is that, you know, we are already an L-O zone, so if we wanted to come in with a 50,000 square foot office -- well, I don't know if 50,000 square foot would fit, but a very large office, we could come in and do that without going through a public hearing process. It's already entitled property. We are coming through namely to come through for division just to get smaller office buildings. So, the point being is -- is our real goal is to -- you know, let's divide the property up. We could already go about this a different way, but we want to, you know, do the -- do the lots as opposed to the one lot, you know. And in talking with the developer one of the things we are happy to do is we are happy to add no parking signs and paint our curb red along our -- the portion of the street that we have, because -- you know, to help discourage people from parking on the street. You know, we are happy to offer that up. And, you know, there is talk about improving the private street. You know, the problem it's a private street that we don't have ownership or control of, so it -- how do we -- you know, we begin to be imposed with trying to improve somebody else's property. So, with that I would be happy to stand for any more questions. Fitzgerald: Are there any additional questions for the applicant? I have one. Are you guys in contact with Marty Goldsmith or whoever might be having initially established the homeowner -- or the business owners association. I guess where does that -- it has to be brought into compliance somehow to make sure this thing is being properly maintained. Kehrer: In terms of Everest Street, you know, I will go back. I'm pretty sure that that was done as a part of the Lochsa Subdivision and it's covered in the Lochsa CC&Rs. I don't have those in front of me and I wasn't expecting to be answering that question today, so I couldn't give you a definitive answer on that. But we have a -- in terms of who owns the private road, we don't have direct contact, so - - Fitzgerald: Okay. Bernt: That's a big -- that's a big deal. That's a question -- Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission May 4, 2017 Page 22 of 43 Fitzgerald: Commissioner Bernt. Bernt: Sorry. That's just a question that needs to be answered. Absolutely. Fitzgerald: Any additional questions? Thank you very much. Kehrer: Thank you. Allen: Chairman Fitzgerald, if I may -- Fitzgerald: Yes, ma'am. Allen: I did look up the property ownership information on Everest Lane and it is the developer of Lochsa Falls Subdivision and that is Marty Goldsmith and his brother Justin that own that. Fitzgerald: So, they are maintaining a road that they don't -- for the -- Allen: Well, they own it. I'm not saying they -- Fitzgerald: They are supposed to be -- yeah. If the Lochsa owners association knows they are supposed to be maintaining that road. Interesting. Okay. Any additional questions for staff? Commissioner Perreault, you're looking like you want to ask a question. Perreault: I am. Fitzgerald: Please go forward if you wish. Perreault: Okay. I don't even know if this is a conversation that staff would typically have, but is there any concern about traffic, then, coming off of Linder -- there is -- there is a map that was provided by one of the -- one of the business owners in their testimony that shows traffic that's come off of Linder and comes down through -- off Rattlesnake, around Boulder Bar and up into Everest. I mean do we -- is there concern that that is going to become an issue and what -- Allen: Chairman, Commissioner Perreault, I didn't catch the first part of your -- traffic from Linder on which road? Perreault: Yes. So, in the testimony that was provided by Josh and Sara Liddell on the 5th of May -- or, excuse me, the 3rd of May, they -- they included a map that shows their concern about where the traffic flow may end up coming off of Linder or coming off of Long Lake, going through the residential area -- Allen: To the south? Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission May 4, 2017 Page 23 of 43 Perreault: Yes. Allen: Right here? Perreault: Yes. Allen: Okay. Perreault: So, is that something that staff discusses or has concerns about or took into account in -- Allen: Well, not necessarily with this application, but I mean, you know, future planning in that area will -- will require connection and extension of that -- that street. Perreault: Okay. Fitzgerald: I was going to say we can't allow you to get up at this point. Thanks, ma'am, I appreciate it. Yearsley: Well, Mr. Chairman? Fitzgerald: Commissioner Yearsley. Yearsley: I -- traffic is kind of like water, it will follow the path of least resistance. So, absolutely, they will -- traffic will come onto -- down Dry Lake and probably down Boulder Bar Drive. It is an issue. However -- and I'm going to kind of talk about this. It's kind of hard to break the two into the two different items, one -- because -- because, really, he's just coming in for a preliminary plat of the division and, yes, you know, he could cause -- and he will cause more traffic, but he could build as it is, so -- so, I'm trying to figure out how to address the issue, but yet not put an undue burden to the prope rty owner for something that he did not create and so that's -- that's the -- kind of the fine line that I see that we are -- they are walking right now, so -- Fitzgerald: So, in the -- if there is any additional questions for staff , I'm going to request that we have a motion to close the public hearing and, then, we will -- Sonya, can I have -- can you pull up Google Earth or Google Maps, because there is the map -- or the roads that are there, even though it's undeveloped and you can't see everything, do show where the connection points are from Everest Lane to Chinden and Gertie Place. So, there is an outlet there. Yearsley: But I think the problem that they are talking about is it's not people driving through it -- Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission May 4, 2017 Page 24 of 43 Fitzgerald: It's parking. Yearsley: -- it's people parking on it. Fitzgerald: Yeah. No. I think you're right. Yearsley: And, you know, that's not being caused by this developer, it's being caused by the current developments that are there. Don't know who is -- you know, I'm not saying their parking, but it's -- it's just parking. The problem is just - - so -- Fitzgerald: And it