Loading...
2018-01-18 Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting January 18, 2018. Meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission of January 18, 2018, was called to order at 6:00 p.m. by Chairman Rhonda McCarvel. Members Present: Chairman Rhonda McCarvel, Commissioner Steven Yearsley, Commissioner Gregory Wilson, Commissioner Jessica Perreault and Commissioner Lisa Holland. Members Absent: Commissioner Bill Cassinelli, and Commissioner Ryan Fitzgerald. Others Present: C.Jay Coles, Andrea Pogue, Bill Parsons, Sonya Allen, Josh Beach and Dean Willis. Item 1: Roll-call Attendance __X___ Lisa Holland ___X___ Steven Yearsley __X___ Gregory Wilson _______ Ryan Fitzgerald __X___ Jessica Perreault _______ Bill Cassinelli ___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 January 18th, 2018. Let's begin with roll call. Item 2: Adoption of the Agenda McCarvel: Thank you. First item on the agenda is the adoption of the agenda and we do have a couple of changes -- amendments to the agenda. We need to amend the request Item 4-A, preliminary plat approval consisting of 158 lots and 17 common lots on 35.35 acres of land in the R-8 zoning district and the other part of that that needs to be amended onto the agenda is an annexation and zoning of 36.35 acres of land with an R-8 zoning district, instead of just the preliminary plat. And Sonya will give us more information on that when we get to the action item. But at this point could I have a motion to adopt the agenda? Oh, they put more back there. You snuck more in on me. Oh. They just added the file numbers. Okay. Yeah. They were on the staff report. But Item 4-C, the file number on that Kobe Cope is H-2017-0157 and the file number for Item 4-D, the Designing Team Rezone, is H-2017-0166. Wilson: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Wilson. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission January 18, 2018 Page 2 of 33 Wilson: I move to adopt the amended agenda. Perreault: Second that motion. McCarvel: It has been moved and seconded to adopt the amended agenda. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. TWO ABSENT. Item 3: Consent Agenda A. Approve Minutes of the January 4, 2018 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting B. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Escape Room (H- 2017-0155) By Samuel Marvin, LMP Enterprises Located at 2959 South Meridian Road McCarvel: Next item is to adopt the Consent Agenda. We have the approval of minutes for the January 4th, 2018, Planning and Zoning Commission meeting and Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for the Escape Room, H-2017-0155. Could I get a motion to adopt the Consent Agenda. Wilson: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Wilson. Wilson: I move to adopt the Consent Agenda. Perreault: I second that motion. McCarvel: It has been moved and seconded to adopt the Consent Agenda. All those in favor say. Opposed? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. TWO ABSENT. McCarvel: Okay. So, at this time we will continue on with continuing Item 4-A, the public hearing for Turf Farm Subdivision, H-2017-0149, and -- right after I explain the hearing process. We will start with the staff report. The hearing process for this evening -- we will open each item individually and, then, start with the staff report. The staff will report their findings regarding how the item adheres to the 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 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 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission January 18, 2018 Page 3 of 33 testimony. There is a sign-up sheet in the back as you entered for anybody wishing to testify and any person testifying will come forward and be allowed three minutes. On our screen here at the podium you will be able to see your timer. 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, then, the applicant will be given another ten minutes and have the opportunity to come back and respond 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 A. Public Hearing Continued from January 4, 2018 for Turf Farm Subdivision (H-2017-0149) by Brighton Investments, LLC, Located off the Northeast Corner of South Eagle Road and East Lake Hazel Road 1. Amended Request: Preliminary Plat Approval Consisting of 120 158 Building Lots and 11 17 Common Lots on 35.35 Acres of Land in the R-8 Zoning District. 2. Amended onto agenda: Annexation and Zoning of 35.35 acres of land with an R-8 zoning district McCarvel: So, at this time we will open with the staff report for Item H-2017-0149, Turf Farm Subdivision. Allen: Thank you, Madam Chair, Members of the Commission. The applications before you with this request is a preliminary plan and an annexation and zoning. This site consists of 35.35 acres of land. It's zoned RUT in Ada county and located at the northeast corner of South Eagle Road and East Lake Hazel Road. Adjacent land use and zoning. To the north and east are existing and future single family residential property in the Hill Century Farm Subdivision, zoned R-8. To the south is East Lake Hazel Road and rural residential property, zoned RUT in Ada county. And to the west is South Eagle Road and rural residential properties, zoned RUT in Ada county. The Comprehensive Plan future land use map designates this property as medium high density residential, which is eight to 15 residential units per acre. Since this application was originally submitted, the plat has been revised per staff's recommendations to include 38 more building lots than originally proposed, with an mix of attached and detached units in an effort to increase the density and provide a mix of housing types and that is because of the current medium high densi ty residential designation. The applicant is requesting annexation and zoning of 35.35 acres of land, with an R-8 zoning district, with a step down in density from medium high density residential , as we discussed is eight to 15 units per acre, to medium density residential, which is three to eight units per acre. With the increase in density and provision of lots for attached homes, staff is recommending an R-15 zoning district, instead of the requested R-8 to Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission January 18, 2018 Page 4 of 33 accommodate the smaller lot sizes proposed for attached dwellings. The preliminary plan consists of 158 single family residential building lots for a mix of attached and detached homes and 17 common area lots. The subdivision is proposed to develop in two phases as shown, north and south, with the north half expected to develop later this year with single family residential detached homes at a gross density of 3.32 units per acre. The south half will include a mix of attached and detached units at a gross density of 5.48 units per acre. Overall a gross density of 4.47 units per acre is proposed. This development will be integrated into the adjacent Hill Century Farm development. One access is proposed to the site via South Eagle Road and a stub street at the north boundary will be extended from Hill Century Farm Subdivision No. 5 for interconnectivity. Ten Mile Creek runs along the east boundary of the site. No access is proposed to the east across the creek or via Lake Hazel Road. Because Lake Hazel is designated as a residential mobility arterial, which is designated -- excuse me -- designed to accommodate high volumes of traffic and intended for regional movements , higher density is desired in this area. That is why the applicants revised the plan to include more density up next to that residential mobility corridor. Higher density -- excuse me. Two stub streets are proposed to the property at the southwest corner of the site for future access and interconnectivity. A segment of the city's regional pathway system is proposed along the west side of the Ten Mile Creek in accord with the pathways master plan. The creek is required to be left open as a natural amenity and protected during construction. This is a copy of the proposed landscape plan. The applicant has not revised this yet. They will prior to the Council meeting, so this does not match the current configuration of the preliminary plat. Conceptual building elevations were submitted for the single family residential detached home s with the development that are consistent with those in the Hill Century Farm development. Written testimony has been received from Mike Wardle, Brighton Corporation, in agreement with the staff report. Staff is recommending approval with the conditions in Exhibit B of the report. If Council determines a step down in density is appropriate for this property, staff requests a revised landscape plan and open space exhibit and engineering plans that coincide with the reconfigured plat. Concept elevations for the attached units and revised legal descriptions for the R-8 and R-15 zoning districts, as recommended by staff, are submitted prior to the City Council meeting. Staff will stand for any questions. McCarvel: Sonya, I have a question. Could you go back to either one of the Plats that are -- okay. I just wanted to see that again. So, there is no access out to Lake Hazel? Allen: Madam Chair, no access is proposed. McCarvel: Okay. And probably won't be. That corner is developed as it's probably going to be; right? Allen: Yeah. There is a -- well, it doesn't show the preliminary plat here. The preliminary plat for Hill Century Farm that comes down here does have an access approximately in this location where the pointer is at. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission January 18, 2018 Page 5 of 33 McCarvel: Uh-huh. Allen: So, the applicant did not propose an additional -- McCarvel: There is nothing going out there. Allen: No. McCarvel: Okay. Allen: There is an emergency access for fire approved here right at the corner of the site, though. McCarvel: Any other questions for staff? Okay. Would the applicant like to come forward. Wardle: Madam Chair, Commission Members, Mike Wardle, Brighton Corporation, 12601 West Explorer Drive in Boise. It is rare that we find that staff demands greater density than we propose, but, Sonya, if you would pull up the first slide on the slides that I provided to you today. Just to illustrate exactly why we came to the -- well, a lot of back and forth with staff on, really, the objectives of -- there we go. When we annexed and zoned Hill Century Farm into the city several years ago we basically blended a low density, medium density, and medium high density comprehensive -- Comprehensive Plan designation into the medium density and so when we brought in the Turf Farm addition to Hill Century Farm, we just kind of assumed that we would complete the project in that same context, kind of a medium density residential. We do acknowledge that Lake Hazel is a future mobility corridor that Sonya had mentioned and so higher density is certainly a possibility, but part of the problem with this site is at the intersection of Lake Hazel and Eagle Road is up on a hill and there is a lot of -- a lot of grade to get back out of that, so ACHD was reluctant to give us anything other than a temporary access to Lake Hazel that would eventually become just a right-in, right-out only. In reality, the quarter mile access on Eagle Road that we propose with this application is really the most functional and about the only way that it can be done. But we do provide, as Sonya, noted a moment ago, an emergency access out of that cul- de-sac area. The fire department has -- but we have two access points in and out of the subdivision regardless. So, rather than fight and come to you and beg for a down zoning or a down -- a step down, I guess, is the term for the Comprehensive Plan, we agreed that let's deal with the area that's closest to Lake Hazel and we will go to a product that we actually did in the Tuscany project several years ago called the Villas in Tuscany. So, these are products that we have built. Some of them are -- well, they have the ability to attach and paired homes. Some of them will have to be attached, but clearly they have the opportunity to go either direction. So, we do increase the density and overall in that southerly half that was revised since the submittal. The actual gross density is five and a half units per acre and the net density is 11 units per acre. So, we achieved kind of a middle ground agreement with staff on increasing the density because of the location of the Comprehensive Plan. It works for us. It will, obviously, Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission January 18, 2018 Page 6 of 33 work with the city, so unless you have any other questions about it -- do I just hit the button to go to -- I want to go to the slide, Sonya, that just is my hand graphic. It's about -- there you go. Just to show kind of the open space element that comes with this -- this change. We do a green way -- kind of a separation. It's not intended to segregate the community, but just gives a nice buffer or so between the slightly larger single family lots and these smaller attached and detached parcels, plus overall landscape open space area in this plat is 21 percent. So, it really does accommodate -- gives us good access to the pathway that we have already built to the north boundary of this down Ten Mile Creek. And with that we are in full accord with the recommended conditions that Sonya has proposed to the Commission, including the necessity of -- by noticing up City Council going to an R-15 for the southerly area simply based on the size of the lots. It doesn't really change the visibility, but, obviously, a slightly smaller product. I would end there and answer your questions. Thank you. Yearsley: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Yearsley. Yearsley: Did you guys consider another access across the Ten Mile Creek to your other side of the subdivision? Wardle: Madam Chair, Commissioner Yearsley, we did, but we have already put in two 400,000 bollard crossings at Ten Mile Creek. Yearsley: Okay. Wardle: One on the project itself, but, then, we actually rebuilt the one on Eagle Road before the project started, just so that we didn't get the project out there and have to have it done in the future. So, we -- we opted not to put that kind of money in and, frankly, it doesn't necessarily change the access and so forth, because this -- this property needs to drain more into that Eagle Road access point than going to the east. Yes, it would get us to that other access across the way, but it's -- it's an expensive proposition. Yearsley: I figured as much, but I thought I would at least ask. Then I'm assuming that the blue line on the other side of the Ten Mile Creek is the pathway; is that not correct? Wardle: Madam Chair. That actually is the center line. That's the creak itself. Yearsley: Oh. Wardle: So, you see it doesn't really show up here, because I -- I didn't finish it off, but you can see the pathway coming down to that greenway connection there, yes. That pathway exists at the north boundary thus far. So, it will come down and be in that -- at least 50 foot wide corridor from center line, the blue line, to the property line of the lots. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission January 18, 2018 Page 7 of 33 Yearsley: But you won't extend it down to the -- the -- Wardle: Oh, it extends down -- all the way down to Lake Hazel Road. Yearsley: Oh. Off of -- Wardle: My graphic was just a quick and dirty to send to Sonya and say is this acceptable. So, I didn't finish in all of the detailing. Yearsley: And I -- it's not something, but -- and I don't know how expensive it would be, but is -- I know you can get some fairly inexpensive pedestrian bridges -- Wardle: Actually, when you look at the -- the north corner of this phase you see that large green area -- Yearsley: Uh-huh. Wardle: -- that is a -- where it connects across, it will go across there. Yearsley: Oh. Awesome. Wardle: So, yeah, there is a -- east-west connection across Ten Mile Creek about a quart of a mile north of Lake Hazel and a quarter of a mile south of the entrance to the north. Yearsley: Okay. Wardle: So, yeah, we have accommodated that. It just -- again, this is a schematic that didn't show all of those details. Yearsley: Right. Wardle: The landscape plan probably does. I'm not sure, Sonya, if it does not, but it -- it clearly is part of the project, so -- Yearsley: Okay. That's all I have. Thank you. Wardle: Thank you. McCarvel: I have got a question. Sonya -- yeah, leave that landscape plan up there. So, that was the original plan you suggest -- that you brought to staff? Wardle Yes. Without the change in the southern phase. McCarvel: With just a little lower density, so -- Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission January 18, 2018 Page 8 of 33 Wardle: Yes. McCarvel: -- if you had your druthers -- Wardle: No. We are fine, because we are -- we are familiar with the other product that -- that will fit into the southern phase now. It's a product that we have built. So, we are not -- well, we are certainly not here asking for, you know, going back and doing less density. We can -- we can accommodate the objectives of the Comprehensive Plan and -- and do a project that we are comfortable with. McCarvel: Yeah. I'm just -- I'm looking at it and the way everything is locked into that corner I'm like the less density is almost -- it's a little better. Wardle: It's -- it's, basically, the same as we have done in all of the rest of the Century Farm project, so -- and by kind of separating and creating that to a slightly different product in the southerly phase, it adds a little bit -- you know, I'm not here to -- we are happy with the change if -- if the Commission concurs with the staff recommendation and it -- again, it's an unusual circumstance where staff kind of drags us into a higher density project than what we had proposed, but we are fine. McCarvel: Any other questions for the applicant? Okay. Well, there is no one signed up to testify on this issue, but is there anyone in the room who would like to at this point? Okay. Wardle: And I’m not going to rebut my testimony. McCarvel: Okay. Wardle: Thank you. McCarvel: So, at this time could I get a motion to close the public hearing for item H- 2017-0149, Turf Farm Subdivision. Wilson: Madam Mayor? McCarvel: Commissioner Wilson. Wilson: I move to close the public hearing on H-2017-0149. Perreault: Second. McCarvel: It has been moved and seconded to close the public hearing on H-2017- 0149. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. TWO ABSENT. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission January 18, 2018 Page 9 of 33 McCarvel: Any thoughts? I -- Wilson: I can kind of kick off and then -- I mean I -- McCarvel: Commissioner Wilson, go ahead. Wilson: I'm okay. I mean I think -- I think it looks good. I appreciate the applicant working with staff. I think the creek is great and I appreciate Commissioner Yearsley kind of line of questioning, kind of flushing out what that's going to look like and I'm even more impressed by what that's going to look like . I don't know. I think there is a lot of open space and, you know, I -- I live near Tuscany and I -- and I know kind of what that's going to look like, because I, you know, walk through that area a lot and I think it will look really good, even though maybe on this plat it looks really, really dense. I think -- I think what it's going to look like is going to be really nice. So, I would be open to approving it. McCarvel: Okay. Yearsley: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Yearsley. Yearsley: Yeah. I kind of find it interesting that it's not every day that staff actually wants more density, so -- McCarvel: Yeah. Yearsley: And I understand the reason why, because, you know, Lake Hazel is anticipated to be a future seven lane roadway and , you know, people may not think about it now, but it's good to plan for that in the future and having that density there I think fits and I know it's not the applicant's purview, but that last remaining piece down there is going to be really hard to develop , just given the grades and stuff, but it's -- it is what it is. It might be a better park than anything. So, I think it fits. I like the -- you know, the amenities, having the pathway through there and the -- the crossing just down farther. I think that makes sense, because that gives them a better shot to the school -- for the elementary school that's just to the north of there and I think it looks well. The one thing I would recommend -- so, I live in Tuscany, so I understand what units he's talking about. The thing that we have noticed that works the best is if you can actually give them one side instead of having small lots of both sides. If you give them one side it gives them a little bit better yard. I think it looks -- it's not something that I'm going to recommend or require, but I think it -- overall I think it looks a lot cleaner, so -- and that I'm for the project. Holland: Madam Chair? I would just agree with the other commissioners that I think they have done a thoughtful job of listening to the staff's requests and making sure that they accommodated the higher density. It looks like they have been thoughtful about Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission January 18, 2018 Page 10 of 33 consistency with the other neighbors -- surrounding neighborhoods and the open space. I feel comfortable moving forward as well. McCarvel: Yeah. And I understand staff wanting to, you know, stay within the guidelines of the Comprehensive Plan. I really liked the lower density, especially being down here, you know, kind of locked into this corner, they are not going to have access to Lake Hazel anyway, even though that's going to be a major -- you know, a really major thoroughfare. But this is what's before us, so -- Perreault: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Perreault. Perreault: I have a question for staff. It says on the staff report -- increasing density. Staff recommends an R-15 zoning district instead of an R-8. Does that change their need to do -- or request for a step down on the Comprehensive Plan or -- Allen: Madam Chair, Commissioner Perreault, the applicant is still -- a step down is still needed. Again, the Comprehensive Plan designates this property medium high density residential, which is eight to 15 units per acre. Medium density is three to eight units. They are still mid range -- Perreault: Yeah. Allen: -- in the medium density. The R-15 is to accommodate the smaller lot sizes necessary for the attached units. Perreault: Thank you. I wanted to make sure I understood that. McCarvel: Okay. Wilson: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Wilson. Wilson: After considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony I move to recommend approval to City Council of file number H-2017-0149 on the hearing date of January 18, 2018. Yearsley: Second. McCarvel: It has been moved and seconded to approve H-2017-0149. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries. Congratulations. MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. TWO ABSENT. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission January 18, 2018 Page 11 of 33 B. Public Hearing Continued from November 16, 2017, December 7, 2017 and December 21, 2017 For Timberline Subdivision (H- 2017-0140) by Bailey Investments, LLC Located at 655 and 735 W Victory Road 1. Request: Preliminary Plat Consisting of 59 Single Family Residential Lots and 8 Common Lots on 17.3 Acres of Land in the R-8 Zoning District. McCarvel: So, at this time we will open the public hearing for H-2017-0140, Timberline Subdivision, and we will begin with the staff report. Beach: Give me two seconds here. Get my system up here. Okay. So, this project before you this evening has been continued since -- from December 21st until tonight. I can go through the entire staff report if you would like or we can touch on the things that it was continued to discuss. There should be a memo -- or there is a memo in the file that indicates a couple of things that Commission had concerns with. One was -- into the plat here. If you follow my mouse, the original plat indicated that this common lot here where the mouse is would be encumbered by a temporary turnaround. The way the plat is there are only three common lots for the subdivision , which doesn't meet the open space requirements. Having said that, with a large turnaround in here on this lot it would have encumbered this common lot for an extended period of time. So, Commission asked the applicant to revise the plan to show how that would be altered to not have that be an issue. One of the other things that was discussed, the Planning and Zoning Commission, they wanted to address was irrigation and how irrigation was going to function on the property. There was some concerns from the surrounding neighbors as to how that would work. So, having said that I can go through any items in the staff report or the entire thing, if there are -- is a desire for me to do that this evening. McCarvel: You know, Josh, why don't you go -- I don't know who was here and who wasn't that night, so -- Beach: You got it. McCarvel: -- do you want to -- I think even if it was before -- Beach: Happy to do so. So, this site consists of approximately 17.3 acres of land, which is zoned R-8. So, this is just a plat, it's not an annexation, as the property is already annexed into the city. The property to the north -- and just for orientation sake, if you're looking at the plat itself here, north would be to the left. So, to the north are single family homes in the Bear Creek Subdivision, which is zoned R-8. To the east is rural residential property. To the south is single family residential property in the Kentucky Ridge Estates Subdivision and Biltmore Estates Subdivision, which is zoned R-4. To the west is single family residential property in the Kentucky Ridge Estates Subdivision, also zoned R-4. So, in 2013 this property was annexed and zoned as part of the city initiated annexation from RUT to entirely R-8. The Comprehensive Plan Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission January 18, 2018 Page 12 of 33 future land use map designation for the property is medium density residential. So, this proposed plat consists of 58 building lots, seven common lots on the 17.3 acres of land. The R-8 zoning district. Gross density for the subdivision is 3.41 dwellings units per acre, with an average lot size of 8,490 square feet. All of the proposed lots comply with the dimension standards of the UDC for R-8. There is a condition in the development agreement that any lots that abut the Kentucky Ridge Subdivision be 10,000 square feet in size and the applicant -- the plat does comply with that. So, those would be these lots here along the -- Kentucky Ridge South and they are all 10,000 square feet or larger. There are several existing structures on the site that will be demolished as part of the project. The phasing plan as you can see here on the plat indicates that the -- the southern portion or this right side here, with that being phase one coming from the Biltmore Estates Subdivision and phase two being along Victory Road. Vehicular access is proposed for this site via one access to Victory and a stub street to the south, which is South Bear Claw Avenue. The applicant is proposing one additional stub street in this case to the east. Previously there were two, but with this revision here to a common lot now, instead of a public road, that stub street is no longer being proposed. Sidewalks are required along all public streets. The applicant proposes to construct a five foot wide attached sidewalk along internal streets and a five foot detached sidewalk along the entire frontage of West Victory Road. I know there was some discussion at the previous hearing in December that the sidewalk be extended in the first phase , this being the second phase of development, that sidewalk be extended to a portion where there would be a possibility for a crosswalk along Victory Road. So, just to -- just a reminder on that. It was part of the discussion. There are several lots that are covered by an existing easement. Any existing utility mains crossing this property that are no longer in use or needed must be abandoned and any associated easements will be -- need to be released or relinquished. The applicant is aware of that. A minimum of ten percent qualified open space is required to be provided for this development . With the 17.3 acres for the plat a minimum of 1.73 acres of qualified open space is required, as -- as required in the UDC. Since the application was submitted the applicant has revised the plat and has not yet submitted to revise landscape plan with the revised open space calculations. All developments consisting of five acres or more are required to provide a minimum of one site amenity and one additional site amenity is required for each additional 20 acres. So, in this case one amenity is required. The applicant has indicated that they are proposing several different amenities. Not nailed down those exactly, because we do not have a landscape plan to indicate what those ame nities would be, but they had indicated that it would be at the time a tot lot, half court basketball court, and a section of the city's regional pathway. Back here to the elevations. These are the conceptual elevations being proposed by the applicant . Did receive testimony from Dustin Hilgert -- this was back in about October -- over concerns with the noticing for the project. That concern has since been taken care of. They did an additional neighborhood meeting. Was an error initially with the number of notices that were sent out. So, with that staff is recommending approval with conditions and I will stand for any questions you have. McCarvel: Can you go back to that plat, Josh. Okay. So, we had just -- to refresh everybody's memory on our concern because this