Loading...
2023-11-16 Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting November 16, 2023. Meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission of November 16, 2023, was called to order at 6:04 p.m. by Commissioner Jared Smith. Members Present: Commissioner Jared Smith, Commissioner Patrick Grace, Commissioner Enrique Rivera and Commissioner Mandi Stoddard. Members Absent: Commissioner Andrew Seal, Commissioner Maria Lorcher and Commissioner Nathan Wheeler. Others Present: Chris Johnson, Tina Lomeli, Bill Parsons, Sonya Allen, Stacy Hersh and Dean Willis. ROLL-CALL ATTENDANCE Nate Wheeler Maria Lorcher _X Mandi Stoddard X Patrick Grace _X Enrique Rivera X Jared Smith Andrew Seal - Chairman Smith: All right. Good evening. Welcome everyone to the Planning and Zoning meeting for November 16th, 2023. At this time I would like to call the meeting to order. The Commissioners who are here are present for this meeting's -- this evening's meeting at City Hall and on Zoom. We also have staff from the city attorney and city clerk's office, as well as the city planning department. If you are joining us here on Zoom this evening we can see that you are here. You may observe the meeting. However, your ability to talk and be on screen will be muted. During the public testimony portion of the meeting you will be unmuted and able to comment. Please note that we cannot take questions until the public testimony portion of the meeting. If you have a process question during the meeting please e-mail cityclerk@meridian.org and they will reply as quickly as possible. If you simply want to watch the meeting we encourage you to watch the stream on the city's YouTube channel. You can access it at meridiancity.org/live. With that let's begin with roll call. Madam Clerk. ADOPTION OF AGENDA Smith: All right. Next step is the adoption of the agenda. There are no changes to the agenda tonight. Could I get a motion? Rivera: So moved. Grace: Second. Smith: Point of clarification. That's a motion to adopt I'm assuming. Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission November 16,2023 Page 2 of 46 Rivera: Yes. Smith: It has been moved and seconded. All in favor please say aye. Any opposed? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. THREE ABSENT. CONSENT AGENDA [Action Item] Approved 1. Approve Minutes of the November 02, 2023 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Smith: Next up is the Consent Agenda. We have one item on the Consent Agenda. Can I get a motion to approve? Rivera: I make the first motion to approve the Consent Agenda. Stoddard: Second. Smith: I have a motion and a second. All those in favor please say aye. Any opposed? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. THREE ABSENT. ITEMS MOVED FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA [Action Item] Smith: All right. At this time I would like to briefly explain the public hearing process and we will open each item individually and begin with the staff report. Staff will report their findings on how the items adhere to our Comprehensive Plan and our Unified Development Code. After the staff has made their presentation the applicant will come forward and present their case and respond to staff's comments. They will have 15 minutes to do so. After the applicant has finished we will open the floor to public testimony. Each person will be called only once during the public testimony. The clerk will call the names individually of those who have signed up on our website and -- and in advance to testify. You will, then, be unmuted on Zoom or you can come to the microphone in Chambers. Please state your name and address for the record. You will have three minutes to address the Commission. If you have previously sent pictures or a presentation for the meeting it will be displayed on the screen and our clerk will run that presentation. If you have established that you are speaking on behalf of an HOA or another group where others from that group will allow you to speak on their behalf, you will have ten -- up to ten minutes. After all of those who have signed up in advance have spoken we will invite any others who wish to testify. If you wish to speak on the topic you may come forward in Chambers, press the raise hand button if on Zoom, or press star nine and wait for your name to be called on a phone. As a reminder if you are listening on multiple devices, such as a computer or a phone -- or a computer and a phone, please be sure to mute those extra devices so we can hear you clearly without Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission November 16,2023 Page 3 of 46 feedback or echoing. When you are finished if the Commission does not have questions for you, you will return to your seat in Chambers or be muted on Zoom and no longer have the ability to speak. Please remember that we will not call you up to be heard a second time. After all testimony has been heard the applicant will be given another ten minutes to come back and respond. When the applicant is finished responding to questions and concerns we will close the public hearing and the Commissioners will have an opportunity to discuss and hopefully make a final decision or recommendation to City Council as needed. ACTION ITEMS 2. Public Hearing for Meridian OZ (H-2023-0048) by JD Planning and Consulting, located at 1475 E. Franklin Rd. A. Request: Conditional Use Permit for a multi-family development consisting of 36 residential