Loading...
2017 06-01 Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Agenda – Thursday June 1,2017 Page 1 of 3 All materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. Anyone desiring accommodation for disabilities related to documents and/or hearing, please contact the City Clerk’s Office at 888-4433 at least 48 hours prior to the public meeting. City Council Chambers 33 E. Broadway Avenue, Meridian, Idaho Thursday June 1, 2017 at 6:00 p.m. 1. Roll-call Attendance _X___ Treg Bernt __X___Steven Yearsley _X___ Gregory Wilson ___X__ Ryan Fitzgerald _X___ Jessica Perreault ___X___ Bill Cassanelli ___X___ Rhonda McCarvel – Chairperson 2. Adoption of the Agenda Approved as Amended 3. Consent Agenda Approved A. Approve Minutes of May 18, 2017 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting B. Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law for Approval: Urban Air (H-2017-0046) by LimitLess Entertainment Boise, LLC Located 3820 & 3876 E. Lanark Street C. Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law for Approval: Franklin Daycare (H-2017-0047) by Dionna Franklin Located 4657 N. Price Avenue D. Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law for Approval: My First Steps Daycare (H-2017-0054) by Darya Krautsova Located 3545 S. Pompei Avenue 4. Action Items A. Continued Public Hearing from May 18, 2017 for Meridian Meats (H-2017-0052) by Meridian Meat and Sausage, Inc. Located 119 E. Bower Street Approved – Prepare Findings of Fact for June 22, 2017 1. Request: Conditional Use Permit Approval to Expand an Existing Nonconforming Use (Food Products MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING AGENDA Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Agenda – Thursday June 1,2017 Page 2 of 3 All materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. Anyone desiring accommodation for disabilities related to documents and/or hearing, please contact the City Clerk’s Office at 888-4433 at least 48 hours prior to the public meeting. Processing) for the Purpose of Constructing a 673 Square Foot Addition in the O-T Zoning District B. Continued Public Hearing from May 4, 2017 for Speedy Quick (H-2017-0031) by Blood, LLC Located 2560 S. Meridian Road Continue Public Hearing to June 22, 2017 Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting 1. Request: Conditional Use Permit Approval of a Dispatch Center for Mobile Services in an L-O Zoning District C. Public Hearing for Nursery Subdivision (H-2017-0048) by JLJ, Inc., Located 570 S. Linder Road Recommend Approval to City Council with Modifications – Schedule for City Council for June 27, 2017 1. Request: Preliminary Plat Approval Consisting of Twenty-Nine (29) Building Lots and Five (5) Common Lots on 5.49 Acres of Land in an R-8 Zoning District D. Public Hearing for Burlingame Subdivision (H-2017-0055) by Mason & Stanfield, Inc. Located Near Northeast Corner of W. Cherry Lane and N. Black Cat Road Recommend Approval to City Council with Modifications – Schedule for City Council for June 27, 2017 1. Request: Preliminary Plat Approval Consisting of Sixty (60) Single Family Residential Lots and Seven (7) Common Lots on Approximately 18.99 Acres in the R-4 Zoning District E. Continued Public Hearing from May 18, 2017 for Bannock Ridge (H-2017-0050) by Two C Development, LLC Located 2940, 3101 & 3155 S. Mesa Way Recommend Approval to City Council with Modifications – Schedule for City Council for July 5, 2017 Special Meeting June 27, 2017 1. Request: Annexation and Zoning of 9.42 Acres of Land with an R-4 Zoning District 2. Request: Preliminary Plat Approval Consisting of Thirty- One (31) Building Lots and Six (6) Common Lots on 13.57 Acres of Land in the R-4 Zoning District F. Public Hearing for Preakness Subdivision (H-2017-0057) by Schultz Development Located 1155 W. Victory Road Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Agenda – Thursday June 1,2017 Page 3 of 3 All materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. Anyone desiring accommodation for disabilities related to documents and/or hearing, please contact the City Clerk’s Office at 888-4433 at least 48 hours prior to the public meeting. Recommend Approval to City Council with Modifications – Schedule for City Council for July 5, 2017 Special Meeting June 27, 2017 1. Request: Annexation and Zoning of 5.00 Acres of Land with an R-4 Zoning District 2. Request: Preliminary Plat Approval Consisting of Sixteen (16) Building Lots and Two (2) Common Lots on 4.75 Acres of Land in a Proposed R-4 Zoning District G. Public Hearing for Paramount Director (H-2017-0064) by Brighton Investments, LLC Located Southwest Corner of N. Meridian Road and W. Chinden Boulevard Recommend Approval to City Council with Modifications – Schedule for City Council for July 5, 2017 Special Meeting June 27, 2017 1. Request: Preliminary Plat Approval Consisting of 196 Building Lots and 24 Common Lots on 35.64 Acres of Land 2. Request: Planned Unit Development Meeting Adjourned at 9:49 p.m. Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting June 1, 2017 Meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission of June 1, 2017, was called to order at 6:00 p.m. by Chairman Rhonda McCarvel. Present: Chairman Rhonda McCarvel, Commissioner Steven Yearsley, Commissioner Gregory Wilson, Commissioner Ryan Fitzgerald, Commissioner Jessica Perreault, Commissioner Treg Bert and Commissioner Bill Cassanelli. Others Present: Machelle Hill, Andrea Pogue, Bill Parsons, Sonya Allen, Josh Beach and Dean Willis. Item 1: Roll-Call Attendance: Roll-call __X___ Gregory Wilson __X__ Bill Cassanelli __X__ Steven Yearsley __X__ Ryan Fitzgerald __X____ Treg Bernt __X__ Jessica Perreault __X__ Rhonda McCarvel - Chairman McCarvel: 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 on June 1st, 2017. Let's begin with roll call. Item 2: Adoption of the Agenda McCarvel: Okay. The first item on the agenda is the adoption of the agenda. We have one change. Will be continuing Item No. H-2017-0031, Speedy Quick. I will open this only to be continued to June 22nd. So, if there is anybody here tonight to testify on that issue, we will not be taking testimony today. Can I get a motion to adopt the agenda? Fitzgerald: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Fitzgerald. Fitzgerald: I move we adopt the agenda as amended. Bernt: Second. Yearsley: Second. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission June 1, 2017 Page 2 of 88 McCarvel: It has been moved and seconded to adopt the agenda. All in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. ONE ABSENT. Item 3: Consent Agenda A. Approve Minutes of May 18, 2017 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting B. Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law for Approval: Urban Air (H-2017-0046) by LimitLess Entertainment Boise, LLC Located 3820 & 3876 E. Lanark Street C. Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law for Approval: Franklin Daycare (H-2017-0047) by Dionna Franklin Located 4657 N. Price Avenue D. Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law for Approval: My First Steps Daycare (H-2017-0054) by Darya Krautsova Located 3545 S. Pompei Avenue McCarvel: Next item on the agenda is a Consent Agenda and we have several items on the Consent Agenda. We have minutes from May 18th and the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for 2017-0046, 0047, and 0054. Could I get a motion to the adopt the Consent Agenda? Yearsley: Madam Chair, I approve that approve the -- or I move that we approve the Consent Agenda. Bernt: Second. Fitzgerald: Second. McCarvel: It has been moved and seconded to approve the Consent Agenda. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Hill: Excuse me, Madam Chair. Just for the record, Commissioner Wilson is here. McCarvel: Thank you. 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 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission June 1, 2017 Page 3 of 88 staff report. The staff will report their findings regarding how the item adheres to our Comprehensive Plan and Uniform Development Code with the staff's recommendations. After the staff has made their presentation, the applicant will come forward to present their case for the approval of their application and respond to any staff comments. The applicant will have 15 minutes to do so. After the applicant has finished we will open to public testimony. 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. If they are speaking for a larger group, like an HOA, and there is a show of hands to represent the group, they will be given up to ten minutes. After all testimony has been heard, the applicant will be given another ten minutes to have the opportunity to come back and responded if they desire. After that we will close the public hearing and the Commissioners will have the opportunity to discuss and, hopefully, be able to make a recommendation to City Council. Item 4: Action Items B. Continued Public Hearing from May 4, 2017 for Speedy Quick (H-2017-0031) by Blood, LLC Located 2560 S. Meridian Road 1. Request: Conditional Use Permit Approval of a Dispatch Center for Mobile Services in an L-O Zoning District McCarvel: So, at this time I would like to open the public hearing for H-2017-0052, Meridian Meats. Fitzgerald: Madam Chair, do you want to do Speedy Quick? McCarvel: We want to do Speedy Quick first? Okay. Fitzgerald: Yeah. In case somebody wants to be -- McCarvel: Okay. Go ahead. Let's open H-2017-0031, Speedy Quick, in order to continue it to June 22nd. Fitzgerald: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Fitzgerald. Fitzgerald: I move we continue file number H-2017-0031 to the date of June 22nd. Wilson: Second. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission June 1, 2017 Page 4 of 88 McCarvel: It has been moved and seconded to continue H-2017-0031 to June 2nd. All those in favor? Opposed? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. A. Continued Public Hearing from May 18, 2017 for Meridian Meats (H-2017-0052) by Meridian Meat and Sausage, Inc. Located 119 E. Bower Street 1. Request: Conditional Use Permit Approval to Expand an Existing Nonconforming Use (Food Products Processing) for the Purpose of Constructing a 673 Square Foot Addition in the O-T Zoning District McCarvel: Okay. At this time we will continue -- or open the public hearing -- actually, we will continue the public hearing for H-2017-0052, Meridian Meats and Sausage. We will begin with the staff report. Parsons: Good evening, Madam Chair, Members of the Commission. This item was continued from the previous hearing, due to the fact that it was posted incorrectly. So, tonight I am here to discuss with you the Meridian Meats conditional use permit application. The property consists of .58 acres of land, zoned Old Town, and is located at 119 East Bower Street. Surrounding the property is primarily residential homes, which are also zoned OT and to the north of the site we have vacant Old Town property and, then, industrial property that's also under developed. A little history on the site. The property does consist of two parcels, but the original plat consisted of a total of six properties, so it's Lot 3 -- Lots 3 through 8, Block 5, of Bower Addition to Meridian. Through the years it looks like the applicant has consolidated those lots and created two parcels. And so the applicant is here tonight to discuss the expansion of their existing nonconforming use. Currently the way it's operating we define that as a food processing -- food products processing use. That use is also no longer allowed in the Old Town district. Because its use did exist prior to the adoption -- lawfully exist prior to the adoption of the UDC, the applicant is allowed to expand this nonconforming use through the conditional use process and that is what he is doing this evening. You can see here from the aerial view of this property on the right that a portion of the site is developed with paving and a portion on the east side is -- still remains a gravel lot. So, even -- because there is no landscaping on the site and there is no required p arking on the site, that is also deemed nonconforming in the UDC. Here is a site plan that I received from the applicant. Here I have depicted where they are proposing to do their 673 square foot addition. It's located at the northwest corner of the site, which you can see here. I will highlight it for you. The main reason for the addition is so that the -- the Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission June 1, 2017 Page 5 of 88 applicant's refrigeration units are failing within the building and so he has purchased a new refrigeration unit and he's located this particul ar site here -- one, to locate it there, it's easier for loading meats into the facility, but it also gets rid of his existing refrigeration truck that's currently parked out there at all times plugged in storing meats outside as well. So, it kind of gets rid of one issue and cleans up the other. If you looked aerial photos of the site or been to the property recently, you will also notice that there is a trash enclosure that's located in the front of that building and one of our conditions this evening is that that be relocated to the rear of the building and a trash enclosure built around that dumpster. So, going into what we are recommending, because of the UDC and specific findings that we have to make , typically some of the things that I'm requiring aren't required by the UDC, but because of the findings with a nonconforming use, we try to achieve conformance where we can and that's where a lot of these site conditions are coming into play. So, for example, one thing that staff is recommending as part of your preview or condition this evening -- as you're aware, we have a design standards manual, so any addition commercial or industrial building would have to comply with those standards. Staff is recommending that the eastern parking lot -- or the east side of the property be paved and that the applicant stripe a minimum of ten parking stalls on the site. Because the applicant is adjacent to residential on the west and east, we are also recommending that he provide fencing along those boundaries -- solid fence -- six foot tall solid fencing to screen the residential uses from this existing business. Keep in mind that the surrounding properties, as I mentioned to you earlier in my presentation, are zoned Old Town and we do envision those redeveloping at some point, either going commercial or having more intense residential uses in the future. That's what the vision of Old Town zoning and the land use designation for this property envisions , intensification of the site. Staff is also recommending that they provide a five foot landscape strip along that east boundary in addition to that fencing, as I mentioned. Staff at this time is not requiring that the applicant construct a sidewalk along East Bower Street and the main reason for that is in order to address the drainage for that road and put that improvement in, it would be pretty -- a financial hardship on the applicant to put in a sidewalk and address drainage of that street. When the city put together their down -- downtown streetscape manual, we envisioned complete streets being rebuilt, a piecemeal approach to this. Because of this it's pretty under -- underdeveloped in this entire street segment. More than likely it would be a public-private partnership at some future date to where we get sidewalks on both street -- the parkways and everything that we need -- that we envision with the redevelopment of properties. We also -- again, as I mentioned to you, we are asking that he relocate the existing dumpster along Bower to the rear of the property and screen it with a trash enclosure in accordance with Republic -- Republic Services' standards. That's typically a ten by 12 enclosure. Can either be made out of wood, vinyl fencing, or it can be built as -- the same materials as the building to Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission June 1, 2017 Page 6 of 88 complement the design of the building. But having it in the rear will definitely get it out of view from the street. Staff is also recommending that they provide a bike rack near the entrance of the structure. The primary entrance. That's pretty consistent with what we require for commercial developments and, lastly, we are recommending that -- typically with our design standards we require that the applicant provide a sidewalk to the front entrance of the building. In lieu of that sidewalk we are just recommending that the applicant stripe a five foot wide pedestrian hatch along that in order to direct people from the newly -- the proposed parking lot to the front entrance of his building, because he does have retail out of that store as well. It's not necessarily just wholesale, but people -- the public can go in there and purchase goods as well . Staff did not receive any written testimony on this application . Again, we are recommending approval and I will stand for any questions you may have. McCarvel: Okay. Are there any questions of staff? Okay. Would the applicant like to come forward? And as you approach the mic, please, state your name and address for the record. Brown: For the record Kent Brown. 3161 East Springwood, Meridian, Idaho. And I gave you some slides -- my clients have been in this facility since -- for the last 58 years. The neighbors to the east, they have been in those two buildings -- those two residence have also been there the 58 years. When you look at the site there is -- there is one residential house on the property to the west of us, but the other two have been commercial uses for some period of time. There is the two residence over here on the -- on the east side. The one in our southeast corner is already fenced. Where we aren't fenced is adjacent to their garage and their driveway to -- to their house. The main entrance is in -- off of Northeast 2nd on both homes and the driveway for the -- this one in the southeast corner is in that location . Josh? This is looking at the south side of the building. The USDA does not allow any landscaping on the property and you can see that my client is pretty fastidious about making sure that there is no weeds or anything that are there. The requirement from staff to put landscaping along the easterly boundary will be in violation of the USDA requirements. I have talked to Bill about that and would recommend that they modify that condition to allow us to provide a letter from the USDA stating that we can't have any landscaping. It has to do with rodents being next to this meat processing facility, as I understand. We don't see any issue with moving the trash enclosure to the rear. My clients were asked to move -- Perreault: Mr. Brown, if you could speak into th e microphone, please. Brown: Yes. We were asked to move it to the -- to the front by the -- Republic previously. The freezer will square off the front of the building here. There is a little Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission June 1, 2017 Page 7 of 88 yellow sign -- old sign that will come down and the exterior of the building will be the white cinder block with the -- the red apron, if you will, around the top and square that off. When the city put in a water line in front of the building their trench sunk in the area here the staff is asking us to paint that line and we would like the city to come back and put the asphalt in there, so that it would allow the water to go away. We are were not opposed to painting the line, but what it does right now is there is a number of bird baths that are in there that make it kind of icy and difficult on that north side of that building. The trash enclosure most likely will go over here in this southwest corner, just so that the trash truck can come down the alley. It's a one-way alley to feed that. We are okay with putting a fence along the west side. I kind of question this fence here that -- it's not like it's an impact. These neighbors have been -- been together for some period of time. When I had my neighborhood meeting those people from those two homes showed up and asked if signing into the neighborhood meeting thing was requesting their approval that they were okay with what we were doing. They are very supportive. They like the Schoops that -- that have run this facility for the last 58 years and so they are not opposed to what we are trying to do here. My client over the next period of time will pave this easterly side and he's not opposed to doing that . I think that -- other than that that's kind of where we are at. I would stand for questions, but the -- the real difficult one, the one that makes it impossible, is requiring us to put landscaping. After he made that comment I thought of -- when I go down and visit my mother-in-law down in the Cache Valley, there is a number of cheese factories that are th ere and I always thought it was kind of funny that they had fake flowers in the pots that are in front . They have got this kind of a Swiss look to the front of the building and the architecture , but they got fake flowers. Now it makes sense, because it's a USDA requirement that they can't have that. I will stand for any questions you might have. McCarvel: Mr. Brown, I do have one question. On the distance for the landscape, is there a distance away from the building or is it just no on the property? Because, obviously, there is trees and everything else right on the other side of that fence , so -- Brown: That's correct. McCarvel: -- where is the -- is there -- Brown: As I understand from him it's on their property, so -- the distance that he is from the easterly edge of his property is 53 feet from the edge of his building to the -- McCarvel: Right. And, obviously, there will be asphalt separating -- Brown: Yes. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission June 1, 2017 Page 8 of 88 McCarvel: -- that vegetation from the building, so I was wondering if there was a distance that the USDA requires. Oh. And I had -- I had one more question. You said over the next period of time they would be putting in that asphalt. Is that immediately or -- Brown: He wants to get the construction of the front all wrapped up and, then, it would be either later this year -- the way that I understand the condition from staff , it could be the last thing that we end up doing. I think we have one -- one year or two years to do -- McCarvel: Within -- within a reasonable time frame. Brown: Yeah. McCarvel: Okay. Any other questions? Yearsley: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Yearsley. Yearsley: Is -- do you access this building from the -- the north side or from the south side? Or for people to come in and out of the building? Brown: For the people that are coming -- Yearsley: Yes. Brown: -- there is the door right here where the red next to the window is. There is -- there is a door there. For the most part 76 percent of his business is wholesale. Albertsons. Winco. Sysco Foods. And they are coming with semi trucks and loading in the rear. There are people like me that how knows me, other than we went to high school together here at Meridian. But he has a few customers on holidays and stuff that come and get meat gift baskets to send out. That's a busy time for him. But for the most part his customers are wholesale. Yearsley: So, with that question -- so, the parking that they are talking about would be actually on the west side of the building and, then, it has -- Brown: East side of the building. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission June 1, 2017 Page 9 of 88 Yearsley: East side -- yes. You're right. East side. And, then, walk around the front. Brown: So, currently, just like the rest of the street -- Josh. The west side of Main Street that is at the -- that one is more improved over there. You can see that they have got curb, gutter and sidewalk, but they still have a lot of people that park along the street. Currently, if you're a customer you come and park right in front of the building. There is -- especially if you put a sidewalk and paint a line there that will make it a lot easier for people to see, but you could have three parking stalls south -- or west of the entrance to the building and one to the north and, then, you have the employees -- are generally the ones that go park over on the gravel. He has three employees. Yearsley: Okay. Okay. So, you're looking more like parallel parking on that side then? Brown: That's correct. And if you look up the street -- how do I get to -- Bernt: Just say Josh and he will do it. Brown: It's interesting. The building across the street from us has a pawn shop and everything and they have got four perpendicular parking stalls there on Bower and, then, they have their customer parking is all in the front and, then, the other buildings are about the same size. Yearsley: Okay. Brown: Can you help me get to that one last picture, Josh? People on the east side of Main Street for the most part do the same thing, they parallel park. Yearsley: Okay. Brown: It looks like I didn't put that picture in there. Yearsley: No. That works. I was just kind of curious how that would lay out. Thank you. McCarvel: Okay. Fitzgerald: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Mr. Fitzgerald. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission June 1, 2017 Page 10 of 88 Fitzgerald: Question for staff. Bill, in regards to his comment -- or Josh. In regards to that filling in of asphalt that's sunken in from a pipe that was installed. How does Public Works want to handle that? Parsons: Yeah. Mr. Brown filled me about that issue this morning and I told him to see what ACHD -- it's really ACHD, it's their right of way. That building is right up in the right of way. Brown: But It would be a city project that put the improvement in and it's their tr ench that sunk. Parsons: Yeah. What we can do is certainly follow up with the project manager on that particular project and Public Works and see what they can do to mediate that or if there is anything we can do. Don't know at this point, but we cer tainly don't want tripping hazards and slipping hazards for the business owner if we don't get that issue remediated. But we can certainly bring it up with them and see what -- what they are wiling to do. I don't know when that project was completed. Wa s that last year, Kent, or -- Brown: I don't know. Parson: Maybe passed that period. Brown: Thank you. McCarvel: Okay. Any other questions? Brown: Thank you. McCarvel: I have no one else -- at this time we will take public testimony. I have no one signed up who says that they wish to testify, but is there anyone in the room who intended to testify here tonight on this issue? Okay. So, I don't think we need Kent back up here. Fitzgerald: Madam Chair, I move we close the public hearing. Bernt: Second. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission June 1, 2017 Page 11 of 88 McCarvel: It has been moved and seconded to close the public hearing for item number H-2017-0052, Meridian Meats. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Yearsley: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Comments. Yes, Commissioner Yearsley. Yearsley: You know, it's -- it's kind of unfortunate that we are -- we are requiring a lot of site improvements just for a small little expansion. So, you know -- and if they are willing to do those -- those improvements, my personal opinion is I think we can go -- forego the five foot landscaping buffer and -- and, you know, if he's willing to pave and at least make it look nice -- you know, I drive by there pretty much every time I leave this meeting and it always looks, you know, pretty nice and stuff, so I think what those -- those items -- and, then, the other item on the fence issue, if the adjacent homeowner does -- doesn't wish not to have that fence installed, I don't know if -- I would be okay not having that installed at this point in time as well, because it would impact his driveway getting in and out a little bit, would be my concern on the -- on the east side of the property. So -- so, those are my two thoughts. Bernt: I would agree. McCarvel: Okay. Without having a number, you know, and what that -- how far away that issue is about having any vegetation for rodents around there , yeah, it's hard to say that, but you can tell it's -- it's pretty clean around there and I think it -- I appreciate their willingness to move forward with all the improvements. I mean it -- you hate to have to put it all on them at once, but I think, you know, over the course of the year that, yeah, it would be a good thing for everything. It would probably keep the dust around -- yeah, up there and stuff, too. Fitzgerald: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Fitzgerald. Fitzgerald: And, Mr. Brown, I -- if you could -- before Council, bring them a copy of that letter. I think it would be helpful for them, just to have the letter from -- from the USDA. I think it's -- Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission June 1, 2017 Page 12 of 88 Yearsley: No. With this -- it's a conditional use permit. We -- Fitzgerald: Oh, it's us. Yearsley: It does not go before Council. McCarvel: Yeah. Wilson: Would Council like to see that letter? Fitzgerald: I don't think I need to see it, but I think it would -- I think it would be nice to have it on file, so that if this comes up again I think it's nice to have it, because -- I think he's been a good neighbor for -- downtown for a long time and I think it's great that the applicant wants to do the improvements. I don't see putting additional government burden on them if they already have USDA requirements that are -- that puts them out of business if we did something to them. So, I think if we can work with Public Works to get the -- the swale on the front fixed and, then, we could paint it afterwards, I think that would be appropriate. But I think what Commissioner Yearsley said is -- I'm in agreement with that. McCarvel: All right. Yearsley: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Yearsley. Yearsley: After considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move to approve file number H-2017-0052 as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of June 1st, 2017, with the following modifications: That the five foot landscape buffer on the east side of the building -- or property be removed and that if the adjacent property owner on the northeast corner does not wish to have a fence that he not be required to put that fence up. Wilson: Second. McCarvel: It has been moved and seconded to approve Item No. H-2017-0052 with modifications. All those in favor say. Opposed? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission June 1, 2017 Page 13 of 88 C. Public Hearing for Nursery Subdivision (H-2017-0048) by JLJ, Inc., Located 570 S. Linder Road 1. Request: Preliminary Plat Approval Consisting of Twenty-Nine (29) Building Lots and Five (5) Common Lots on 5.49 Acres of Land in an R-8 Zoning District McCarvel: Okay. At this time I would like to open the public hearing for Item H-2017- 0045, Nursery Subdivision, and we will begin with staff report. Beach: Good evening, Madam Chair, Members of the Commission. As you said, this is an application for what is being called the Nursery Subdivision. It is an application for a preliminary plat. The site consists of approximately 5.45 acres of land . Is currently zoned R-8 and is located at 570 South Linder Road. Adjacent to the property -- to the north is single family residential property in Mallard Landing. To the east, again, single family homes in Mallard Landing. To the south, again, part of Mallard Landing. And to the west is, again, single homes in the Van Hees Subdivision. In 2006 this property was annexed and zoned as the Nursery Subdivision and granted preliminary plat approval for 25 residential lots and four common lots. That plat did subsequently die, they did not move forward. The preliminary plat, as I said, currently consists of 29 building lots, five common lots. The plat is proposed to develop in one phase. The gross density for the subdivision is 5.28 dwelling units per acre. The net density of 7.65. The minimum lot size of 5,005 square feet and an average lot size of 5,935 square feet. The plat is required to comply with the block length standards in the UDC. Staff has reviewed those and found that they -- they do comply. A traffic study was not required for this specific project. Some -- some discussion on landscaping. The pedestrian pathway along the east side of Linder Road, measures five feet in width for the entire section of Linder Road. So, the Parks Department has agreed that a five foot wide section would be appropriate. And just to clarify, our pathways master plan for multi-use pathways typically require a ten foot multi-use pathway. Nowhere else on Linder Road is there a ten foot pathway section. Doesn't make a whole lot of sense to have them build a ten foot pathway along a relatively narrow section . So, parks has agreed to allow a five foot section. The applicant will need to provide an additional open space in order to meet the ten percent requirement. Staff's suggestion is that Lot 23 of Block 1 be converted to a common lot. Though the pathway cannot be used as open space -- so, just to show you where the pathway is. Lot 23, Block 1, would be this lot here. That's staff's suggestion. The applicant has proposed a ten foot multi-use pathway across the southern portion of the property. Staff's conditioned the applicant to do several things. One would be to remove this section here. As you can see in adjacent lots that pathway would, essentially, dead end and goes nowhere. It doesn't make a whole lot of sense to have a pathway there, so we have asked that he remove that. UDC also Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission June 1, 2017 Page 14 of 88 requires a five foot landscape buffer on both sides, proposed -- of a proposed micro pathway. So, this would, then, be I guess, a couple of things here. To meet the ten percent open space, the applicant had proposed that this be included as a pathway and also included as open space for the project. Our code does not allow that to be called open space, because we don't want a ten foot multi-use pathway there. The other way for him to call it -- without getting into the details, a 50 by 100 space is what's required to be used as qualified open space, unless it is a landscaped pathway and there is issues with landscaping this pathway. So, we can -- we can get there with the conditions we have placed on them, but there was a number of issues with their proposed landscaping. An existing 20 foot wide easement in favor of the Nampa-Meridian Irrigation District runs along the southern boundary of the project, as I mentioned. The applicant is required to provide a public street stub to this parcel here as indicated by my mouse, which is the Calhoun property. The site currently contains multiple buildings. The existing buildings span across proposed lot lines. The applicant has indicated that those will be removed in the very near term. Staff did not receive any written testimony on this and we are recommending approval with the conditions in the staff report. Stand for any questions you have. McCarvel: Okay. Any questions for staff? Okay. Yearsley: I'm sorry. Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Yearsley. Yearsley: So, in your conditions you're talking about it must comply with the block length. Is this roadway too long per our requirements? Is that correct? Beach: It's not. Yearsley: Okay. Beach: There is not an opportunity to -- to do anything different on that north side, even if -- even if we wanted to we are kind of -- but it meets the standards, so there is not an issue. Yearsley: Okay. I just wanted to make sure I understood that. Beach: So, with the stub to the south, the fire department doesn't have an issue, because that will be continued in the future and the inability to turn around if they need to. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission June 1, 2017 Page 15 of 88 Fitzgerald: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Fitzgerald. Fitzgerald: Josh, in regards to the 20 foot wide easement that's there, is there a utility pathway that's used by Nampa-Meridian now or is it just an easement? Beach: The easement -- it's -- it's partially covered and partially open. Fitzgerald: Okay. Beach: I don't think it would access much, obviously. I understand what the applicant's trying to do and use this as a nice amenity and I think they are going to provide a -- a pathway through there, it just doesn't meet the standards to qualify as open space. Fitzgerald: Got it. Thank you. McCarvel: Will the applicant like to come forward. And as you approach the mic, please, state your name and address for the record. Jewett: Yes. Commissioners. My name is James Jewett. My address is 354 Colchester in Eagle, Idaho. I sent a transmittal to staff late today accepting all the terms in the application that they have put forward , except the landscaping. I will comply with providing the required ten percent open space, it's just the method. We just need to work through that. The staff report stated that I shall lose Lot 23 and I just -- I object to that language being shall. We will work through it. We will have to meet the ten percent. So, with that I would stand for any questions. Bernt: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Any questions? Commissioner -- Bernt: So, what would be your plan in regard to open space if you don't like Lot 23? Jewett: The two alternatives are, number one, we have requested from Mallard Landing, which is the subdivision that completely surrounds us, for 429 lots, to current -- to join their association, which would provide us both irrigation water and use of their common space and the city has indicated that we can calculate our open space based on their overall open space. We don't -- Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission June 1, 2017 Page 16 of 88 Bernt: Continue. Jewett: I don't know what that calculation would be yet , but we have to get through the process of -- of working with Mallard Landing first. Bernt: Okay. Jewett: The second alternative that I sent to staff late today was landscaping a five foot strip along our back of our lots against that pathway and, then, that would meet the code and, then, we would have -- our landscape there. Otherwise, we just have to work through it and figure out how we obtain the -- the overall ten percent. It's just a requirement. It's in there. We have to do it. Fitzgerald: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Mr. Fitzgerald. Fitzgerald: Mr. Jewett. So, in regards to the five foot wide -- you're talking about on the north side of those lots along the north? Jewett: Yes. The south side of those -- Fitzgerald: Oh. Okay. So, we are -- we are 5,000 square foot lots, we are taking additional square footage away from that lot? Jewett: No. What we would do is -- the same thing I did -- I did this against Meridian Greens years ago where we just simply landscaped the back of the -- those lots as part of our landscaping in an easement. So, we didn't reduce the lot size, we just maintained that landscaping and that buffer. So, that would be my proposal. If it came to that. Now, that’s just one idea. We will work through with staff to come up with whatever works to meet the code. I went through the code extensively today and it seems that to consider that to be a pathway space it has to have trees and the problem is we can't plant trees within the Nampa-Meridian Irrigation right of way, but we can along our boundary and so we can put those trees in that boundary and, then, we can still utilize that as an active space. McCarvel: Any other questions for the applicant? Cassanelli: Madam Chair? Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission June 1, 2017 Page 17 of 88 McCarvel: Commissioner Cassanelli. Cassanelli: What are the proposed amenities? Jewett: I am not prepared to answer that one. I will have one of my other consultants answer that question. I apologize. Want them to come up now? McCarvel: Sure. Fitzgerald: Madam Chair, while they are coming up -- McCarvel: Uh-huh. Fitzgerald: Hey, Josh, can you answer the question about utilizing someone else's neighborhood's amenities in regards to our opening -- or when open space is being developed now, just for on record? Beach: This is something that we have done in the past . The only -- as I explained to Mr. Jewett when he called me this afternoon is it only works if there is sufficient amenities and sufficient open space in the adjoining subdivision, plus the addition of this to meet what would otherwise be required. He didn't have that information. So, the other application I can think of was just recently -- I'm spacing on the name of it. But they joined the Southern Highlands project and they had something from that HOA saying they were in favor of allowing them to join and that there was sufficient open space and amenities for it. So, we didn't have a problem with that. In this case I don't know. I don't have an answer for you. Parsons: Madam Chair, Members of the Commission, if I could just expand upon that question. McCarvel: Uh-huh. Parsons: Yes, we have done that and we have done that when it made sense that a project connects properly with -- it integrates the right way with that development. This particular case it's -- it's an enclave. It doesn't even have any pedestrian connectivity into the adjacent subdivision. To me I don't see staff supporting that. I don't know how we can. The other items that -- the other reasons why it worked before is that we had a development agreement in place and we were able to make that a commitment of the developer through a development agreement. Here we have a straight subdivision. We Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission June 1, 2017 Page 18 of 88 don't have the ability to do that. This property is already annexed and zoned into the city. Right now tonight all you're acting on is a plat and so our hands are limited on how we can do that. So, my recommendation is that you get ten percent. If you don't feel comfortable with what we have this evening, we can certainly continue this out and come back -- come forward with a plat that shows you ten percent. As Josh mentioned to you, this back -- was approved in 2006. At that time it was required to have five percent open space, if I remember right, and they were -- through a time extension they were required to lose some lots and come up with ten percent and they did that, but they still never executed the recording of the plat and so that's why we are back here tonight. So, I think there is an ability to do that here and get ten percent. Again, what Mr. Jewett proposes -- certainly they don't necessarily have to lose a lot, but what we are concerned with is that easement -- if the irrigation district doesn't allow them to landscape it, we have a pathway stub to someone's backyard and, then, we get a gravel maintenance road, because they need to drive back there and look at their piped facility. So, we are never going to -- it's not going to be improved and used as we think it's going to be used and that's why staff was so hesitant on saying that this is actually usable open space. To me it's really meeting the intent of the code. If you recall a few years ago we came forward to you and we said anything that had a greater easement than ten feet we wanted in a common lot to make sure that it was owned and maintained by the HOAs, because the irrigation district is the bare minimum to maintain their facilities. So, to me having the ten foot multi-use pathway -- I know we are just trying to circumvent code and not really providing a usable amenity to this subdivision and that's why our recommendation -- the only way that we could see this working was the fact that he lose a lot and added -- and increase of his open space to meet the ten percent and that's where our recommendation came from. McCarvel: And, Bill, did I read that right, the previous plat that was approved with the ten percent had 25 lots and this one has 29; right? Parsons: That is correct. Jewett: Commissioners? McCarvel: Yes. Jewett: I don't disagree with Bill. The -- the multi-use -- or the pathway that's going to the east boundary, I agree it needs to be eliminated. The pathway that goes between the two stub streets does have some functionality. It allows not only my residents, but also the residents of Mallard Landing to get out to that pathway and out to Linden Road and to either the commercial uses up on Linder and Franklin or even the elementary Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission June 1, 2017 Page 19 of 88 school across the street, so -- but I do agree the one to the east -- and if the functionality of calculating some other larger subdivision's open space is not functional, it's not functional. We have to comply with the ten percent required usable open space and we are agreeable. I don't have a choice to be agreeable, but we are agreeable to comply with that. McCarvel: Uh-huh. Okay. Kerner: Derritt Kerner. Rock Solid Civil, civil engineer on this project, to speak to the amenities. Yeah, functional pathway children -- you mentioned something about the children would like to use this pathway. They currently walk down on top of the canal as it is now, which is -- it's just weeds. Unmaintained. Doesn't look like the irrigation district accesses it much at all. So, we are envisioning a pathway connecting in between and, then, extending westward all the way out to -- to Linder Road. Nampa- Meridian wouldn't allow trees in there, but they would allow grass -- irrigated grass and some shrubs, but no trees in there. So, I don't know if that would appease anybody to still say it's qualified open space, but it can look nice, they just wouldn't be able to have any trees so close to their -- their pipe. That will be a 60 inch reinforced concrete pipe to finish out the tiling of that Kennedy Lateral. We will be extending the culvert that is on -- on Linder Road, we will be extending that eastward outside the right of way, that we have to dedicate at least 18 feet. We have to dedicate to ACHD. We have been talking with ACHD, so even though we haven't got comments from ACHD on this particular staff report, we -- this plat is so far compliant with what ACHD's wishes were. Other -- other amenities just open space. No clubhouse or anything like that on this single family subdivision. Anymore questions? McCarvel: Did that get your question answered, Commissioner? Cassanelli: Yes. A follow-up question of staff. For this size plat what are the amenity requirements? Beach: It would just be one. One amenity. Cassanelli: Just one. Thank you. McCarvel: Okay. Any other questions? Okay. Thank you. Kerner: Thank you. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission June 1, 2017 Page 20 of 88 McCarvel: Okay. At this time we will take public testimony. The first person I have signed up who wishes to testify is Robert Clamer. Clamer: Hi. My name is Bob Clamer. I live at 1391 West Pintail Drive. We are just -- we adjoin the -- Perreault: Sir, please, speak into the microphone. Clamer: We adjoin the north part of the property. My concern -- I'm neutral on the development of this plat. I don't want it in my backyard, but I believe it's their right to have it. But my concern regards the fact that we have roughly 500 houses in Linder -- off of Linder Road and only one egress point and that is Linder Road to Franklin and now we are adding more houses and we also have a school . I'd like to suggest that we punch through one of the access points, so that there is more than one access into this residential area. That's really my only suggestion at this point. Is that something that Meridian zoning and planning is interested in doing? I understand that it's ACHD, probably, that has to do that, but I think if this Commission got behind that we could influence that. McCarvel: Okay. I don't -- it's not -- Bill, can you help out on that? Beach: We are not in favor of having an access point to Linder Road through the -- McCarvel: Yeah. I mean we are -- I don't think we would -- staff wouldn't be in favor of it, but -- I don't think punching through to another subdivision at this point is something -- Clamer: Because there are stub roads that simply haven't been put in, like over towards Meridian Road and -- McCarvel: Uh-huh. Parsons: I think the gentleman is referring to all those homes existing onto Linder And getting out of that area. It's not having an access for this development out on Linder. McCarvel: Right. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission June 1, 2017 Page 21 of 88 Parsons: I think Waltman Lane does punch through. I think there is a way to get through some of those subdivisions and get out through Waltman Lane, but we will pull up an aerial -- Beach: There is -- there is not. Clamer: And, you know, on Linder Road is a bridge over the -- Parsons: There will be an overpass some day, yes. Clamer: Yeah. Yeah. And so if we ran into a problem with that we have no way to get in and out. McCarvel: Please don't shout out. You can't be heard. Beach: So, if you look at the aerial there is -- this is the subject property right here where the -- the hand is -- McCarvel: Uh-huh. Beach: The only opportunity is up north up Linder Road currently for access. McCarvel: Right. Beach: Eventually there will be an overpass, but as was mentioned here on the -- on the east side, there is -- Waltman doesn't connect all the way through. It doesn't connect. Yearsley: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Yes. Commissioner Yearsley. Yearsley: Madam Chair. Bill, didn't we condition the developments to the west to extend a connector street to Waltman on the west side? Aren't they supposed to have -- Beach: This will -- Yearsley: Yeah. That will eventually be connecting through that way in the future. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission June 1, 2017 Page 22 of 88 Parsons: If I can have Josh zoom in on where Waltman ties into that subdivision. I think there may be an emergency access there that ties through there and I can't -- this photo doesn't -- but doesn't show me for sure. Beach: Sure. But typical vehicles aren't going to be driving through there. Parsons: So, if there was -- so, in your particular case the fire department does require secondary access for something like this, but -- Clamer: Yeah. They have to knock down steel and cement posts. Parsons: Yeah. And they have that planned there. Clamer: Okay. Parsons: But plans are in place for some of those roads to be extended, as you mentioned. Their are stub streets there that typically happen with development. Clamer: And to the west that is getting developed, so -- McCarvel: Okay. Clamer: -- that's probably coming relatively soon then? Okay. Well, thank you. McCarvel: That's a separate issue, so we will move on. Derritt Kerner. Oh. Okay. Never mind. Okay. There is nobody else on here that said that they wished to testify, but is there anybody here that does wish to testify? Sir, do you want to come forward. In the green shirt. Please state your name and address for the record. Carpenter: Bret Carpenter. 635 South Canvasback Way, directly behind the planned development. I also represent the Mallard Landing HOA. I'm a board member. McCarvel: Uh-huh. Carpenter: We have never been contacted with -- by them to have them come into our subdivision or into our HOA. There has been no contact at all in that regard. And one problem I have is if they try to put trees along the side of -- bordering our property, our main irrigation line is there and trees will puncture -- punch through that -- McCarvel: Uh-huh. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission June 1, 2017 Page 23 of 88 Carpenter: -- eventually. So, that would be a major concern that I would have. And also I'm not sure if our -- our high pressure irrigation system can handle the extra load. McCarvel: Right. Carpenter: It would have to be reengineered and stuff like that, which is yet to be even talked about. McCarvel: Right. Carpenter: And also I would like to also echo the fact that we only have one main entrance in and out of that subdivision, which is -- and they are also putting another subdivision across from the school, which is going to have another 30 homes, that's I guess already been approved. They have already started construction. So, with all the extra traffic and there is going to be a major traffic concern. I know that our board was concerned with the fact that the increased traffic flow through our subdivision , which is currently a raceway, we have been complaining about that for years. We are hoping that you guys can, you know, help with ACHD in getting them to put some sort of speed -- speed constraint or speed bumps or something like that in there to help slow down some of the traffic, especially when you start increasing the traffic. McCarvel: Okay. Carpenter: And, like I said, I agree with the egress that they are talking about by Waltman or Muscovy is strictly like a bike path. Cars could not get through there. McCarvel: Okay. I will just take a moment to reassure -- I don't -- you guys can help me out if I'm saying something wrong here, but they can't just assign them into your HOA. That would be something they would have to work with you to accomplish. Carpenter: Right. They made a statement that they have actually contacted us. That has not happened. McCarvel: Yeah. Yeah. Carpenter: There are at least two of the board members here that can testify to that also. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission June 1, 2017 Page 24 of 88 McCarvel: We understand that. It was -- I think it is just a thought for right now, but, yeah, we understand that. Perfect. Carpenter: Thank you. McCarvel: Okay. Anyone else? Yes, ma'am. Jones: Renee Jones. 1493 West Pintail Drive. I live directly to the north of the proposed subdivision. I have many concerns -- a lot of questions, but I will put forth my concerns, because I understand that you can't answer my questions at this time . One of my main concerns is, obviously, the traffic flow. The only ingress and egress to that new subdivision will be right down West Pintail Drive, which, as was stated, is definitely a speed -- it's a racetrack. There is an elementary school there. I am the woman who made sure when Peregrine Elementary School was built that two crosswalks were -- were put in, so that the children had safe passage to Peregrine Elementary School. Now with the additional homes going in right next to Peregrine Elementary, which is in the northwest corner of Waltman and Linder and this subdivision, I'm concerned about the traffic, obviously. Ingress-egress. Now, my main concern is that -- the work that has already been done in that subdivision and vegetation removal , the buildings are going to be removed very shortly I would imagine and there is a massive building over there and I'm concerned about rodent infestation. Once those buildings are brought down, they are going to come right to the houses, right to us. I'm concerned about the size of the houses. The single floor two story houses that's going to be right up against us. The school traffic -- the canal that's there, is it going to be covered? It won't be covered. Nampa Irrigation won't cover the canal. I'm concerned about that issue. Trees on the north side, which is right behind Pintail, what's going to separate that subdivision from ours? There is a concrete culvert that runs right behind Pintail, right on the property line of the nursery. Joining the HOA. I had the same thought. We were never contacted. The concrete culvert I mentioned. Pumps. Our pumps have trouble with our subdivision and supplying water to us . I doubt seriously that they can supply the water to them. McCarvel: Okay. Thank you. Would the applicant like to come forward? Jewett: Yes. Commissioners. Jim Jewett again for the record. Access. I guess there is not much more I can add to the access issues. We are limited to a stub street and -- and the future improvements on Linder Road and connecting streets are going to happen. That's outside of my control. As far as the irrigation system and canals, we are piping the remainder of the Nampa-Meridian Irrigation's canal. So, that's our job, not theirs. As far as -- I think the rest of the testimony had to do with the HOA . We Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission June 1, 2017 Page 25 of 88 made a formal request to the HOA months ago and we actually had a conference call with a board member who said that it already went to the board and got approval and I forwarded that e-mail to staff here just now, so they can certainly pull it up for the record. McCarvel: Okay. Jewett: But I had a conference call yesterday with a management and a board member and I got a confirmation today that they have reviewed the documents and ready to proceed to the next part, which is legal. So, I don't know where the conflict is between that, but certainly we have to get a sign off by that board before we do anything. That's clear. I sent it all to staff, so -- so, if I didn't address some of the questions I certainly can be reminded of such and I will try. Otherwise, I will stand for any additional questions. McCarvel: Additional questions at this time, Commissioners? No? Okay. Jewett: Thank you. McCarvel: So, at this time can I get a motion to close the public hearing for Item H- 2017-0045, Nursery Subdivision? Bernt: So moved. Wilson: Second. McCarvel: It has been moved and seconded to close the public hearing on item H- 2017-0045. All those in favor say aye. Opposed. Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Fitzgerald: Madam Chair, can I ask staff a question real quick? McCarvel: Sure. Fitzgerald: Josh, in regards to the stub street to the south -- or I guess it's to the southeast, the one that would go into the vacant property currently. If they were to have an entrance out onto Linder would they likely go through that if it was redeveloped? I mean it's too close to Pintail to punch it -- and over the canal to punch it through to Linder now -- straight across on Joshua. But if it was going to go down into a vacant Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission June 1, 2017 Page 26 of 88 property currently, could it be punched out to Linder or in the next, excuse me, development? Beach: No. Fitzgerald: Okay. Just wanted to ask the question. Beach: That's the whole point in having the stub street. We -- Linder is classified as an arterial roadway. Fitzgerald: Yeah. Beach: As you know, we limit -- we try to limit the access points, because it slows traffic down. So, the whole point of getting the stub to the south is so that that would connect to this existing stub street and would not connect to Linder Road. Fitzgerald: I just wanted to make sure we are on the record with that, because I know that it's too close to Pintail to be necked right there. McCarvel: Questions, comments at this time? I think -- Perreault: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Yes, Commissioner Perreault. Perreault: I do have concern about -- these lots are small and that open space is just -- it's critical. It has to happen. And I really think it needs to be on this site and not adjoining with the neighboring community. McCarvel: I agree. I think -- the question at this point is do we want to see that plat or do we trust it to just move forward and that staff work -- work with the applicant and -- because it's in the agreement that it needs to be ten percent. So, do we want to put that burden on staff to make that final decision or do we want to see it again I guess is kind of where we are at. Bernt: Madam Chair? I am in agreement with Perreault. I believe that there needs to be more open space. It's tough for me to rely upon maybe future agreements with other HOAs, especially since staff has recommended that it would be very difficult to conjoin the HOA, because they don't -- they don't -- they are not connected in any way and so I think it's critical that they add open space to this plat for us to be able to approve it. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission June 1, 2017 Page 27 of 88 McCarvel: Okay. Cassanelli: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Cassanelli. Cassanelli: Question for staff. When this was originally platted and approved in 2006 I think you indicated, my question is the zoning. Everything that surrounds it is R-4. This is R-8. How did that all come about? Was it originally R-8 and the other subdivision was changed to R-4 and this was left at R-8? Beach: Let me see if I can -- Bill might be able to elaborate a little bit. He has been here that long, but I can -- I can pull the staff report up and we all look at that. Parsons: Madam Chair, Members of the Commission, yes. McCarvel: Mr. Parsons. Parsons: The preceding developments came in before this particular Nursery, so it's their older subdivisions -- or about that same time anyways. The comp plan for this property to say medium density residential and you can see with the shape of the property is in an irregular piece of property. We are not working -- dealing with a square here, it is odd. The fact that they can actually comply with block lengths and get what they are getting on this site is actually pretty impressive . But, again, it is consistent zoning. The property is already zoned. It was annexed and zoned in 2006 and '6 -- or 2006 I believe. So, again, for tonight's preview, we need to make sure that the plat, one, complies -- the lots comply -- the block lengths comply and the open space complies and that's -- that's, really, what our purview is this evening. I know the applicant has -- did provide some sample elevations and they are going to be smaller homes. They are patio homes is what they are going for and that's pretty typical of what this Commission has seen over the last couple of years. Perreault: Mr. Parsons, any thought on why that piece was excluded originally? Different ownership maybe? Parsons: It could be different ownership. Yeah. Unknown. That I don't know. I just know it was -- again, it came in, it had, I don't know, five percent open space. We changed the code to ten percent and at the time the economy was -- was tanking and a lot of these little projects didn't pencil out and couldn't get moving forward and so when Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission June 1, 2017 Page 28 of 88 we -- the Commission -- or the Council at that time said we want ten -- we want to retro act this ten percent on other -- on plats that are valid and so tasked at that time with staff was -- staff was tasked with reaching out to the development -- developers of these properties and asking them or requiring them to provide ten percent open space, even though their plat only requires five and if the developer agreed, they modified the plat, lost lots, and increased their open space or they let the plat expire and that -- this is -- because it's such a small property that's what occurred on this particular piece. McCarvel: Uh-huh. Parsons: But, yes, it was R-8 just because other stuff came in later. This came in later after the other developments around it. Beach: Looking through the staff report from 2006 it doesn't indicate the reason for proposed R-8, other than medium density residential. Comprehensive Plan designation allows for R-8, so beyond that, without going through the minutes for the meeting and finding out why that was the way it is -- it's an approved zoning for the -- for the Comprehensive Plan, so as far as I can tell that's the reason. Just let them have it. Fitzgerald: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Fitzgerald. Fitzgerald: So, I -- I understand the reason for smaller lots in this kind of a property -- piece of property and it's not very big and to get a street in there and, then, also to do bigger lots it's almost impossible and so I do understand that, unless you have a single facing, but the double facing lots in the middle -- or with the street in the middle, it's almost impossible to put in big lots. So, I get the -- trying to do an enclave is hard, especially with a lateral running right through it. So, I understand that. But I do agree with both the Commissioners who have mentioned the ten percent open space. When you're dealing with having amenities, you deal with it on your own property, not on somebody else's property. So, I don't have a problem with the staff -- giving staff the leeway to say this is what we expect. They either lose a lot or you fix it. And so I think my -- I don't have a problem moving forward, but I expect that they meet the minimums at least, if not more. McCarvel: Yeah. And I don't know that just having HOA provided landscape along the back of those houses really counts -- Fitzgerald: I don't think that is -- Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission June 1, 2017 Page 29 of 88 McCarvel: -- as open space. Fitzgerald: -- I think that becomes a problem. I think it becomes a problem. Both a safety problem and a maintenance problem. McCarvel: Yeah. Fitzgerald: And I don't think that the pathway, based on our code, fits the -- McCarvel: Yeah. Fitzgerald: -- fits the open space model, so -- Perreault: Agreed. McCarvel: Okay. Yearsley: Madam Chair, could I -- McCarvel: Commissioner Yearsley. Yearsley: -- just ask -- so I guess what you're -- what you're saying is -- is that we can remove the condition that they lose Lot 23, but just maintain that they have the ten percent open space. Fitzgerald: That would be my thought. I don't think there is a necessity to hold this thing, because I know that's -- McCarvel: Yeah. Fitzgerald: -- prime building season and everybody wants to move forward. But I -- I don't -- using it on somebody else's property is not going to fly. Yearsley: And I agree. I totally agree. I was just wanting to -- Fitzgerald: I think that would be my thought. Give the staff the purview to be a little bit flexible. McCarvel: Yeah. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission June 1, 2017 Page 30 of 88 Fitzgerald: And if it's Lot 23 or it's Lot 1 that's over here in the corner, I don't -- let them move it around if they need to, but -- McCarvel: I think it needs to be something that's -- Fitzgerald: Something needs to change. McCarvel: -- needs to be usable, though. Fitzgerald: Yeah. McCarvel: Because it does -- it is tucked back in there. It needs to -- so, I think the only thing left to decide -- I mean I don't think giving -- giving less than the ten percent is on the table, but I think it's just -- do we want to see it or do we want to let staff work that out. Wilson: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Wilson. Wilson: I think it's fairly straight forward. I mean we are not talking big -- we are not talking about a big plat here. McCarvel: Uh-huh. Yeah. Wilson: I think we know -- yeah. I think we know what's expected -- McCarvel: Perfect. Wilson: -- and I would defer to staff. McCarvel: All right. Well, then, I will take a motion. Wilson: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Wilson. Wilson: After considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move to approve file number H-2017-0055 as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of June Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission June 1, 2017 Page 31 of 88 1st, 2017, with the modification that we remove that condition on Lot 23, but have a minimum requirement of ten percent open space. I think I did that correctly. Yearsley: Can I ask just one thing if we could? McCarvel: Uh-huh. Yearsley: On their property. The ten percent open space be on their property -- Wilson: On their property. Bernt: -- and not the buffer that they are wanting to talk about as well. Which includes that five foot space that that they were talking about as a possibility -- McCarvel: Yeah. The open space not be -- Bernt: Right. McCarvel: -- back along the back lots. Yeah. Yeah. Wilson: Did we get that? The ten percent on their property. McCarvel: Right. But it does not have to be Lot 23, Block 1. Fitzgerald: Second. McCarvel: It has been moved and seconded to approved file H-2017-0045 with modifications. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Yearsley: Isn't that 48? Fitzgerald: Yeah. It's 48. McCarvel: Oh. 48. Sorry. I can't read my own handwriting. Wilson: Yeah. I was -- I'm reading them wrong. D. Public Hearing for Burlingame Subdivision (H-2017-0055) by Mason & Stanfield, Inc. Located Near Northeast Corner of W. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission June 1, 2017 Page 32 of 88 Cherry Lane and N. Black Cat Road 1. Request: Preliminary Plat Approval Consisting of Sixty (60) Single Family Residential Lots and Seven (7) Common Lots on Approximately 18.99 Acres in the R-4 Zoning District McCarvel: Four five. Okay. At this time we'd like to open the public hearing for Item H- 2017-0055, Burlingame Subdivision, and we will start with the staff report. Beach: Very good, Madam Chair, Members of the Commission. As you said, this is Item 4-D, the Burlingame Subdivision. They are applying for also preliminary plat. The site consists of approximately 18.99 acres of land , which is currently zoned R-4, which is located near the northeast corner of West Cherry Lane and North Black Cat Road. The property is developed with three single family detached homes, which is zoned R-4. In 2006 also this property was annexed and zoned as -- was called Incline Village Subdivision. A development agreement was approved as a provision of annexation and a preliminary plat was also approved, as I said, as Incline Village. Also in 2006 a final plat was approved for the property. The final plat, however, was never recorded and has since expired. One of the existing homes on the property has since been removed through a property boundary adjustment and I will show you here in just a second. A Comprehensive Plan of future land use designation as low density residential. Development of this property is currently governed by an existing development agreement and because the applicant's desires for the property do not match what was approved and required with the previous development agreement, the applicant has applied to modify the existing development agreement to update the development plan and building elevations. And this new plan or the plat consists of 60 residential lots, seven common lots, as I said, on 18.99 acres of land. So, with his home that's proposed to be excluded, which is this lot here where my mouse is, the house will still be part of the recorded development agreement and staff has reviewed the recorded development agreement and finds that this home should be required to be hooked up to city services, close the existing access to Black Cat and take access from a new public street being extended with the proposed development. The new DA should include the proposed development plan. Any changes required in building elevations included as an attached exhibit. So, the average lot size in this proposed subdivision is 9 ,250 square feet, with a minimum lot size of 8,000, and which is in accord with UDC standards. Staff does suggest the following revisions to the plat. Provide at the time -- and we have worked with the applicant a little bit on these conditions and I believe they will propose some modifications to several of these . Provide three additional stub streets for the project. One to a parcel here indicated by my mouse and two to the west. The applicant, as I said, should submit the revised plat to staff reflecting these Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission June 1, 2017 Page 33 of 88 required changes. Access to the northern most home is currently provided from a private access easement to Black Cat Road, also indicated here by my mouse. The existing home to remain near Cherry Lane currently takes access to Cherry. The applicant is proposing to remove this existing access and to provide access to all the dwellings within the development via internal public streets. Correction. The applicant is -- desires to maintain the access from -- to this home through -- to Cherry Lane. The issue we have with that is the development agreement that was approved in 2006 does not allowed that to happen. And, then, the existing homes will remain and take access internally, instead of out through this cross-access out to Black Cat. This access will remain, but the rights to use that will need to be terminated as part of this project . The property located at 5136 Cherry Lane, as I said, will be required to access the proposed North Bonita Avenue and shall abandon direct access to Cherry Lane prior to city engineer's signature on the first -- final plan, as I said, which is his home here on -- on Cherry Lane. Street -- street buffer landscaping is required to be provided as set forth in the UDC. And landscaping within the street buffers should be provided in accord with the UDC. The applicant shall revise the landscape plan to include a 25 foot landscape easement across the frontage of the parcel at 5136 Cherry. Staff typically requires -- and UDC requires that there be a landscape buffer across the entire frontage of that. The applicant, as I said, did -- did apply for and was approved for a property boundary adjustment, but that doesn't necessarily get them away from the requirement of the landscape buffer and the typical sidewalk that we would require across the frontage of that. The pathways master plan depicts a regional pathway on the site along the north side of Cherry Lane and another section of a ten foot multi-regional pathway along the north side of the property and working with the Parks Department typically we would have acquired a ten foot multi-use pathway to come across the north where the irrigation laterals are and extend to Black Cat. There is an LDS church that was developed fairly recently and in that development we did not -- we did not obtain a multi- use pathway. So, staff's condition is that the applicant construct a multi-use passway -- a multi-use pathway that would stub to the property line here and would run along streets and extend further to the west, so that the pathways master plan could continue moving further west. As I said, there is a -- several irrigation easements on the north side of the property that will lie within a fairly wide irrigation district easement. The UDC requires all irrigation ditches, lateral, canals and drains to be piped, unless left open as a water amenity. The City Council may waive this requirement for large capacity facilities, so it's something they will have to ask Council for. They are not proposing to landscape this. They are proposing to leave it. The applicant is proposing 1.89 acres or ten percent of open space for the development, which meets code. We received a number of petitions from the Turnberry Crossing Subdivision to the north in opposition to the project and staff is recommending approval and I will stand for any questions you have. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission June 1, 2017 Page 34 of 88 McCarvel: Any questions at this time? Perreault: Madam Chair, I have a question. McCarvel: Commissioner Perreault. Perreault: Did I understand correctly that there will only be access from Cherry Lane to the entire development or is there one on Black Cat? Beach: There is an existing stub street to the north. Perreault: Okay. Beach: O'Conner I believe is the name of the street that will punch through and access out to Black Cat. It has to be eliminated. Perreault: Okay. Beach: That access easement will not go away, but their -- their ability to use that will, at least for vehicles and I neglected to indicate the phasing plan -- phasing starts from Cherry and would work their way up in the fifth phase would be to O'Conner, so -- Perreault: Okay. Beach: So, the road will not exist there until they are fully built out. So, their initial construction will come off of Cherry Lane. Perreault: Okay. Thank you. Fitzgerald: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Fitzgerald. Fitzgerald: Josh, can you point out to me where we are having amenities on this thing? Because I only -- park down by the house is there, but what else do we have besides to request a multi-use pathway at the top. Beach: Amenity wise? Is this -- a condition that we have placed on the applicant to provide something this evening that would clarify. The landscape plan as shown here Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission June 1, 2017 Page 35 of 88 doesn't do a great job of indicating either open space or amenities proposed for the project. So, we have asked them to provide something. I believe they have an exhibit that at least will show open space and it will be able to speak to amenities as well. Fitzgerald: Okay. Thank you. Cassanelli: Madam Chair, a question. McCarvel: Yes. Commissioner Cassanelli. Cassanelli: Josh, is there something else that can be done with the -- with that pathway and alternative to connect two portions of that, versus running it through the street, because you clearly will lose the whole feel of that path. Beach: There is not. We have spoken with the Parks Department. Jay in the Parks Department, who is kind of the project manager for this and that's our best solution right now is to have it run through the subdivision . The way they have got it designed that's -- that's the best way to do it. It was going to have to go along the street, unless they redesign the project and include a pathway through the center , which we did not require them to do, but that's something that if you're not comfortable with the pathway the way it's designed, that's your prerogative to ask them to do something different. McCarvel: Okay. Perreault: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Perreault. Perreault: Is there anticipation that there is -- there is going to be residential to that southeast parcel? I would expect there wouldn't be, because it's on the corner of Black Cat and Cherry. So, why the stub street from -- to the south? Did that question make sense? Beach: Sure. Commissioner Perreault, I believe -- so, you're asking why we would stub a street to the parcel indicated here by my mouse? Perreault: Yes. Beach: We don't want them taking access to Cherry Lane. Similar to what we were talking about with the previous application on Linder. We -- our goal is to limit those Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission June 1, 2017 Page 36 of 88 access points to those major arterial roadways, because it just slows down the traffic. So, if there is an ability to do it internally, that's what staff typically will push for. Perreault: Okay. McCarvel: Any other questions for staff? Would the applicant like to come forward. Prather: Good evening, Madam Chair. James -- Commissioners. James Prather. 3356 North Justin Avenue in Meridian. Good evening and good evening, staff. Burlingame Subdivision -- I just want to answer and go over just a couple of questions that you just heard, just -- not as a matter of review, but just to go over them, because they are going to come up in the next -- probably five or ten minutes. We are an R-4 project. We are not -- we didn't try to change the zoning, even though we looked at it. These lots as a minimum, as staff already reported, are a minimum of 8,000 square feet, going all the way up to 16,000 square feet. Most of the larger lots come at the -- the dead end of the cul-de-sacs, but they range anywhere from 8,000 to 16,000 square feet. We are taking our entrance, as was stated, from Cherry and, then, connecting into O'Connor, which is the Turnberry Subdivision to the north and agreed with staff that access to Black Cat will be cut off and the two homes that are already inside the subdivision -- or inside of this property, that's how they have been taking their access. So, upon a successful final plat of this, all of that will be closed off, but there will remain an easement through there for utilities. Now, we concur with all staff recommendations, with just a few exceptions, and I will just go through them briefly. There was some -- there seems to be some -- some misunderstanding on our stub streets -- our stubs, our cul-de-sacs, that they were over 450 feet. And, by the way, Josh, can you pull the other -- pull up the other -- Josh: Would you like me to pull up yours? Prather: Please. The reason why I'm pulling on another map is just simply condense it down so you can see it and we have colored it up to perhaps answer a lot of the questions you have. What you see -- what you see in green is all of our open space. As you come from south to north, as you can see, the -- on the west side of the property -- this is the largest open space and, then, right across the street we -- that is an additional -- that was actually a lot that now has become open space, along with the two further north and, then, the one up in the far northwest corner. This meets not only our open space as, the calculations show, but I think goes a little bit higher. Now, one of the conditions from ACHD was that we provide access -- one to the east, one to the west. On the plat that you just saw, we didn't provide that. This is what we have done in just the last couple of days since we have had the staff report and this is where we Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission June 1, 2017 Page 37 of 88 propose to put those two stub streets, right in this -- right in this area. We met with staff yesterday afternoon and they agreed to this. They have asked for three, ACHD just asked for two and after meeting with -- with staff they agreed to not only this location, but two stub streets. Now, in addressing what is going to be -- or what is 5136 Cherry, right here is where that property lies, and within the staff report it -- it asks us to close access from that house and put it internally, as well as landscaping 25 feet of the front along with the sidewalk and provide entrance inside of the subdivision or access inside of the subdivision, along with stubbing in available utilities. What we are asking is that the access to Cherry Lane remain open and that the land -- it's already landscaped, but allow it to be open as long as nothing changes out there . But upon ACHD's expansion of the road or the widening of the road, then, at that time close it up, the sidewalk will already be in and, furthermore, we will provide access upon final plat. We will provide access from inside the subdivision, along with stubbed in available utilities. So, that will all be in place. But we ask that that remain open until ACHD widens the road. Now, I proposed this question to ACHD and as far as widening west of Black Cat, that is not on their ten or 15 year plan. So, we are talking down the road. But whenever it -- if it should come earlier, as soon as it widens we will button up and the access and utilities will be from the inside. There -- there are sidewalks in this project that were attached, which are these cul-de-sac streets, but the main street that comes from the north that goes into O'Connell -- or O'Conner, that go all the way down to Cherry, we have proposed detach sidewalks. We would like to change that just really for continuity sake and consistency and do away with that and attach all the sidewalks back of curb and as one of the specific plat conditions, the multi-use pathway as you see here in red, we would have preferred to put it up in the open space up just south of the canals and just go back to the -- the original plat. You can see -- you can see to the north where those dots are just south of what is designated as canal, those are all very large pine trees and we have done everything we possibly can to keep them in the plat. The only thing -- the only ones we are going to really use are the ones that fall within the street, but with that said we would have preferred to put that pathway as described here along -- it just made sense, but staff said that that's not possible, obviously, because we can't drive it all the way to the street because of the -- there is no mechanism to do that now. Correct; Josh? From -- from the -- from the church. Beach: One more time. I wasn't paying attention. Prather: The -- the applicant -- the owner would like to run the pathway as described earlier along the canals, but we can't do that because of the church; correct? Beach: Correct. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission June 1, 2017 Page 38 of 88 Prather: Okay. That has precipitated us putting it inside of the -- of the subdivision. That wasn't our first choice, but with that said we would like the language of the staff report to read -- because it follows -- go back to the other one, please. Where it shows now is on the north side. What it's showing is on the south side, that as it's proposed in the staff agreement, that it's on the north side of Bellevue. We just proposed the same pathway, we just want to put it on the other side of the street. It just -- it just works better for the subdivision. Enter it from the west, just as it's in red, coming along the south side of Bellevue, the east side of O'Connell, all the way down to Flora Bunga and, then, due east out to the west -- to the east side of the property that has access to Black Cat and there is just a couple of quick notations to the development agreement , which with these minor changes will change the development agreement and with me tonight as well is Will Mason of Stanfield Mason Engineers. I would like him to address the changes we are going to have in the development agreement that we respectfully ask for. Mason: Will Mason with Mason and Stanfield Engineers. 826 3rd Street South in Nampa. So, these proposed changes I have actually taken from the staff report, Exhibit 8.5 on page 13 and I have kind of split out portions of the staff 's recommendations for the changes and modifications to the development agreement we have no problem with. Item number eight is really just taking the Black Cat portion of the comment, making it an item of its -- its own, so that the existing driveway to Black Cat may be utilized until the streets are approved and accepted by ACHD. After such time there will be no direct access to Black Cat. Item number nine is addressing the Cherry Lane area, the 5136 Cherry Lane. Not a part that was taken out by the PDA, so we will have the one public street access, but it ties into the main road into our project and, then, we would like to have the existing driveway at 5136 West Cherry Lane remain in use and I have a typo in here -- until Cherry Lane is widening by the transportation authority ACHD, and at such time the 5136 West Cherry Lane shall access via the internal subdivision streets -- we will provide that access now, but because of the configuration of the house and the lot as it exists right now, there would be issues with -- with that house not accessing Cherry the way it's constructed at this time and it's in a possible s ale right now with -- with this condition on it that could happen before the plat is ever recorded. So, we don't want to try to force the access into an internal road that doesn't exist, which would cause the sale of this piece of property to not be able to occur until such time as the plat is recorded. So, that's -- item number nine I have also included a 25 foot landscape easement across that plot -- or that parcel, so that in the future there is the ability to put landscaping in that -- that parcel and, then, item ten, the portions of item ten about the existing homes within the subdivision, the developer will be responsible for connecting those to the city services prior to occupancy permit . The available utilities to that 5136 West Cherry Lane would be stubbed to them. Right now it's got a well and septic and Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission June 1, 2017 Page 39 of 88 meets the requirements of the health district. So, there is no reason for them to connect until such time as they desire to or if there is an issue with their system, then, they could connect to it, but we would stub into that -- those utilities that are available to that lot. Fitzgerald: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Fitzgerald. Fitzgerald: In regards to the property on 5136, so you guys are going to put an access off of the new road now, so you don't want to go on to initiate the access on Cherry Lane now? Is that -- I just want to make sure I'm clear, because you're just adding access now. Are you going to -- or are you going to curb cut later? Prather: The curb cut or the driveway will be installed when the plat is designed and recorded. But at this point in time that could be eight months from now, it could be a year and a half from now and that -- that house is in a possible marketing situation where it could be sold with the conditions that this would happen in the future. Commissioner Fitzgerald? Fitzgerald: Yes, sure. Prather: I'm not sure -- it's just for clarity to answer your question. James Prather. There will be at the time a final plat access to that lot from -- from Bonita. We are going to provide -- we are going to put that in and stub into that -- the available utilities. That's already going to be done upon initial construction. We are just asking that the landscape buffer out front be waived and access continue as it has for umpteen years, until such time that ACHD decides if they are going to make that, you know, much wider, turn it into a hundred foot road and, then, we just button up -- the utilities will already be there and the access is already provided. Fitzgerald: Madam Chair, can I have a follow up? McCarvel: Yes. Fitzgerald: Yes. Are you guys willing to bond for it? Because I -- there is no -- the city has a tough time tracking ten years down the road. If ACHD decides to widen it, I would suggest it would probably be about five years, but that may not be in their STIP right now, but I -- the challenge we have is trying to track these things down and not have any teeth to hold -- to get it fixed later on. So, when we kind of -- my thoughts are when you develop you develop. You fish and cut -- or cut bait. And so I -- when we are Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission June 1, 2017 Page 40 of 88 talking about the sale issue, I get that, but I have a problem when we are saying we are stubbing to it, it's all there, and -- but we are not willing to hook it up and so I -- that's my concern, just being honest. I just have a concern when -- when we are -- when you start developing property you kind of -- you got to get in there and you got to get out. That's kind of the deal. And so I'm concerned that we are willing to put the utilities in, we want to cut the road in -- or access into it, but we are just not going to do it, because we have to sell it later and so I'm just going to be honest with you, that one is going to -- I'm going to be concerned with that. Prather: If I may. Bernt: One second. Madam Chair? McCarvel: Yes. Bernt: To expand upon that, so your -- it sounded to me -- and I need clarification. It sounds like you're offering two different resolutions to this -- this property at 5136. You stated that you wanted it done to provide an entrance or an exit, whatever access to the property until you start development. And, then, the first gentleman said that you wanted it done -- or you wanted to wait until the road is widened and so which one is it? Prather: It's the widened one. If you look at my modified language in number nine, the existing driveway at 5136 West Cherry Lane shall remain in use until Cherry Lane is widened by the transportation authorities. Bernt: So, it's not necessarily -- you're not waiting for a development to take place, you are wanting to wait until the street is widened and -- Prather: Right. Bernt: And just one last question. Do you plan on -- what's the development -- just for my personal knowledge. What's the time frame of this development? Are you -- are you expecting to develop this as soon as possible or is this going to happen down the road? Prather: Well, it's the intent to start it next spring, you know, through City Council, through, obviously, final construction drawings and waiting until the spring until -- obviously until the spring and, then, to get started. The only -- again, I'm not trying to be redundant. But, again, the only thing that we are changing from staff -- if I may, is just keeping the access open the way it is. We are not -- we are not saying that we don't Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission June 1, 2017 Page 41 of 88 want to stub it in or provide access to the site. We will, along with the utility. We will do that upon phase one. We are just asking for the landscape out front, which it's already landscaped, and that the access stay open until such time that the street is widened by ACHD. Fitzgerald: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Yes, Commissioner Fitzgerald. Fitzgerald: So, my -- the point I have is that I -- what we try to do when we are doing these developments is limit access to the larger arterial road and so when you're having a driveway right there and, then, a driveway right next to it, it's a safety issue, one, and, two, you're already putting the access and utilities there. It becomes a -- the city staff has to go track it for the next ten years to make sure that you guys are doing what you said you would do and that's the concern we have is it's hard to continue to ask our city staff -- to put the burden on them without some kind of teeth in a development agreement or a bonding situation where we have the ability to go back and say this never got done, we are going to pull this longer, we are going to take your letter of credit and we are going to do it ourselves. So, that's my concern is we are -- we are doing frontage. You're talking doing the frontage and you're doing the whole thing or you're not and so that -- I understand what you're saying, but it concerns me where we are taking this step, but we are not willing to go that one extra leap to go in -- to bring everything into the city, hook everything up, and make sure the frontage looks the way we want it to. Cassanelli: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Oh. Commissioner Yearsley. I'm sorry. Yearsley: Oh, I had asked first. Sorry. McCarvel: He has been trying to get in. Cassanelli: Seniority. Yearsley: So, I just -- I struggle. To me it does not make sense to have two accesses right next to each other and keep those both open. To me it's an accident waiting to happen having two cars so close together trying to turn one way or the other . So, to me, I -- to me this does not make sense to leave those two properties to have two access points that close. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission June 1, 2017 Page 42 of 88 McCarvel: Commissioner Cassanelli. Cassanelli: I -- I agree on that. What I -- I think I understand -- somewhat familiar, I have driven by there, so I can kind of visualize the home that's there. Is it a driveway that's right there, the garage faces right there. But at such time that ACHD is going to -- if they -- you know, when eventually they can come through, it -- that house is -- I mean the driveway, whatever, is going to have to be reconfigured at some point in time and I agree that it needs to be done. I mean it's got to be reconfigured. At some point they are going to lose that access. Might as well figure it out now to have that solution in place now and I completely concur with two access points to Cherry that close together, I -- I just think that's a mess. But it -- somehow there is going to -- that needs to be figured out to reroute their driveway to access the street. I think maybe -- if maybe that can be shifted over a little bit that changes some of the open space , but something has to be redrawn there I think. So, I would want to see that as soon as -- as soon as that street is -- is punched through -- is opened up to Cherry Lane at that point in time that -- that the access to that home be rerouted. McCarvel: Commissioner Perreault. Perreault: Just a quick comment that I completely agree -- concur with all the statements of the fellow Commissioners. McCarvel: Okay. Any other questions for the applicant or any other responses you would like to give at this point? Prather: Well, I -- we have got an area right now and you can see there is two accesses right now to that single parcel and so we are looking at having the access to the closest building, which is the homes -- remain open. Our access will be actually to the west of the second access on that parcel. McCarvel: So, we are really looking at one, two, three accesses. Prather: No. McCarvel; I mean what's existing there right now? Prather: Well, I think we are probably talking the same thing, Madam Chair. The -- what you see up here now -- the only one we are asking to stay open is the one that goes to the garage in the house. That is an outbuilding in the back. As you can see in Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission June 1, 2017 Page 43 of 88 the property that's east of this, their circle drive and, of course, they have enjoyed the country life and a minimal amount of traffic for a long time and we are saying button up the second one, but just keep the one going up to the house and, then, our access to the subdivision -- Josh, do I have control of this? It's roughly right in here. McCarvel: Makes even more accesses right there. Okay. Any other questions before I open public testimony? Prather: I think that's perfect. McCarvel: Yep. All right. Thank you. Okay. At this time I will open the public testimony and we will start with people who have signed up that they do want to testify. Carla Mace. Mace: Carla Mace at 389 -- excuse me -- 2892 West Sheryl Street. I am here representing the Meridian Seventh-Day Adventist Church, which is at the east side of the property -- the development. We are concerned about the easement that's in place that I -- I think I understand correctly the easement will be cut off for any traffic, but yet I think there is something proposed -- I see that red line and I'm assuming, if I heard correctly, it was a pathway or something and we are concerned, because that road right now is the road that gives us access to the back of our property and to the cell phone tower that's right there next to that road and so I don't know how you can fit in the pathway on that road and for us still to be able to drive on it and eventually, you know, our plan is to eventually, you know, have some kind of development in the back of our church, whether it be a community center or whatever and we are going to need e ven more access on that road to be able to get back there. So, I don't know how we can fit a walking path -- we are not against them using our road for bicycles or walking . We just don't know how we can fit a designated path down our road and still be ab le to drive. McCarvel: Okay. Yearsley: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Yearsley. Yearsley: Just to answer -- I think what they are saying is the homes that access that driveway can no longer access that driveway once the development has occ urred, but the roadway will still be in place, they just can no longer take access off that roadway. So, I still think it provides access for you guys. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission June 1, 2017 Page 44 of 88 Mace: Yeah, but I -- I understand that, but there is a pathway going to be -- this looks, from what I have read, it was going to be asphalted and I assume there is going to be poles up and -- Yearsley: Well, just -- just to the edge of their property. It won't go beyond there until someone else extends it. If they -- they won't extend beyond their property boundaries of the pathway. Mace: Okay. So, nothing will be done to our access road? Yearsley: Correct. Mace: On our property? I didn't understand that green part. They greened it in. That's a common area. It's green like common area. I didn't understand -- Yearsley: Yeah. That's just within their property, not your property. Does that make sense? McCarvel: It's in between two lots on their property, but that doesn't extend to yours. Mace: Are they going to like just stub at the end of our -- our road that -- it's going to stub it so people can come through or is it going to block it off? Beach: So, Madam Chair, if I could. So, typically what we will do is -- when we get a -- a project that -- we have a pathways master plan -- indicates that there is a pathway coming across this property. A lot of times we will -- development happens piece by piece, typically. Right? So, this -- say the property to the west gets developed next, we want the ability to continue that pathway further with the next development. So, a lot of times -- it happens pretty regularly that we will require an applicant to build a pathway, build their common open space, stub it to that property line. A lot of times there isn't even an access road next to this, we just assume that the next property will continue -- we will require the next property to continue that pathway going -- whichever direction it's going. In your case I don't know how long it's going to take for a pathway to get constructed through there. It will have to be through either an agreement with your church to do that or redevelopment of your property. So, we are setting ourselves up to be able to continue that pathway in the future by getting it with this piece now. Does that -- did that answer your question? Cassanelli: It won't be on the road is what you're saying. It won't be on the road. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission June 1, 2017 Page 45 of 88 Beach: I don't know. People will probably end up using that road. Cassanelli: Right. Beach: But it's not our intention that that be constructed right now as part of the pathway. Mace: Yeah. Because there is no room for a pathway. I mean it's the fence and the road -- a single road just to get back there. So, there is no room for a pathway and I just want to make sure there wasn't going to be a pathway put in there. And, then, also I think the utilities get access from Black Cat, so does that mean that there is going to be some destruction to our property to get water and sewer to that property? I'm not sure. Fitzgerald: Ma'am, we can have the applicant answer that when he comes back up to reclose. Mace; Okay. Fitzgerald: But I think they are bringing it down from the neighborhood above. Mace: Okay. Fitzgerald: Or up through Cherry Lane. Mace: Okay. Beach: If I may quickly, there is a utility easement in that area and they are planning on bringing utilities through there. The applicant can address that when they come back up. But that is the plan. McCarvel: Okay. Next person. Kate Delgado-Miller. Delgado-Miller: Kate Delgado-Miller. 929 South Allante Place in Boise, Idaho. Commissioners, I represent the Turnberry HOA subdivision. I'm their association manager. And I do want to specifically say that Turnberry doesn't oppose th e development, they just have some concerns for future development and we did transmit to your staff yesterday a letter written by our subdivision's attorney Jeremy Evans with Vial Fotheringham. And he wrote the letter basically summarizing the petition t hat the Turnberry Crossing HOA created and I have about 56 petitions right here in favor of -- of Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission June 1, 2017 Page 46 of 88 the letter that our attorney wrote. Basically, if you don't mind, I would just read the petitions that the subdivision has. We, the undersigned residence of Turnberry Crossing Subdivision, formally request the following for the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission and the developer of Burlingame Subdivision. Number one. No amendments to the existing property development agreement will be approved. The existing property development language specifies a single family housing and the reason they were asking if this is to maintain the property values. Number two. Prior to the construction of the Burlingame Subdivision, alternate construction entrances are identified and prepared by the developer, either on White Ash Drive or off of Cherry Lane or both. Reason. To maintain pedestrian safety and to avoid traffic congestion. Number three. During the construction phase of Burlingame Subdivision no construction traffic allowed signs will be placed at the entrance to Turnberry Crossing Subdivision and the O'Conner Avenue entrance into the new development. Reason again to maintain pedestrian safety, prevent loud noise, and to avoid traffic congestion. And that is it. McCarvel: Thank you. Delgado-Miller: Thank you so much. McCarvel: William Mason? Okay. That's all I have that is -- said that they would like to testify. Is there anybody else? Sir. Then come forward. Clower: My name is Don Clower. I live at 5103 West Cherry Lane, directly across from the proposed subdivision. My concern is something that has not been -- nobody's been able to answer it. I called staff. I called the city. I have called the Settlers Irrigation Company. In the mid '70s Mr. Sexton owned this whole 40 acres, subdivided into five acre lots and we moved out there and our irrigation system is set on a rotation system. Everybody gets water for 12 hours period. Our head gate is behind the Mormon church and when you close the gate, the water only goes one place, whatever house is in that rotation. I do not understand how you're going to get water to the subdivision to water their lawns, because right now both churches -- neither one of them pay much attention to their time period. They run their water seven days a week you can see the sprinklers running. But there is a time slot for every one of us. We are only allowed 12 hours. So, how is this subdivision, which is an island with rural land on both sides of them, one irrigation ditch, so many feet of water coming down the ditch, that's what we were allowed for 12 hours and when we shut the gate it's my water, all of the water, nobody else can take it. Not supposed to. So, how do you propose to build a subdivision back there? Where are they going to get the water to irrigate lawns? And nobody has been Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission June 1, 2017 Page 47 of 88 able to answer my question. The guy from the irrigation company said beats the hell out of me. McCarvel: Okay. We will have the applicant address that. Thank you. Clower: Thank you for your time. McCarvel: Anyone else? Okay. Would the applicant like to come forward? Prather: Madam Chair, Commissioners. James Prather. I will take them in order. Concerning the utilities going to -- from our property line right here to where Black Cat is, we will be -- and we have a sewer easement that was signed early ten, 12 years ago when the -- when this application first came in first time. We -- there is a 25 foot sewer utility easement in there. We believe at this time we will only be using it for sewer. We are not sure yet if water will be taken from there. It will be taken from the north. That's yet staff's and Public Works -- that decision lies with them still. As far as -- you know, we will -- we will bring the pathway right up to our -- the end of our property and stop at -- Commissioner Fitzgerald, just like you had said and Mr. -- Commissioner Yearsley. Now, concerning the gentleman -- he is across the street and to the south and he raises a great question. Currently the way the water gets from this area right here where it comes in on our property -- on the project property, it has to go down the property line -- excuse me -- from -- from here down the property line to this point and, then, come straight down -- I'm trying to use this mouse right. And, then, exits here and goes into his property. He goes underground and across the -- the street into his property. But that is an open ditch currently and over the course of the year as that has filled in and I don't -- I'm not sure when he's got his water, but what we propose is, obviously, each property in here is allocated its own water right and we have already had our -- we have already done a pretty extensive study of how we are going to irrigate this. This property -- this green that you see way up in the north corner -- what is the northwest corner of our property here, that is, actually, one of the best building lots, but we have turned that into water retention to supply, because we are on a rotation system. What we are proposing to get -- to secure water across the street -- because there is three more users down there. What we are proposing is to -- we are not proposing, but what we will do is from this point we will pipe that underground along its current path down to the point where he takes it on the north side of Cherry and, then, he will get it that way. That will be in a buried -- not above ground, that will be in a buried PVC pipe. And as far as the rotation goes, he is right, everybody gets rotation, but we all have to fit into it. Fitzgerald: Madam Chair? Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission June 1, 2017 Page 48 of 88 McCarvel: Commissioner Fitzgerald. Fitzgerald: Mr. Prather, can you -- ask a question. If you have a retention pond up in the colored area up north and that's also calculated in your open space I would guess, do you also have other amenities that you're proposing? Prather: We are required to do one more. What -- we had to change this to add on to, because the staff report -- they wanted sub streets. So did ACHD. We have changed this just in the last 48 hours, so you could see it, that within this -- and because the common areas and the open space have changed a little bit, our amenities most likely -- because this is kind of a hot off the press -- most likely will go in this -- these two areas right here and they could consist of a -- for the lack of a better word -- playground -- small playground, swing set and such and most likely will go on the north -- the north end of this property on the west side of the -- of Bonita. Or it could be something like -- like a gazebo setup with a couple of tables underneath. What -- we are looking at that now. But there will -- most likely it will be on either side of that front entrance. Because at that particular point we want to really dress that up, because that is the main entrance, obviously, to the project. But that's our intention. Yearsley: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Yearsley. Yearsley: So, just to try to help alleviate the lady's concern about th at, her access along the church -- Seventh-Day Adventist Church -- so you will probably -- more than likely will bring sewer up that roadway, but you will actually put it back in the same condition that it is when you get done with it; is that correct? Prather: Of course. Yearsley: Okay. And, then, with -- regarding this subdivision to the north, you know, just if you could address their comments, their concerns about construction traffic and that respect. How do you plan to make that happen in that respect? Prather: Commissioners -- thank you. I overlooked that one. But to address that, we met with the HOA prior to our neighborhood meeting , just with them, and that was one of their main concerns is not just how much traffic are we going to bri ng through their street, but how much traffic are they going to bring ours and we discuss ed that. But now as far as construction traffic, we can -- at the onset of phase one we can post of how our -- and, obviously, we are starting from the south and working north. We can Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission June 1, 2017 Page 49 of 88 post that right there and make sure all the contractors know where to enter the property and we are happy to do that. Yearsley: Thank you. Bernt: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Yes, Commissioner Bernt. Bernt: Question. How big is that retention pond going to be in the corner common area space? Prather: According to the engineer that looked at this, it's going to probably be -- it's about -- the lot from -- from border to border is 16,000 feet roughly. We are going to probably use three-quarters of it. Bernt: My -- my concern with that -- I guess we can talk about that later when we discuss, but I will push that a little bit later during discussion. McCarvel: Do you have a question for him? Yeah. Go ahead and -- Bernt: So, my question is, you know -- and what we -- one of -- one of -- and I get, you know, in a development process you want to get the biggest bang for your buck and you want to make as much money as you possibly can and I don't fault anyone for that at all. But in doing so we experience a lot in this Commission the bare minimum. You know, we want -- we express our minimum of open space of ten percent. In 95 percent of the time developers come in with exactly ten percent and so my concern is is that you're using your common ground for a water retention pond. Therefore, that really isn't common space. That is going to be used for development purposes in order for the water to, you know -- you know -- you know, safety and all the rest of the concerns that come with retention ponds and so would you be open to creating another , you know, lot or two from your proposed development to create more open space? Prather: Versus not using this as open space? Bernt: I mean if you're going to use two -thirds of that -- of that -- that common area, which encompasses exactly, you know, ten percent -- you may be a little bit over. I think you mentioned earlier a little bit over. Would you be willing -- I don't consider that open space and I would -- I would want that -- I would -- personally would want more open space -- I would want you to propose more open space if you're going to be using Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission June 1, 2017 Page 50 of 88 two-thirds of that portion as a water retention pond. Unless you're going to be putting fish in it. Yearsley: And can I actually add a question? You know. So, two-thirds of that property is going to be a pond. Why not dress it up? Put a pathway around it. Put a little gazebo up there for someone to sit and look at the water and make it more of a usable space versus just irrigation pond as an option. Bernt: I like that idea. Prather: You actually beat me to it. Thank you. The exact design -- the reason why it's going there, Commissioner, is because that's where we are taking our water from the canal. That's where we are breaking into it and it just made most sense to put it there. it may not be -- and what we are trying to discover now is just how much water -- how often do we get it and in the event, obviously, regardless of how you tell people, you know, we get so many people water in the morning, so many people water at night. It never works. So, the only reason why we need the pond is in case everybody goes on at one time. There is enough capacity there to hold it until -- you know, for a couple of hours. How much of that property is going to be used we don't quite know yet . I say that just probably to make sure we are on the high side. But I agree with you, there is already the pedestrian pathway going -- abutting it to the south. There is no reason we just can't add the amenities in and around this . I don't think we can go all the way around, because of how -- where the pump station is going to be, but we can go around two, three sides of it and we are happy -- and that's something that we would -- that we are looking at now. Bernt: I think we need to do something there. Fitzgerald: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Yes. Fitzgerald: I would agree. And I think we are -- if we are making a change to the development agreement I think that needs to be put in there. McCarvel: Any other questions for the applicant while he's still here? Okay. Thank you. Prather: Thank you. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission June 1, 2017 Page 51 of 88 McCarvel: Okay. At this time we will -- if we can get a motion to close the public hearing. We have already closed -- okay. Yearsley: That would be up to your decision. We just have to allow the applicant to come back forward. McCarvel: Okay. Come forward. Yeah. He's already done. Okay. We can't -- everything has to be on the record. We can't just have you shouting out from there, so -- Fitzgerald: Sir, you have already testified, so we can't have you come up. If your wife wants to come and testify she is welcome to. McCarvel: Wait. Please come to the mic. State your name and address. L.Clower: I'm Leona Clower and -- McCarvel: Pull the mic toward you. We are having trouble with that mic tonight. I apologize. L.Clower: I'm Leona Clower and I live at 5103 West Cherry Lane, which is the house directly across from the 5136 house. McCarvel: Okay. L.Clower: And the irrigation -- there are three families that take -- five acre properties -- that take irrigation at the beginning of where the water comes through between the Mormon church and the Seventh-Day Adventist Church. That -- that ditch has a little gate, I guess you might say, and the first person opens the gate and the water goes to their house and their time for that water for 12 hours. Then the next person on the ditch takes -- that's the Bleak property, which is the second property over, they take water for the next 12 hours. Then the next property is Kadie property and that property is supposed to take it for the next 12 hours. Well, there is two, three properties and then -- which is that subdivision and they have all been combined now to be one big property. But, then, at the very end is our property. So, what we don't understand is how are the first three people going to get their 12 hours, of which the Seventh-Day Adventist Church is already taking out of their rotation. Their rotation is supposed to be one 12 hour period and they are supposed to be watering from midnight to 4:00 a.m. in the morning. But anytime you can go by there and see their sprinklers on during the day all the time -- you know, any day of the week just about. It was on all last week. And so Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission June 1, 2017 Page 52 of 88 we don't understand why they are not, first of all, on their 12 hour schedule and how you're going to make this pond water 60 houses in a -- in a schedule that they are allowed. I don't under -- we don't understand that. None of that has been explained to the homeowners, the people that are on the rotation. The first three properties that still have five -- five to seven acres. I think one of them is even more than five acres. And, then, our property and, then, even across the street the property that was bought for the church that never has taken place, is anybody familiar with that, the Sulamita Church or -- I think that's the name of it. At the south corner of Cherry Lane and Black Cat Road and they are entitled to some of that water also, so -- they have not been taking it, because the land's been sitting idle and we have not been taking ours, because we have been unable to get it, because the access to -- I mean the property was in such disrepair back at the back. So, we have sort of been sitting there not getting our water, but we were looking forward to possibly having it restored to us . So, we have not -- nobody has addressed how this is going to take place to any of these homeowners. McCarvel: Okay. L.Clower: Including us. McCarvel: Okay. The applicant can come back forward and see if they can address just that issue. L.Clower: Yeah. And, then, also this business about this -- the driveway thing, that current house already has two driveways and so you're talking about, you know, keeping -- I guess the one driveway open. So, that -- McCarvel: We will address that with the -- L.Clower: -- other driveway will be totally closed off I hope and the business, then, could go from a different direction, so -- McCarvel: Right. L.Clower: Because that's getting kind of -- all the trucks there at -- it's getting kind of -- too many. McCarvel: All right. Thank you. Prather: Madam Chairman, James Prather. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission June 1, 2017 Page 53 of 88 McCarvel: Uh-huh. Prather: To clarify, how -- the question is is how are they going to get their water from this pond. They won't be getting it from the pond. That's where we will be getting our water. They will get their water the way they have always got -- gotten their water and that's from right here. There is a junction box that -- we are not -- we are closing ours off, but we have to maintain all of the other people -- the other four or five people that are on there. Their gates are already there. They will be uninterrupted. And we supply the underground pipe that -- when it -- when it is their turn -- I won't speak to when -- who gets turns, but that will be underground and piped to them and , then, they will pick it up at their own property. McCarvel: And so if I -- the subdivision, you're going to take your water -- your time, but all your water is just going to go straight to the pond and you will distribute it to the -- Prather: To the -- to the subdivision. McCarvel: -- to the subdivision. Right. The subdivision will be on their -- Prather: And that is separately -- McCarvel: The subdivision as a whole will take their water at their turn, but it will all go to the pond and these houses can all water whenever they want. Prather: Exactly. Because their source is going to be -- McCarvel: Their source is going to be the pond and that pond will get filled at their rotation time. Am I hearing that right? Prather: Well, the pond -- our pond -- our retention has nothing to do with them. McCarvel: Okay. Prather: When it becomes their -- McCarvel: It's coming off from the north. Prather: -- turn to take the water -- McCarvel: Right. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission June 1, 2017 Page 54 of 88 Prather: -- their head gate will come open and we supply -- the developer will supply the means to get it from where it's -- where their head gate is -- McCarvel: Okay. Prather: -- to -- to their property. McCarvel: Okay. Thank you. Okay. Fitzgerald: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Fitzgerald. Fitzgerald: I move we close the public hearing. Bernt: Second. McCarvel: Anybody -- thank you. It has been moved and seconded to close the public hearing. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. McCarvel: Am I correct in assuming everybody would like a five minute break before we continue discussions? Perreault: Yes, please. McCarvel: Ten? Five? Okay. All right. (Recess: 8:14 p.m. to 8:23 p.m.) McCarvel: Okay. We are going to resume our meeting f rom our short break with Burlingame Subdivision and we are ready for our discussion amongst the Commissioners. We have a few items to address in this proposal, I think what is the -- the stub streets -- the number of stub streets. Staff was asking for three more. They have provided two. I guess is staff okay with that or want to move forward? Fitzgerald: Sure. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission June 1, 2017 Page 55 of 88 Beach: Madam Chair. The applicant has proposed a number of changes. McCarvel: Okay. Beach: As you see here on the staff report, this is -- I have highlighted the things that they have asked to change and things that staff has now received that aren't really pertinent to the application anymore -- McCarvel: Okay. Beach: -- and I -- if you have questions we can go through this as we -- as we go and I think I will answer those questions, but to clarify a little bit some of these things. McCarvel: Okay. So, maybe we ought to take just a second and read this. Fitzgerald: So, the stub street, starting with that, are you okay with the two the way they are aligned? McCarvel: Okay. Okay. And are we okay -- I guess moving forward with the -- I guess the applicant had -- there could be amenities. I mean there wasn't a lot showing on the plat, just that there is open space, but they didn't have a whole lot of ideas of what those -- all amenities were going to be. Are we okay moving forward that staff will take care of that or do we want to have -- to see that again? Yearsley: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Yearsley. Yearsley: My -- my recommendation would be to at least have one amenity on the south end of the -- of the subdivision and one on the north and to be determined at the -- as input in the development agreement would be my recommendation. McCarvel: Okay. Fitzgerald: Prior to Council probably. Have them present it at -- McCarvel: Yeah. Bernt: I think Council is going to want to be more specific, I mean they are going to want -- Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission June 1, 2017 Page 56 of 88 Fitzgerald: Absolutely. McCarvel: But we are okay moving this forward with the -- knowing that -- yeah. Okay. And, then, getting to that ten percent open space and the pathway is being taken care of. I think the other big issue was access to Cherry Lane for that house and the utilities -- getting connected for that. I think we have kind of heard during the questions for the applicant that I think we are all kind of on the same page with that -- that that access does need to go away upon development and as stated in the staff report, that that's one we are not wanting to forgive -- I think after seeing that picture -- I mean that's just an accident waiting to happen there and to kick it down the road for somebody else to take care of and monitor that is an issue. Okay. Bernt: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Bernt. Bernt: Just for my -- just to know, I mean how would that normally happen? I mean would you guys -- how would you monitor that? That might -- I don't -- you don't need to relate it to this specific development agreement, but just for my personal understanding, Beach: The question is how would we monitor -- Bernt: Yeah. I mean who -- if we were to say, yes, we are going to -- we are going to allow you to keep this, you know, street open -- I mean when five to ten years when the street is widened, then, we are going to allow you to cut that off. I mean how would you -- how would staff monitor that? Beach: Someone on the planning staff would have to have the foresight to look at that development agreement and know that it's a cond ition. I mean it's difficult, really, to -- to monitor something like that. That's why we typically don't like to do this -- as has been discussed, typically with a development like this we just want them to do it now. I mean, yes, hypothetically there is the ability to do it later. It's just there is an extremely high likelihood that it will get missed, Bernt: Okay. Thank you. Cassanelli: Just a comment on that one, too. What I have noticed over -- in my short time on the Commission is -- is two or three times now there has been some short sightedness and -- in other areas, in other roadways and whatnot and, then, we wind up Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission June 1, 2017 Page 57 of 88 trying to -- we have tried to figure out a couple of messes, not that this is going to be -- this is a big one, this is fairly small, but I think when we have the -- when we have it in front of us we need to look ahead, we need to look down the road, we need to take care of it now and not wait. This is -- this is small. This is one little house driveway. But we have experienced a couple of things already over the past couple of months that, you know, weren't done right ten years ago or five years ago and now they are a headache. McCarvel: Okay. So, other issues on it -- I think we have kind of covered -- I mean as long as they are in the staff report -- anything else we need to address in our motion? Perreault: Madam Chair, I want to make -- McCarvel: Commissioner Perreault. Perreault: -- one more comment. I agree with Commissioner Bernt regarding that retention pond and the -- and the space not necessarily being included as open space. It's -- it's not a small -- it's not a large development, but it's not a small -- small development either and I -- I don't -- I mean personally I wouldn't want my child playing on a tot lot that's right next to Cherry Lane, if there is one that -- you know, if that's the plan for the other amenity or -- or if somebody -- you know, in my mind, okay, say we leave the actual -- is it 1.89 acres of space -- as open space and they add an additional amenity or two more amenities, maybe we could kind of offset that , you know, because if I remember correctly, staff mentioned that because of the -- the rural nature of the distance of this -- to other areas that's -- that's the desired need for the additional amenity. So, I think it's either more open space or an additional amenity or a combination. McCarvel: Agreed. Cassanelli: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Yes, Commissioner Cassanelli. Cassanelli: Two questions for staff. Number one the irrigation and number two the water -- the water for the subdivision. But irrigation. In order to maintain the flow to the homes to the south, is that something that -- how does Settlers come into the -- the whole picture here? Then, number two, where the water coming into the subdivision, they weren't sure whether they were taking it off White Ash or coming from the north. Does that need to be settled up now? Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission June 1, 2017 Page 58 of 88 Beach: So, just to clarify, are you asking where the water for the property owners to the south will be coming from? Cassanelli: No. Well, their irrigation. So, we heard some testimony there that there is a problem with that irrigation. Where does that fit in with -- I mean does Settlers -- do they need to be involved with the approval of this to determine who is getting their water rights and that sort of thing? And so, then, there are two separate questions and, then, the other one was general water to -- to the subdivision. What I heard was that they weren't sure if it was coming in off of -- off of White Ash. Would the sewer -- or if it was coming in from the north. Has that been decided? Beach: You're talking about two different things. Two different -- irrigation -- Cassanelli: Irrigation water and homeowners water. Either one. Beach: Okay. So, as far as utilities go, water and sewer, that's still kind of a question. We are working with the Public Works Department. There is an issue with sewer depth and how all the properties will be -- will be serviced, to be honest. So, there is a meeting set up with Public Works to kind of work through that with them . We don't have that all quite figured out yet. So, that's -- that's dealing with the -- the water and sewer. I believe the water will be coming from O'Conner. Typically we like that to be looped, to connect somewhere else to maintain that pressure. And so, again, that's something we will have to figure out as to where that's going to happen . As far as irrigation goes, the applicant is required by state law to make sure that water goes to and through their property. So, they have to be able to provide that further downstream to the other users of that irrigation water. My understanding is that they will pump the 12 hours a day they are allowed into their pond for the use of the internal subdivision. Typically that's how we require subdivisions to be -- to utilize pressurized irrigation and typically they will have city water as a backup in case they don't -- something happens or they don't have sufficient capacity. The engineers are responsible for designing their pond such that it will hold the capacity that they need to provide water to those residents for the irrigation water. And I don't have the answer to whether that's the case or not, but they will have to look at that with their engineering plans to make sure that that will work . Cassanelli: On the regular water, then, does that -- until the -- well, the water and the sewer. Until those are figured out does this need to be continued? Beach: I don't think so. It will be figured out before we get to City Council. There is -- there is multiple options here. They are just trying to figure out which is the best. As far as I know that's -- they have a meeting I believe set up next week with P ublic Works to Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission June 1, 2017 Page 59 of 88 talk this through and they -- you know, they had a plan back in 2006 for this, because it was approved then. I don't have a whole lot of heartburn with that not being figured out for it now. I just don't have an answer as to -- as to how. Parsons: Commissioners, in the staff report the applicant was given options on how to route the sewer. They have to provide utility stubs to certain properties. So, in our discussions with -- not necessarily Public Works, but land development and the applicant and planning at that meeting, there is multiple options here that, as Josh mentioned, can happen to facilitate that. So, we feel comfortable that a continuance isn't needed tonight and that we will have something worked out before City Council. That was the direction that we heard from -- at the meeting that we had with the applicant. So, I think by the time we get to Council we should have a better option for the applicant to pursue and provide not only services to this development, but also to the adjacent properties per city ordinance. McCarvel: Other comments? Okay. Yearsley: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Yearsley. Yearsley: After considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I moved to approve file number H-2017-0055 as presented in a staff report for the hearing date of June 1st, 2017, with the following modifications: That item 1.1.1B, E, -- B, C and -- be stricken and part of E as shown on the -- the current revised staff report and 1.1.2C and D be stricken from the staff report. And, then, 1.1.1C, that the ten foot multi-use pathway should be on the south side of Bellevue Court and on the west side of O'Connell as shown in the -- the proposed plat and, then, the development agreement be modified to show site amenities on the south and north -- open space areas to be determined at City Council. McCarvel: Okay. Fitzgerald: One quick -- on -- can you go back down, Josh? Change 1.1.1A, take the three additional and make those two. Yearsley: Yes. The only -- the two access points instead of three. Very good. Beach: And could even clarify and say as proposed by the applicant, rather than going through by parcel numbers and -- that might make more sense anyway. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission June 1, 2017 Page 60 of 88 Yearsley: Okay. What he said. Fitzgerald: As proposed by the applicant and I will second the motion based on that change. McCarvel: So, we are holding to eliminating Cherry Lane; right? Yearsley: Absolutely. McCarvel: Okay. Second? Fitzgerald: I got it. McCarvel: Okay. You got a second. Okay. It has been moved and seconded to approve H-2017-0055, Burlingame Subdivision, with the aforementioned changes. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIES: ALL AYES. E. Continued Public Hearing from May 18, 2017 for Bannock Ridge (H-2017-0050) by Two C Development, LLC Located ` 2940, 3101 & 3155 S. Mesa Way 1. Request: Annexation and Zoning of 9.42 Acres of Land with an R-4 Zoning District 2. Request: Preliminary Plat Approval Consisting of Thirty -One (31) Building Lots and Six (6) Common Lots on 13.57 Acres of Land in the R-4 Zoning District McCarvel: At this time I'd like to open the public hearing for Item 2017 -- or H-2017- 0050, Bannock Ridge. We will begin with the staff report. Allen: Thank you, Chairman, Commissioners. Just one moment here. McCarvel: When staff is ready. It's like the changing of the guard over there. Allen: Yes. All right. The next application before you is a request for annexation and zoning and a preliminary plat. This site consists of 13.57 acres of land. It's zoned R-4 and RUT in Ada County and is located at the southwest corner of West Victory Road and South Mesa Way at 2940, 3101 and 3155 South Mesa Way. Adjacent land use Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission June 1, 2017 Page 61 of 88 and zoning. To the north is rural residential property, zoned RUT in Ada County. To the east are single family residential properties in Cabella Creek Subdivision, zoned R- 4. To the south is East Victory Road and future single family residential properties, zoned R-8. And to the west are single family residential properties in Glacier Springs Subdivision, zoned R-4. This property was previously platted as Lots 1, 2 and 3, Block 2, Kachina Estates Subdivision and developed in the county. The southern parcel owned by the Sheas was an annexed into the city in 2008 and a development agreement was approved as a provision of annexation. The preliminary plat was also approved, but has since expired. The Comprehensive Plan future land use map designation for this property is low density residential. The applicant has applied for annexation and zoning of 9.42 acres of land from the RUT zoning district in Ada County, to the R-4 district in the city consistent with the future land use map designation of low density residential. The property is proposed to develop with 28 new single family residential detached homes in addition to the three existing homes that are proposed to remain on lots in the proposed subdivision. Because a development agreement already exists on the Shea property and is for a previous development plan, staff recommends a new agreement is required that supersedes the existing agreement. A preliminary plat is proposed as shown that consists of 31 single family residential building lots and six common lots on 13.57 acres of land in an R-4 zoning district. The minimum property size is 8,002 square feet, with an average lot size of 13,812 square feet. A gross density of 2.28 units per acre is proposed. The face of Block 2 along the west boundary of the site exceeds the maximum block length allowed of 750 feet without an intersecting street or alley. The applicant is requesting Council approval of the block length, which measures approximately 900 feet in length, as allowed in the UDC when the block length is constrained by certain site conditions that include an a butting urban development with no vehicular or pedestrian stubs . Access is proposed via south Mesa Way from East Victory Road at the east boundary of the site and by an existing stub street, East Bloggers Pass Street, at the northwest boundary from Glacier Springs Subdivision. A 25 foot wide street buffer is required along East Victory Road as proposed, with a detached sidewalk. Detached sidewalks with landscaped parkways are proposed along all of the internal streets. Mitigation is required for all existing healthy trees four inch caliper and greater that are removed from the site . A total of 1.36 acres or 10.4 percent of qualified open space is proposed within the development consisting of eight foot wide parkways throughout the development, half of the street buffer along Victory Road and common area for pathways are located in accord with UDC standards. A segment of the city's multi-use pathway system is proposed along the Ten Mile Creek on this site as an amenity, which will connect to existing pathways to the east and west. This is a copy of the landscape plan in two sections shown before you there. The applicant has submitted photos of homes that will be similar to those proposed to be constructed in the development. The elevations that were included in Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission June 1, 2017 Page 62 of 88 the staff report were the incorrect elevations. They were from a previous application for Bannock Ridge proposed on this site. So, please, disregard those and note the ones shown here in the presentation. Written testimony has been received from Dan Lardy, the applicant's representative. He was -- had some concern with condition number 2.1.1 requiring a water main connection out to South Mesa Way. Bruce Freckleton agreed that Lots 11 through 13 will be served by installing long water services to these lots. They will not be required to extend the water main as required. So, staff is good with modifying that condition. And a letter of testimony was received from Liz -- and I'm probably going to mispronounce this -- Ecanis. She was concerned regarding the removal of existing mature trees along the west boundary adjacent to Glacier Springs Subdivision and the fencing height along the west boundary and trenching along the west boundary damaging the root systems of existing trees on Glacier Springs property and construction work done on the site that may jeopardize the safety of their pets . Staff is recommending approval with the conditions in Exhibit B of the staff report. Staff will stand for any questions. McCarvel: Thank you, Sonya. Any questions? Yearsley: Madam Chair? Sonya, can you show me where those connections are that they were talking about? Allen: Chairman, Commissioner Fitz -- excuse me -- Yearsley. Which connections are you referencing? Yearsley: Well, in -- regarding that Condition 1.1. -- or 2.1.1. I just -- I wasn't sure which -- Allen: I'm sorry, I'm not -- I'm not positive. That's Public Works' requirements and they aren't here tonight. Yearsley: All right. Allen: The applicant can probably clarify that for you. Yearsley: Okay. McCarvel: Any other questions for staff? Okay. Would the applicant like to come forward. As you have probably noticed, we are ha ving trouble with that mic, so if you could speak right into it. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission June 1, 2017 Page 63 of 88 Lardy: Understood. Good evening, Commissioner -- Madam Chair and Commissioners. Dan Lardy, Levin & Associates. 1324 1st Street South, Nampa, McCarvel: Okay. Lardy: I represent 2C Development and if I could, I -- can I hold the -- or Commissioner Yearsley's question to the end. I know he had a question about the connections. McCarvel: Yes. Go ahead. Yearsley: Absolutely. Lardy: The one that's there. So, this parcel is -- well, it's an enclave piece. It's surrounded by the county and it is in the county currently, surrounded by the city. It's slowly developed over the years and it has grown and it's prime for development. It fits the zoning. It fits the Comprehensive Plan. And it just should be a nice addition to the neighborhood. It will match the neighboring subs to the west and to the east. So, it should be -- I will try and be even brief, just for that reason, because I know the hour is later. So, with that I will just go ahead and answer Commissioner Yearsley's question. The connection that was in question -- see if I can get this -- see if I can have control of this mouse. There we go. The Public Works is requesting that we run a main line up this T connection and out to -- oops. There we go. And out to Mesa, when we already have a connection. We are going through this stub road of Novara out into Mesa there. So, the water connection connects out here. It will connect out to Victory and it will connect into Loggers Pass. So, we should have good -- good connectivity with that. So, the open space -- it's ten percent -- you know, we have -- we have a pond there and we have been requested -- this pond right here in Lot 22, Block 1. It was requested that we try and develop it as usable open space. It is not included in our open space calculations, but it will be green space just the same. But we will attempt to do everything we can to make it fit open space , so it is usable under the UDC. With that I will stand for any questions. McCarvel: Okay. Is there any other questions for the applicant? So, you say without -- even without that pond you've already -- your calculations for your ten percent open space don't include that anyway. Lardy: That's correct. McCarvel: Okay. Perfect. Thank you. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission June 1, 2017 Page 64 of 88 Bernt: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Oh. Bernt: Can you speak in regard to your amenities? Lardy: The amenities. So, we have attempted to carry the Ten Mile Creek path -- so, the Ten Mile Creek path actually is supposed to run along Ten Mile Creek. Unfortunately, the existing home that's on Lot 5 here actually extends to the easement, So, we don't have room to get a pathway in there . So, we have run our path -- we have run the multi-use path down this common are right here and, then, out to Mesa and, then, it will connect to the north of the -- north of Ten Mile Creek and, then, there is a pathway down here in this -- in this lot -- Lot 8 I believe it is and connect out to Victory along this -- along with just the parkway strip, the eight foot detach sidewalk with the parkway, I know that doesn't count as an amenity, it counts as open space. Sorry. McCarvel: So, other than the pathway, there really isn't another amenity? Lardy: Not per se, no. McCarvel: Okay. So, under ten acres -- and so you're only required to have one, Sonya or Bill? Allen: Yes. McCarvel: Yes. Bernt: I think you should set a precedence and do two. McCarvel: All right. All right. Any others? You're good? All right. Thank you. Lardy: Thank you. McCarvel: All right. There is no one signed up to speak on this issue, but is there anyone in the room that wishes to? All right. So, I don't think we need the applicant to come forward again -- Fitzgerald: Madam Chair, I move we close the public hearing. Yearsley: Second. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission June 1, 2017 Page 65 of 88 Bernt: Second. McCarvel: It has been moved and seconded to close the public hearing on H -2017- 0050, Bannock Ridge. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. McCarvel: Thoughts? Fitzgerald: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Fitzgerald. Fitzgerald: I think -- you know, we get these comments a lot where we don't have enough big lots and big neighborhoods that match each other. This is one of those I think that matches pretty well in regards to the neighboring subdivisions around it. So, I -- I would love to see like a park bench or a pocket park somewhere -- either on the pathway up north or in that pocket park down at the bottom, is there a gazebo or something -- I don't know. Just something besides just pathways being an amenity. But I -- in general I like the idea and I like how they have incorporated the canal into it. McCarvel: Okay. Anyone else? Cassanelli: I would agree. McCarvel: Commissioner Cassanelli. Cassanelli: A hundred percent. McCarvel: Okay. No further discussion, do we have a motion? Yearsley: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Yearsley. Yearsley: After considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move to recommend approval to City Council of file number H-2017-0050 as presented in a staff report for the hearing date of June 1st, 2017, with the following modifications: That Condition 2.1.1 be removed. And I believe that was all. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission June 1, 2017 Page 66 of 88 McCarvel: Okay. Wilson: Second. McCarvel: It has been moved and seconded to approve H-2017-0050 with the one modification. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. F. Public Hearing for Preakness Subdivision (H-2017-0057) by Schultz Development Located 1155 W. Victory Road 1. Request: Annexation and Zoning of 5.00 Acres of Land with an R-4 Zoning District 2. Request: Preliminary Plat Approval Consisting of Sixteen (16) Building Lots and Two (2) Common Lots on 4.75 Acres of Land in a Proposed R-4 Zoning District McCarvel: Okay. Moving on. We will open the public hearing for Item No. H-2017- 0057, Preakness Subdivision and we will begin with the staff report. Allen: Thank you, Chairman, Members of the Commission. The next applications before you are a request for annexation and zoning and a preliminary plat. This site consists of five acres of land, zoned RUT in Ada County, located at 1155 West Victory Road. Adjacent land use and zoning. To the north is West Victory Road and rural residential properties in Pebble Lane Estates, zoned R-1 in Ada County. To the east and south are single family residential properties in Kentucky Ridge. zoned R-4. And to the west as future single family residential development, Edgehill Subdivision, zoned R-4. The Comprehensive Plan future land use map designation for this property as low density residential. The applicant is requesting annexation and zoning of five acres of land with an R-4 zoning district and Council approval of a step up in density from low density residential to medium density residential. The gross density is slightly over that desired in low density residential designated areas of three or fewer units per acre. The proposed density is 3.37 units per acre. The preliminary plat consists of 16 single family residential detached building lots and two common area lots on 4.75 acres of land in the R-4 zoning district, with an average lot size of 10,151 square feet. There is an existing structure on this site that is proposed to remain on a lot in the proposed subdivision . Access is proposed via the extension of an existing stub street at the east boundary from Kentucky Ridge Estates Subdivision. Another stub street is proposed in alignment Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission June 1, 2017 Page 67 of 88 with that street to the west, which will extend with the development of Edgehill Subdivision to the west. A 25 foot wide landscape street buffer is required along Victory Road as proposed, with a detached five foot wide sidewalk. Because the site is below five acres in size and large lots are proposed, the UDC does not require any open space or site amenities to be provided, nor has staff recommended any. The applicant has submitted seven photos of homes that will be similar to those constructed in this subdivision and will be architecturally compatible with those constructed to the east in Kentucky Ridge Estates Subdivision. These photos all depict at least two different building materials and stone and brick veneer accents. Written testimony has been received from Matt Schultz, the applicant's representative in agreement with the staff report. Staff is recommending approval with the conditions in Exhibit B of the staff report. Staff will stand for any questions. McCarvel: Any questions for staff? Yearsley: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Yearsley. Yearsley: Sonya, I don't know if I -- I didn't see it, but I don't know -- the lots that are facing -- are backing Victory, are we requiring the condition of architectural features? Allen: Chairman and Commissioner Yearsley. Yes. Any structures that are two stories in height will be held to additional standards and that is in the staff report. Yes. Yearsley: Okay. Allen: Single story homes are exempt. Yearsley: Perfect. Thank you. McCarvel: Anybody else? Okay. Would the applicant like to come forward? Schultz: Good evening, Commissioners. Matt Schultz. 8421 South Ten Mille in Meridian. Here on behalf of T&M Holdings and the Preakness Subdivision. We do agree with staff conditions of approval and I'd just like to say from the get go we never even thought about doing R-8 out there. It's definitely R-4 area and we have R-4 surrounding us and I don't know if -- Sonya, if you have the color rendering that we provided? Do you have that in your -- in your package? Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission June 1, 2017 Page 68 of 88 Allen: I do not. Schultz: Well, our lots are a least as big or bigger than the adjacent lots directly to the -- to the east of the existing Kentucky Ridge Subdivision or bigger. The only unique thing or kind of this in the middle here, you see the common driveway, they are keeping -- one as a nice house -- existing house in the middle. Kind of get a little bit of a common drive, kind of get around it. It's a little bit inefficient, but it works. The lot sizes are big, it works, come up a common driveway and keep that nice house that's out there in the middle. You wouldn't design it that way from the start, but, you know, it works out. So, I could say we are surrounded by R-4s, so we are R-4. We want to blend in. We don't want to stand out or be different. And there will be an interim condition where our traffic will go through the Kentucky Ridge Phase Two now. Construction traffic, we are going to -- as long as we can keep directly out to Victory, so the construction traffic is not going through them while we are building our subdivision as long as we -- until we get to a certain point where we are going to have to -- maybe send a concrete truck or two through there. But we are getting on the record to commit to the neighbors that we are going to do that. And, then, Edgehill to the west, we are not sure when, but it is approved and about four lots down from our stub street that goes to the west, there will be a full access out to Victory and so not only our subdivision will primarily go out that way, but I think a lot of -- Kentucky Ridge phase two will end up going out that way, too, instead of winding back through the existing Kentucky Ridge No. 1 where they have a collector road over there. So, like I said, it's pretty simple. It fits I think. I think it's a good fit. It's pretty straightforward. We do agree with staff's recommendation for approval and I will stand for any questions. Thank you. McCarvel: Any questions for the applicant? Thank you. Schultz: Thanks. McCarvel: At this time we will have public testimony and we do have one other person signed up to testify this evening. Dan Beck. Beck: Hi, Commissioners. My name is Dan Beck. I live at 2889 South Cobble Way in Meridian. McCarvel: Uh-huh. Beck: I live just north across the street and I drive out onto Victory and there is -- there is already an existing development that Hayden Homes did just to the east of this property and they were allowed to build two story single family residents right up against Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission June 1, 2017 Page 69 of 88 Victory and if you drive past there it looks pretty awful, you know, just having a wall there with a porch coming out and my suggestion would be to have that stree t lined with single story houses versus the two story and have the two story towards the inside of the property, because of the -- the look. It just kind of brings down the neighborhood every time I drive by there. Go home, into the -- my subdivision and you're looking at the single -- it looks like a wall. It just doesn't look appropriate for the neighborhood. And that's just my suggestion to try to up the appearance of everything there. McCarvel: Okay. Thank you. Beck: Appreciate your consideration. Thank you. McCarvel: Thank you. Is there anyone else wishing to testify on this issue this evening? Okay. Matt, did you wish to come back forward and address that? Schultz: Thank you. Matt Schultz. It's a pretty wide street. It will be widened out to I believe -- I think it's a three lane. I think it will be a two lane with a center turn lane or it will be -- there is -- we have dedicated -- or the previous owner already sold the right of way to ACHD, 25 foot landscape buffer. There is about a 50-50 chance it will be single story homes and we are articulating the rears to try to make them as good as we can, but I think to limit us to singles along there is a little bit over -- it's more than we want to commit to. I don't want to be disrespectful to the neighbor, but I don't -- I don't think it looks that bad myself out there. I guess if you -- if I lived across the street for a long time with that was a field I might feel differently, but that's just -- hopefully, you guys, will this let us do what we propose. And I do want to have one more thing if I could about a condition I forgot to speak to originally. There was a condition in the staff report that talks about a 30 foot common driveway -- to increase it from 25 to 30. And Sonja was looking at something that -- I think around an existing house. Our architect -- our landscape architect had drawn a fence right up against the driveway. So, she was absolutely correct in requiring an extra five feet for a landscape buffer before the fence hit the driveway, but that, essentially, was a mistake and I talked to Sonya about it after the staff report came out. So, the 25 foot is -- is appropriate, as long as no fence goes up against the driveway. And we are deleting that fence for the record, I believe, so, hopefully, that's the only -- that's the only minor revision to the staff report that I would suggest is that we be able to do the 25 foot landscape -- or 25 foot common driveway, instead of the 30 that was recommended as long as we de lete the fence. Thank you. McCarvel: And I'm going to -- I will just address Mr. Beck's issue. I'm just going to read you this real quick, what it does say in our staff report. That two story homes are constructed on Lots 1 through 4, Block 1, they will be highly visible from West Victory Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission June 1, 2017 Page 70 of 88 Road, an arterial street, therefore, staff recommends that the rear elevations of these two story homes incorporate articulation through changes in two or more of the following: Material types, projections, recesses, step backs to give it more of a visual. Okay. So -- and that is in their conditions, so -- Fitzgerald: Thanks. Madam Chair? McCarvel: Yes. Fitzgerald: Sonya, are you okay with the change from the 25 to -- or from 30 to 25 on the common drive? Allen: Chairman and Commissioner Fitzgerald, yes. Fitzgerald: Thank you. Thanks. McCarvel: Okay. Cassanelli: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Yearsley -- yes, Commissioner Cassanelli. Cassanelli: I was -- I was going to make a motion we close the public session on -- McCarvel: Absolutely. Cassanelli: -- on file H-2017-0057. Bernt: Second. McCarvel: It has been moved and seconded to close the public hearing on H-2017- 0057. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. McCarvel: I just will -- I will start on this. I agree, this is my night. The R-4s -- I love it. As small as they -- areas they are. I think it's a great little in-fill project between these two -- the existing on the east and the proposed that's coming into the west. I think it will be a nice little addition. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission June 1, 2017 Page 71 of 88 Fitzgerald: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Mr. Fitzgerald. Fitzgerald: I agree and I think it will also do an interconnect between Kentucky Ridge. They have -- or they have already been in complaining about traffic issues, so this may give them another exit point out of the neighborhood when they connect to the neighborhood to the west. So, I completely agree with your comments. McCarvel: Anybody else? Okay. Are we ready for a motion then? Fitzgerald: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Fitzgerald. Fitzgerald: After considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony I move to recommend approval of the City Council of file number H-2017-0057 as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of June 1st, with the following modification: That we remove the 30 foot common driveway and set it to 25 feet. Bernt: Second. Yearsley: Second. McCarvel: It has been moved and seconded to approve H-2017-0057 with modification. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. G. Public Hearing for Paramount Director (H-2017-0064) by Brighton Investments, LLC Located Southwest Corner of N. Meridian Road and W. Chinden Boulevard 1. Request: Preliminary Plat Approval Consisting of 196 Building Lots and 24 Common Lots on 35.64 Acres of Land 2. Request: Planned Unit Development McCarvel: And last, but not least, at this time we would like to open the public hearing for item H-2017-0064, Paramount Director. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission June 1, 2017 Page 72 of 88 Allen: Thank you, Chairman, Commissioners. The next applications before you are a request for preliminary plat and planned unit development. This site consists of 35.64 acres of land. It zoned R-15 and it's located at the southwest corner of North Meridian Road and West Chinden Boulevard. This property was annexed in 2013 and the existing development agreement for Paramount Subdivision was modified to include this property. Since that time the property has been rezoned to R-15 and the development agreement was modified again to update the concept plan and a couple of preliminary plats have also been approved for this property. The Comprehensive Plan future land use map designation is -- the northern 26 acres is designated mixed use community and the southern 15 acres is designated medium density residential . A development agreement modification is requested to modify the concept development plan to accommodate the proposed development. This does not require action from the Commission, only City Council. The concept development plan is as shown and proposes a mix of attached and detached homes for age qualified 55 and older housing in a gated community. Some will be independent living rental units with services provided by the adjoining Veranda assisted living facility that was recently constructed just to the west of this property. A preliminary plat is proposed as shown that consists of 196 building lots and 24 common lots on 35.64 acres of land in the R-15 zoning district. The subdivision is proposed to develop in two phases as shown. One access is proposed via north Fox Run Way. You can see here at the west side of the development and another is proposed via Director Street along the south boundary. These are both collector streets. Access -- excuse me. Gates are proposed at the entries to the development. Private streets are proposed for internal access within the development. Another access via Director is proposed to the common area where a community pool is proposed and that is right here, if you can see where my arrow is pointing. This access requires Council approval of a waiver to the UDC 11-3A-3, which restricts access to collector streets. There are no local streets adjacent to the site for access. Direct access via Chinden and Meridian Road is not proposed and is prohibited. The plat depicts right of way long Chinden and Meridian Road for future dedication for the widening of these streets. A minimum 35 foot wide street buffer is required along Chinden and Meridian Road, both entryway corridors. And that is after right of way is dedicated for widening of the adjacent streets. A 20 foot -- excuse me. A 20 foot wide buffer is required along Fox Run, a collector street. Fox Run is the street here to the west. A minimum of ten percent qualified open space and two site amenities are required to be provided for this development. The applicant is proposing 20.9 percent or 7.46 acres of qualified open space, which is twice the required amount and amenities consisting of a clubhouse, swimming pool, and outdoor activity complex and that's right here in the center of the development and segments of the city's multi -use pathway system within the buffer along Chinden Boulevard and Meridian Road. A multi- use pathway was also constructed along Director Street, just adjacent to the south Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission June 1, 2017 Page 73 of 88 boundary of the site with a previous phase of Paramount. A future community swimming pool is also proposed at the southwest c orner of the development and that is -- if you can see my arrow here -- in the common area at the southwest corner. Nine conceptual building elevations were submitted as shown for homes within this development. Six different styles and types of homes are proposed consisting of cottages with front and alley access garages, quad cottages with alley access garages, traditional with alley access garage, patio homes with front access garages and traditional MEW lots with alley garages. All attached structures are required to comply with the design standards in the architectural standards manual . The applicant did submit a detail for the cottages with the alley garages and the shared driveways and those are the ones proposed here, if you can see the gray shared driveways here, those are those homes. This is an exhibit showing the types of homes, the locations of them that I just mentioned. A planned unit development as requested, which allows for innovative design that creates visually pleasing and cohesive p atterns of development and create functionally integrated development that allows for more efficient and cost effective provision of public services. Deviations from the underlying district requirements may be approved through this type of application . As part of the planned unit development a variety of housing types are proposed as previously mentioned . Buildings are clustered with homes fronting on MEWs and a surplus of common area and site amenities are provided. Deviations from the code that are requested to achieve the proposed design consists of the following: The allowance of alleys that are not fully visible from a public street. That's what the code requires, since there are private streets within this development, none will be visible from public streets. There is one alley here in the central middle of the development along the north boundary that has an alley that is not visible from any other private streets , just to note. Blocks -- it's also requesting blocks that exceed the maximum block length allowed in residential districts and that is the block here along the southwest portion of the site and along the north boundary. And, finally, reductions in front garage and street side building setbacks and those are as shown in the staff report. There is a table showing what the city's required setbacks are versus what the applicant is proposing. Written testimony has been received from Mike Wardle, the applicant, and he is requesting modification to condition number 1.2.3A to include lots -- both of Lots 85 and 86 in the note. Staff is agreeable to that change. He also requests modification to conditions number 1.2.3D and 1.2.3E, which require pathways to break up the block face to comply with block length standards. The applicant is proposing to include pathways within the blocks along Director Street and that would be here from Director along the edge of the common area here where the community pool will be located and , then, also along the common drive here at the east boundary of the site. While these pathways will provide for pedestrian connectivity to the regional pathway, it doesn't necessarily make the blocks comply with block length standards. However, since this is a planned unit Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission June 1, 2017 Page 74 of 88 development, deviations from code can be approved if deemed appropriate by the Commission and Council. Staff is recommending approval with the conditions in Exhibit B of the staff report. Staff will stand for any questions. McCarvel: Questions for staff? Okay. Thank you. Would the applicant like to come forward. Allen: Give me just a second, Jon. Wardle: Good evening, Commissioners. For the record my name is Jon Wardle. My address is 12601 West Explorer Drive in Boise. 83713. And we just have a simple PowerPoint that we are going to put up tonight. While that's coming up just wanted to reacquaint you with this project. It was approved -- a preliminary plat was approved for this project in the end of 2016. We signed a development agreement for it. It included an aspect of this, which was a 55 plus, and it also included two story townhomes, which would not be 55 plus. We do make changes at times, but as we stepped back and once we had our approval, we really felt strongly that we had an opportunity to do this entire neighborhood within Paramount as a 55 plus community. Paramount is unique. I actually live in Paramount. There are a lot of families there, but there are a lot of multi- generational families as well. You will have kids, their parents, and even their grandparents all having their families in this neighborhood and we recently opened the Veranda senior living facility on the western edge of this neighborhood on the corner of Fox Run and Chinden and as we started to look at that a little bit closer, we felt like if there was ever a place to do a fully integrated 55 plus, age restricted community, this was it and so we pulled our plans back and we decided we are going to pause and evaluate it. So, we have gone through market studies, we have researched the type of homes that we felt were appropriate, not only for this community on Encore, but also compatible with Paramount and so we have taken a lot of the styles that you would find within Paramount and integrated that into this neighborhood. So, with that I just wanted to go through a few slides for you tonight. I'm assuming I'm just scrolling down here. So, for a point of reference, Paramount Director Subdivision is south of Chinden and is bounded by Meridian Road on the east, Fox Run on the west and Director on the south. All these roads are complete and finished. This map doesn't show Director being finished, but it is complete and that access exists today out to Meridian Road. In fact, we have a ten foot asphalt pathway that connects from Fox Run to Meridian Road that will be on the south side of Encore -- of this neighborhood Paramount Director and we will continue that pathway system along Chinden Boulevard and down Meridian Road as well when this project is complete. Sorry, this is just a little jumpy or maybe I'm just a little jumpy. Here is an overview of the community. As mentioned by Sonya in the staff report and in her narrative, there -- we want to gate this neighborhood. As we have Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission June 1, 2017 Page 75 of 88 done our research, there is a -- a sense of security that residents in 55 plus active adult neighborhoods want to have. That gate does provide that. it also gives them the opportunity to perhaps limit their guests who would come to visit them . So, if they don't want grandkids coming over they could keep them out. Not sure that anybody would do that, but it could happen. A couple other things I want to point out on this exhibit is down here in the corner along Fox Run and Director it says Paramount future pool. Currently in Paramount we have built three neighborhood pools. We always made a commitment that we would build a fourth pool and when we brought our project forward previously we were going to do that in a different location, but we felt like since we were going to integrate Director as a 55 plus community, we wanted to put the Paramount pool closer to the Paramount neighborhood. So, that's going to be on the corner there. As noted in the staff report, we want an access for a driveway and a small parking lot area that will align directly with the road to the south f or that Paramount pool. So, we will take any potential parking issues on Director, take them off street into a parking place within that new pool area. Also as noted here, just showing the regional pathway connections that we will complete. We have built about 700 feet of the regional pathway currently along Chinden from Fox Run through the Veranda senior living site, down along Chinden and will continue that pathway as we move through the project and we will also build the ten foot pathway from Chinden Boulevard down to Director and, finally, in the middle of the project when you come into the neighborhood, it shows the Encore clubhouse. Just to kind of give you a feel of what we see here with this and as noted in the staff we will go through the CZC and design review process, so this will come back in for staff for them to review. We really envision this will be a 4,000 to 5,000 square foot clubhouse. It will have a full blown fitness facility, activity rooms, his and her private club, so a place for guys to go and a place for the women to go and we are also talking about on the north side of this building actually do an indo or swimming pool with this clubhouse. It may go outdoor, but we are seriously considering making it a year round swimming pool, so these residents have that as an opportunity for them. So, from an amenity perspective it was noted -- I know earlier tonight noted, you know, what amenities are being provided in this neighbor -- in the neighborhoods. We have 20 percent of his community, which is qualified open space. We are actually building two pool facilities, one for the benefit of Paramount and one for the benefit of Encore Director with this community and this will have a dedicated fitness facility and gathering spaces for the residents here. We really feel like this will be not just a clubhouse, but this is going to be a good marquee project for Meridian. As people decide, you know what, I don't need to retire someplace else, I can be right here in the community I grew up in and stay here or those of us who are living here, perhaps we can invite our parents to move back to our community to live a little bit closer to grandkids as well. I won't get into this one, because Sonya did a pretty good job of discussing the different variety of home types, but we do have a wide variety of different types of residential Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission June 1, 2017 Page 76 of 88 opportunities. Yes, they are all single family residential, they will be single story. There may be some bonus rooms here, but this -- the demographic wants to live on the first floor. They want their living room on the first floor. They want -- their space is on the first floor. So, while there may be a bonus room or two, we don't envision that any of these would be your typical two story homes. These will be single story homes likely with a bonus room. And those are some of the home styles. I wanted to kind of give you a little better visual of what we think and what we see some of these different parts of this community are going to look like. Up in the top left corner in red -- and we talked about this. As the homes face common area, we see that the pathways will be coming off of the main street, walking up to the front door. These homes will face each other. There won't be garages on the front, but you will have a lot of interaction. We also want to have some areas where small gardens will be able to be had for these residents that will be their own personal space. On the top right in blue this is an area facing a larger common area, so these homes would face out. They would be alley loaded and they would have a lot of common area in front of them. Down on the lower right similar concept where these homes are facing out to a common area, but you have a pathway connecting these homes and residents. And, then, finally, in the bottom left this just kind of gives you a feel for these alley loaded homes. They will be closer to the sidewalk. That's not a bad thing. It invites the connectivity and communication and social aspects that the 55 plus really want. So, we have tried to take into consideration a lot of different opportunities to deemphasize garages, emphasize the architecture, emphasize the connections that people have socially through the Encore clubhouse, through the pathway systems within this neighborhood. And, then, this was just another little example of what that common area would be or the pathways connecting the units that are facing up there in the top left. As mentioned -- and it wasn't perhaps totally clear in our application, but we do -- we do believe that the connections to the regional pathways are important. We will have a pathway connection on Director in two different locations. One on the west just adjacent to the Paramount pool facility that we will build and, then, we propose doing one on the east side near Meridian Road, also bring that down to Director, connecting it to the ten foot wide regional pathway that we built internal, but it will also connect to the other facilities as well. Yes, I will say that technically those block lengths are long, but taken in context if you look at just the south side, yes, it's long, but if you look on the north side of each of those roads, there is a lot of breakup of that road. There is also additional open space that fronts that and I think by making the connections down to the pathway in those two designated areas that we can accomplish what the city really would like to see. Again, you have our response in front of you. We do respectfully request your approval this evening of this project. There are a few different applications that are in front of you for preliminary plat and PUD. We will also take this to the City Council for their concurrence on the private streets, as well as the development agreement modification. Brighton is very excited to Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission June 1, 2017 Page 77 of 88 do this project here. Not only here in this location, but as we have looked at some of our other neighborhoods where we could have a multi-generational opportunities, we see that bringing this into those other communities will benefit and b roaden the demographic mix within our neighborhoods. And I stand for any questions you might have. Fitzgerald: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Fitzgerald. Fitzgerald: We have had as of late challenges with private streets. Explain to me or tell me how you guys are going to handle the HOA. Is it going to be a sub of Paramount master or is it going to be its own and how are the street maintenance, snow removal, those kinds of things going to be handled inside of Encore? Wardle: Commissioner Fitzgerald, great question. So, although Encore is within Paramount, because there are private streets it will have its own association. So, there will be dues that will be specifically collected for roadway maintenance, for snow removal. That's very important for this group, that they want to make sure that the ir roads are clear. They want to make sure their sidewalks are clear and instead of trying to merge that in with Paramount, we feel like a separate HOA will be required for that. We really kind of feel like in order to accomplish that, as we have researched it, our HOA dues will be somewhere in the ballpark of 1,400 to 1,700 a year, but that also gets them the benefit of the access to the clubhouse, the pool facility. One other thing that we are doing with this community is that all of the yards are maintained by the association, so -- it's just something that we feel is in high demand. Fitzgerald: Thank you. Perreault: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Perreault. Perreault: Would you, please, go over the common parking -- where parking is going to be for -- for residents that use the clubhouse and, then, any additional areas where -- the staff report says there is eight locations adjacent to the 20 foot wide alleys where there is going to be common lot spaces for parking and -- do you happen to have a drawing for that? Wardle: See if I can zoom into this a little bit. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission June 1, 2017 Page 78 of 88 Perreault: Okay. Wardle: If I might answer your first question. There -- in the alleyways, particularly around where we have these little central park areas, we felt like we had some opportunities to provide some additional off -street parking and so that will be these little gray areas that show up right here. Those are the 18. So, if you went through all those alleys you would find those. Around the clubhouse, however, we feel like we do need to provide parking and so on both sides of that clubhouse there are I'd like to say 30 -- I'd have to go back and look at the number, but we are anticipating at least 30 off-street parking stalls that if somebody within the neighborhood wants to drive there they could. If there is a guest they can do that as well. So, you know, there will be additional parking opportunities. Most of these streets don't have interference with driveways and so we will have the on-street parking as well and not have those restrictions that of 20 to 30 foot driveways that don't allow you parking. So, off-street parking is important, but we feel like we are addressing it here. Yearsley: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Yearsley. Yearsley: Just to follow on with that question. So, are your streets wide enough that you can actually park both sides of the street and, actually, maintain traffic across them? Wardle: Commissioner Yearsley, we are -- we have a 29 foot street. Parking on one side only. The other side would not allow parking and so if you will -- and the staff report notes how that would be addressed through -- through those restrictions and with that, yes, we can accommodate the traffic through. Yearsley: I just -- just as a comment, you know, my envision of Christmas and Thanksgiving is parking being a shortage, but I think that's fairly well addressed. I don't know how, you know, it will -- yeah. The other question is are you going to have -- so, you're going to have gates at the entrances. What about like for the sidewalks and the pathways? Will those be gated as well or will there be a fencing -- fence around the entire community? I mean just kind of get a -- for me just a sense of security or are you guys proposing? Wardle: Commissioner Yearsley, there will be perimeter fencing predominantly. We will have that on Chinden, on Meridian Road and on Director. However, there will be Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission June 1, 2017 Page 79 of 88 pedestrian access in and out that will, you know, allow the public to come in and go out. They may not be able to drive the car in , but they will be able to walk in and that's -- we feel like that connection is important, but also I know that it's a requirement with the cit y code that pedestrian access be allowed in certain locations without any impediment , if I'm not mistaken. Yearsley: Okay. Thank you. McCarvel: Any other questions for the applicant? Okay. Thank you. Wardle: Thank you. McCarvel: Okay. I don't have anybody signed up to speak, but is there anyone here that wants to speak on this issue? Sure. Come on forward. We have been having trouble with that microphone tonight, so, please, pull it close to you. Smith-Curtis: I hadn't even planned to talk and I'm -- McCarvel: There we go. Please state your name and address for the record. Smith-Curtis: I did live in this community and I have some great concerns -- McCarvel: Ma'am. Smith-Curtis: -- about the traffic, parking, and -- McCarvel: Ma'am, could you state your name and address for the record. Smith-Curtis: Oh, I'm sorry. McCarvel: Yeah. Smith-Curtis: Joann Smith-Curtis. I live at 160 West Heston Drive. McCarvel: Thank you. Smith-Curtis: I'm the third house from that lot that they are building in right now, so I am very familiar with everything that's going on and I think you have made a very great presentation. This is a great community. However, I don't think that this is an appropriate plan for this community in Paramount. I think the density is much too great. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission June 1, 2017 Page 80 of 88 Right within two blocks of me I would say there are at least 30 to 40 children. We have the church up on the corner of Meridian and Chinden. We have an elementary school right across to the east on Meridian. And there is no traffic lights -- the traffic light is at Meridian and Chinden and right now its very difficult to get in an d out on Director. Director was just finished a few months ago -- maybe six months ago. I remember. And now they are building some more homes right on that corner. I'm not sure if there will be four or five. I do not see -- we have a problem right now in our vicinity with parking. Everybody has two or three cars and if you get over onto the other site -- if those people can't drive their cars in or -- I drive down Director every day and there is no parking on either side, so I don't know where the cars are going to go . I think it would just be a great mess unless they decided they are going to have some lot and shuttle the current people over there. So, I would like you to really address the traffic problem. And the Paramount Subdivision has no connection with this development. Everybody will have to pay their dues and they also have to pay to use our pool, which will be on Fox Run. So, we are not -- you know, we are not connected with them in any way. I think that 196 lots in that area is just too, too many. It's just too dense. I am multi-generational. I have a home that's almost 3,000 square feet. I live alone and I have a big backyard and a front yard. So, I'm not sure all multi-generational people want to live in a little -- little place without any yard or -- and that's why people move here. I just moved here a short time ago -- is because we have places that we can be and we don't have all this density. I came from California and we have -- we had a project similar to this and when you go to visit there is no place to park -- you have a couple of places. So, you -- it's just unworkable. I hope you really look at that very closely before we get into this mess. And I thank you very much for your time. McCarvel: Thank you. Anyone else wishing to testify? Okay. Would the applicant like to come back forward. Wardle: Thank you. For the record, Jon Wardle with Brighton. I do just want to clarify a couple of things. The number of units or the number of homes that we are asking for is the same number that were previously approved . It's 196. So, there is no change. One of the positive things about this -- and there were -- there were discussions before about traffic impacts and kid impacts and school impacts. In a 55 plus restricted -- age restricted community, the student population is zero and the driving counts are significantly less. Both proven facts. And so I do appreciate the concern. I, too, live in Paramount. I live in Paramount because of what's there, the amenities that are there. But we know that not everybody is going to want to live on a smaller lot. We have choices and we have seen tonight there are a number of housing opportunities in Meridian that are coming forward. But as we have done our research and as we have developed Paramount from day one and carried it through, we feel like this is truly Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission June 1, 2017 Page 81 of 88 compatible with the community and with the neighborhood. I do want to make it clear that we are building two separate pools here. There is a pool that's dedicated for Encore and the residents with Encore will pay their fees and they will belong to that pool. We are building a second pool that's for Paramount. The residents of Encore will not use the Paramount pool. There won't be any excessive use of these neighbors into any of the Paramount facilities. So, we made a commitment that we would have four pools for Paramount and now we are building a fifth pool with Encore. So, I just wanted to clarify that we are not intending to cross-mingle those associations at all. The amenities will be separate and we do feel like this is a compatible use as we complete Paramount. So, if you have any further questions be happy to answer those. Yearsley: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Yearsley. Yearsley: And I don't know if you have to address this or not, but I will express my concern. At 196 lots, you have 30 plus 18, so you have got 48 parking spots, plus around -- I -- you know. And it may not be at all times, but I think at certain events you will have a parking shortage. Just my gut feel. I don't know how to address that or how you want to address that, but that is my concern. Fitzgerald: And you have on-street parking, too. Yearsley: Oh -- and I know that. Yes. Fitzgerald: Okay. Yearsley: But still -- Fitzgerald: Yeah. Yearsley: -- there is a lot of homes for people that want come visit or something like that, especially on holidays or something like that , that -- you know, I am not going to deny it because of that, but it's just a concern that I have. McCarvel: So, I think -- a question here before we get into our deliberation is -- because I have got the same issue rolling around in my head , that even though they may not -- they are going to have visitors. That's just the way it is. And especially out, you know, away from that central location. Is there any other thought that you have Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission June 1, 2017 Page 82 of 88 given -- any other plan that would show more parking? Is there any -- have you given that any thought? Wardle: Madam Chair, in fact, we have. I think one of the drivers of this community, compared to what we had designed before , the 196 homes we designed before were all front loaded and the parking on street -- we were going to do the single parking on one side only and so there were even fewer opportunities. We felt like how do we address that? We address it by doing something that is neo-traditional. We do alley loaded homes and so you will find that we have long stretches here where we have parking that can happen along one continuous side of the road with no impediments with driveways at all and so we feel like we do have a -- will there be those events -- we are going to have the hundred year Super Bowl event where everybody shows up at once and there will be that party. But not everybody in the neighborhood has those . It just -- it just happens and people find places to park. Could we? We will. But you will find that in every single neighborhood within the community, even when you 're allowed to park on both sides of the street. We do have our parking stalls and driveways. We have parking that's available on the streets and we have also created other parking places in this community which really aren't required, but we felt like we need to do it . So, we understand, we hear the concern, but we feel like this -- this will work. McCarvel: Did you just say there is parking in the driveways? Wardle: No parking in the driveways. McCarvel: Do you have a picture of that? Wardle: Where that -- these homes down here on the south where these are all front loaded homes -- McCarvel: Uh-huh. Wardle: Sorry. Let me go back to the matrix. So, all the homes you see in green here down along Director and up Meridian Road, those all are set back 20 feet from the road and they have their parking aprons in front of the home, just like you have with any other home in any community. The other ones where we have allies, they -- they could be that -- there could be some room, but there will be setback restrictions on many of those homes. So, you may not be able to park a car in the driveway, but if you have a guest coming they are not going to come to the drive -- to the alley to park, they are going to come to the front of the house and we will have parking available on one side of that street without any impediment. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission June 1, 2017 Page 83 of 88 McCarvel: Okay. So, all of those houses in green have enough room, so those homes, when they have visitors, would have room to park in a driveway. Wardle: Yes, they would. And, then, you would have unlimited parking across the street. McCarvel: Which sounds like it's already taken up, but -- you mean across Director or in the private -- Wardle: No. So, across the street from the green -- McCarvel: Uh-huh. Wardle: -- where you have the orange and the red -- McCarvel: Right. Wardle: -- that's where we would have the ability to park without any restrictions at al l. McCarvel: Okay. Commissioner Perreault. Perreault: I have a question for the applicant. What's the width of the alleys? Wardle: The allies are -- it's -- it's a 20 foot wide alley. Perreault: And will the residents have their trash cans in the allies? Wardle: They will. Perreault: I, excuse me, live in a neighborhood where we have a few sections of these and they are detached two story townhomes, essentially, but the allies are approximately the same width and they are set up, so that there is a drain, you know, and the trash cans are out in the middle, you can't get to your -- your garage, because the trash cans are sitting there and we were discussing having, you know, folks that are of an age where there might be some challenges navigating that. I'm a realtor, so I sell a lot of homes to retirees and I would say that I really don't see any clients that are buying really under the age of -- I would say probably 70 that don't have at least two vehicles. So, I would guess that your age is going to be a little bit older than 55. Just a guess. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission June 1, 2017 Page 84 of 88 Wardle: Uh-huh. Perreault: And there just may be some challenges there. Just a thought to share with you as what I see both as a realtor and just as a resident in Meridian in my own neighborhood, so -- Wardle: Thank you very much for giving that. McCarvel: Any other questions for the applicant? Cassanelli: I -- McCarvel: Commissioner Cassanelli. Cassanelli: I think my question was -- was answered, but I just want to be clear. So, on these -- the homes in the green that are front loaded, parking will be prohibited on that side and the only parking on that street will be across the street; is that correct? Wardle: That is correct. Cassanelli: Okay. McCarvel: Any other questions? Okay. Wardle: Thank you. McCarvel: Thank you. Okay. Cassanelli: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Yes. Cassanelli: I move we close the public hearing on Item No. H-2017-0064. Yearsley: Second. McCarvel: It has been moved and seconded to close the public hearing on H-2017- 0064. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission June 1, 2017 Page 85 of 88 MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. McCarvel: Additional thoughts? Comments? I think we all agree that parking is an issue. Yearsley: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Yeah. Commissioner Yearsley. Yearsley: You know, I did comment about the parking, but -- but overall I do like the site. I think it's a great alternative for -- for this area. I like the way it fits into that corner and provide that for that -- for these individuals. I have a concern for parking, but, you know, for me, you know, if the -- if that applicant feels that they have enough parking -- I can't say that it needs to have more or not, so I'm not going to, you know, recommend denial because of that, but -- but for the most part I think it's -- I think it's well thought out. I think it's well -- well laid out and I think it will be a great amenity to our city. Fitzgerald: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Fitzgerald. Fitzgerald: And I -- I agree. I think -- I think this is the last piece of Paramount that's not the -- the corner -- the other -- opposite corner of the square mile and I think Brighton does an exceptionally good job of laying the master plan of this neighborhood. I think it naturally services the Veranda assisted living facility and I -- I understand Commissioner Perreault's comments about two cars and people in the -- the woman who spoke about not wanting a small house, but these are the people who do want t hat and so if -- I think if we don't have a local company coming to develop something like this, the Webb company from Phoenix will be here like that, because people are moving here to do this. They want to be back with their grandkids, they want to be back with their families. I think we need something like this and I think it's been serviced in Boise with the Orchards. The Orchards doesn't have a lot of parking and they -- I have an aunt and uncle who live in one of those and they do fine. There is not a ton of cars. We go over for dinner once in a while and you -- there is parking available on the streets. This is a little bit bigger, but I think it's very well laid out. I think it's very well thought out. I think there is research been done and so I would -- I think it kind of puts the cherry on top for me with the master plan of Paramount. So, I would be in support. McCarvel: Okay. Any other comments? Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission June 1, 2017 Page 86 of 88 Bernt: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Yes. Commissioner Bernt. Bernt: I am in full agreement with Commissioner Fitzgerald's comments as well. I think that this development serves a need for this community. I think Brighton has done a fantastic job with their research and with the fit with the Veranda senior living center just right next door. So, my only -- my only question would be about the private street and, you know, our potential problems that we have had in past developments when we have allowed private streets in developments. But other -- but other than that, I think that this is an awesome subdivision. I think you did a good job. McCarvel: I agree. Yeah. I agree. I think it's a great addition. I do have a concern about the parking, but they are the ones that have to -- I mean it works. I'm just going off -- my dad's 75 and I don't know where he'd put his truck, so -- I mean -- but that's -- he'd have to -- he wouldn't be moving in there I guess. But not everybody has a truck, obviously. So moving on. I think it's a great addition. I think it does provide -- with the private streets provides an added security that I can see would be nice. The amenities. Congrats for bringing on something like this. Bernt: A plus. McCarvel: It's beautiful and I know it's a little out of the comfort zone of technically what a gated community should have, but fire and police have signed off on it and so I think it -- I think it's beautiful. Fitzgerald: Madam Chair, do we have to deal with some of the conversations in regards to specific conditions? McCarvel: Sonya, I think they said they were agreed -- agreeable to -- are there any issues left that you feel need to be addressed in the motion? Allen: Chairman, Commissioners, the only thing, really, was the block lengths and their proposal for the pathways. If you feel it's appropriate for this development, just make a recommendation to Council. McCarvel: Because they have got final say, but we have got a recommendation. Yeah. Absolutely. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission June 1, 2017 Page 87 of 88 Fitzgerald: And, Madam Chair, with a PUD like this, it's not a typical -- you don't have people racing and there is nothing connected to it, so there is a gate, so I feel relatively confident with making the recommendation without having block length issues. McCarvel: Yeah. That was kind of my thought, too, was being gated -- Fitzgerald: It lessens -- McCarvel: -- it lessens the issue of having that one little block. Bernt: And I think the residents of this particular neighborhood are a little bit more particular. You know, they are not going to be -- they are just -- they are experienced and they are going to have a certain expectation and so I think that it will be well policed. Yearsley: You don't envision two little 70 year olds doing drag racing down the street. Bernt: You know, if it -- please invite me if that happens. I would hope to be a participant with the -- Cassanelli: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Cassanelli. Cassanelli: I'm going to make a motion. After considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony I moved to recommend approval to City Council of file number H-2017-0064 as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of June 1st, 2017, with the following modifications: Conditions 1.2.3A to include Lots 85 and 86, that staff is agreeable to, and Conditions 1.2.3D and E for the pathways to break up the long blocks. Yearsley: Second. McCarvel: It has been moved and seconded to approve H-2017-0064 with modifications. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. McCarvel: Who would like the honors? Are you awake? Wilson: I move to close the public hearing. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission June 1, 2017 Page 88 of 88 Bernt: Second. Wilson: I mumble that out. McCarvel: It has been moved and second to adjourn the meeting for June 1st, 2017. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. MEETING ADJOURNED AT 9:49P.M. (AUDIO RECORDING ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS.) APPROVED 1!�H NDA McCARVEL - CHAIRMAN ATTEST: �A o �hdk f2c C.JAY COLES - CITY CLERK -41 ,,- I/: DATE APPROvj� TE13.4 Gsl r 1� C��rof W Elk, . 0 �-D]14 o SEAL y . r�� yam• efr4e 7R rASu��"�<y Changes to Agenda:  Item #4B: Speedy Quick (H-2017-0031) – Applicant requests continuance to June 22nd to finalize the revised plans so staff can update the staff report for the Commission. Item #4A: Meridian Meats (H-2017-0052) Application(s): Conditional Use Permit Size of property, existing zoning, and location: This site consists of 0.58 of an acre of land, zoned O-T, located at 119 E. Bower Street. Adjacent Land Use & Zoning: This site is primarily surrounded by existing single family residences; north is a vacant property and under-developed industrial property. All properties surrounded the proposed project are zoned Old Town (O-T). History: This property is platted as Lots 3-8, Block 5, Bowers Addition to Meridian. Comprehensive Plan FLUM Designation: Old Town Summary of Request: The applicant requests a conditional use permit to expanding the existing 9,361 structure by 673 square foot addition in order to replace the existing refrigeration units. Because the use was lawfully established prior to the adoption of the UDC, the current use of the property is defined as a non-conforming use. Further, the use is now a prohibited use on the Old Town District and due to the lack of public parking and the fact that the site lacks landscaping this is non-conforming. To expand a non-conforming use requires a procurement of conditional use permit in accord with UDC 11-1B-4. The subject property consists of two (2) parcels and the new addition will be located in the NWC of the site. The western parcel is all paved and the east property is currently a gravel lot. Staff is recommending several modifications to the property as follows: 1. The new building addition should comply with the design standards set forth in the Architectural Standards Manual (ASM); 2. The applicant should construct ten (10) parking stalls and comply with the parking lot landscape standards set forth in UDC 11-3B- 8C on the eastern portion of the site. 3a.The applicant should construct a 6-foot tall solid fence and install a 5-foot wide landscape buffer in accord with UDC 11-3B-8C along the eastern boundary and construct a 6-foot tall solid fence along the west boundary. 4. The applicant should preserve the necessary Bower Street right-of-way and stripe a 5-foot wide pedestrian walkway from the new parking lot proposed by staff (#2 above) to the front entrance of the building. 5. The applicant should construct a trash enclosure at the rear of the property in accord with Republic Services design standards. 6. The applicant should install a bike rack near the primary entrance of the building in accord with UDC 11-3C-5C and 11-3C-6G. The proposed changes will be reviewed with a The applicant is required to submit a CZC and DES application. Written Testimony: None Staff Recommendation: Approval with conditions. Notes: Possible Motions: Approval After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to approve File Number H-2017-0052, as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of June 1, 2017, with the following modifications: (Add any proposed modifications to conditions) Denial After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to recommend denial to the City Council of File Number H-2017- 0052, as presented during the hearing on June 1, 2017, for the following reasons: (You should state specific reasons for denial) Continuance I move to continue File Number H-2017-0052 to the hearing date of (insert continued hearing date here) for the following reason(s): (You should state specific reason(s) for continuance) Changes to Agenda:  Item #4B: Speedy Quick (H-2017-0031) – Applicant requests continuance to June 1st in order to revise plans Item #4A: Meridian Meats (H-2017-0052) Application(s):  Size of property, existing zoning, and location: This site consists of [#] acres of land, zoned [district], located at [address/general location]. Adjacent Land Use & Zoning: History: [if applicable] Comprehensive Plan FLUM Designation: [details] Summary of Request: [details] Written Testimony: [name(s)] - [issue(s)] Staff Recommendation: [Approval/Denial] Notes: Possible Motions: Approval After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to recommend approval to the City Council of File Number [#], as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of [date], with the following modifications: (Add any proposed modifications to conditions) Denial After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to recommend denial to the City Council of File Number [#], as presented during the hearing on [date], for the following reasons: (You should state specific reasons for denial) Continuance I move to continue File Number [#] to the hearing date of (insert continued hearing date here) for the following reason(s): (You should state specific reason(s) for continuance) Item #4C: Nursery Subdivision (H-2017-0048) Application(s):  Preliminary Plat Size of property, existing zoning, and location: This site consists of 5.45 acres of land, zoned R-8, located at 570 S. Linder Road. Adjacent Land Use & Zoning: 1. North: Single-family residential property zoned R-4 (Mallard Landing) 2. East: Single-family residential property zoned R-4 (Mallard Landing) 3. South: Single-family residential property zoned R-4 (Mallard Landing) 4. West: Single-family residential property zoned R-4 (Van Hees Sub) History: In 2006 the property was annexed and zoned as Nursery Subdivision (AZ-06-038) and granted preliminary plat approval for 25 residential lots and 4 common lots (PP-06-036). Comprehensive Plan FLUM Designation: Industrial Summary of Request: A Preliminary Plat consisting of twenty-nine (29) building lots, and five (5) common area lot. The plat is proposed to develop in one phase. The gross density for the subdivision is 5.28 d.u./acre and the net density is 7.65 d.u./acre. The minimum lot size is 5,005 square feet and the Average lot size is 5,935 square feet. Dimensional Standards: Development of this site is required to comply with the dimensional standards listed in UDC Table 11-2A-6 for the R-8 district and UDC 11-2A-3. Staff has reviewed the proposed plat and found it to be in compliance with these standards. Block Length: The plat is required to comply with the block length standards listed in UDC 11-6C-3F. Staff has reviewed the proposed plat and found it in compliance with this standard. Traffic Impact Study (TIS): ACHD did not require a TIS for this development. Landscaping:  The pedestrian pathway along the east side of Linder Road is measures 5 feet in width for this entire section of Linder Road, so the Park Department has agreed that a 5-foot wide section would be appropriate for this section as well.  The applicant will need to provide additional open space in order to meet the 10% requirement. Staff’s suggestion is that Lot 23, Block 1 be converted to a common lot. Though the pathway cannot be used as open space, it can be used as an amenity. Staff will require a 5 foot micropath through Lots, 31, 32 and 33. The section of pathway that runs through Lot 34 can be converted back into the buildable lot for Lot 1. All micropaths shall be shall be constructed in accordance with UDC 11-3A-8. All landscaping adjacent to the pathway shall meet the requirements outlined in 11-3B- 12.  The UDC requires a 5-foot landscape buffer on both sides of the proposed micro-pathway. In order to meet the width requirement, and in order to plant vegetation that is required by the UDC, the applicant shall provide an additional 5 feet of landscaping outside of the existing 20 foot irrigation easement.  Per UDC 11-3B-10, the applicant should work with the City Arborist, Elroy Huff, on designing, adopting, and implementing a protection and mitigation plan for the existing trees on site.  A written certificate of completion should be prepared by the landscape architect, designer, or qualified nurseryman responsible for the landscape plan. All standards of installation should apply as listed in UDC 11-3B-14. Submit copies of a revised landscape plan, reflecting the changes/notes mentioned above, with the final plat application(s). Irrigation Easement: An existing 20 foot wide easement in favor of the Nampa Meridian Irrigation district runs along the southern boundary of this project. This easement shall be located within a common lot as required by the UDC. Stub Streets: The applicant should be required to provide a public stub street to Parcel #S1213233965, the Calhoun property, as proposed. Existing Residences/Buildings: The site currently contains multiple buildings. The existing buildings span across proposed lot lines and do not meet setback requirements of the requested zoning. Therefore, all existing buildings should be removed/re -located in accordance with the building setbacks of the R-8 zone, prior to signature of the final plat by the City Engineer. Ditches, Laterals, and Canals: As per UDC 11-3A-6, all irrigation ditches, laterals or canals, exclusive of natural waterways and waterways being used as amenities, which intersect, cross or lie within the area being subdivided shall be covered. The Kennedy Lateral runs along the southern portion of this site. The lateral has been partially piped in this area and the applicant intends to pipe the remaining portion of the lateral that runs through this site. Building Elevations: The applicant has submitted 3 conceptual building elevation renderings and 2 photos for future homes in this development, included in Exhibit A.4. Building materials appear to consist of a variety of siding materials and patterns, and stucco with stone veneer accents. Written Testimony: None Staff Recommendation: Approval Notes: Possible Motions: Approval After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to approve File Number H-2017-0048, as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of June 1, 2017, with the following modifications: (Add any proposed modifications to conditions) Denial After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to deny File Number H-2017-0048, as presented during the hearing on June 1, 2017, for the following reasons: (You should state specific reasons for denial) Continuance I move to continue File Number H-2017-0048 to the hearing date of (insert continued hearing date here) for the following reason(s): (You should state specific reason(s) for continuance) Item #4D: Burlingame Subdivision (H-2017-0055) Application(s):  Preliminary Plat Size of property, existing zoning, and location: This site consists of 18.99 acres of land, zoned R-4, located near the northeast corner of W. Cherry Lane and N. Black Cat Road. Existing Land Use(s) and Zoning: The property is developed with three single family detached homes, zoned R-4 (medium density residential). History:  In 2006, this property was annexed and zoned (AZ-06-018) as Incline Village Subdivision; a development agreement was approved as a provision of annexation recorded as Instrument No. 106151230. A preliminary plat was also approved (PP- 06-016) as Incline Village Subdivision.  