was before Christmas, we had that Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission January 18, 2018 Page 13 of 33 road there that was going to go out to that common lot was going to be a big turnaround. Do we have the original one? Beach: I don't have it -- McCarvel: Okay. Beach: -- but I can -- I can find it really quickly if you would like. But there was a -- there was a -- there was about a 90 degree turn right about here -- McCarvel: Yeah. Beach: -- and because there is nothing on this lot next door -- or no development proposed, in order to accommodate the hundred -- over 150 feet that that road would have been, a common lot would have been encumbered by a turnaround to accommodate a fire truck. McCarvel: So, we have got that now that's turned into kind of a common driveway almost; right? Beach: Right. McCarvel: Okay. And, then, the sidewalk that will be done in phase one, just to get the crosswalk to Stoddard. Beach: Correct. McCarvel: Right? Beach: I will also mention quickly that there is an easement -- two things I guess I will mention. One, there is an easement here for utilities, so there is going to be a 14 foot gravel road or -- to accommodate utility trucks that need to get back there from the city. McCarvel: Okay. Beach: There is also an easement that runs along this south side of -- of these lots here that staff would recommend and having said that , this is proposed for a common lot -- Biltmore Estates as a common lot that will abut the common lot in this subdivision. So, staff's thinking is that if there was some sort of a pathway proposed , even a five foot pathway to get out to the -- the road here, this -- this area could be a little bit more -- have greater accessibility than just down the common -- McCarvel: Right. Instead of going down in those people's common driveway that they come -- Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission January 18, 2018 Page 14 of 33 Beach: It may not be immediately visible with these homes here that surround this lot, but there is a pathway -- a little bit -- McCarvel: Right. So, people can access it from the public street. Yeah. Okay. So, those are the two main things why we -- we asked to continue it and bring it back. Beach: Yeah. There was a question about irrigation as well. McCarvel: The irrigation. Yeah. Beach: I don't remember the details of that. Discussion from the neighbors might be a able to enlighten us -- McCarvel: Right. Beach: -- a little bit about that concern, but that was a major point of discussion at the previous hearing. McCarvel: Yeah. Okay. Okay. Any other questions for staff? Perreault: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Perreault. Perreault: So, I'm sorry, is that turn around no longer needed? Maybe I missed that. Is that -- Beach: Correct. It's not 150 feet anymore, so -- Perreault: So, I see what you're saying. Beach: They have indicated that -- Perreault: Okay. I understand. Beach: -- the reduction of that length now -- Perreault: Right. Beach: -- is not a requirement. Perreault: Okay. McCarvel: Okay. At this time would the applicant like to come forward? Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission January 18, 2018 Page 15 of 33 Riley: Madam Chairman, Members of the Commission, Penelope Riley, Post Office Box 405, Boise, Idaho. 83701. I don't ever like to argue with staff , but I do have the memorandum that I attached to our updated materials that we submitted on January 8th and there was, in fact, an updated landscape plan that was submitted at that time and I just happen to have a copy of it, so -- McCarvel: Okay. Riley: -- I will give it to staff. McCarvel: Okay. Riley: Perhaps it was my bad, which is possible. And, let's see, I wanted to recap our conversation at the last hearing. We discussed the improvements to Victory Road adjacent to the site and the conclusion was that since there is full pedestrian facilities on the north side of Victory Road all the way from Stoddard to Meridian Road, that additional improvements were not needed on our side at this time and at the request of the commissioner we are going to put in this stub sidewalk that goes across what would be Stoddard, if it's extended southward and out a little bit farther, so that the pedestrians can walk across that area and be able to access the crosswalk to get to the north side of Victory Road. Let's see. So, as a part of that we are requesting the condition of approval 1.1.7 be replaced with a condition that -- that references the stub sidewalk to a slight -- to align slightly beyond the line extending from the east side of the existing sidewalk on Stoddard south to the site and the references the landscape buffer on Victory Road and the sidewalk will be removed from conditions of approval until phase two is under formal consideration. For new discussion, the continuance of the hearing for Timberline was based on a request for an updated landscape plan and if I did not get that submitted I apologize. We did have it ready and were able to confirm that there is , in fact, ten percent common area, which meets the requirement for the City of Meridian. There is a request for additional information regarding water rights and a request for redesign of the southwest -- excuse me -- the southeast corner of the site. So, an updated landscape plan and perhaps an updated preliminary plat and perhaps a landscape plan was submitted to staff on January 8. The follow-up packet also included water rights information obtained by the project engineer and photographic details of the proposed subdivision community area amenity. The volume of the irrigation rights -- water rights for the site at this time is a minimum of 9.89 miners inches or about 89 gallons per minute. The site has been for the last few years receiving about 29 miners inches and the project engineer and applicant are working to formalize the higher water delivery, if possible. Just a sidebar on that. As development occurs, the demand for irrigation water declines, so what was happening in the -- the property owner is getting excess water -- is that the irrigation ditch company has excess water. They don't have the same level of demand because the irrigated farmland is turning into residences , so they are going to try and up that water right if possible, but the 89 -- the 9.89 miners inches is, I believe, more than sufficient to provide the PI system for the subdivision. I did want to note also that a pump station is proposed for the southeast corner of the site. So, this will be a traditional pressurized irrigation system where there was a pump Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission January 18, 2018 Page 16 of 33 station and HOA ownership and management with, I'm sure, a contractor that maintains the equipment and comes in and does repairs when they are necessary. There is a minor modification to the location of a common area in phase two. Originally it was proposed for Lot 34, Block 2, which is along the west side of the property about midstream. The parcel that is now -- this parcel is now proposed to be residential, which is probably a better use for it, because it's tucked away, it will be more private and quiet and the new location of the common lot is a Lot 24, Block 2. So, if you look at the access -- access driveway in and there is the center island and, then, you cross the first street, it's the next lot on the right. It's actually labeled common lot there. We thought that would be more centrally located, but away from Victory Road. The southeast corner has been redesigned with this common lot shared driveway for the three residential lots that are proposed there and, then, per your preference we now have a large, unencumbered common area down in that corner. As discussed at the December 21st hearing, the project team has submitted legal -- a legal description or descriptions and exhibit materials for vacation of the utility easements not in the right of way that are no longer needed by the City of Meridian. We stand ready to assist the City of Meridian at any time with this. The holder of the easement is the City of Meridian, so we cannot release the easement. Only the City of Meridian can release the easement. So, we have provided them with the materials prepared by a surveyor and we are all ready to help in any way we can to get those eas ements released. Construction traffic. Just another sidebar. The applicant is going to prepare a gravel surface that traverses the site from the north on Victory Road, so that all the construction traffic coming into the site during development of phase one will come down from Victory Road, they won't be driving through the subdivision and dropping big clumps of mud, which is what they do, because they are driving around in muddy areas. So, we are going to protect the neighbors to the south by providing that secondary construction access. It will be closed once it's not needed anymore and the pathway that was discussed along the south property line, that was a new one for me, and I'm sure that we would be happy to accommodate you. I just didn't -- that was new. I don't -- I didn't recall that discussion. So, if we can get feedback from staff on what they are looking for specifically. With that I would be happy to answer any questions you have. McCarvel: Okay. I have one question. On the common areas, do you have thoughts or a proposal yet on what -- what amenities are provided in those or -- Riley: Yes. Excuse me. Madam Chairman, that was the set of photographs that we submitted. McCarvel: Okay. Riley: It showed the covered area with the concrete pad and picnic tables. I call it kind of a community area where people can gather. So, we did submit some photographs for that. Beach: I have those, too. I can show you. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission January 18, 2018 Page 17 of 33 Riley: It was a rainy day, obviously. Beach: That's one there. Metal poles with wood -- it would be a metal roof, but on the other side I guess there is -- standing here is -- Riley: Nice detail on the underneath of that. McCarvel: And that's the same amenity on all the common lots? Riley: No. Just one common lot needs to have the amenity. The others will be grassy areas -- open grassy areas. Beach: Our code does allow for a picnic -- covered picnic area with benches to be considered an amenity. So, that would meet the requirement. McCarvel: Okay. Any other questions for the applicant? Okay. Riley: Thank you. McCarvel: Okay. At this time we will take public testimony. I have one name on the sign-up sheet, but it says they do not wish to testify, but is there anyone in the room that would like to testify at this point in time? Okay. So, in that two seconds did anybody decide they have more questions for the applicant ? All right. Then I would entertain a motion to close the public hearing on Item H-2017-0140, Timberline Subdivision. Perreault: So moved. Yearsley: Second. McCarvel: It has been moved and seconded to close the public hearing on H-2017- 0140. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. TWO ABSENT. McCarvel: I think they have done exactly what we have asked him to do. When I was reading the staff report I was having trouble remembering all that -- all what that was all about, because I was -- Wilson: There is three issues -- there is also three different kind of not related issues. McCarel: Yeah. Yeah. But I think to go ahead and change item 1.1.17, that was specifically the detail that required them to do the landscape all along Victory, but I think Commissioner Yearsley's suggestion that they just do it -- meet up with the crosswalk at Stoddard is a good compromise in phase one. Josh -- or Madam Chair. Josh, on that -- the -- that common lot to the north that goes to -- you talked about having a pathway Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission January 18, 2018 Page 18 of 33 there. Do we need to add that as a condition of approval or is that already in your staff report? Beach: No. So, let me make sure I understand. On the map here north is left. Yearsley: Oh. So, to the south. Sorry. McCarvel: Yeah. Beach: On this south side here -- Yearsley: Yes. Beach: -- you would need to add that as a condition. McCarvel: Okay. Yearsley: Okay. McCarvel: Because that -- I like that. Beach: And that's not a requirement that they do that, it -- it would just help with the -- Yearsley: Oh, no, I -- Beach: Originally there was a sidewalk going along there. McCarvel: Yeah. Beach: Had a concern. Yearsley: Yeah. McCarval: Yeah. No. I like that, having that access -- pedestrian access from the public road, instead of going down -- but people feel a little funny walking down -- even though it's a common driveway it still feels like somebody's driveway. Beach: Just so you know, in order to meet code that would need to be a -- a ten foot sidewalk or pathway with a -- with a five foot landscape buffer on one side to meet code. Assuming the applicant can accommodate that was the point of that -- that's what code requires. Yearsley: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Yearsley. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission January 18, 2018 Page 19 of 33 Yearsley: I like the new layout. I think it looks much better. It gives them more of the open space and it addresses that and I guess one of the thoughts that I -- you know, if you ever wanted to potentially do a stub street we could actually look at th at little turn around there before the common driveway. Could you actually put a -- at least a right of way through that for a potential through street there or not? Beach: Are you talking about the common driveway here? Yearsley: No. No. Just the -- just to the south of that right there. Could you actually put it potentially -- Beach: I think that would be a possibility, depending on how that's -- that's structured and if the highway district is comfortable with this configuration of what will then be an intersection here. Yearsley: Yeah. Beach: That would be a discussion for them to see if that would be okay. Sure. Yearsley: That would -- Beach: It would be a little funky. Yearsley: It be a little -- yeah. You know. And not -- I think mostly to allow it if it needs to or, you know, if the other applicant doesn't want to have that they don't need to have that, but as an option, so -- but other than that I think it looks good. I would be curious what other people thought about not doing the landscaping as part of phase one, along Victory Road, except for just that small piece. It just seems like it was a fairly decent compromise, because there really is no other access to the north and so -- and given today's climate I imagine that phase two will be pretty fast, so -- McCarvel: Yeah. That was kind of my thought and when we had the discussion on the compromise that, you know, while all these trucks are going in and out of there , just going to leave it, but I do like the pedestrian access being able to come from that other subdivision and at least get across Victory to Stoddard in a crosswalk. Okay. Perreault: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Perreault. Perreault: If I understand correctly, there will be these -- this picnic area in one of the common lots. The other two common lots will just be green grass and the staff report suggests two site amenities, but that is sufficient? McCarvel: Josh -- Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission January 18, 2018 Page 20 of 33 Beach: I think code requires one for the first five acres and another for the next 20 and they have 17. So, one is all that's required in this case. McCarvel: Always appreciate going over -- Riley: Yes. McCarvel: -- the minimum, but this does meet the minimum requirement, so -- Perreault: It just seems that the common lots are pretty far apart from one another and that you would have a really -- if they chose to put it in this common lot to the south you have a pretty long walk to utilize that from the northwest corner. McCarvel: Well, there is -- Perreault: Depending on where it's located. McCarvel: Yeah. There is another one right there on the corner -- Perreault: Right. McCarvel: -- as you're coming in and, then, another one in the northeast corner. Perreault: I just meant if they locate that picnic area on that south common lot by chance. McCarvel: Yeah. Perreault: Then, you know, that's a pretty significant distance from -- Beach: Sure. Madam Chair, just -- just quickly. You may ask the applicant what -- where they are intending to put this picnic area. Looking through the landscape plan it does not indicate exactly where that would be. So, it's the common lot down here, this larger common lot here and, then, there is another up on Victory. McCarvel: And on -- Beach: On the previous plat there was one in this location here that they have since changed. McCarvel: Yeah. Beach: She's indicating it's this common lot. McCarvel: Yeah. I would suggest one of the two farther to the south. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission January 18, 2018 Page 21 of 33 Beech: Larger. McCarvel: Yeah. That way you're not inviting people off Victory into your subdivision. Okay. Yearsley: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Yearsley. Yearsely: After considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move to recommend approval to the City Council of file number H-2017-0140 as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of January 18th, 2018, with the following modifications: That modification 1.1.7 be revised to not require the full site amenities to be constructed along Victory Road, but to provide a sidewalk to the north side of Stoddard Road and a crosswalk -- or access to the road so they can have a potential crosswalk there. And then -- McCarvel: In phase one. But it still needs to -- Yearsley: Part of phase one. McCarvel: Yeah. Yearsley: Yes. And then -- and, then, the frontage still needs to be done as part of phase two, but -- and, then, to add a pathway in the common lot and make that common lot a little bigger to the south to access that southern common lot area. McCarvel: From the road. Yearsley: From the road. Perrault: I will second. Wilson: Second. McCarvel: It has been moved and seconded to approve file number H-2017-1040 with amendments. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. TWO ABSENT. C. Amended to add file number: Public Hearing for Kobe/Cope Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment and Rezone (H-2017- 0157) by Kobe, LLC and Copy Holdings, LLC, Located on the Northeast Corner of North Locust Grove and East Franklin Road Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission January 18, 2018 Page 22 of 33 1. Request: For An Amendment to the Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map to Change the Land Use Designation on 10.12 Acres of Land from Commercial to Industrial and a Rezone of 5.62 Acres of Land from C-G (General Commercial) to I-L (Light Industrial) McCarvel: At this time we will open file number H-2017-0157, and we will begin with the staff report. Beach: Just a second here. Madam Chair, Members of the Commission, this last application for me before you tonight is the Kobe Cope Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment and a rezone. This is approximately 10.12 acres of land and which, as you see, is currently zoned C-G and I-L, located on the northeast corner of East Franklin and North Locust Grove Roads. To the north is industrial -- are industrial uses. Now the parks maintenance facility is zoned I-L. To the east is a single family residential property and industrial property and a commercial auto repair business, which is zoned C-G. To the south are single family residential homes, zoned RUT and multi-family residential, which is zoned R-15 in the City of Meridian. And to the west is vacant property, zoned C-G and I-L. In 2017 a rezone, which was called Gensco, and associated development agreements and a combined preliminary/final plat for Madden Subdivision, were approved for this property, which