becomes a fire code and code enforcement issue -- Yearsley: Yes. Fitzgerald: -- more than anything, so -- Yearsley: So, the lane is probably wide enough to get two cars down , but once you start adding people parking on the -- the road -- Fitzgerald: It becomes impossible. Yearsley: Yeah. Fitzgerald: Can I get -- unless we have staff questions -- do you have -- can I get a motion to close the public hearing? Bernt: So moved. Yearsley: Second. Fitzgerald: All those in favor say aye. Opposed? Okay. MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. TWO ABSENT. Fitzgerald: Commissioner Perreault, did you have a comment? Perreault: Yes. I understand and agree with Commissioner Yearsley in -- in regards to the fact that this is not a problem that the applicant is causing, but it still doesn't change that it's going to have to be addressed and -- and so I am in favor of the business owners continuing to -- to get together and meet and discuss some solutions and I don't know exactly how we play into that or how -- you know, I don't know that we can necessarily require that, but I think it would more on the applicant's part to have those conversations with the surrounding business owners and -- Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission May 4, 2017 Page 25 of 43 Fitzgerald: And, Sonya, can we -- as part of our development agreement can we include the requirement to stripe the curb and put no parking signs up and that there would be -- before final plat there has to be a reestablished business owners association, so that there can be an agreement to do that all the way down the length of that lane before they are -- or at some point -- or before building permits get pulled or something, so we have assurance that they are -- they are going to work together to get this thing solved. Allen: Chairman Fitzgerald, Commissioners, you can certainly request that that be included as a development agreement provision. However, I would hesitate to tying them to a condition to form a business owners association when it involves other parties. Fitzgerald: Yeah. I guess maybe not that far, but that they initiate the -- something that we can show that there is good faith effort to get this thing back on the track and if they stripe and no parking signs -- Allen: For sure that they stripe it and sign it, yes. Fitzgerald: Okay. Cassanelli: Question on -- Fitzgerald: Commissioner Cassanelli. Cassanelli: Could it at minimum be some sort of a maintenance agreement for that lane that -- be in place? Because right now if everybody is plowing it at will in the summer -- or in the wintertime and there is no maintenance on the road, can that be a condition? Perreault: It would be dependent on the owner. Allen: Commissioner Cassanelli, Commissioners, you're really talking about two -- two lots in the subdivision right now. We are not talking -- we are -- we are modifying the development agreement for the overall Lochsa Falls development, I just -- I just don’t know if that's really feasible to require with this application for the preliminary/final plat. Do you have any input on that? Fitzgerald: Yeah. We got to require them to do what -- the portion in front of their -- their property, but I'm not sure we can do it for anybody else. We can encourage it. Baird: Mr. Chair, if I could just add on to what Sonya is saying. Perreault: I can't hear you. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission May 4, 2017 Page 26 of 43 Baird: Oh. I haven't used this system much. There. A little bit better. To add onto what Sonya was saying, the modification of Lochsa Falls is to basically take this out, so all the Lochsa Falls folks are doing is saying that's not us anymore. I don't think we can force Lochsa Falls to do anything that they haven't already been required to do. So, your comments and your debate is on the right track here. Allen: Actually, Mr. Baird, I'm not sure if I understood you correctly, but it sounded like you said that their request was to take this out -- this property out. Baird: Could you clarify it? Allen: It is not. It's simply to remove the restriction for 11 buildings in the office portion of the development. Thank you. Sorry. Baird: Mr. Chair? Mr. Chair, could I ask a question in furtherance of understanding and maybe the question could be directed to Sonya. This is the Hastings Sub, yet I think the Challenger is actually lot and block from Lochsa Falls. Can you explain the relationship betwee n Hastings and Lochsa, if there is any or has been? Allen: Yes. Mr. Baird, the -- this whole development was originally platted as Lochsa Falls Subdivision. The proposed application tonight is a resubdivision of -- of two lots in Lochsa Falls Subdivision. That is called Hastings Subdivision. But it still falls under that overall development agreement for the Lochsa Falls Development. They have not removed themselves from that agreement. Does that clarify? Cassanelli: Question. Fitzgerald: Commissioner Cassanelli. Cassanelli: For staff. The existing businesses on the west and, then, the school -- Challenger school, does everything right now meet minimum requirements for parking? Allen: Yes, Commissioner Cassanelli, Commissioners, they do exceed -- well, I shouldn't -- I should back up. The applicant has said that they will exceed the UDC parking standards. I do not have a site plan that shows the building pads and proposed parking. Cassanelli: Not the -- not the applicant. I'm curious if Challenger -- if they -- because the parking -- I mean parking already is -- without adding anything new the parking is already over the top. So, it's coming from -- the problem is already coming from the existing businesses, which we have identified. So, my question is do they currently meet code when it comes to parking? Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission May 4, 2017 Page 27 of 43 Allen: Commissioner Cassanelli, they -- they did meet our standards -- or the UDC standards for parking when they submitted their application and were approved. However, the UDC only requires a minimum parking for business. So, they -- typically folks propose what is adequate for their establishment. In this case it doesn't appear that they have enough . Perreault: So, for example, if Challenger school decided to up their enrollment, there is nobody that comes back and says, okay, you need to have additional parking spaces to do that or -- Allen: Commissioner Perreault, Commissioners, the UDC parking standards go off of the gross square footage of the building. Perreault: Okay. Allen: So, no. However, with an annexation or conditional use permit, the city can require additional parking. So, if they were to come in with a conditional use permit, then, we could require additional parking. Fitzgerald: Additional comments? Thoughts? Perreault: Back to the map we have in front of us. Everest Lane, too, that runs north and south on the east side there, is that completed or is that proposed? That connects with 26? Fitzgerald: It's completed to a point. It's -- it's completed. It's closed off right now, because of a construction project going on. Perreault: Okay. Fitzgerald: But it's completed to the -- because that's where Black Rock Coffee is and -- Perreault: Oh. Okay. Fitzgerald: It's not curb, gutter and sidewalk, but it's all under construction right now. Commissioner Yearsley, any thoughts? Yearsley: So, I take my daughter to school every day to Mountain View High School and I drive by something like this every day. They have got a whole bunch of medical offices and banks and stuff right -- Bernt: Right there by ICCU; right? Yearsley: Yeah. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission May 4, 2017 Page 28 of 43 Perreault: On -- my office is there as well. Yearsley: And all the people who work there actually park on the street and allow parking for their pedestrians -- or patrons for the -- and, then, everyone complains about parking on the street and so -- and I don't mean to be rude. I apologize if this is going to come out bad, but why are we focusing on this development causing -- you know, fixing somebody else's problem? Like I said, I don't mean to be rude, but that's -- that's the way it sounds to me is it sounds like that the -- either -- I don't know who is underparked, somebody is underparked and they are trying to make work -- looking at the photos, it looks like they are parked all up and down that road quite a bit. And, unfortunately, this is a private road and so I'm not sure how law enforcement works with a private road for no parking or -- at that point, but it sounds like -- and I would highly recommend that the develop -- or the owners of these properties get with the developer and -- and demand solutions, because it is a private road and he owns that road and there are -- there are problems that need to be addressed . So, I -- again, I struggle with why are we -- I -- I know that there is a problem, but -- but this is just a preliminary plat and -- and that's why I kind of lose -- I don't know where to go from there. Fitzgerald: And I was about to say Mr. Chairman. So, I -- I tend to agree with you. I think it is up to -- and I -- I appreciate Mr. Mannshreck's comments about having a traffic study, but this a private road. I mean it's something they are maintaining this as -- and it goes into a collector. I -- they have to deal with their own issues on their own property. It's kind of like water. But I don't want to, you know, hinder the other developer from coming in and trying to do what they are trying to do on their own property and so -- and I give the applicant credit. They can drop a building in there right now without having to -- and so they are taking a step saying they would like to -- to separate out into smaller lots, then, maybe make it less impactful, but because it's entitled already they have the ability to build one building and -- and park that building according to our code without having to come back and see us at all. And so I think we have got to take that into account when making this decision. And so I appreciate that -- I think we need to incorporate it into the development agreement that they will stripe and -- and -- stripe the curbs and put signs up and work with the other buildings around or the other owners around them to get a solution for the whole road, because it's -- it is a private lane. Plus figuring out who owns it would probably be a good start. But I think -- but I think we can't -- I think we can't hold it against the person who is trying to develop their own land. Again, the problem is with the landowners to the west. Cassanelli: Mr. Chairman? Fitzgerald: Commissioner Cassanelli. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission May 4, 2017 Page 29 of 43 Cassanelli: I would have to agree with you completely and -- and I'm not going to be opposed to removing the -- that maximum of 11 lots at all. I look down the road and once -- once more of this is built out, you know, the residences on Boulder Bar Drive -- you know, it's going to wind up being ugly, but it -- the problem is is it's already been -- you know, it's all been approved already. It's already been zoned. It's -- and I don't feel like we can stop the -- the request here tonight, so that doesn't help the situation and it's already an ugly situation. Perreault: Mr. Chair? Fitzgerald: Commissioner Perreault. Perreault: You talked a little bit ago just make a natural progression such that any future business centers that come in there saying, hey, this isn't a location for us, because there is too many traffic issues and it may just come to a point where it's going to have to be dealt with if the business owners don't want to lose business jointly, they are going to have to work through it, including the existing business owners. You know, I would imagine it's going to really put -- now we have more office buildings now. The vet clinic and the music and arts center, they are going to -- they are all going to have to put their heads together and figure it out. It's just going to have to happen or they ar e not going to be able to bring businesses in there. They won't -- they won't come if there is no place for people to drive through to. I mean all of the written testimony that we received from the existing business owners have all said they have lost business because of -- of the traffic issues. So, it may just naturally come about that something will happen if they want to have, you know, a successful business location there. Fitzgerald: Oh, absolutely. Perreault: And it's too -- it's too great of a location for them not to -- for it not to be worth, you know, the effort to make it happen. It's just too great of a location, so -- Fitzgerald: Commissioner Bernt, do you have a comment? Bernt: It's just a mess. That's what I think about it. I'm not going to lie. I'm not going to sugar coat anything. It's -- I don't understand how they got to this point to begin with, but that's -- that's near or there. I -- I don't know if there is -- other than that I agree with pretty much what Commissioner Cassanelli said and Commissioner Fitzgerald and Yearsley and Perreault have said in regard to this -- this property. I don't know if there is any way that we could prevent, you know -- I don't think it's fair to the applicant to the -- to deny it based upon something that has absolutely nothing to do with his development, honestly, and so -- is there a -- I'm fairly new, but I have a question. So, is there -- is there a way in which we can change or modify or do something about the striping and the signs Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission May 4, 2017 Page 30 of 43 on that street to make it so that no one parks on that street, because, honestly, if that happens I think the problem is pretty much solved for the most part . Perreault: Except that that traffic may overflow into -- Bernt: Chinden? Perreault: -- the neighborhood. I mean it's got to go somewhere. But I highly doubt that many people are just going to completely stop going to the area and using those businesses. It's going to go somewhere, so -- and I don't know how does -- how does the -- there being a private owner of this plan to what we would ask the applicant to do with the striping and the signs? I mean it's all on this -- their curb, so, you know, the street owner doesn't own that curb, but is there any issue with that? Fitzgerald: Sonya, do you want to take that one or do you have a question or -- Perreault: Could you hear my question? Allen: Chairman Fitzgerald, Commissioner Perreault, you know, ultimately, I guess it's the property owner you would have to request permission from. If the curb is within the area where the private street is owned, within that lot, then, you would have to request permission probably from them. Perreault: So, if we ask the applicant to do that it's dependent on -- on that conversation. Okay. Fitzgerald: We kind of do it all the time. Perreault: However, fire may not be something they can fulfill. Allen: It's a public safety issue, which is -- the fire department's already checking it out, along with code enforcement. You know, they will go after the property owner to do that. Fitzgerald: I think this has brought an issue to a head for -- in a lot of ways and so code enforcement and the fire department may take care of it for us, so -- any additional comments or thoughts? With that it's properly in front of the Commission. Bernt: Any modifications that -- Fitzgerald: Not that I know of. My only thought would be that incorporate in the DA that they stripe and sign it. Yearsley: And that would be more of a recommendation. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission May 4, 2017 Page 31 of 43 Fitzgerald: It would be a recommendation. Yearsley: Instead of a modification. Fitzgerald: Yeah. Yearsley: But you could put that in the motion if you wanted. Bernt: Want me to do it? Yearsley: Sure. Bernt: Okay. After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to recommend approval to the City Council of file number H-2017-0032, as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of May 4th , 2017, with the following recommendations: That the property owner or to -- or to make a recommendation to -- to amend -- Yearsley: Amend or add to the development agreement. Bernt: Add to the development agreement to stripe no parking stripes on the -- on Everest Street and also include no parking signs in appropriate locations. Yearsley: Within his property. Bernt: Yes. Within his property. Fitzgerald: We have a motion. Do we have a second? Yearsley: Second. Fitzgerald: I have a motion and a second. Any other discussion? All those in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion passes. Thank you. MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. TWO ABSENT. D. Public Hearing for 2017 UDC Text Amendment (H-2017- 0044) by City of Meridian Planning Division 1. Request: Text Amendment to Certain Sections of the UDC Pertaining to Definitions; Allowed Uses in all Districts; Specific Use Standards (Home Occupation and Retail Store, Wine and Beer Sales and Servings); Surety Agreements AND Establish New Definitions and Regulations to Allow the Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission May 4, 2017 Page 32 of 43 Operation of Food and Beverage Products Processing, Minor in the Commercial, Industrial and Traditional Neighborhood Zoning Districts Fitzgerald: Okay. Moving on to H-2017-0044 for UDC Text Amendment and I'm going to turn it over to the good Mr. Hood for discussion. Hood: Thank you, Mr. Chair. The good Mr. Hood. Well, I will try to be good and brief here. I do want to say just a second before we jump into this agenda item, just to make a brief point. Private streets are -- are problematic and so a lot of times people will propose them and our code really does try to discourage them for the most part for a lot of the reasons you just heard . So, I just -- tuck that away for when the next project comes in and you go, well, what's wrong with a private street? We are willing to maintain it. Oh, the developer is gone and it's 20 years later and they never established the business owners association. Whose is maintaining it? Who is owning it? We don't know. Just a lot of -- a lot of problems with those. So, I'm not saying that the public streets are -- are perfect, but certainly we control a little bit more of our destiny to solve problems like that. We can write tickets. We can put up parking sign -- no parking signs. We can paint things and don't have to get adjacent property owners -- we work with Ada County Highway District and when appropriate they will help neighborhoods out on things like that. So, just real quick -- I'm not saying that all private streets are bad, but they -- they are inherently more difficult, because consensus is you have multiple folks that are invested in and need their sign-off to do anything, basically, with them. So, that being said -- Yearsley: Mr. Hood, can I just add to that really quickly? Being -- dealing with roads on a daily basis, one of the things that I see all the time is -- in 20 years when that road has not been maintained and it's falling apart, then, everyone -- well, who is going to fix my road? And, then, they realize that it's their road, that they have to pay for it themselves and it's a big cost that they didn't plan for. So, everyone gets mad. So, I agree with Caleb, I -- I do my best not to like private roads for that reason, so -- sorry. Hood: No. Appreciate that. So -- Bernt: Just -- sorry, Mr. Chairman. Fitzgerald: Commissioner Bernt. Bernt: Just -- just for this -- just a question, because I'm naive to the situation for the most part. So, who would enforce -- who would enforce, you know, a red -- you know, curb and gutter, you know, just for no parking? Is that something that Code would do or the Fire Department would do at this point now? Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission May 4, 2017 Page 33 of 43 Hood: So, Mr. Chairman, the -- the only enforcement that really is -- if there is a fire code violation. So, if a fire truck cannot -- if there is no 20 foot clear, that is supposed to be signed and striped no -- no parking, fire lane. I don't know how wide that is, but I'm going to guess there is -- it's not designed to accommodate parking; right? Perrault: It said 20 foot wide on the -- Hood: So, the fire marshal has the ability, then, to work with our police officers and it's a life safety thing and ticket and tow them. Public streets -- it's -- again, it's a little bit clearer and we can -- we can work a little more easily than having to have a life safety issue by the fire marshal and having fire trucks get hung up somewhere. They both get enforced. It's a little bit cleaner, though, but, again, if it's in the public right-of-way versus a private land -- and we -- our Code Enforcement officers that we have do not enforce -- enforce no parking. They will not write tickets on private property. It's a private matter and the only reason, again, that we use -- as a city would get involved is if there is a life safety issue, i.e., the Fire Department -- Bernt: So, the Fire Department could go in and say, Mr. -- Mr. Property Owner, you need to paint something here or you need to take care of this issue, just in case of an emergency, so we can serve in our capacity. Hood: Correct. So, again, it does get enforced either way, private or -- to some degree, but the police officers will not write tickets -- say the road is 50 foot wide and painted red no parking, someone calls up, someone is parking in front of my house and it says no parking and they say private property. We are not enforcing that. That's not -- that's not our duty in these private lanes. It really is a matter, like maintenance, sorry, that's your responsibility. That's how its setup up is that you self-police each other on that private lane. Bernt: Interesting. Thanks. Hood: So -- Cassanelli: Mr. Chairman? Fitzgerald: Commissioner Cassanelli. Cassanelli: Can I ask a question? Are the parking minimums that are currently in place sufficient? Hood: There is a loaded question. Cassanelli: Or do we need to -- or does that need to be reviewed? Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission May 4, 2017 Page 34 of 43 Hood: I'm going to say, yes, they are sufficient, but -- so, as was -- I think Sonya kind of alluded to -- we have minimums and we established those minimums as just that. We think this is for the lowest common denominator. We assume and sometimes erroneously that a business owner has a business model and they know generally how many employees they are going to have and how many customers they are going to have or how many kids they are going to have at the school or whatever. Our office zone is for offices, not for schools necessarily, although we do get schools in the office zone. But, again, we will assume a school knows how many car parks it needs. It's not our job necessarily as planners to say anybody in that zone needs X amount and, then, the guy down there that really only needs this much goes why do I have five times as much parking as I need. So, we really kind of zone for the lowest common denominator, instead of requiring at a higher level -- so back to my original answer and say probably not perfect, but, again, a lot of these things -- we are not trying to create nuisances out there by -- by zoning to the lowest common denominator, but we do -- if you don't provide enough parking, as was kind of alluded to, you're the one that suffers from that decision and we got more push back -- we have lessened our parking requirements over time, because we got push back from folks saying I don't -- I have two employees, why do I need 25 parking stalls for two employees and a two chair hair salon, that doesn't make any sense. So, we kind of adopted a national standard and we allow you to double that and triple that if you want. We don't have any maximum parking. We just say you got to provide some. And it does vary. So, our industrial standard is different than our office standard is different than our commercial is different than the churches. So, we do have some variation in that. Fitzgerald: I think it works most of the time. I think in most circumstances it works. It's just in this situation you have a gym of -- another basic school, a little mini school, a hundred students, and, then, you have a daycare and, then, there is a couple other offices there and I think half of the traffic on that road are like service and construction workers and they are pulling up on the grass and pulling up on the sidewalk and it's -- I think it's just -- there is a mess that needs to be -- it needs to be signed and nobody's going to end up enforcing, because it's on private property. So, I think that's -- this is more of a private issue than a parking issue, in my opinion. Because I think a private drive is the worst -- it is kind of the challenge that -- you have a developer who brought this forward and didn't set it up -- go develop something else, it's like have fun and that was kind of what happened, so -- Hood: If I can -- I know I already tried to move on a couple times and there are follow up questions. But I am open to -- if you think we should, you know, have a higher standard -- we are talking about UDC text amendments with this application. We can change them. It's not like they are set in stone. You know, I -- we tend to try to not knee jerk -- oh, there is one, look at that, look at what that school did, we