units on 2.39 acres of land in the R-40 zoning district. Smith: With that I would like to open up the first item on the list, H-2023-0048, Meridian OZ. We will begin with the staff report. Allen: Thank you, Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission. The first application before you tonight is a request for a conditional use permit. This site consists of 2.39 acres of land. It's zoned R-40 and is located at 1475 East Franklin Road at the southwest corner of Franklin and Locust Grove Roads. This property was annexed back in 1999 with a development agreement that entitles the property to develop with multi-family residential apartments at a density of 15.6 units per acre. The Comprehensive Plan future land use map designation is mixed use community. A conditional use permit is proposed for a multi-family residential development consisting of 36 dwelling units and eight three story structures on 2.39 acres of land in the R-40 zoning district. All of the units are proposed to have two bedrooms each. The gross density of the development is 15 units per acre, consistent with that approved in the existing development agreement and with the guidelines in the Comprehensive Plan for the mixed use community designation. Access is proposed via South Locust Grove Road. No access is proposed or allowed via East Franklin Road. Staff recommends a cross-access, an ingress- egress easement and driveway with a pedestrian walkway is provided to the property to the south for future interconnectivity. That property is also designated mixed use community. Staff is also recommending a cross-access ingress-egress easement and driveway is provided to the property to the west for interconnectivity and access via Franklin Road. Off-street parking is proposed in excess of UDC standards. Based on 36 two bedroom units a minimum of 75 parking spaces are required. A total of 76 spaces are proposed. A minimum of 9,000 square feet or .21 acre of common open space is required that meets the UDC standards for such. Of that area at least one common grassy area of at least 5,000 square feet is required to be integrated into the site design allowing for general activities by all ages. An open space exhibit was submitted as shown that depicts approximately twice as much open space as required Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission November 16,2023 Page 4 of 46 exceeding UDC standards. A minimum of three site amenities are required to be provided. Enclosed bike storage, a community garden, a pathway and children's playground equipment are proposed in accord with UDC standards. Schematic renderings were submitted as shown for the proposed three story structures. Building materials are anticipated to consist of a mix of stucco, siding and mixed -- mixed metals for accents with neutral color scheme throughout. To provide variation in profile staff is recommending the buildings incorporate modulation. Final design is required to comply with the design standards in the architectural standards manual. Written testimony was received from Brad Banks, Intermountain Wood Products and he is in opposition to this development on the basis of traffic concerns at the intersection. A copy of his letter is included in the public record. The applicant did submit written testimony in agreement with the staff report and staff is recommending approval with the conditions in the staff report. Staff will stand for any questions. Smith: Would the applicant like to come forward? Allen: The applicant is online. Delgado: Is everybody able to hear me? Smith: Yes, we can hear you. If you are able to get maybe a little closer to the microphone. Delgado: How about now? Smith: That's great. Delgado: Perfect. Good afternoon -- or good evening. My name is Jorre Delgado. I'm here to discuss and answer any questions that the Commission and staff may have regarding the Meridian OZ Apartments. This proposal is for a new multi-family development consisting of 36 two bedroom units as stated by staff. Previously as you may remember, we were -- we were proposing 65 units, but after discussing this application and reviewing the staff report with City Council they kind of mentioned that this site is better at a lower density to comply with the DA that's in place. So, we took that to heart and we redesigned the site and cut it in half. So, we now comply with the DA that is currently in place for the site and as you can see we have dropped that down to 36 units rather than 60 and we feel that we have created a more livable and more desirable site for tenants and others in the surrounding area. So, with that I will just leave it open for questions from the Commission or staff. Smith: Any Commissioners have any questions? All right. With that we can move to testimony. Do we have anyone signed up? Lomeli: Yes. I have Ann Wetherell here. Smith: If I can get your name and your address, please. Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission November 16,2023 Page 5 of 46 Wetherell: My name is Ann Wetherell and I live at 215 South Locust Grove Road. I'm one property away from this. It was turned down by City Council last time because -- well, for one thing it was three stories high and it really stuck out like a sore thumb if it were to be built. Still three stories high. Also because we have some right-in and right- out on Locust Grove Road there. So, all of those people -- that generates a lot of traffic. There is already a right-in, right-out housing development right across the street from that. That's a mess. It's hard getting out of my driveway sometimes with cars flipping a Uey to get back into there, so they can get into their homes. So, with that I agree very much with Mr. Banks that it is a traffic hazard. Also the blank area you see there is a collection area for the Five Mile Creek area. It's a wonderful wetland and a drowning hazard for any -- any child. You can -- excuse me -- wire this off any way you want it, but they can still go around the front and get in there. So, it is a drowning hazard for children. With that I will just conclude my testimony by saying that this just doesn't fit the neighborhood at all. It doesn't. It's the businesses behind us. There is a huge warehouse going up next to me and I don't feel like it -- it's a secure place if we are going to have all of these apartments here and I think -- I think that's -- that's it. Thank you for hearing me. Smith: Thank you very much. Grace: Mr. Chairman? Smith: Yes, Commissioner Grace. Grace: I apologize, I do have a question and if it's for staff -- I think anyone could really answer it, but for maybe staff. But if the applicant has to come back up so be it. Can just get a confirmation. There is -- the only ingress and egress through Locust Grove and that there is no -- there is no connection to that north-south street to the west. I don't -- I think it's Adkins maybe or something like that. Can I just get that confirmation about the traffic pattern? Allen: Mr. Chair, if I may respond to that. The only access available to this site is Locust Grove Road. It is a full access that's being proposed. Staff is recommending a cross-access easement and driveway is provided to the property to the west and that would be for -- the thought behind that is for an eventual access to Franklin Road. There is -- I would like to note like -- I think it's a 20 foot wide parcel that's in between this property and the adjacent property to the west. I believe it's owned by the business owners association. There are a lot of trees -- existing mature trees within that area that would need to be removed in the area where the cross-access easement is provided and we would have to have approval from that property owner for that access to be reciprocal and go through. Grace: Okay. Has the applicant explored that at all? Allen: I will let the applicant respond to that. Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission November 16,2023 Page 6 of 46 Delgado: Yes, we have explored that. We have actually tried to acquire that piece to make -- to make it to where we did have a secondary access. But we have been unable to get in touch with the owners of that skinny little parcel that goes down the side that is full of mature trees. We did speak with the applicant, who it sounds like the application may have been withdrawn next door on that Adkins piece of property, so we actually do have a proposed future access over there, which is kind of our green space up there. We removed some parallel parking spaces so that if that applicant ever did pursue that and the owner of this strip of trees was to ever sell that piece of property or was able to work with us just to acquire that piece of it, we do have the room to add in a secondary access, which we would love to do and we have tried to do, but we have just been unsuccessful with that owner in the middle and we, obviously, can't just rip down their trees. Grace: Yeah. Okay. Thanks so much. Appreciate that. Delgado: Thank you. Smith: Okay. Do we have anyone else signed up to testify? Lomeli: I do believe there is a Lynzey Uechi that's attending via Zoom. Smith: Lynzey, you are on mute if you would like to unmute yourself. Uechi: Hello? Smith: Lynzey, can you -- I don't know if you are speaking. It sounded like you were speaking. But we could not fully hear you. You kind of cut out. Try that again. Uechi: If you can hear me -- if you can hear me I didn't intend to speak tonight. I submitted my comments via e-mail. Smith: Okay. Would you like to speak at this point or -- Uechi- I can't right now. Sorry. Smith: No worries. Thank you very much. Do we have anyone else? Lomeli: No one else is raising their hand for this hearing. Starman: Mr. Chairman, can we just -- I would ask for you to pause just for one moment. If we -- I don't recall -- staff mentioned we had an e-mail. Is that in the record or -- Allen: Mr. Chair, I was told that it came in at 5.40, 1 believe, p.m. today. Smith: Got it. Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission November 16,2023 Page 7 of 46 Allen: It has not been included in the public record yet due to the lateness of the receipt of the e-mail. Smith: Are we still clear to proceed with that? Starman: I'm just going to think out loud for -- my -- my concern is that -- I guess I have made an offer to Ms. Uechi the opportunity to speak one more time if she wants to. It sounds like she is predisposed and may not be able to, but because we received her e- mail so late in the day we don't have the full benefit of her thoughts. So, I would like to offer to her one more time if she would like to orally offer her thoughts that would be very welcome and we would appreciate that. If she is not -- doesn't want to do that or not able I would -- I understand that as well. So, I'm just going to make that offer. I'm going to pause for ten seconds and see if she is available and, if not, we will