Also in 2006, a final plat (FP-06.045) was approved for the property. The final plat however, was never recorded with the County and has since expired. One of the existing homes on the property was removed from the plat through a property boundary adjustment. Comprehensive Plan FLUM Designation: Low Density Residential Summary of Request: Development Agreement Modification (MDA): Development of this property is currently governed by the development agreement (DA) approved for the Incline Village Subdivision (Instrument No. 106151230). Because the applicant’s desire for the property does not match what was approved and required with the previous development agreement, the applicant has applied to modify the existing development agreement to update the development plan and building elevations. The new plan consists of 60 residential lots and 7 common lots. With a recent property boundary adjustment one of the existing homes was split off and excluded for the proposed preliminary plat. However, this home is still part of the recorded development agreement. Staff has reviewed the recorded development agreement and finds that this home should be required to hook-up to City services; close the existing access to Black Cat and take access from the new public street being extended with the proposed development even though it is not part of the plat. The new DA should include the proposed development plan and any changes required and building elevations included as attached exhibit. Preliminary Plat (PP): A preliminary plat is proposed consisting of 60 building lots and 7 common lots on 18.99 acres of land in the R- 4 zoning district. The plat is proposed to develop in 4 phases as shown in Exhibit A.2. The average lot size is 9,250 square feet (s.f.) with a minimum lot size of 8,000 s.f. in accord with UDC standards. Staff suggests the following revisions to the plat: Provide three additional stub streets for the project, one to parcel # S1204438650, one to parcel # S1204438700, and one to parcel # S1204449100. The applicant shall submit a revised plat to staff reflecting these required changes at least ten days prior to the City Council hearing. Access/streets: Access to the two northernmost homes is currently provided from a private access easement to/from Black Cat Road. The existing home to remain near Cherry Lane currently takes access to Cherry Lane. The applicant is proposing to remove this existing access and to provide access to all of the dwellings within this development via internal public streets. For this development, the applicant is proposing to construct a new public street access to Cherry Lane (N. Bonita Avenue), and extend O’Conner Avenue into the site from the north. The applicant is proposing a mixture of 5-foot attached and detached sidewalks throughout the development. With the exception of the three stub streets that staff is requiring to the west and south, staff is generally supportive of the proposed street system. ACHD has not submitted comments and conditions back to the City for this project. However, City Staff has spoken with ACHD staff about this project and does not believe that there are any significant changes to the plat that will be required from the District. ACHD’s conditions will be included in Exhibit B once they are received by the City (prior to Council). The property located at 5136 W. Cherry Lane will be required to access the proposed N. Bonita Avenue and shall abandon direct access to Cherry Lane prior to the City Engineer’s signature on the first final plat as noted above. Landscaping: Street buffer landscaping is required to be provided as set forth in UDC Tables 11-2A-5 as discussed above under Dimensional Standards. Landscaping within the street buffers should be provided in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3B-7C. The applicant shall revise the landscape plan to include a 25 foot landscape easement across the frontage of parcel #S1204449040. Pathways: The Pathways Master Plan depicts a regional pathway on this site along the north side of the Cherry Lane, and another section of the 10-foot regional pathway along the north side of the property. Provide a 10-foot multi-use pathway along the north side of W. Bellevue Court, the east side of N. O’Connor Avenue and along the existing access easement out to N. Black Cat Road. This multi- use pathway shall extend from the west boundary of the plat and extend to N. Black Cat Road. Both pathways must be paved and landscaped in accord with the standards set forth in UDC 11-3A-8 and UDC 11-3B-12. The applicant shall provide a revised landscape plan at least ten days prior to Council. Waterways: Both the Safford Sublateral and Settlers Canal cross the property on the north boundary. Both lie within a 60-foot wide Settlers Irrigation District easement. The UDC (11-3A-6) requires all irrigation ditches, laterals, canals and drains to be piped unless left open as a water amenity (as defined in UDC 11-1A-1) or linear open space. The City Council may waive this requirement for large capacity facilities. The applicant requests a waiver from Council to allow the Settlers Canal and Safford Sublateral to remain open due to their large capacities. The applicant proposes to provide a bridge over both for a vehicle/pedestrian crossing. Sidewalks and parkways: A detached sidewalk shall be constructed along the entire frontage of W. Cherry Lane with the applicable phase of development. The applicant is also proposing a mixture of attached and detached sidewalks through the development. Per UDC 11-3A-17E, all parkways are required to be 8 feet in width. The applicant shall revise the landscape plan to meet this requirement. Landscaping, Open Space and Amenities: The applicant is proposing 1.89 acres (10%) of open space for the development. The applicant is also proposing two section of a multi-use pathway as their one (1) required amenity for the subdivision. The applicant shall provide detailed open space calculations at least ten days prior to the City Council meeting. Additionally staff feels that with the number of homes proposed for this development, and because the location of the proposed development is relatively far from other amenities, that the applicant provide an additional qualifying amenity for the subdivision. Pressurized Irrigation: An underground pressurized irrigation system is required to be provided for the development in accord with UDC 11-3A-15 as proposed. Storm Drainage: An adequate storm drainage system is required in all developments in accord with the City’s adopted standards, specifications, and ordinances, per UDC 11-3A-18. Building Elevations: The applicant has submitted some conceptual sample building elevations for future homes in this development, included in Exhibit A.4 Building materials appear to consist of a mix of board and batten and horizontal lap siding and stone accents and stucco. Written Testimony: None Staff Recommendation: Approval Notes: Possible Motions: Approval After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to approve File Number H-2017-0055, as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of June 1, 2017, with the following modifications: (Add any proposed modifications to conditions) Denial After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to deny File Number H-2017-0055, as presented during the hearing on June 1, 2017, for the following reasons: (You should state specific reasons for denial) Continuance I move to continue File Number H-2017-0055 to the hearing date of (insert continued hearing date here) for the following reason(s): (You should state specific reason(s) for continuance) Item #4E: Bannock Ridge (H-2017-0050) Application(s):  Annexation & Zoning  Preliminary Plat Size of property, existing zoning, and location: This site consists of 13.57 acres of land, zoned R-4 and RUT in Ada County, located at the SWC of E. Victory Rd. and S. Mesa Way at 2940, 3101 & 3155 S. Mesa Way. Adjacent Land Use & Zoning: North: Rural residential property, zoned RUT in Ada County East: SFR properties in Cabella Creek Subdivision, zoned R-4 South: E. Victory Road and future SFR properties, zoned R-8 West: SFR properties in Glacier Springs Subdivision, zoned R-4 History: This property was previously platted as Lots 1, 2 & 3, Block 2, Kachina Estates Subdivision and developed in Ada County. The southern parcel owned by the Shay’s was annexed into the City in 2008 and a DA was approved as a provision of annexation. A preliminary plat was also approved but has since expired. Comprehensive Plan FLUM Designation: LDR Summary of Request: The applicant has applied for annexation & zoning of 9.42 acres of land from the RUT zoning district in Ada County to the R-4 district in the City consistent with the FLUM designation of LDR. The property is proposed to develop with 28 new SFR detached homes in addition to the 3 existing homes that are proposed to remain on lots in the proposed subdivision. Because a DA already exists on the Shay property and is for a previous development plan, staff recommends a new DA is required that supersedes the existing agreement. A preliminary plat is proposed that consists of 31 SFR building lots and 6 common lots on 13.57 acres of land in an R-4 zoning district. The minimum property size is 8,002 s.f. with an average lot size of 13,812 s.f. A gross density of 2.28 d.u./acre is proposed. The face of Block 2 along the west boundary of the site exceeds the maximum block face length allowed of 750’ without an intersecting street or alley. The applicant requests Council approval of the block length which measures approximately 900’ in length as allowed in the UDC when the block design is constrained by certain site conditions that include an abutting urban development with no vehicular or pedestrian stubs. Access is proposed via S. Mesa Way from E. Victory Road at the east boundary of the site and via an existing stub street (E. Logger’s Pass St.) at the northwest boundary from Glacier Springs Subdivision. A 25’ wide street buffer is required along E. Victory Road as proposed with a detached sidewalk. Detached sidewalks with landscaped parkways are proposed along internal streets. Mitigation is required for all existing healthy trees 4” caliper and greater that are removed from the site. A total of 1.36 acres (or 10.04%) of qualified open space is proposed within the development consisting of 8’ wide parkways throughout the development, ½ the street buffer along Victory, and common areas where pathways are located in accord with UDC standards. A segment of the City’s multi-use pathway system is proposed along the Tenmile Creek on this site as an amenity which will connect to existing pathways to the east and west. The applicant has submitted photos of homes that will be similar to those proposed to be constructed in this development. (Note: the elevations in the staff report were not the correct ones – they were from the previous application) Written Testimony:  Dan Lardie, Applicant’s Representative – (Concern with condition #2.1.1 requiring a water main connection out to S. Mesa Way – Bruce F. agreed that if Lots 11-13 will be served by installing “long” water services to these lots, they will not be required to extend the water main as noted.)  Liz Echanis (concern regarding removal of existing mature trees along west boundary adjacent to Glacier Springs Sub; fencing height along west boundary; trenching along west boundary damaging root systems of existing trees on Glacier Springs property; and construction work done on the site that may jeopardize the safety of pets); Staff Recommendation: Approval w/conditions in Exhibit B of the Staff Report Notes: Possible Motions: Approval After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to recommend approval to the City Council of File Number H- 2017-0050, as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of June 1, 2017, with the following modifications: (Add any proposed modifications to conditions) Denial After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to recommend denial to the City Council of File Number H-2017- 0050, as presented during the hearing on June 1, 2017, for the following reasons: (You should state specific reasons for denial) Continuance I move to continue File Number H-2017-0050 to the hearing date of (insert continued hearing date here) for the following reason(s): (You should state specific reason(s) for continuance) Item #4F: Preakness (H-2017-0057) Application(s):  Annexation & Zoning  Preliminary Plat Size of property, existing zoning, and location: This site consists of 5 acres of land, zoned RUT in Ada county, located at 1155 W. Victory Rd.. Adjacent Land Use & Zoning: North: W. Victory Road and rural residential properties in Pebble Lane Estates, zoned R1 in Ada County East & south: SFR properties in Kentucky Ridge Estates Subdivision, zoned R-4 West: Future SFR development (Edgehill Subdivision), zoned R-4 History: None Comprehensive Plan FLUM Designation: LDR Summary of Request: The applicant requests annexation & zoning of 5 acres of land with an R-4 zoning district and Council approval of a step up in density from LDR to MDR. The gross density is slightly over that desired in LDR designated areas of 3 or fewer units/acre; the proposed gross density is 3.37 d.u/acre. The preliminary plat consists of 16 SFR detached building lots & 2 common lots on 4.75 acres of land in the R-4 district with an average lot size of 10,151 s.f. There is an existing structure on the site that is proposed to remain on a lot in the proposed subdivision. Access is proposed via the extension of an existing stub street at the east boundary from Kentucky Ridge Estates Sub. Another stu b street is proposed in alignment with that street to the west which will extend with the development of Edgehill Sub. A 25’ wide landscaped street buffer is required along Victory Road as proposed with a detached 5’ wide sidewalk. Because this site is below 5 acres in size and large lots are proposed, the UDC does not require any open space or site amenities to be provided. The applicant has submitted 7 photos of homes that will be similar to those constructed in this subdivision and will be architecturally compatible with those constructed to the east in Kentucky Ridge Estates Subdivision. These photos all depict at least 2 different building materials and stone/brick veneer accents. Written Testimony: Matt Schultz (in agreement w/staff report) Staff Recommendation: Approval w/conditions in Exhibit B of the staff report Notes: Possible Motions: Approval After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to recommend approval to the City Council of File Number H- 2017-0057, as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of June 1, 2017, with the following modifications: (Add any proposed modifications to conditions) Denial After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to recommend denial to the City Council of File Number H-2017- 0057, as presented during the hearing on June 1, 2017, for the following reasons: (You should state specific reasons for denial) Continuance I move to continue File Number H-2017-0057 to the hearing date of (insert continued hearing date here) for the following reason(s): (You should state specific reason(s) for continuance) Item #4G: Paramount Director (H-2017-0064) Application(s):  Development Agreement Modification  Preliminary Plat  Planned Unit Development Size of property, existing zoning, and location: This site consists of 35.64 acres of land, zoned R-15, located at the SWC of N. Meridian Road and W. Chinden Blvd. Adjacent Land Use & Zoning: History: This property was annexed in 2013 and the existing DA for Paramount Sub was modified to include this property. Since that time, the property has been rezoned to R-15, the DA was modified again to update the concept plan, and a couple of preliminary plats have been approved. Comprehensive Plan FLUM Designation: MU-C (26 acres) & MDR (15 acres) Summary of Request: A DA modification is requested to modify the concept development plan to accommodate the proposed development – this does not require action from the Commission, only Council. The concept development plan is as shown and proposes a mix of attached and detached homes for age qualified 55 and older housing in a gated community. Some will be independent living rental units with services provided by the adjoining Veranda assisted living facility to the west. A preliminary plat is proposed that consists of 196 building lots & 24 common lots on 35.64 acres of land in the R-15 zoning district; the subdivision is proposed to develop in 2 phases. One access is proposed via N. Fox Run Way and one is proposed via W. Director Street, both collector streets. Gates are proposed at the entries to the development; private streets are proposed for internal access within the development. Another access via Director is proposed to the common area where a community pool is proposed – this access requires council approval of a waiver to UDC 11-3A- 3 which restricts access to collector streets. Direct access via Chinden & Meridian Road is not proposed & is prohibited. The plat depicts ROW along Chinden & Meridian Road for future dedication for the widening of these streets. A minimum 35’ wide street buffer is required along Chinden & Meridian Road (both entryway corridors) after ROW is dedicated for widening of the adjacent streets; a 20’ wide buffer is required along Fox Run, a collector street. A minimum of 10% qualified open space & 2 site amenities are required to be provided for this development; the applicant is proposing 20.9% (or 7.46 acres) qualified open space (twice the requirement amount) and amenities consisting of a clubhouse, swimming pool & outdoor activity complex in the center of the development and segments of the City’s multi-use pathway system along Chinden & Meridian Rd. (a pathway along Director St. was constructed with a previous phase of Paramount). A future community swimming pool is also proposed at the SWC of this development. Nine conceptual building elevations were submitted as shown for homes within this development. 6 different styles/types of homes are proposed consisting of cottages with front & alley accessed garages; quad cottages with alley accessed garages; traditional with alley accessed garages; patio homes with front accessed garages; and traditional mew lots with alley accessed garages. All attached structures are required to comply with the design standards in the Architectural Standards Manual. A PUD is requested which allows for innovative design that creates visually pleasing and cohesive patterns of development; and creates functionally integrated development that allows for a more efficient and cost effective provision of public services. Deviations from the underlying district requirements may be approved through this type of application. As part of the PUD, a variety of housing types are proposed as previously mentioned, buildings are clustered with homes fronting on mews and a surplus of common area & site amenities are provided. Deviations from code that are requested to achieve the proposed design consist of the following:  The allowance of alleys that are not fully visible from a public street;  Blocks that exceed the maximum block face length allowed in residential districts; and  Reductions in front, garage and street side building setbacks. Written Testimony: Mike Wardle - modification to condition #1.2.3a to include Lots 85 & 86 in the note – staff is agreeable; - Modification to conditions #1.2.3d & #1.2.3e which require pathways to break up the block face to comply with block length standards; the applicant proposes to include a pathways within the blocks along Director St. rather than in the areas staff recommended – while this provides pedestrian connectivity to the regional pathway, it doesn’t make the blocks comply with block length standards; however, since this is a PUD, deviations from code can be approved if deemed appropriate by the Commission & Council. Staff Recommendation: Approval w/conditions in Exhibit B of the staff report Notes: Possible Motions: Approval After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to recommend approval to the City Council of File Number H- 2017-0064, as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of June 1, 2017, with the following modifications: (Add any proposed modifications to conditions) Denial After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to recommend denial to the City Council of File Number H-2017- 0064, as presented during the hearing on June 1, 2017, for the following reasons: (You should state specific reasons for denial) Continuance I move to continue File Number H-2017-0064 to the hearing date of (insert continued hearing date here) for the following reason(s): (You should state specific reason(s) for continuance) EXHIBIT A H-2017-0046 – Urban Air Page 1 STAFF REPORT Hearing Date: May 18, 2017 TO: Planning & Zoning Commission FROM: Josh Beach, Associate City Planner (208) 884-5533 SUBJECT: H-2017-0046 – Urban Air I. SUMMARY DESCRIPTION OF APPLICANT’S REQUEST The Applicant, Limitless Entertainment Boise, LLC, is requesting Conditional Use Permit (CUP) approval for the operation of an indoor recreation facility in an existing building in an I-L (Light Industrial) zoning district. II. SUMMARY RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the proposed CUP with the conditions listed in Exhibit B, based on the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law in Exhibit C. The Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission heard this item on May 18, 2017 At the public hearing, the Commission moved to approve the subject CUP request. a. Summary of Commission Public Hearing: i. In favor: Kent Brown, Suraj Jagannathan ii. In opposition: None iii. Commenting: None iv. Written testimony: None v. Staff presenting application: Josh Beach vi. Other staff commenting on application: None b. Key Issues of Discussion by Commission: i. Parking for the entire building ii. Other types of uses in the building c. Key Commission Changes to Staff Recommendation: i. None III. PROPOSED MOTIONS Approval After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to approve File Number H-2017- 0046 as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of May 18, 2017, with the following modifications: (Add any proposed modifications.) Denial After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to deny H-2017-0046 as presented during the hearing on May 18, 2017, for the following reasons: (You should state specific reasons for denial.) Continuance I move to continue File Number H-2017-0046 to the hearing date of (insert continued hearing date here) for the following reason(s): (You should state specific reason(s) for continuance.) IV. APPLICATION AND PROPERTY FACTS EXHIBIT A H-2017-0046 – Urban Air Page 2 a. Site Address/Location: The site is located at 3820 and 3876 E. Lanark Street in the SW ¼ of Section 9, Township 3N., Range 1E. b. Owner: Volante Investments, LLLP 3084 E. Lanark Street Meridian, ID 83642 c. Applicant/Contact: Kent Brown Planning Services 3161 E. Springwood Drive Meridian, ID 83642 d. Applicant's Statement/Justification: Please see applicant’s narrative for this information. V. PROCESS FACTS a. The subject application is for a conditional use permit. A public hearing is required before the Planning & Zoning Commission on this matter, consistent with Meridian City Code Title 11, Chapter 5. b. Newspaper notifications published on: April 28, 2017 c. Radius notices mailed to properties within 300 feet on: April 20, 2017 d. Applicant posted notice on site by: May 8, 2017 VI. LAND USE a. Existing Land Use(s): Vacant tenant space in an existing warehouse building. b. Character of Surrounding Area and Adjacent Land Use and Zoning: This area is predominantly developed with light industrial uses. North: Warehouse, zoned I-L West: Warehouse, zoned I-L South: Vacant industrial land, zoned I-L East: Vacant industrial land, zoned I-L c. History of Previous Actions: The City Council approved the preliminary plat (PP-06-055) for Seyam Subdivision on February 6, 2007. The Director approved an 18 month time extension for the preliminary plat on February 4, 2009. In January 26, 2010 City Council approved a final plat for the property. d. Utilities: 1. Public Works: a. Location of sewer: No utilities required, building is currently being served. b. Location of water: No utilities required, building is currently being served. c. Issues or concerns: None EXHIBIT A H-2017-0046 – Urban Air Page 3 e. Physical Features: 1. Canals/Ditches Irrigation: The Evans Drain runs along the northern boundary of the site. 2. Hazards: Staff is not aware of any hazards that exist on this property. 3. Flood Plain: This property is not within a floodplain. VII. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN POLICIES AND GOALS This property is designated on the Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map (FLUM) as Industrial. This designation allows a range of industrial uses to support industrial and commercial activities and to develop areas with sufficient urban services. Light industrial uses may include warehouses, storage units, light manufacturing, and incidental retail and office uses. The proposed use of the site is for an indoor recreation facility, classified in the UDC as an indoor recreation facility, is not a considered an “industrial” use; however, the UDC does allow indoor recreation facilities as a conditional use in the I-L district with approval of the Planning and Zoning Commission. Staff finds the following Comprehensive Plan policies to be applicable to this property and apply to the proposed use (staff analysis in italics):  “Plan for and encourage services like health care, daycare, grocery stores and recreational areas to be built within walking distance of residential dwellings.” (2.01.01C) The proposed indoor recreation facility will provide a recreation opportunity for residents in nearby residential developments.  “Require all commercial and industrial businesses to install and maintain landscaping.” (2.01.03B) Landscaping already exists on this site; no changes are proposed. The applicant is required to maintain the existing landscaping.  “Provide opportunities for physical activities.” (2.01.01B) The proposed indoor recreational facility will provide an additional opportunity for physical activity for youth in the area.  “Locate industrial and commercial uses where adequate water supply and water pressure are available for fire protection.” (3.04.02A) There is adequate water supply and pressure available to the site for fire protection.  “Preserve and protect industrial lands for continued industrial use.” (3.06.01I) The proposed use although still within an industrial area, is not an industrial use and will reduce the amount of industrial property available within the city. For the above-stated reasons, staff believes the proposed use is consistent with the applicable comprehensive plan policies and is appropriate in this location. VIII. UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE a. Purpose Statement of Zone: The purpose of the I-L district is to provide for convenient employment centers of light manufacturing, research and development, warehousing, and distributing. In accord with the Meridian Comprehensive Plan, the I-L district is intended to encourage the development of industrial uses that are clean, quiet and free of hazardous or objectionable elements and that are operated, entirely, or almost entirely, within enclosed structures. Accessibility to transportation systems is a requirement of this district. EXHIBIT A H-2017-0046 – Urban Air Page 4 b. Schedule of Uses in Industrial Districts: UDC Table 11-2C-2 lists the permitted, accessory, and conditional uses in the I-L zoning district. Arts, Entertainment or Recreational Facility, Indoor and Outdoors are a conditional use in the I-L zone with the specific use standards listed in UDC 11-4-3-2 (see Section 9, Analysis, for specific use standards). c. Dimensional Standards: Development of the site shall comply with the dimensional standards listed in UDC 11-2C-3 for the I-L zoning district. d. Landscaping 1. Width of street buffer(s): There is an existing approximately 10 feet landscape buffer along E. Lanark Street. This landscape buffer meets the minimum required by the UDC. 2. UDC 11-3B-8C regulates the parking lot standards of the development code (see section 9 below for further analysis). e. Off-Street Parking: UDC 11-3C-6B requires 1 space for every 2000 square feet of gross floor area; a total of approximately 42,000 square foot of building area exists. Based on this amount, 21 parking stalls are required; 91 stall exist on site, and this exceeds the requirements of the UDC. IX. ANALYSIS a. Analysis of Facts Leading to Staff Recommendation: Staff is generally supportive of the proposed CUP request as presented in the staff report, with the following comments: CUP: The applicant is requesting approval to operate an indoor recreation facility from an existing warehouse building. The property is currently zoned I-L (Light Industrial). Per UDC 11- 2C-2, an “Arts, Entertainment or Recreation Facility, Indoors and Outdoors” requires conditional use permit approval in the I-L zone and is subject to specific use standards. Specific Use Standards for Arts, Entertainment or Recreation Facility Indoor or Outdoor per UDC 11-4-3-2: A. General Standards: 1. All outdoor recreation areas and structures that are not fully enclosed shall maintain a minimum setback of one hundred feet (100') from any abutting residential districts. The playing areas of golf courses, including golf tees, fairways, and greens, are an exception to this standard. (Ord. 07-1325, 7-10-2007) The use is indoors, so this is not applicable. 2. No outdoor event or activity center shall be located within fifty feet (50') of any property line and shall operate only between the hours of six o'clock (6:00) A.M. and eleven o'clock (11:00) P.M. The use is indoors, so this is not applicable. 3. Accessory uses including, but not limited to, retail, equipment rental, restaurant and drinking establishments, may be allowed if designed to serve patrons of the use only. The applicant is not proposing to operate any of these types of uses as part of their business. 4. Outdoor speaker systems shall comply with section 11-3A-13, "Outdoor Speaker Systems", of this title. The use is operated within a structure and outdoor speakers are not planned as part of the business. EXHIBIT A H-2017-0046 – Urban Air Page 5 B. Additional Standards For Swimming Pools: Any outdoor swimming pool shall be completely enclosed within a six foot (6') nonscalable fence that meets the requirements of the building code in accord with title 10, chapter 1, of this code. The proposed use does not include a swimming pool. C. Additional Standards For Outdoor Stage Or Musical Venue: Any use with a capacity of one hundred (100) seats or more or within one thousand feet (1,000') of a residence or a residential district shall be subject to approval of a conditional use permit. (Ord. 05-1170, 8-30-2005, eff. 9- 15-2005) The proposed use does not include an outdoor music stage, so this standard is not applicable. Development Plans: The scope of work includes conversion of open warehouse and office space into an indoor recreation facility. The proposed facility will be occupying 42,000 square feet of the total approximately 142,800 square foot building. The CUP is necessary to establish the use. Access: Access to the site is taken from N. Gaudians Avenue and from E. Lanark Street, designated as collector roadways. Access to this site is consistent with the requirements set forth in UDC 11-3A-3. No other access points are proposed or approved with this application. Parking: Per UDC 11-3C-6B all industrial districts require one space for every 2,000 square feet of gross floor area. The site is currently developed with a 142,800 square foot warehouse building, of which 42,000 square feet is proposed for the use. Based on the existing and planned square footage the site must provide a minimum of 21 parking stalls. The submitted site provides a total of 91 parking stalls. In addition, per UDC 11-3C-5, the applicant is responsible for providing bike parking on the site. The UDC requires the installation of one bicycle parking space for every 25 proposed vehicle parking stalls. The applicant is required to install four (4) bicycle parking stalls on site. Business Operation: The applicant has indicated that the hours of operation for the business will be Monday-Thursday 3-8PM, Friday-Saturday 10AM-11PM and Sunday 10AM-8PM. The hours of operation are mostly evenings and weekends and will only overlap for two hours with the other business located on the property. The applicant has indicated that the two adjacent businesses are unmanned warehouses, so parking for the facility should not be an issue. Certificate of Zoning Compliance and Design Review: The purpose of a Certificate of Zoning Compliance (CZC) approval is to ensure that all construction, alterations and/or the establishment of a new use complies with all of the provisions of the UDC before any work on the structure is started and/or the use is established (UDC 11-5B-1A). To ensure that all of the conditions of approval listed in Exhibit B are complied with, the Applicant will be required to obtain CZC approval from the Planning Department prior to establishment of the new use. All improvements must be installed prior to occupancy. X. EXHIBITS A. Exhibits 1. Vicinity Map 2. Site Plan B. Conditions of Approval 1. Planning Division EXHIBIT A H-2017-0046 – Urban Air Page 6 2. Public Works Department 3. Fire Department 4. Police Department 5. Parks Department 6. Building Services 7. Sanitary Service Company 8. Ada County Highway District C. Required Findings from Unified Development Code EXHIBIT A H-2017-0046 – Urban Air A. Drawings 1. Vicinity Map EXHIBIT A H-2017-0046 – Urban Air 2. Site Plan EXHIBIT A Boise Slam Basketball Club CUP-14-014 PAGE 2 B. Conditions of Approval 1. PLANNING DEPARTMENT 1.1 The applicant shall comply with all previous conditions of approval associated with this site. 1.2 The Applicant shall have a maximum of two (2) years to commence the use as permitted in accord with the conditions of approval listed above. If the use has not begun within two (2) years of approval, a new conditional use permit must be obtained prior to operation or a time extension must be requested in accord with UDC 11-5B-6F. 1.3 Per UDC 11-3C-5, the applicant shall provide 4 bicycle parking stalls on site. 1.4 Staff’s failure to cite specific ordinance provisions or terms of the approved conditional use does not relieve the applicant of responsibility for compliance. 1.5 The applicant shall not be required to submit a Certificate of Zoning Compliance application to commence the proposed use on this site. Planning staff will review and approve the commencement of the use through the Tenant Improvement and/or Certificate of Occupancy submitted to the Community Development Department. All interior modifications (tenant improvements) associated with the use must receive all required permits and inspections from the Building Division of the Community Development Department prior to operation of the indoor recreation facility. 2. PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT 2.1 Public Works has no concerns with this application. 3. FIRE DEPARTMENT 3.1 The Fire Department has no comments on this application. 4. POLICE DEPARTMENT 4.1 The Police Department has no concerns with this application. 5. REPUBLIC SERVICES 5.1 Republic Services has no concerns with this application. 6. ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT 6.1 ACHD has no comments on this application. 7. PARKS DEPARTMENT 7.1 The Parks Department has no comments on this application. EXHIBIT A Boise Slam Basketball Club CUP-14-014 PAGE 3 C. Required Findings from Unified Development Code 1. Conditional Use Permit (UDC 11-5B-6E) The Commission shall base its determination on the Conditional Use Permit request upon the following: a. That the site is large enough to accommodate the proposed use and meet all the dimensional and development regulations in the district in which the use is located. Staff finds that the subject property is large enough to accommodate the proposed use and the dimensional & development regulations of the I-L district (see Analysis Section IX for more information). b. That the proposed use will be harmonious with the Meridian Comprehensive Plan and in accord with the requirements of this Title. Staff finds that the proposed use is consistent and harmonious with the UDC and Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map designation of Industrial for this site. c. That the design, construction, operation and maintenance will be compatible with other uses in the general neighborhood and with the existing or intended character of the general vicinity and that such use will not adversely change the essential character of the same area. Staff finds that if the applicant complies with the conditions outlined in this report, the proposed use should be compatible with other uses in the general neighborhood and with the existing and intended character of the area. d. That the proposed use, if it complies with all conditions of the approval imposed, will not adversely affect other property in the vicinity. Staff finds that if the applicant complies with the conditions outlined in this report, the proposed use will not adversely affect other property in the area. e. That the proposed use will be served adequately by essential public facilities and services such as highways, streets, schools, parks, police and fire protection, drainage structures, refuse disposal, water, and sewer. Staff finds that sanitary sewer, domestic water, refuse disposal, and irrigation are currently provided to the subject property. Staff finds that the proposed use will be served adequately by all of the public facilities and services listed above. f. That the proposed use will not create excessive additional costs for public facilities and services and will not be detrimental to the economic welfare of the community. If approved, the applicant will be financing any improvements required for development. Staff finds there will not be excessive additional requirements at public cost and that the proposed use will not be detrimental to the community’s economic welfare. EXHIBIT A Exhibit C - 3 - g. That the proposed use will not involve activities or processes, materials, equipment and conditions of operation that will be detrimental to any persons, property or the general welfare by reason of excessive production of traffic, noise, smoke, fumes, glare or odors. Staff finds the proposed use will not be detrimental to any persons, property or the general welfare of the area. h. That the proposed use will not result in the destruction, loss or damage of a natural, scenic or historic feature considered to be of major importance. Staff finds that there should not be any health, safety or environmental problems associated with the proposed use. Further, staff finds that the proposed use will not result in the destruction, loss or damage of any natural, scenic or historic feature of major importance. Exhibit A PAGE 1 STAFF REPORT Hearing Date: May 18, 2017 TO: Planning & Zoning Commission FROM: Josh Beach, Associate City Planner 208-884-5533 SUBJECT: Melissa’s Daycare – H-2017-0047 I. SUMMARY DESCRIPTION OF APPLICANT’S REQUEST The applicant, Dionna Franklin, has applied for a conditional use permit (CUP) for a daycare group in the R-8 zoning district. See Section IX Analysis for more information. II. SUMMARY RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the proposed CUP with the conditions listed in Exhibit B, based on the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law in Exhibit C of the Staff Report. The Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission heard this item on May 18, 2016. At the public hearing, the Commission moved to approve the subject CUP request. a. Summary of Commission Public Hearing: i. In favor: Dionna Franklin (applicant) ii. In opposition: None iii. Commenting: Dionna Franklin, Susan Matlock iv. Written testimony: None v. Staff presenting application: Josh Beach vi. Other staff commenting on application: Andrea Pogue, Bill Parsons b. Key Issues of Discussion by Commission: i. Parking c. Key Commission Changes to Staff Recommendation: i. None III. PROPOSED MOTION Approval After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to approve File Number H-2017- 0047 as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of May 18, 2017, with the following modifications: (Add any proposed modifications.) Denial After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to deny H-2017-0047 as presented during the hearing on May 18, 2017, for the following reasons: (You should state specific reasons for denial.) Continuance I move to continue File Number H-2017-0047 to the hearing date of (insert continued hearing date here) for the following reason(s): (You should state specific reason(s) for continuance.) IV. APPLICATION AND PROPERTY FACTS A. Site Address/Location: Exhibit A PAGE 2 4657 N. Price Avenue Located in the northeast ¼ of Section 36, Township 4 North, Range 1 West B. Applicants/Owner(s): Tony and Dionna Franklin 4657 N. Price Avenue Meridian, ID 83646 C. Representative: NA D. Applicant's Statement/Justification: Please see applicant’s narrative for this information. V. PROCESS FACTS A. The subject application is for a conditional use permit. A public hearing is required before the Planning & Zoning Commission on this matter, consistent with Meridian City Code Title 11, Chapter 5. B. Newspaper notifications published on: April 28, 2017 C. Radius notices mailed to properties within 300 feet on: April 21, 2017 D. Applicant posted notice on site by: May 8, 2017 VI. LAND USE A. Existing Land Use(s) and Zoning: The property is developed with a single family detached home, zoned R-8 (medium density residential). B. Character of Surrounding Area and Adjacent Land Use and Zoning: This site is surrounded by existing residential properties, zoned R-8. C. History of Previous Actions:  In 2005, the property was annexed and zoned R-8 and preliminary platted as part of Ambercreek Subdivision.  