better change all of our requirements for all schools now and -- Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission May 4, 2017 Page 35 of 43 because somebody didn't do it right, you know, is there a way we can do it better, but -- Fitzgerald: Caleb, I think your staff has -- they have a balanced approach. When they know that they are going to need more they bring more, because the staff will recommend we need more parking stalls to this application. Hood: A lot of times. Fitzgerald: So, I think they do a good job of that. Hood: Again, we are open, so if you have -- you know, if you think, you know, one per 400 should be the standard or whatever of -- Perreault: How broken down is that? Is it, you know, just schools, churches, or is it broken down into smaller business classifications? Hood: Single -- so, residential is its own class. So, that's the ones I listed, plus residential and we have different parking requirements for single family, as we do multi-family. Perreault: And on the commercial side -- Hood: It's largely based on your zoning designation. Perreault: And square footage of the -- Hood: Right. It's based on square footage. Perreault: Yeah. Okay. Fitzgerald: Any additional questions? Go forth, sir. Hood: Okay. So, I'm going to be -- I'm going to assume you all have read your packets and are somewhat familiar with the text amendments. I do have them on the screen, so we can all look at them together. If there are questions I can scroll to whatever section may you have a question about. But I'm going to really break this down pretty simply for you into three subsections. Lots of different text changes here, but they really -- we really are trying to address kind of three sub issues, if you will. The first one has to do with breweries, bars, winery, distillery drinking establishments, restaurants, that kind of a thing. So, a little bit of what we have found fairly recently and, again, we don't knee jerk, so this isn't just one -- one business, but there is a lot of overlap in our definitions and a lot of gray area with someone wanting to call themselves a restaurant or a drinking establishment or a retail sales with ancillary servings and so a lot of what you see in the proposed test is to really provide some more standards to say if you do Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission May 4, 2017 Page 36 of 43 this, this is what you are. If you do this, this is what you are. If you do this and this, this is what you are. With some standards for how much of that you can actually do. So, if you're going to be a distillery you can manufacture that. We aren't going to necessarily say you have to be in an industrial zone, but the amount you manufacture has to be proportionate to how many, you know, tables and -- and barstools you have to do that ancillary use. You can't sell it. Yeah, there is two bar stools over there, so we want to come downtown and have a huge distillery or something without something that's more forward facing for the public -- a retail component, so -- and the same thing with -- restaurants are pretty straightforward. A lot of the changes here regarding restaurant is an outdated state code reference, so that's been updated to -- to where there are standards for what constitutes a restaurant , you know, at least 40 percent I think of your sales have to be food to be constituted -- to constitute a restaurant, so -- so, that's the first. It's kind of -- this definition of, okay, I have got alcohol on premise and I want to either sell it, have somebody drink it, maybe both, maybe manufacture it and just the clarification of all those different combinations and where you can do that. Before -- currently until this gets adopted -- we left a lot of those into -- those being the ones that are manufacturing a beverage into food products processing. Which it is. That's -- that's what it is. But it's not just that. It's -- it's kind of a boutique thing in our society now where you have both, you know, you want to look at the grain silo as you sit there and sip your beer or whatever. So, we have extracted those breweries, those wineries, those distilleries out of that and said, okay, again, is only your proportionate and you have that component, we can call you this and you can go in certain zones. That's the first section. The next series of changes that are sprinkled in here really have to do with home occupations. Our Code Enforcement officers struggle today with enforcing our home occupation standards. The way the process works currently for a home occupation, when you don't have any customers or clients, we have a one page paper that you come in to community development and you sign saying I agree that I will not change the residential character of my home, it will still look like a home, I won't have any employees, I won't make noise or odors or be a nuisance, I won't -- my hours of operation are this and that. I won't have more than two deliveries per day. I won't -- a series of things. They sign it and they are on their merry way. Well, guess what, they are a nuisance. We have -- we have nothing to take back from them. They just said they would comply, but we don't have any mechanism in our code to actually say it's a misdemeanor or it's a fine or we are revoking your permit to do business out of your home or -- there is nothing to take back. So, what you see in here is a process, largely, that establishes -- it says it's not just as simple as signing a paper anymore. We have been burned too many times and people are abusing it and now you have to come and apply and will look at your application and either issue it, we will deny it, or we will modify it if there is an existing one. So, it's really, again, establishing a process and our process, then, is to tie it back to her accessory use permit. You still have to -- the principal purpose for that structure has to be a home, but you can still have up to ten percent of the gross floor area or up to 500 square feet maximum of that structure for this business. So, there is Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission May 4, 2017 Page 37 of 43 a whole bunch of other caveats. I won't -- or standards I should say with the types of businesses -- business that you can operate out of that. The intent is that you're a home office. That's the origin of allowing this. We also allow daycares. But the intent