press on. Smith: Lynzey, would you like to speak in light of that e-mail not being included in the public record? All right. It seems like we will move on to the next testimony in light of that. Is there anyone else signed up to speak? Lomeli: Not that I'm aware of, no. Smith: Anyone in the chambers would like to come forward and speak? All right. Would the applicant like to come back up -- or rejoin in Zoom. Delgado: Yes. I'm here. Sorry. I'm having difficulties with the microphone on my computer. Sorry about that. Smith: No worries. Delgado: I would just like to make a couple of comments about some of the public -- public testimony. One of them was -- I think she stated that last time we were denied because it was three stories. That was not my understanding. My understanding was that City Council would like us to lower our density and make it more appropriate to fit the area, which we did. We lowered it in half, essentially, and we lowered it to the correct unit per acre for that development agreement. Also with the ACHD drainage facility, we are aware that it's there. We have tried to work with ACHD for multiple things that we would like to do with that area, but, again, it's owned by ACHD and there is only so much that they can let us do with that and it was noted in the staff report that they would like us to have a wrought iron fence around it. So, we are going to be putting up a wrought iron fence and that's -- I mean that's as much as we can do, unless ACHD allows us to do anything further, which we would love to work with them in the future in planning something really creative and safe for the area, but that is going to be at the liberty of ACHD. And, then, as far as the right-in, right-out, again, that goes back to having the secondary access. We would love to have the secondary access, but, again, we need to -- we need to kind of get with that property owner in the middle and see if we were able to acquire just a piece of that property to make that happen, which, again, we would love to do that for now. Safety reasons. We are keeping it as a right- 10 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission November 16,2023 Page 8 of 46 in, right-out and it was also noted in the staff report that that's what they would like that to be. So, that is all my comments for the public testimony. Smith: Okay. Do Commissioners have any questions for the applicant or staff? Grace: Mr. Chairman, I just have one question maybe for staff or -- I don't participate usually by Zoom, so I'm not very fluent in -- in this, but I'm trying to --just out of fairness I think you -- you mentioned there was a written comment from a gentleman at the beginning of this hearing and I just want to -- I'm trying to find a link to those public comments in the packet and -- just so I can, you know, click on it and read it. I was preparing this evening and I wasn't able to find that anywhere and just -- just out of fairness to the -- to the public who have submitted comments I would like to read them. I'm just not sure how you access them right now. I know that the last submission was late and it's probably not in the packet, but I think you said there was an earlier one. Smith: Would the staff like to -- Starman: Mr. -- Mr. Chairman and Commissioner Grace -- and I apologize I was having a sidebar with our planning supervisor to -- on that exact same point. So, I think I got the gist of Commissioner Grace's thought and we were probably thinking the same way. So, if I get this wrong I beg your indulgence that I was having a secondary conversation, but we were having a similar thought. I think the city clerk does -- does have the e-mail that was brought up earlier that was received very late in the process. The clerk -- if the city clerk is willing to read that. It's not that lengthy. So, if the Chairman and the Commission is willing to do that we could read that into the record and, then, was a request -- was a request for the second letter as well from the other -- Smith: Yeah. Commissioner Grace, you could even speak, but I think that if -- you correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe the gist there was that letter from the gentleman prior to today with the traffic concerns and he is just looking for a link to that -- or for that to be read if there is no link. Starman: Let's -- let's start with my recommendation I guess. Let's start with having the city clerk read the e-mail that came in quite late, like after 5.00 o'clock today. We can get that into the record and the Commission would have the benefit of that citizen's thoughts and concerns and, then, let's pause after that and think about how best to deal with the second letter that was received a little earlier. Smith: Thank you. Mr. Clerk. Johnson: Thank you, Mr. Chair. For the consideration of Commission from Lynzey, the property owner directly south at the proposed development. Please consider the following: Is it possible for the sole entrance and exit to not block the infiltration ditch that moves drainage from my property into the ACHD pond? Is the limited visibility and access to the apartment buildings C-1 and 2 and D-1 and 2 west of the pond safe? The chain link fence north of the property is behind the industrial buffer zone, not on the F-11 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission November 16,2023 Page 9 of 46 property line. There is no way to ensure no cross-access onto my property and the other single