is the reasoning that this portion of property to the north is currently zoned I-L. The Comprehensive Plan -- the current Comprehensive Plan future land is map designation is commercial. The applicant proposes to amend the future land use map within the Comprehensive Plan to change the land use designation on approximately 10.12 acres of land from commercial to industrial and to rezone the southern 5.62 acres of land from C-G to I-L, which would, then, be in -- in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan being requested -- a map amendment being requested rather. And it involved the previous development application that more than half this parcel was recently rezoned to the I-L zoning district and along with it -- with that, again, the rezone is to develop the east parcel and, again, the east parcel meaning -- I don't have to the -- the subdivision plat showing here on the map, but it would be at -- the east parcel is -- roughly indicated by my -- by my cursor here, so that the east parcel can develop with an automotive repair facility. No other development is proposed on the adjacent parcel or the parcel to the west on the corner. To ensure that the site develops in conjunction with the submitted concept plan , which I will show you here in a second and elevations, staff recommends the applicant enter into a development agreement. So, again, the Comprehensive Plan on the top here is the current Comprehensive Plan and future land use map indicated as commercial in the red and the proposed would be industrial or indicated here in gray. And, as I mentioned, the applicant is proposing to develop this parcel -- the parcel would be in the -- the southeast corner of this property. The Cope Collision Center -- this is the conceptual site plan that they have supplied to the -- to staff. Again, this would be something that would be tied -- maybe tied even to a development agreement. They have also given us some conceptual building elevations and part of the reason why staff in certain cases will recommend a development agreement with a rezone is because in this case this is substantially better -- or a nicer building than what we would normally Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission January 18, 2018 Page 23 of 33 see in an industrially zoned property. So, staff is of the opinion that we would like to tie them to their proposed building elevations, so that there is a greater likelihood that something like this would be constructed, rather than what we would normally get in a residential -- excuse me -- in an industrial zone. Moving on. As I said, the applicant is proposing an automotive repair facility or an automotive repair facility major, as our code indicates, with an accessory outdoor storage yard as part of that concept plan. Future use of the site must comply with the specific use standards for both of those uses. As I said, there are some conceptual building elevations. Access to the site restricts access to arterial streets when access is available from a local street. This has frontage on Nola Road and Lanark Street, Franklin Road and Locust Grove Road. There are two existing access points to the site . This is the site overall, not just the Cope Collision site. These sites were -- these access points were defined with the Madden Subdivision, giving them the access point. In this case staff has in the development agreement that the sites share -- shown here. Share an access and have a cross-access agreement for an access point approximate ly in this location, rather than each having their own -- those accesses being granted again with the Madden Subdivision. A ten foot wide street buffer is required to be provided along North Nola Road as set forth in the UDC. A 25 foot landscape buffer is required along East Franklin Road and North Locust Grove Road, which are both considered arterial roadways. No fencing at this time is being proposed. Again, that will be something that we will review with their certificate of zoning compliance for a -- any future businesses that are developed here. They will have to come forward with a certificate of zoning compliance and a design review, even though the conceptual plan would be tied to the site with the development agreement. Staff is recommending approval of both the rezone and the Comprehensive Plan map amendment and I will stand for any questions you have. McCarvel: Any questions for staff at this time? Would the applicant like to come forward? Stiles: Madam Chair and Commissioners, my name is Shari Stiles. I'm with Engineering Solutions at 1029 North Rosario in Meridian and I'm here tonight representing Cobe, LLC, and Cope Holdings, LLC, to rezone the property, as Josh said, at the northeast corner of Franklin Road and North Locust Grove Road. You recently saw this property come before you as the Madden Subdivision and the rezone for the Gensco building. The Madden Subdivision plat is currently at Ada county right now waiting for the review from the Ada county surveyor and they have also -- the owner of the Madden Subdivision has also deposited by bond with ACHD slightly over a hundred thousand dollars to complete the road improvements around this entire parcel. Cope would be taking the area right at the northwest corner of Nola Road and Franklin. That lot there. Cope Auto has been in Meridian. They began in 1963 at 210 East Fairview, which is where the current Westside Body Works is and, then, in 1982 they moved to their current location, which is at 1855 East Lanark. They actually have their facility where they are located right now is virtually kitty-corner from -- from where they want to build their new facility. So, as part of this we will be cleaning up the -- the comp plan map to request that entire area be zoned industrial. The property was actually annexed Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission January 18, 2018 Page 24 of 33 in 1996 and at that time Locust Grove did not even extend north from Franklin. There has been a tremendous amount of growth since then, of course, and the property has been available for commercial use for all of these years and it's just not really had any great interest. Now that there is less and less industrial ground in Meridian, the industrial ground -- the prices are almost competitive with the commercial prices and so this area -- the entire corridor at one time was designated industrial, but we think it's a very good use for this and a good neighbor to all of the other uses in the area . As you can see on the -- we have got Builder's Masonry Products about a quarter mile further west there on Franklin. A lot of big, big trucks come through this intersection. I don't know if you have ever been there at -- at rush hour. It's just really not conducive to having a lot of in and out traffic and we think this is an excellent use and, of course, they are excited to have Cope Auto building a new facility. This is showing the property as you go looking to the Meridian parks facility on the north side of the road there. Basically it's been a lot of horses out there and this project, once it's complete, they will have sidewalks down Nola and on Lanark and, again, this is a conceptual site plan, as Josh showed, and their -- their building is a very nice facility. I don't know if you have seen their present facility. They run a very clean operation. If you go down there you would be hard pressed to knowing which one was the one with the wrecked cars, because they maintain it so well. With that I will stand for any questions and ask that you consider this favorably and give us your recommendation. McCarvel: Any questions for the applicant? Perreault: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Perreault. Perreault: You said that you are considering putting in an outdoor storage yard, but there wasn't any fencing proposed. Stiles: Yes, they will -- once they come in with the building permit they will have to go through the design review. If they propose the outdoor storage at that time, if they are not going to have room inside their facility, they will have to show their fencing details as part of their building permit and the whole certificate of zoning compliance. Holland: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Holland. Holland: In the map that you have provided here, too, it says screen storage area in future addition. Is future addition just talking about that extended parking storage area? Stiles: Madam Chair, Commissioner Holland, I believe that if -- Rick Cope is here today. At one point -- I mean if they needed to add a paint booth in the future or something, they could come back, but that would probably be where there outdoor storage would be, if they had it, and it would all be screened fencing. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission January 18, 2018 Page 25 of 33 McCarvel: Okay. Any other questions? Okay. Thank you. Stiles: Thank you. McCarvel: And we have no one else signed up to testify on this application , but is there anyone in the room who would like to do so ? So, with no questions -- anymore questions for the applicant or staff, I would entertain a motion to close the public hearing on Item H-2017-0157. Wilson: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Wilson. Wilson: I move to close the public hearing on H-2017-0157. Holland: I will second. McCarvel: It has been moved and seconded to close the public hearing on H-2017- 0157. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. TWO ABSENT. Perreault: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Perreault. Perreault: I think this is a great proposal for this location. I don't -- as far as what they are proposing, as far as changing it to industrial, it seems to me to fit -- to fit what -- what else is going on in that -- in that area. McCarvel: Yeah. When I first started reading the staff report and I thought -- and I know this -- part of this has been before us before, but I was just thinking, okay, that intersection -- why do we want to do -- you know, it's a pretty visible intersection, but, then, I saw the building that they wanted to put there and I was very impressed. I think even though it has an industrial use, it's a beautiful facility and I agree that the development agreement to make sure that that's the building that goes in there, I think it would be a nice addition to that corner, as well as -- I don't know if we have any teeth in there or if it just goes before design review, whatever other building goes next to it, even though it's zoned industrial now, that it be a building for that corner. Perreault: Madam Chair, if I remember right, when we first heard this they had talked about putting a C store in one -- in that lot there on the corner. Does that change their ability to do that if this goes to industrial use? Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission January 18, 2018 Page 26 of 33 Beach: Madam Chair, just a couple of things. One, yeah, there had been some discussion about doing a convenience store on the corner . Talking with the owner of the property, he's been trying to get that to happen for quite a while and hasn't had any success in getting a C store. I'm not sure if the traffic flow is correct for that or what the issue is on the corner, but he hasn't been able to do that, he's looking at other options. One, I will say that the specific use standards -- you had some concerns or some of the Commissioners had concerns about screening of an outdoor storage. Typically body shops have an area where they will store their cars that are in need of repair . This being a proposed body shop, the specific standards would classify that area as outdoor storage and there are specific standards that say if you have something like that it has to be fully screened from view. So, that -- again, that will be something that we will review with the certificate of zoning compliance. Typically with a rezone like this we just say get a concept plan and, obviously, some of those things aren't nailed down. We get bike racks and landscaping and things like that. So, that's all stuff that we would review in the future. The other thing I was going to mention -- now I have lost it. Oh. The -- so, yes, this is a rezone for that entire southern portion of the property. There is a development agreement. Madam Chair, you had mentioned that you would like to see something potentially be required for that other portion of the property -- would be the western side. So, we have -- we have included some elevations and conceptual plan for -- for this rezone, which, essentially, covers that entire, you know, southern portion here. If the desire is to have something greater as far as elevations go for that, there is the ability to add something to the development agreement and the first thing that comes to mind is potentially requiring that any business that be building -- any building to be built there be tied to the commercial standards that we have for the architectural standards. So, that's something to think about if you want to go that direction . But, currently, we don't have anything that's going to require a certain type of building material for that. McCarvel: I would just hate to see a metal building go up there. That's usually allowed in an industrial area -- go on that corner. Yeah. Okay. Any other discussion? Wilson: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Wilson. Wilson: I was just happy, too, that this is a home grown company, has been around for 54 years. I thought that was really neat. You know, that's kind of -- that's kind of -- I look at that as kind of an industrial corridor, knowing some of the other companies in that area. Like I said, it fits with a busy corner. But, then, it also fulfills that industrial purpose and even better it's a Meridian grown company. So, I'm very happy about that. McCarvel: Any other comments? Are we ready for a motion? Vice-chair Perreault. Perreault: Madam Chair. After considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move to recommend approval to the City Council of file number H-2017-0157, as Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission January 18, 2018 Page 27 of 33 presented in the staff report for the hearing date of January 18th, 2018, with no modifications. McCarvel: Oh. Include -- Perreault: With the following modification. Excuse me. Josh, how should I word this? McCarvel: Just including the development agreement provision that -- Perreault: Okay. With including the proposed development agreement provisions A, B, C, D and E. Parsons: Madam Chair, Members of the Commission. McCarvel: Mr. Parsons. Parsons: I think if I heard you correctly -- and as Josh had explained to you, you could add -- you can modify one of these provisions to say that they apply to commercial architectural standards manual -- commercial standards for this site. Is that something you want to do at this time? Because your motion didn't do that. Perreault: That's what I'm trying to get to. Yes. McCarvel: What he said. Perreault: Including the commentary by Mr. Parsons. Yearsley: Second. McCarvel: It has been moved and seconded to approve file number H-2017-0157 with modifications. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries. Congratulations. MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. TWO ABSENT. D. Amended to add file number: Public Hearing for Designing Team Rezone (H-2017-0166) by Designing Team Located at 1226 Second and a Half Street 1. Request: A Rezone of 0.36 of an Acre from the R-15 (Medium High Density Residential) District to the O-T (Old Town) District for the Purpose of Operating a Health and Social Service Use McCarvel: So, at this time we will move on with H-2017-0166, Designing Team Rezone, and we will begin with the staff report. As soon as we change staff. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission January 18, 2018 Page 28 of 33 Parsons: Thank you, Madam Chair, Members of the Commission. The last item -- or one of the last public hearing land use application s before you is the Designing Team Rezone. The site consists of 0.36 acres of land, currently zoned R-15 within the city limits. The subject site is located at 1226 2 1/2 Street. The map on the left actually shows the current zoning and the map on the right is an exhibit that shows what the current land uses on the properties are. So, currently it's kind of an anomaly here in our downtown area. What you're seeing here is back in 2002 this applicant approached the city to receive a conditional use permit and a variance to develop a hair salon on the subject property. That must have been in a use exception or something allowed in that ordinance at that time that we no longer have in our current code . The applicant has expressed to staff that they are wanting to resale or sell this property to another potential commercial use. However, since the approved conditional use specifies that home salon, staff doesn't really have a mechanism to rezone this or allow them to establish another commercial use on this without rezoning the property. As I mentioned to you earlier in my presentation, you can see here -- as I mentioned this anomaly, you have R-15, you have high density residential. The subject property is part of the urban renewal district's boundary. So, in essence, what they are doing on the site does meet the requirements of the Comprehensive Plan. The director has the ability to float that designation across a street to allow the applicant to seek a rezone and the primary reason for that is because, one, it is part of the urban renewal district's boundary. Two, Comprehensive Plan maps -- the colors on the map aren't parcel specific, like a zoning boundary is. And, three, the site is actually -- primarily developed and likely not to redevelop anytime soon. So, those are really the three factors in which staff analyzes the request and approved -- or supports the request to rezone to Old Town. This exhibit here before you is the approved concept plan that was approved with the conditional use in 2002. As I mentioned in the staff report, as it's currently constructed some of the dimensional standards do not meet current code. However, the approved variance somewhat runs with this land to allow them to stay vested with the current improvements, so because the applicant is not proposing any changes to the site , staff is not recommending that the site come into compliance with the UDC. However, we have recommended that the applicant at least install a bike rack to comply with the bike parking standards in our current UDC and I believe the applicant was told that at the pre-application meeting and they were in agreement to add that facility to the front entry of their building. So, to staff's knowledge we have not received any additional testimony on this application. As I mentioned to you, the director has approved this site to float the Old Town zoning designation across to this property, so that they can move forward and develop this consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. I will conclude my presentation and stand for any questions you may have. McCarvel: Any questions for staff? Okay. Would the applicant like to come forward? Gillaspy: I don't have a whole lot to say. McCarvel: Please state your name and address for the record. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission January 18, 2018 Page 29 of 33 Gillaspy: Perry Gillaspy. I'm representing the Designing Team, my wife and her two partners, Marci Rood and Lorinda Jenkins and, basically, we just want to get it zoned. We did everything before 15 years ago. The business has been there 15 years. Very successful. And we are looking to sell and the buyer, of course -- it says personal services for a professional service. And don't throw a rock at me. Professional service, which is a chiropractor, is actually looking to buy it. It would have to be zoned Old Town to be a professional service. McCarvel: And, I'm sorry, can you pull that mic up -- Gillaspy: Oh. McCarvel: -- so our -- Gillaspy: Sure. McCarvel: -- recorder can get it. Thanks. Gillaspy: And, anyway, that's -- that's why we are going for the rezone. McCarvel: Okay. Gillaspy: At the time I worked with the City of Meridian, we built the sidewalks, the most -- we were the first ones on the street to build according to the Old Town Meridian style, which is the most -- a three foot walk and we got that changed with ACHD. McCarvel Any questions for the applicant? Okay. Thank you. Gillaspy: Thank you. McCarvel: And I don't have anybody on the list who indicates that they would like to testify, but is there anyone in the room who would like to testify at this time ? Okay. Thank you. With there being no more questions for the applicant or staff, I would entertain a motion to close the public hearing on Item H-2017-066. Holland: So moved. Wilson: Second. McCarvel: It has been moved and seconded to close the public hearing on item H-2017-0166, Designing Team Rezone. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. TWO ABSENT. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission January 18, 2018 Page 30 of 33 McCarvel: Any thoughts? Opinions? I don't see a problem with it. It's one service for another and I think the Old Town designation is just fine to float across the street and I think I did see in the staff report it does -- there are some things that don't conform to today's code, but as long as they don't do any building changes that -- that's okay, but if they start moving the building -- doing changes to the building, then, they have got to bring other stuff up to code, so -- Perreault: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Perreault. Perreault See if I can get this one right. After considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony I move to recommend approval to the City Council of file number H-2017- 0166 as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of January 18th, 2018, with no modifications. Yearsley: Second. McCarvel: It has been moved and seconded to approve File No. H-2017-0166, Designing Team Rezone. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. TWO ABSENT. Item 5: Review and Approval of the Final Plat Landscape Plan Modification Checklist by the Planning Division Wilson: Madam Chair? McCarvel: No. Wilson: Oh, no. McCarvel: We have one more item on the agenda. Wilson: That's right. McCarvel: Congratulations, though, yours is finished. We have -- Mr. Parsons has a review and approval of the final plat landscape modification checklist. Parsons: Thank you, Madam Chair. Before I get into the changes to the checklist I just wanted to let the applicant know that their project will be in front of City Council here in about a month. Hey, Perry. Perry. Perry, I wanted to let you know that you're going to be in front of City Council in about a month. So, ten days prior to the public hearing you're going to have to repost again. So, keep that in mind. You will get an e-mail from us. Madam Chair, Members of the Commission, thank you for that. Staff is here again tonight to ask for your blessing on a new checklist and the reason for it is because our Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission January 18, 2018 Page 31 of 33 Unified Development Code requires us to become -- come before you whenever we have major changes to our checklist, not necessarily minor changes. But as I mentioned to you at the last Planning and Zoning Commission hearing and I brought forth those changes, this checklist should have been accompanying those changes, but it inadvertently got missed, so now I'm here before you this evening. But on Tuesday evening of this week Council did approve new fees for this subject application. So, it's -- it's paramount that you guys take action on this checklist today, so we can get the new fees in and get the information out to the development community . So, basically, what we have before you this evening is -- what we see -- and I think you guys have seen it with all of the amount of applications that have come before you -- is typically we go through a subdivision process. You guys don't act -- you act on the preliminary plat and have conditions. Those conditions get forwarded onto City Council for recommendation. Well, as the final plats come in they are not required by this body to take action on them. Staff makes sure that the final plat conforms with the conditions in the approved primary plat that you guys all recommended to City Council and, ultimately, the one that they approved. Sometimes amenities and open space and fencing, those types of things are discussed at a public hearing and the applicants and developers agree to work with the neighbors on those types of things . In order to get those things modified and changed, that requires what we call a final plat modification and that's a 541 dollar application fee and that does go back to the Council for their review and their approval ultimately. What this particular checklist does is allow the developer -- say, for example, they go through City Council, they have an amenity that they want to swap out. Fencing. They want wood fencing, rather than vinyl fencing, and they weren't discussed at the public hearing. This is an administrative staff level approval where they could come in, pay a 160 dollar fee, submit this checklist with an application and staff could look through the minutes and verify that they, in fact, weren't topics of discussion at the hearing and we could give the applicant a letter and an administrative approval, just like we do with design review and our alternative compliance requests. So, that's really the main purpose for this checklist. Currently this just doesn't exist. This is a new check -- checklist. So, I am asking for your blessing this evening and I would stand for any questions you may have. McCarvel: Any questions for staff? Perreault: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Perreault. Perreault: So, if I remember from the memo correctly, it says that the director already holds the right to approve those. You're just creating a checklist now to make sure that the process is more clean? Parsons: Madam Chair, Members of the Commission, that's -- that's an accurate observation. Currently in Chapter 5 of the UDC the director has the authority to granted by Council -- the city to approve landscape plans. So, this fee will basically accompany that and the verbiage that's currently in Chapter 5. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission January 18, 2018 Page 32 of 33 Perreault: So, it's intended for minor changes that aren't really necessary to go through a public hearing again and is there a list of the types of changes that staff can make ? Is there a limitation to that? Or how does that -- Parsons: Madam Chair, Members of the Commission, currently there is not. Again, the -- on the checklist we have specified the applicant provide that information to us in a narrative. The project name. When it was approved. What are you modifying. Verify with us that it meets the current code or meets code still and that it was not a topic of discussion. So, we kind a bulletized those items on the checklist for the applicant to kind of provide us that information and, then, ultimately staff will check that against the record and that's where that fee comes in. It takes staff time to do that and look into the record. But currently, like I said, the caveat is really minor changes. Say, for example, they came in with a pool and now that was shared with you here it was in a development agreement or something in the final plat that says you need to construct a pool, that type of amenity for a basketball court or a walking path, I think the director had some latitude to say that's not equal to that amenity, you need to go back through the final flat process and take that up with Council. Yearsley: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Yearsley. Yearsley: So, on this application you have verify the item was not a topic of discussion at the public hearing, so we go through the process, they pay the money, we find that it is -- was a topic. Do they, then, have to come back and do an application before -- before City Council? Is that the process? Or how does that process work? Parsons: Madam Chair, Members of the Commission, Commissioner Yearsley, that's -- that's how it would work. Correct. If we -- we make the determination that it is, one, we will either deny their request or, two, we will say we can't process your application, because we can't, you need to go back through this process and so we can maybe apply that money towards that application. But staff at this level cannot approve that. Yearsley: Okay. I just wanted to make sure that that was what my thinking was, so -- thank you. McCarvel: Any other questions? Any other discussion or would somebody like to make a motion? Yearsley: So, we are making a motion to recommend approval to City Council; is that correct? Or are we just approving this? McCarvel: We are approving it. Yearsley: All right. Madam Chair? Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission January 18, 2018 Page 33 of 33 McCarvel: Commissioner Yearsley. Yearsley: I recommend that we approve the modification to the plan -- planning development landscape plan modification checklist. Perreault: Second that motion. McCarvel: It has been moved and seconded to approve the final plat landscape plan modification checklist. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. TWO ABSENT. McCarvel: Commissioner Wilson. Wilson: Madam Chair, I move we adjourn for this evening. Yearsley: Second. McCarvel: It has been moved and seconded to adjourn the meeting of January 18th. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. TWO ABSENT. MEETING ADJOURNED AT 7:28 P.M. (AUDIO RECORDING ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS.) APPROVED RHOINDA McCARVEL - CHAIRMAN DATE APPROVED ATTEST; og4oRATEDgLCG C " s� 1� cW C. JAY COL � - CITY ;tyof K LDIA 10A110 yT SF -4L tiw ti o`'bB rRFASUP�V