is home office and, again, over time this has turned more -- you know, people are skirting that line and pushing the envelope and so this is why we are here is because we get people that are doing all kinds of different businesses and multiple employees and that's hard for a code enforcement office to say is that an employee? Oh, yeah. No. No. No. That's my buddy. He's just over here helping me. We weren't checking to see if they are on payroll. I mean it's just three or four people over drinking a beer detailing cars. You know, is that -- are they employed there? Is that a business? It's hard for us to proof those types of things. So, anyways, we get into -- at 11-4-3-21 talking about the types of home occupation. Again, you're in a single family district, be respectful of them. People are living here and you can run a business, but just -- you know, it shouldn't look like you're running a business is the point. So, the list of allowed accessory uses -- excuse me -- I'm just going to read the -- the brief list to you. Art, dance, and music lessons. Personal training lessons. Personal and professional services. Artesian craft production. Prohibit home occupation accessories, include, but are not limited to, vehicle repair, vehicle rental, equipment repair, equipment rental, pet boarding and other uses prohibited in the UDC. So, we get a lot of people doing industrial type of uses out of their home and get a lot of complaints. So, there is some more changes there, but largely that's -- the second one is to clarify the types of business you can do out of your home, those standards, and, then, a way that we issue permits and we take them away if you don't comply with those conditions of approval. And the third section is 11-5-C3 and that has to do with our -- our surety process. So, you don't see a lot of this, but -- really any of it, but the way most of -- most developers operate is they will post a -- a surety or a guarantee that the work -- the roads, the sewer, the water, the landscaping, the fencing all gets put in up front, so they are supposed to guarantee that this is good and the thought being, then, if they don't make good on it we are holding this -- this check that we can cash and go hire a contractor to finish the work they said they were going to do with that money. That's the basic reason for this. Or let's say if they build a sewer line and it doesn't test right, we can rip it out and replace it. It's a performance surety. Anyways, long story short, 11-5-C3, we were getting some requests recently, people wanting to do things out of order. They wanted the city engineer to allow occupancy of homes that didn't have sewer hookups yet and requesting that they get two or three of those, because they are so close to getting everything else done, just allowing a few people to move in, even though the subdivision had been signed off or the improvements weren't done and completed and so, really, what this does is it really is a -- kind of -- puts that process in chronological order for the most part and this says, okay, if you post a surety we will give you a temporary certificate of occupancy, but this needs to be in place before I will even do that. You got to have -- you got to have the roads paved. That has to be in place, because of there is a 911 call, the ambulance needs to be able to drive to you. So, just some basic -- you know, fire hydrants Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission May 4, 2017 Page 38 of 43 need to be activated. The basic stuff that needs to be in place. And, again, we are getting -- we are getting developers that are asking for that out of order and so a lot of it is the same information, it's just put in an order that doesn't confuse when you ask for signature on a final plat, when your ask for occupancy of a building and -- and again -- so, that's really what it it -- if it's not life safety we can typically sign off and allow you to potentially have early occupancy , but without getting into too much of -- more details about it, that's kind of the third -- the third category here. There is a lot of new definitions that we are proposing -- and, again, I'm not going to read them all to you and some tweaks and changes to -- to some existing definitions. I do want to point out, just working with Legal -- and as it's on this sheet. So, 11-1-11D and 11-1-11E, which are in the same section, just different subsections, that is new and was not transmitted to you all initially. Bill did not propose that, but during Legal's review they wanted to add some additional meat that, again, talks about revocation, modifications and denials of those accessory permits that I just mentioned. So, if you want to take a minute and look at that if you haven't had a chance. Yearsley: Caleb, what sections were those again? Hood: 11-1-11D and E. 11-1-11D and E. Yearsley: Okay. Hood: Which is really, really early on in the Unified Development Code. It's -- it's in -- you know, it's Title 11, Chapter 1, Subsection 11. It's right there after, you know, it talks about establishment of -- Fitzgerald: Caleb, can I ask you a question? So, 11-4 -- or 11-4-3-44, it talks about retail store or wine and beer sales as serving. So, the -- on D, use shall not include any indoor-outdoor live entertainment. So, if I am New Vintage Wine Shop and I have sale -- I sell wine at the bar and in a retail setting and I have a guy playing a guitar, is that not allowed? Or if I'm a place that sells beer and wine and I have Mix 106 come out with their DJ and have an outdoor -- like blow up huge frog guy and -- I mean I'm just wondering if we are going a little bit stringent in certain areas. I'm just asking. Hood: No. It's a good question and it's exactly what we struggled with in putting this code together. What we struggled with is if you are either one of those examples, are you not a drinking establishment or a restaurant -- I mean you may -- I don't know your -- the food makeup there or how much of your sales are actually food, but the intent here -- I mean I will just read that again. Retail store, wine and beer sales and serving. Really it's ancillary. You should be -- your main -- and -- and I think Divine Wine is a good example, because I think he does mostly cases or -- you know, I don't think most -- a lot of people -- at least clientele is my understanding is they buy it and they take it