family property south without a fence going through the buffer zone, which the applicant does not have access to. There is a clear vision triangle on the landscaping plan, which suggests having the authority to utilize a corner of my property. I have never agreed to this restriction. Despite repeated recommendations, the applicant has not -- has not moved the only trash receptacle, nor have they provided the recycling. The trash can remains feet away from my barn. Is placing a playground between a blind corner and a barbed wire fence surrounded pond safe? The only signage for this multi-family development would have to appear before the driveway or it would be on my property. This would further limit visibility to an already unsafe sole entrance-exit. Is it safe to have traffic entering and exiting at one point, which is, A, close to a major intersection and, B, has limited visibility due to the pond and proposed landscaping? With sincere appreciation for your time, Lynzey Uechi. Starman: Thank you, City Clerk. And, Mr. Chairman, now we could about how best to deal with the letters received earlier, so -- I haven't seen that letter. I can look for it real quickly. We could read that if that would be helpful to the Commissioners that are on Zoom or if the request was simply to e-mail a link to Commissioner Grace we can accommodate that as well. So, Commissioner Grace, maybe you would like to tell us your preference. Grace: Mr. Chairman and Kurt, I'm happy to read it. I don't -- I don't need to take the Commission's time and staff time to -- for someone to read it. I just wasn't sure how to access it. I didn't see it in the packet and, you know, again, I just wanted to be respectful of a member of the public who wrote in. Johnson: Mr. Chair? Smith: Mr. Clerk. Johnson: Commissioner Grace, that e-mail is just -- or that link has just been e-mailed to you. Grace: Okay. Smith: So, while we give you just a second to do that, I -- is -- Kurt, a question for you in terms of process, since we kind of went back to public testimony a little bit, would it be fair to give the applicant an opportunity to respond to that specific -- Starman: Yes, Mr. Chairman. I don't -- unless I -- as I say I had a side bar conversation, so I don't think I missed this piece, but I believe the public hearing is still open -- Smith: Yeah. F12 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission November 16,2023 Page 10 of 46 Starman: Correct? So, I think we should complete all public testimony that -- there may not be others, but you may want to ask one more time. Once that is done, then, I would recommend, as we would typically do, invite the applicant -- via Zoom in this instance -- to make her closing comments and would encourage her to address some of the concerns that were voiced by the citizens that testified tonight, both in person and by e- mail and by letter. Smith: To be -- just to make sure I'm on the right page, we did -- we didn't -- well, we did not close anything. We already did allow the applicant to come back up and, then, read the e-mail. Would it be kosher to allow them to respond solely to that e-mail, since they have already covered other testimony? Starman: Yes, Mr. Chairman, I would recommend that we give the -- the applicant an opportunity to speak again, since we have new information that she was not aware of at the time she made her comments. Smith: Thank you. Would the applicant like to come back up to respond to any of that testimony that was in that read e-mail? Delgado: Yes, I would. Just a couple things that I would like to touch on as one of them. I do know that she had mentioned that our trash -- our trash can was backed up to her property line. We actually have moved that and you can see that in our updated site plan that is currently on your guys' screen. We had moved it to our optional location that we had set aside, because we were unsure of where we wanted to put it. So, we did take that comment from her into consideration and we did move that based on staff's recommendation as well and there is a recycling bin inside of that. So, there will be trash and recycling inside that. And, then, as far as the clear vision triangle, the clear vision triangle -- we are not actually putting anything on her property, it's just a -- a clear vision triangle for us just means we can't plant anything in that -- in that buffer. We are not going to plant a tree that's going to hinder somebody from seeing onto the road. It's just something that ACHD requires and it's something that is code. I mean we never put trees in a clear vision triangle, but I understand the way they are shown on there it kind of looks like we may be putting something on her property, but we aren't putting anything, it's just for us to know and for you guys to see that we don't have any excessively large trees planted in that area. Thank you. Smith: Thank you. I will now take a motion to close the public hearing, unless there are any questions for the applicant from Commissioners. I should have worded that differently. Are there any questions remaining for staff or applicant? All right. Chair would entertain a motion to close the public hearing. Rivera: I will make a motion to close the public hearing. Grace: Second. Stoddard: Second. F13 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission November 16,2023 Page 11 of 46 Smith: I have a motion and a second. All in favor please say aye. Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. THREE ABSENT. Smith: All right. Let's see if anyone wants to express any thoughts on this. Grace: Mr. Chairman, I will take a stab at going first here. I just want to -- I want to thank the applicant actually in that last statement, because that was going to be a follow-up question of mine regarding the trash -- the trash dumpster location. So, thank you for clarifying that. I do understand the -- the testimony and concerns and the citizens about the traffic and the -- you know, the increased activity there, but I think as we all know multi-family is sorely needed. It doesn't appear to be a terribly large project. I think it's a good fit for that corner. I would like to see, if possible, some connection, you know, to the -- to the west to that -- to that kind of street that's -- that's not a -- not an arterial street, like Locust is or certainly Franklin. So, I think all in all I like what I saw, I like the -- I like the -- the elevations and the explanation for that and the -- and the fit for that area. So, yeah, I think I will be supporting this. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Smith: Thank you, Commissioner Grace. Are there any other -- any other feedback from Commissioners? Any discussion? I guess I will -- I will just echo Commissioner Grace's thoughts. Ideally I would like to see a secondary access point along this road, but we can't, you know, force that property owner to do anything here. So, there is -- there is not much control we have over that other situation. It's really about this -- just this proposal that's in front of us and I agree I think it's on net a good fit and I think the developer has made a lot of efforts to fit the -- fit the feedback before by the Council and, yeah, I think this is -- this is a net good. I agree, multi-family housing is sorely needed. This is a weirdly shaped parcel, but I think all in all things considered this -- this is -- this is a good fit for the -- the time and place. With that, unless there is any other discussion, I would take -- entertain a motion at this point. If no one wants to take a crack at it I can. Grace: I'm trying to find my -- Smith: I believe Commissioner Rivera is going to take a crack at it. Grace: Okay. Rivera: After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to approve File No. H-2023-0048 as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of November 16th, 2023, with the -- were there any modifications, was there, on this? Smith: Unless you have any I don't believe -- can I get a second? Grace: Yeah. I will second that, Mr. Chairman. 14 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission November 16,2023 Page 12 of 46 Smith: All right. I have a motion and a second. All in favor, please, say aye. Any opposed? All right. Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. THREE ABSENT. 3. Public Hearing for Chik-Fil-A at Ten Mile (H-2023-0054) by 4G Development and Consulting, Inc., located at 501, 567 and 609 S. Innovation Ln. A. Request: Conditional Use Permit for a new approximate 5,872 foot Chik-fil-A restaurant including a dual drive-thru, full fire escape lane, and two exterior drive-thru canopies located within 300 feet of an existing drive-through facility, residential district, and existing residence on approximately 2.36 acres of land in the C-G zoning district. Smith: With that I would like to open up the public hearing for Item No. H-2023-0054 for Chik-Fil-A. We will begin with the staff report. Hersh: Good evening, Mr. Chairman, Commissioners. The applicant is here to present their application for a conditional use permit for Chik-Fit-A. The site consists of 2.36 acres of land, currently zoned C-G, located at 602 South Vanguard Way. The history on the property is currently a development agreement, a final plat and a private street application that was approved. The comprehensive FLUM designation is commercial. A conditional use permit request for a new approximately 5,872 square foot Chik-Fit-A, including a drive through, full fire escape lane, two exterior drive-through canopies located within 300 feet of an existing drive-through facility, residential district and existing residents. The proposed drive-through establish -- establishment is subject to the specific use standards in the UDC for the drive-through establishment. All establishments providing drive-through service are required to identify the stacking lane, menu and speaker location if -- if applicable and window location on the site plan. The site plan is also required to demonstrate safe pedestrian and vehicular access and circulation on the site and in between adjacent properties. Staff finds that the parking stalls to the north or south should be restricted for employee parking only to maximize pedestrian safety. Additionally, staff recommends that the applicant incorporate a pedestrian walkway from the easternmost parking area through the middle of the parking lot leading to the front of the building to facilitate safe pedestrian access. You can see staff has proposed where that might be located, but that can be up to the applicant as where that fits best on the site. The proposed site layout for the restaurant includes a dual drive-through lane with space to queue 37 vehicles and a third fire escape lane provided on the outside of the entire length of the drive through. The drive through itself starts at the north side of the building and exits at the south side facing