In 2014, the property was granted final plat approval (FP-14-012) for Ambercreek Subdivision No. 2. D. Utilities: 1. Public Works: a. Location of sewer: Currently connected from N. Price Avenue. b. Location of water: Currently connected from N. Price Avenue. c. Issues or concerns: None E. Physical Features: 1. Canals/Ditches Irrigation: NA 2. Hazards: Staff is not aware of any hazards that exist on this property. 3. Flood Plain: This property does not lie within the floodplain or floodway. F. Access: Access for this site is depicted on the site plan via N. Price Avenue. Exhibit A PAGE 3 VII. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN POLICIES AND GOALS The Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map (FLUM) designates this site as Medium Density Residential (MDR). MDR designated areas allow smaller lots for residential purposes within City limits. Uses may include single-family homes at gross densities of 3 to 8 dwelling units per acre (d.u./acre). Staff finds the following Comprehensive Plan policies to be applicable to this property and apply to the proposed use (staff analysis in italics):  “Plan for and encourage services like healthcare, daycare, grocery stores, and recreational areas to be built within walking distance of residential dwellings.” (2.01.01C) The proposed daycare group in within a large residential subdivision. This use will be within walking distance of a large number of residences. This application would allow for up to 12 children at one time. For the above-stated reasons, staff is of the opinion the proposed use is consistent with the applicable comprehensive plan policies and is appropriate in this location. VIII. UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE A. Purpose Statement of Zone: The purpose of the residential districts is to provide for a range of housing opportunities consistent with the Meridian Comprehensive Plan. Connection to the City of Meridian water and sewer systems is a requirement for all residential districts. Residential districts are distinguished by the allowable density of dwelling units per acre and corresponding housing types that can be accommodated within the density range. B. Schedule of Use: Unified Development Code (UDC) Table 11-2A-2 lists the permitted, accessory, conditional, and prohibited uses in the R-8 zoning district. The proposed daycare facility is classified as a daycare group and is a conditional use in the R-8 zoning district, subject to specific use standards set forth in UDC 11-4-3-9. C. Dimensional Standards: The dimensional standards listed in UDC Table 11-2A-6 for the R-8 zoning district apply to this site. D. Off-Street Parking: Per UDC Table 11-3C-6 the applicant is required to provide two (2) stalls in a garage and two (2) on a driveway. Per the specific use standards, additional parking is also required in accord with UDC 11-3C-6. IX. ANALYSIS A. Analysis of Facts Leading to Staff Recommendation: Conditional Use Permit: The request is for a conditional use permit to operate a daycare group in a 2,620 square foot home for up to 12 children in an R-8 zoning district. The applicant has indicated that she will be using 1,066 square feet of the home for her daycare. The UDC allows for up to 6 children in a “daycare family” with an accessory use permit in the R- 8 zoning district. To allow up to 12 children in a “daycare group”, the R-8 zoning district requires a conditional use permit. One of the main reasons for this distinction is the increased number of vehicle trips for the “daycare group.” There are specific use standards listed in UDC 11-4-3-9 that apply to daycare facilities that the applicant shall comply with. The applicant shall pave the 3 stalls as shown on the site plan attached in Exhibit A.2. Specific Use Standards: The proposed use is subject to the specific use standards listed in UDC Exhibit A PAGE 4 11-4-3-9, Daycare Facility. A. General standards for all child daycare and adult care uses, including the classifications of daycare center; daycare, family; and daycare, group: 1. In determining the type of daycare facility, the total number of children at the facility at one time, including the operator's children, is the determining factor. The applicant is proposing to care for up to 12 children and therefore is classified as a daycare group. 2. On site vehicle pick up, parking and turnaround areas shall be provided to ensure safe discharge and pick up of clients. The home has a three car garage and also has three stalls on the driveway to accommodate drop off and pick up of children. The proposed use will increase the number of trips to and from the home and therefore the UDC requires additional off-street parking. 3. The decision making body shall specify the maximum number of allowable clients and hours of operation as conditions of approval. See Conditions of Approval in Exhibit B. 4. Upon tentative approval of the application by the director or commission for a daycare center facility, the applicant or owner shall provide proof of criminal background checks and fire inspection certificates as required by title 39, chapter 11, Idaho Code. Said proof shall be provided prior to issuance of occupancy. The applicant or owner shall comply with all state of Idaho and department of health and welfare requirements for daycare facilities. The applicant will comply with this standard. 5. In residential districts or uses adjoining an adjacent residence, the hours of operation shall be between six o'clock (6:00) A.M. and eleven o'clock (11:00) P.M. This standard may be modified through approval of a conditional use permit. The applicant will comply with this standard. The applicant shall not exceed the maximum number of clients as stated in the approved permit or as stated in this title, whichever is more restrictive. The applicant will comply with this standard. B. Additional standards for daycare facilities that serve children: 1. All outdoor play areas shall be completely enclosed by minimum six foot (6') nonscalable fences to secure against exit/entry by small children and to screen abutting properties. The outdoor play area is enclosed with a six-foot non-scalable cedar fence on both the north and south property lines. The applicant currently has a four foot fence on the rear of the property and has indicated that this fence will be altered to meet the required 6 feet in height and that vegetation will be planted along the western property line to discourage children from climbing. With submittal of the certificate of zoning compliance application, the applicant shall provide details of the 6 foot non-scalable fence. Exhibit A PAGE 5 Certificate of Zoning Compliance: Due to the fact that the proposed daycare center use is within an existing building and no site or exterior building modifications are proposed a Certificate of Zoning Compliance application will not be required to commence the proposed use on this site. All interior modifications (tenant improvements) associated with the daycare center use must receive all required permits and inspections from the Building Division of the Community Development Department prior to operation of the daycare center. Staff recommends approval of the proposed CUP with the conditions listed in Exhibit B. NOTE: The City has adopted a local amendment to the international building code (IBC) that does not require a change in occupancy of the home if it is to operate as a daycare facilities for twelve or fewer children. Because the occupancy of the home is not changing from residential to non-residential, the parking for non-residential uses doesn’t apply. However, staff has concerns with the limited parking on the site and is recommending that the applicant pave the gravel area on the east side the driveway in accord with UDC standards. standards. The applicant anticipates that the arrival of the children will be staggered so that the provided parking both on the driveway and the additional off-street stall will be sufficient . X. EXHIBITS A. Drawings 1. Vicinity/Zoning Map & Aerial Map 2. Site Plan & Floor Plan 3. Building Elevation (photo) B. Conditions of Approval 1. Planning Department 2. Public Works Department 3. Fire Department 4. Police Department 5. Sanitary Service Company 6. Ada County Highway District 7. Parks Department C. Required Findings from Unified Development Code Exhibit A PAGE 6 Exhibit A.1: Vicinity/Zoning Map & Aerial Map Exhibit A PAGE 7 Exhibit A.2: Site Plan & Floor Plan Exhibit A PAGE 8 Exhibit A PAGE 9 Exhibit A.3: Building Elevation (photo) Exhibit A PAGE 10 B. Conditions of Approval 1. PLANNING DEPARTMENT 1.1 The applicant shall provide proof of criminal background checks and fire inspection certificates as required by Title 39, Chapter 11, Idaho Code, in accord with UDC 11-4-3-9, prior to issuance of certificate of occupancy. 1.2 The applicant shall comply with the specific use standards listed in UDC 11-4-3-9 for daycare facilities. 1.3 The applicant shall have a maximum of 24 months to commence the use as permitted in accord with the conditions of approval listed above. If the business has not begun within 18 months of approval, a time extension shall be requested in accord with UDC 11-5B-6F prior to expiration. If a time extension is not requested or granted and the CUP expires, a new conditional use permit must be obtained prior to operation. 1.4 Staff’s failure to cite specific ordinance provisions or terms of the approved conditional use does not relieve the applicant of responsibility for compliance. 1.5 The number of children watched on the property shall not exceed 12 children at any one time. 1.8 Prior to commencement of the use, the applicant shall receive certificate of zoning compliance approval to ensure the property complies with the UDC, (specifically for approval of the required fencing). 1.9 With submittal of the certificate of zoning compliance application, the applicant shall provide detail of the 6 foot non-scalable fence. 2. PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT 2.1 Public works has no issues with this application 3. FIRE DEPARTMENT 3.1 All daycares must pass an inspection using the criteria of the Idaho State Fire Marshal as set forth in Idaho Statute Title 39-1109. Prior to scheduling an inspection, the applicant must pay a fee of $20 for the cost of the inspection. 4. POLICE DEPARTMENT 4.1 The Police Department did not submit comments on this application. 5. SANITARY SERVICES 5.1 Republic Services did not provide comments on this application. 6. ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT 6.1 ACHD has no site specific conditions of approval for this application at this time. 7. PARKS DEPARTMENT 7.1 The Parks Department did not submit comments on this application. Exhibit A PAGE 11 C. Required Findings from Unified Development Code 1. Conditional Use Permit (UDC 11-5B-6E) The Commission shall base its determination on the Conditional Use Permit request upon the following: a. That the site is large enough to accommodate the proposed use and meet all the dimensional and development regulations in the district in which the use is located. Staff finds that the subject property is large enough to accommodate the proposed use and dimensional and development regulations of the R-8 district. (see Analysis Section IX for more information). b. That the proposed use will be harmonious with the Meridian Comprehensive Plan and in accord with the requirements of this Title. Staff finds that the proposed use is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan future land use map designation of MDR. Further, staff finds the proposed use of the site is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan in that the proposed daycare group will contribute to the variety of educational and commercial opportunities available to the surrounding area. c. That the design, construction, operation and maintenance will be compatible with other uses in the general neighborhood and with the existing or intended character of the general vicinity and that such use will not adversely change the essential character of the same area. Staff finds that if the applicant complies with the conditions outlined in this report, the operation of the proposed daycare group should be compatible with other uses in the general neighborhood and with the existing and intended character of the area. d. That the proposed use, if it complies with all conditions of the approval imposed, will not adversely affect other property in the vicinity. Staff finds that if the applicant complies with the conditions outlined in this report, the proposed use will not adversely affect other property in the area. The Commission should weigh any public testimony provided to determine if the development will adversely affect the other property in the vicinity. e. That the proposed use will be served adequately by essential public facilities and services such as highways, streets, schools, parks, police and fire protection, drainage structures, refuse disposal, water, and sewer. Staff finds that sanitary sewer, domestic water, refuse disposal, and irrigation are currently available to the subject property. Please refer to any comments pr epared by the Meridian Fire Department, Police Department, Parks Department, Sanitary Services Corporation and ACHD. Based on comments from other agencies and departments, Staff finds that the proposed use will be served adequately by all of the public facilities and services listed above. Exhibit A f. That the proposed use will not create excessive additional costs for public facilities and services and will not be detrimental to the economic welfare of the community. If approved, the applicant will be financing any improvements required for development. Staff finds there will not be excessive additional requirements at public cost and that the proposed use will not be detrimental to the community’s economic welfare. g. That the proposed use will not involve activities or processes, materials, equipment and conditions of operation that will be detrimental to any persons, property or the general welfare by reason of excessive production of traffic, noise, smoke, fumes, glare or odors. Staff recognizes that traffic will likely increase with the approval of a daycare center in this location; however, Staff does not believe that the amount generated will be detrimental to the general welfare of the public since the Comprehensive Plan and UDC anticipated the site to be developed with commercial uses. In addition, a daycare center previously operated on the site and staff is not aware of any issues arising from that use. Staff does not anticipate the proposed use will create excessive noise, smoke, fumes, glare, or odors. Staff finds that the proposed use will not be detrimental to people, property or the general welfare of the area. h. That the proposed use will not result in the destruction, loss or damage of a natural, scenic or historic feature considered to be of major importance. Staff finds that there should not be any health, safety or environmental problems associated with the proposed use that should be brought to the Commission’s attention. Staff finds that the proposed use will not result in the destruction, loss or damage of any natural, scenic or historic feature of major importance. Exhibit A My First Steps Daycare – CUP H-2017-0054 STAFF REPORT Hearing Date: May 18, 2017 TO: Planning & Zoning Commission FROM: Sonya Allen, Associate City Planner 208-884-5533 SUBJECT: My First Steps Daycare – H-2017-0054 I. SUMMARY DESCRIPTION OF APPLICANT’S REQUEST The applicant, Darya Krautsova, has applied for a conditional use permit (CUP) for a group daycare for up to 12 children in the R-8 zoning district on 0.15 of an acre property. See Section IX Analysis for more information. II. SUMMARY RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the proposed CUP with the conditions listed in Exhibit B, based on the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law in Exhibit C of the Staff Report. The Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission heard this item on May 18, 2016. At the public hearing, the Commission moved to approve the subject CUP request. a. Summary of Commission Public Hearing: i. In favor: Darya Krautsova (applicant) ii. In opposition: None iii. Commenting: Darya Krautsova iv. Written testimony: None v. Staff presenting application: Sonya Allen vi. Other staff commenting on application: None b. Key Issues of Discussion by Commission: i. None c. Key Commission Changes to Staff Recommendation: i. None III. PROPOSED MOTION Approval After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to approve File Number H-2017- 0054 as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of May 18, 2017, with the following modifications: (Add any proposed modifications.) Denial After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to deny H-2017-0054 as presented during the hearing on May 18, 2017, for the following reasons: (You should state specific reasons for denial.) Continuance I move to continue File Number H-2017-0054 to the hearing date of (insert continued hearing date here) for the following reason(s): (You should state specific reason(s) for continuance.) IV. APPLICATION AND PROPERTY FACTS A. Site Address/Location: Exhibit A My First Steps Daycare – CUP H-2017-0054 3545 S. Pompei Ave., in the NE ¼ of Section 30, Township 3N., Range 1E. (Parcel: R8560220630) B. Applicant(s): Darya Krautsova 3545 W. Pompei Ave. Meridian, ID 83642 C. Owner(s): Dallan Taylor 756 Silvermoon Ln. Eagle, ID 83616 D. Representative: Same as Applicant E. Applicant's Statement/Justification: Please see applicant’s narrative for this information. V. PROCESS FACTS A. The subject application is for a conditional use permit. A public hearing is required before the Planning & Zoning Commission on this matter, consistent with Meridian City Code Title 11, Chapter 5. B. Newspaper notifications published on: April 28, 2017 C. Radius notices mailed to properties within 300 feet on: April 20, 2017 D. Applicant posted notice on site by: May 1, 2017 VI. LAND USE A. Existing Land Use(s) and Zoning: The property is developed with a single family detached home, zoned R-8. B. Character of Surrounding Area and Adjacent Land Use and Zoning: This site is surrounded by existing residential properties and vacant/undeveloped land, zoned R-8. C. History of Previous Actions: This property is platted as Lot 3, Block 11, Tuscany Village Subdivision No. 2. D. Utilities: 1. Public Works: a. Location of sewer: Currently connected from S. Pompei Avenue. b. Location of water: Currently connected from S. Pompei Avenue. c. Issues or concerns: None E. Physical Features: 1. Canals/Ditches Irrigation: None 2. Hazards: Staff is not aware of any hazards that exist on this property. 3. Flood Plain: This property does not lie within the floodplain or floodway. F. Access: Access for this site exists via S. Pompei Avenue. Exhibit A My First Steps Daycare – CUP H-2017-0054 VII. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN POLICIES AND GOALS The Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map (FLUM) designates this site as Medium Density Residential (MDR). MDR designated areas allow smaller lots for residential purposes within City limits. Uses may include single-family homes at gross densities of 3 to 8 dwelling units per acre (d.u./acre). Staff finds the following Comprehensive Plan policies to be applicable to this property and apply to the proposed use (staff analysis in italics):  “Plan for and encourage services like healthcare, daycare, grocery stores, and recreational areas to be built within walking distance of residential dwellings.” (2.01.01C) The proposed daycare group is within a large residential subdivision, Tuscany Village Subdivision. This use will be within walking distance of a large number of residences and provide a much needed service to residents. For the above-stated reason, staff is of the opinion the proposed use is consistent with the applicable comprehensive plan policies and is appropriate in this location. VIII. UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE A. Purpose Statement of Zone: Per UDC 11-2A-1, the purpose of the residential districts is to provide for a range of housing opportunities consistent with the Meridian comprehensive plan. Residential districts are distinguished by the dimensional standards of the corresponding zone and housing types that can be accommodated. B. Schedule of Use: Unified Development Code (UDC) Table 11-2A-2 lists the permitted, accessory, conditional, and prohibited uses in the R-8 zoning district. The proposed daycare facility is classified as a group daycare and is a conditional use in the R-8 zoning district, subject to specific use standards set forth in UDC 11-4-3-9. C. Dimensional Standards: The dimensional standards listed in UDC Table 11-2A-6 for the R-8 zoning district apply to this site. D. Off-Street Parking: Per UDC Table 11-3C-6, the applicant is required to provide a minimum of 4 parking spaces; at least 2 in an enclosed garage, other spaces may be enclosed or a minimum of 10’ x 20’ parking pad. In addition to the parking requirements for the dwelling, on-site (i.e. off- street) vehicle pick-up, parking and turnaround areas are required to be provided for the daycare facility to ensure safe discharge and pick up of clients. IX. ANALYSIS A. Analysis of Facts Leading to Staff Recommendation: Conditional Use Permit: The applicant requests a conditional use permit to operate a group daycare facility for up to 12 children, ages 6 weeks to 6 years old, in a 1,731 square foot home in an R-8 zoning district as required by UDC Table 11-2A-2. The UDC allows for up to 6 children in a family daycare with an accessory use permit in the R-8 zoning district; up to12 children are allowed in a group daycare but required conditional use permit approval in the R-8 zoning district. One of the main reasons for this requirement is the increased number of vehicle trips for the group daycare. Specific Use Standards: The proposed use is subject to the specific use standards listed in UDC 11-4-3-9, Daycare Facility. Exhibit A My First Steps Daycare – CUP H-2017-0054 A. General standards for all child daycare and adult care uses, including the classifications of daycare center; daycare, family; and daycare, group: 1. In determining the type of daycare facility, the total number of children at the facility at one time, including the operator's children, is the determining factor. The applicant proposes to care for up to 12 children at any one time and therefore is classified as a group daycare. 2. On site vehicle pick up, parking and turnaround areas shall be provided to ensure safe discharge and pick up of clients. The home has a three car garage and also has a concrete parking pad in front of the garage that will accommodate up to three parked cars which provide a safe discharge and pick up area for children. 3. The decision making body shall specify the maximum number of allowable clients and hours of operation as conditions of approval. A maximum number of 12 children are allowed to be cared for at one time, including the operator’s children. The proposed hours of operation are from 6:30 am to 6:30 pm. However, the specific use standards allow the facility to operate between the hours of 6:00 am to 11:00 pm, unless otherwise restricted by the Commission. 4. Upon tentative approval of the application by the director or commission for a daycare center facility, the applicant or owner shall provide proof of criminal background checks and fire inspection certificates as required by title 39, chapter 11, Idaho Code. Said proof shall be provided prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Zoning Compliance. The applicant or owner shall comply with all State of Idaho and Department of Health and Welfare requirements for daycare facilities. The applicant has submitted a copy of her background check dated March 4, 2016 which is valid for 3 years; it states that states no disqualifying crimes or relevant records were revealed. The Fire Department conducted an inspection on April 5, 2017 and certified that the facility meets the required Fire Code standards. 5. In residential districts or uses adjoining an adjacent residence, the hours of operation shall be between six o'clock (6:00) A.M. and eleven o'clock (11:00) P.M. This standard may be modified through approval of a conditional use permit. The applicant only proposes to operate the facility between the hours of 6:30 am and 6:30 pm; at no time should the hours extend beyond 6:00 am to 11:00 pm. 6. Prior to submittal of an application for an accessory daycare facility in a residential district, the applicant or owner shall hold a neighborhood meeting in accord with subsection 11-5A-6C of this title. Notice of the neighborhood meeting shall be provided to all property owners of record within one hundred feet (100') of the exterior boundary of the subject property. This standard is not applicable to this application. However, the applicant previously obtained an accessory use permit for a family daycare and complied. The applicant shall not exceed the maximum number of clients as stated in the approved permit or as stated in this title, whichever is more restrictive. The applicant shall not provide care for more than 12 children, including the applicant’s own children, at any one time. Exhibit A My First Steps Daycare – CUP H-2017-0054 B. Additional standards for daycare facilities that serve children: 1. All outdoor play areas shall be completely enclosed by minimum six foot (6') non- scalable fences to secure against exit/entry by small children and to screen abutting properties. The play area in the rear yard is enclosed with a six-foot non-scalable vinyl fence (see photos in Exhibit A.3). Certificate of Zoning Compliance (CZC): A CZC application is typically required to be submitted to the Planning Division for staff level review and approval of the proposed use as set forth in UDC 11-5B-1B after the conditional use permit is approved by the Commission to ensure the applicant complies with the aforementioned specific use standards. However, because staff has already determined that the applicant is in compliance with those standards, a CZC is not required to be submitted. Once the findings are approved for the subject CUP application, the applicant is allowed to commence the approved use. NOTE: The City has adopted a local amendment to the international building code (IBC) that does not require a change in occupancy of the home if it is to operate as a daycare facilities for twelve or fewer children. Because the occupancy of the home is not changing from residential to non-residential, the parking for non-residential uses doesn’t apply. Because the arrival of the children will likely be staggered, the provided parking in front of the garage should be sufficient. Staff recommends approval of the proposed CUP with the conditions listed in Exhibit B. X. EXHIBITS A. Drawings 1. Vicinity/Zoning Map 2. Aerial Map & Floor Plan 3. Building Elevation& Rear Yard Fence Photos B. Conditions of Approval 1. Planning Department 2. Public Works Department 3. Fire Department 4. Police Department 5. Sanitary Service Company 6. Ada County Highway District 7. Parks Department C. Required Findings from Unified Development Code Exhibit A My First Steps Daycare – CUP H-2017-0054 Exhibit A.1: Vicinity/Zoning Map Exhibit A My First Steps Daycare – CUP H-2017-0054 Exhibit A.2: Aerial Map & Floor Plan Exhibit A My First Steps Daycare – CUP H-2017-0054 Exhibit A.3: Building Elevation & Rear Yard Fence Photos Exhibit A My First Steps Daycare – CUP H-2017-0054 B. Conditions of Approval 1. PLANNING DEPARTMENT 1.1 The applicant shall continue to comply with the specific use standards listed in UDC 11-4-3-9, Daycare Facility, including but not limited to, the following: a. The maximum number of children at the facility at one time, including the operator’s children, shall be twelve (12). b. Onsite vehicle pick-up, parking and turnaround areas shall be provided to ensure safe discharge and pick up of clients. c. The business hours of operation of the group daycare facility shall not exceed the hours between 6:00 am and 11:00 pm. d. Outdoor play areas shall not be used after dusk. e. Outdoor play equipment over 6 feet in height shall not be located in a front yard or within any required yard (i.e. setback area adjacent to property lines). 1.2 The conditional use permit shall be valid for a maximum period of 2 years unless otherwise approved by the City. During this time, the applicant shall commence the use as permitted in accord with the conditions of approval, satisfy the requirements set forth in the conditions of approval. Upon written request and filing by the applicant prior to the termination of the period, a time extension may be requested as set forth in UDC 11-5B-6. 1.3 Staff’s failure to cite specific ordinance provisions or terms of the approved conditional use does not relieve the applicant of responsibility for compliance. 2. PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT 2.1 Public works has no issues with this application. 3. FIRE DEPARTMENT 3.1 All daycares must pass an inspection using the criteria of the Idaho State Fire Marshal as set forth in Idaho Statute Title 39-1109. Prior to scheduling an inspection, the applicant must pay a fee of $20 for the cost of the inspection. The Fire Department conducted an inspection on April 5, 2017 and the facility passed inspection. 4. POLICE DEPARTMENT 4.1 The Police Department had no comments on this application. 5. REPUBLIC SERVICES 5.1 Republic Services did not provide comments on this application. 6. PARKS DEPARTMENT 6.1 The Parks Department had no comments on this application. 7. ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT 7.1 ACHD has no site specific conditions of approval for this application at this time. Exhibit A My First Steps Daycare – CUP H-2017-0054 C. Required Findings from Unified Development Code 1. Conditional Use Permit (UDC 11-5B-6E) The Commission shall base its determination on the Conditional Use Permit request upon the following: a. That the site is large enough to accommodate the proposed use and meet all the dimensional and development regulations in the district in which the use is located. Staff finds that the subject property is large enough to accommodate the proposed use and dimensional and development regulations of the R-8 district (see Analysis, Section IX for more information). b. That the proposed use will be harmonious with the Meridian Comprehensive Plan and in accord with the requirements of this Title. Staff finds that the proposed use is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan future land use map designation of MDR and is listed as a conditional use in UDC Table 11-2A-2 in the R-8 zoning district. Further, staff finds the proposed use of the site is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan in that the proposed daycare group will contribute to the variety of uses and educational opportunities available to the surrounding area. c. That the design, construction, operation and maintenance will be compatible with other uses in the general neighborhood and with the existing or intended character of the general vicinity and that such use will not adversely change the essential character of the same area. Staff finds that if the applicant complies with the conditions outlined in this report, the operation of the proposed daycare group should be compatible with other uses in the general neighborhood and with the existing and intended character of the area. d. That the proposed use, if it complies with all conditions of the approval imposed, will not adversely affect other property in the vicinity. Staff finds that if the applicant complies with the conditions outlined in this report, the proposed use will not adversely affect other property in the area. The Commission should weigh any public testimony provided to determine if the development will adversely affect the other property in the vicinity. e. That the proposed use will be served adequately by essential public facilities and services such as highways, streets, schools, parks, police and fire protection, drainage structures, refuse disposal, water, and sewer. Staff finds that sanitary sewer, domestic water, refuse disposal, and irrigation are currently provided to the subject property. Please refer to any comments prepared by the Meridian Fire Department, Police Department, Parks Department, Sanitary Services Corporation and ACHD in Exhibit B. Based on comments from other agencies and departments, Staff finds that the proposed use will be served adequately by all of the public facilities and servi ces listed above. Exhibit A f. That the proposed use will not create excessive additional costs for public facilities and services and will not be detrimental to the economic welfare of the community. If approved, the applicant will be financing any improvements required for development. Staff finds there will not be excessive additional requirements at public cost and that the proposed use will not be detrimental to the community’s economic welfare. g. That the proposed use will not involve activities or processes, materials, equipment and conditions of operation that will be detrimental to any persons, property or the general welfare by reason of excessive production of traffic, noise, smoke, fumes, glare or odors. Staff recognizes that traffic will likely increase with the approval of a daycare center in this location; however, Staff does not believe that the amount generated will be detrimental to the general welfare of the public. Staff does not anticipate the proposed use will create excessive noise, smoke, fumes, glare, or odors. h. That the proposed use will not result in the destruction, loss or damage of a natural, scenic or historic feature considered to be of major importance. Staff finds that there should not be any health, safety or environmental problems associated with the proposed use that should be brought to the Commission’s attention. Staff finds that the proposed use will not result in the destruction, loss or damage of any natural, scenic or historic feature of major importance. Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting June 1, 2017 Item #4A: Zoning/Vicinity Map Site Plan Location of proposed addition. Item #4B: Speedy Quick Site Plan Previous Plan Plan Received 5/24 Item #4C: Nursery Subdivision Zoning Map Preliminary Plat Landscape Plan Conceptual Elevations Item #4D: Burlingame Subdivision Vicinity/Zoning Map Preliminary Plat Landscape Plan Conceptual Elevations Item #4E: Bannock Ridge Vicinity/Zoning Map Proposed Preliminary Plat Proposed Landscape Plan Item #4F: Preakness Subdivision Preliminary Plat Landscape Plan 1 VERANDA SENIOR LIVING PARAMOUNT DIRECTOR SUBDIVISION CHINDEN Paramount Future Pool Gated Entrance Gated Entrance Encore Clubhouse Regional Path Variety of Home Types Home Styles Conditions 1.2.3.d & 1.2.4.a Condition 1.2.3.a Conditions 1.2.3.e & 1.2.4.b Site Specific Conditions Questions?