home. Yes, you have Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission May 4, 2017 Page 39 of 43 the bar and you can have a glass, but -- and I will have a case to go type of a clientele. Fitzgerald: Yes. Hood: It's a retail store. It doesn't mean you can't taste it and I might take a bottle of that, but was that -- you know, so -- but it shouldn't -- and that doesn't mean that you can't maybe have somebody come in seasonally for, you know, something and -- but regularly -- shouldn't be advertising that on Wednesday nights karaoke night and, you know, that type of thing, because that is a drinking establishment. Fitzgerald: Okay. Hood: So, as long -- you know, it is what it is. Not include any outdoor live -- indoor/outdoor live entertainment. But, again, that was to kind of differentiate -- Fitzgerald: Crosses over to a bar. Hood: -- because we do get some bars saying, well, this allows me to -- I have got Growlers, I'm a retail store. Well, is that really your main purpose is Growlers or -- or, you know, are five percent of your clients getting a Growler to go after they have been here and they have had three pints. So, it's -- Fitzgerald: Okay. That -- Hood: Again, that line was getting blurred and abused in some situations, so this is to kind of to clarify. If that's what you're doing and you want like music, you need to apply to be a drinking establishment. Fitzgerald: Okay. Hood: Kind of where we landed. But we are open to -- that's why you're here, to critique and if you -- you don't like that standard, we -- we could remove it, modify it. It is proposed as new, so -- Cassanelli: Mr. Chairman? Fitzgerald: Commissioner -- Cassanelli: I have got a couple questions that I want -- I have got one that's come here on this. Is there a way for what is primarily a retail -- will -- can there be an outlet for them to apply for a one off live entertainment and not have to risk getting it shutdown kind of a thing? Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission May 4, 2017 Page 40 of 43 Hood: Mr. Chairman. That's a good question and I believe so. I believe our city clerk's office has at least one, you know, promotional sales type of an event for, again, a one off or maybe even every quarter or something. A temporary use to do something like that. You know, I would say we could even add something into the code to that effect, you know. It becomes a little bit more -- again, I'm going to put my code enforcement hat on and think -- I have a tough job, but I'm glad I don't have their job. Enforcement of that is going to be real difficult. You know, if we allow that in our code and say, hey, you can have one per quarter or one a year. Did you already use that one up or -- or is this your second or third? I can't remember now and how many of them there are. But, aga in, back to your original question. I believe through the clerk's office you could apply to have -- particularly outdoor live entertainment could apply for something like that on a -- on a limited duration type of event. Fitzgerald: Commissioner Cassanelli, did you have additional questions? Cassanelli: I did. I noticed that up on 11-1 there was -- there was definition for a brewery and distillery. You talk about wine, but there is no definition of a winery right up there with the 11-1A and 1-A-1 or -- is it down -- oh, it is down below. Hood: Lower. Yeah. Cassanelli: Okay. And, then, another question I had was this is, obviously, citywide. Has there ever been a thought to a zone that, you know, it -- Old Town, downtown, that -- maybe it's a little different. Perreault: Not as strict, maybe? Cassanelli: Yes. Hood: Mr. Chair. I'm not -- I'm not aware of there being a thought that way. Our Old Town zone -- it's already pretty inclusive of allowing most of those -- those uses and we have specific use standards. We could -- and I guess a good example would be if you look at some of the new -- if you look at some of the new text that's proposed for food and beverage products processing minor . Where is that at? There we go. If you look in here, we actually have -- in the industrial district, the dining area. So, we -- we do have some standards sometimes. There will be more specific -- either with -- allow more or less in certain districts. In the commercial and traditional neighborhood districts you do this. In all other districts you do that. So, I don't know if you're still thinking about for the retail wine and beer or having something in there. This standard shall not apply in Old Town or something like that. You could do something like that, because, again, that's fairly common in our code to say this standard applies in this zone and this zone or only in that zone or whatever, so -- so, yeah, we do do that occasionally and say -- but typically it's -- it's more inherent to the actual use itself than the underlying zoning district. I mean a bar is a bar is a bar and these Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission May 4, 2017 Page 41 of 43 things generally are the nuisance types or life safety type of things regardless -- irregardless of where that bar is located. But Old Town is maybe -- you know, it's an eclectic setting and so -- and, again, we do, I think, through our zoning codes, already allow quite a bit in Old Town. But there is options that way. Fitzgerald: Mr. Cassanelli, did you have another follow-up or, Commissioner Perreault, do you have a question? Okay. Commissioner Yearsley? Yearsley: I'm good. I am good. Fitzgerald: Commissioner Bernt? Bernt: I'm good. Fitzgerald: Did you have any additional language you wanted to see or -- Bernt: No, not at all. Fitzgerald: Okay. Bernt: I'm good. Fitzgerald: So, no additional questions or comments for the good Mr. Hood? Okay. Commissioner Cassanelli. Cassanelli: Mr. Chairman, I move that we approve the 2017 UDC Text Amendment, H-2017-0044. Hood: Mr. Chair -- interrupt in the middle of a motion. Fitzgerald: Yes, sir. Hood: This is a public hearing and there is someone in the audience, so I don't know -- Fitzgerald: Is there -- is there -- ma'am, did you want to speak or have any comments? Thank you for being here. Could we get a motion to close the public hearing? Yearsley: Mr. Chairman, I move that we closed the public hearing on file number Hi-2017-0044. Bernt; Second. Fitzgerald: I have a motion and a second. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion passes.