south Innovation Lane. However, staff has some safety concerns regarding the entry to the drive through from the north. At the entrance of the drive through vehicles will be entering and exiting the drive through while vehicles are attempting to park or back out of the parking stalls along the northern boundary. Staff recommends that the entry-exit F15 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission November 16,2023 Page 13 of 46 on the north should be designated as an entrance only for the drive through to clearly mark and direct traffic flow. Further, staff recommends that the applicant shall install additional signage and parking lot striping to clearly mark and guide traffic safely throughout the site, which they have actually done. Chik-Fil-A operations utilize a drive- through system featuring a door with a built up -- built-in pickup window. Additionally, employees serve customers as food runners within designated areas in and around the drive-through lanes. Customers have multiple options for placing orders in the drive through. They can either use digital menu boards with speakers or directly engage with employees equipped with handheld computer pads and portable receipt printers. Employees are equipped to take all methods of payment in the drive through area. Once the order is placed using one of the above methods, the customer will proceed to move forward in the queue approaching the order pickup area at the drive through. At this point an employee will, then, hand -- or a runner will deliver the customer their order to their vehicle and direct cars safe -- safely through the drive-through exit. Development of the site shall comply with the development standards for the C-G zoning district in the UDC table. Staff has reviewed the proposed plan and building elevations and they comply with the required standards. The property is currently located across multiple property lines. Staff has recommended that the applicant submit a property boundary adjustment to combine all three properties into one prior to submitting for a certificate of zoning compliance. The site includes three access points from South Innovation -- Innovation Lane, a private street located on the eastern side of the property. Vehicles accessing the site can do so from the northeast, east or southeast and have the option to park in the lot in front of the building or proceed northwest to one of the first to enter ten foot drive-through lanes. These lanes are equipped with menu boards, ordering and allowing for exiting back to the drive aisle in a southeast direction. The third lane farthest from the building serves as an escape lane leading to the drive aisle along the south side of the building. Again, to improve traffic flow and minimize confusion staff has recommended that the first entrance at the northeast corner should be an entrance only. While staff recommends approval of all three drive-through lanes for this project to accommodate the volume of business that Chik-Fil-A generates, Commission ultimately has the authority to determine whether it's appropriate for this project. So, parking. A minimum of -- of one -- or a minimum of one off-street parking space is required per 250 square feet gross floor area. Based on the 5,872 square foot restaurant a minimum of 23 parking spaces are required. A total of 96 spaces are proposed exceeding the standards. A minimum of one bicycle space -- parking space must be provided for over 25 vehicle spaces or a portion thereof per the UDC. Biking facility -- facilities are required to comply with the location and design standards. Bicycle parking is shown on the plan submitted with this application that meets the requirement. The applicant has also provided a detail recently of the bicycle racks that they are proposing on the revised landscape plan and that actually does not meet our 34 foot in height requirements. Theirs was 33. Street buffers. The street buffer along South Ten Mile Road and South Vanguard Way was constructed with the improvements for the Ten Mile Creek Subdivision No. 1 for the common area site improvements. The buffer along South Ten Mile Road is required to be 35 feet wide as part of the entry corridor. The applicant has submitted a revised plan that shows that these meet the UDC requirements. The parking lot landscaping is required per the F16 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission November 16,2023 Page 14 of 46 standards in the UDC. Several planters within the parking lot are missing trees and a planter is missing adjacent to the trash enclosure and additionally previously it appeared that the central landscape island that runs along Innovation Lane did not meet the five foot required -- width requirement. Staff did recommend increasing the size of that planter -- of that planter and recommended adding the additional trees. The applicant did receive -- we did receive a revised plan from the applicant addressing the missing trees and increasing the size of the planter and also adding the planter adjacent to the trash enclosure. The building elevations -- conceptual elevations that were submitted for the proposed structure consist of stucco, parapet metal -- metal wall coping. Thin brick and metal awnings and glazing and the final design is required to comply with the Ten Mile Crossing design guidelines and the applicant did provide us with that approval this week. There is no written testimony on this project and staff does recommend approval of a conditional use permit that includes all of the conditions in the findings in the staff report. And that concludes staff's presentation and I stand for any questions. Smith: Thank you. Would the applicant like to come up? And if you could state your name and address that would be great. Thank you. Watson: Yeah. My name is Kevin Watson. 20547 Friends Road, Greenleaf, Idaho. Go ahead and start. I think -- I had a small presentation. Stacy, is that -- awesome. Well, I would just like to thank the Commission for hearing us tonight. I appreciate you guys being here to hear this proposal. We are really happy. Chik-Fil-A is very excited to be presenting a second Chik-Fil-A to the City of Meridian. Think it's going to be great to serve the citizens here and we have had a chance to have sit downs with Stacy and Bill and Nick Napoli earlier in the -- in the process and they had been extremely informative and helpful. Help -- helping us get to this point. So, I got a brief presentation that I wanted to share, so you guys kind of get some visuals of what we are proposing here. This is our landscape plan, which we revised. Thank you, planning staff, for including our revised plans in this. We spent some extra time to try and get as many of these things wrapped up before we met with the Commission. Just want to note that we are planning on protecting all of the existing landscaping along Ten Mile Road and around the corner on Vanguard Way. So, everything there is either going to be protected or replaced in like kind if -- if anything is affected by our development. Got some renderings that turned out really great, just to give everyone an idea of what this is going to look like once we are all done. This is our view looking northeast from Ten Mile Road. Got the other side view looking southeast from Ten Mile Road. Got a view looking north from Vanguard Way right near the corner of Ten Mile and we have got a great -- great image of the front of our building there from the northeast corner of the site. So, again, it was mentioned we are providing 96 parking stalls. We have provided directional signage and striping throughout the site. We have got a safe pedestrian access from Vanguard Way located right there adjacent to Vanguard going right up to the front of the restaurant. We are really happy that we were able to address most of the conditions on the conditions of approval and -- and get those taken care of and -- and corrected before we got here, but there are a few conditions that we would like to go over with the Commission. First -- and -- oh, I'm sorry. Sorry. The first condition that we wanted to address was condition 2-B, a request -- oh. I'm sorry. Condition 2-C F17 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission November 16,2023 Page 15 of 46 requests the north most access to be designated as an entrance only and the drive aisle to be one way. We asked our local traffic engineering firm Kittelson and Associates to take a look at this and just kind of assess how this would affect safety and circulation on our site. I have a copy of the circulation memo here if you guys would like to see it or I can just go through the -- Starman: If you would give a copy to the clerk and he -- or they will distribute it and, then, you probably should summarize it, since we didn't have an advanced copy. Thank you. Watson: Yeah. Just to summarize what the -- what the traffic engineer stated in the report. The engineering firm supports two way access on the -- on that north access there. They noted that contrary to the intent of the city by designating it as a one way drive aisle -- having it a one way drive aisle might actually make it more challenging and confusing for drivers on there. As you can see we have got three north-south drive aisles. If we were to make that a one way drive aisle it might be pretty challenging to effectively sign, stripe and enforce that there would be no right-hand turns at any one of those drive aisles. Any car might make a mistake and turn up one of those drive aisles expecting to exit the site and may be forced to either turn around or maybe turn back into the drive through queue or turn and make a wrong way movement and head out that north exit. Another thing that's noted by the transportation engineers that those -- that north bank of stalls is intended for employee parking. At any -- any one time we will have -- there is 15 stalls up there. Most of the time there is going to be more than 15 employees during any of the peak hours of business. Those stalls are going to be used by employees and there is not going to be cars backing out of those stalls and interfering with traffic coming on site. Another item that the traffic engineer notes is just that this is a fire lane. It's designated a 24 foot fire lane. Restricting that to one way motion could limit the accessibility for emergency vehicles. Also 20 -- like a large -- a large lane at 25 feet, people generally look at that as a two-way aisle. It's pretty large for a one way. It would be kind of confusing for drivers to see it and think it's going to be a one way and the traffic engineer also notes that it kind of encourages people to enter the site at a higher rate of speed by having so much extra room. Another good note on this is the -- for our deliveries and our trash hauler, the trash hauler especially requires a front -- the head on entrance to the trash enclosure, which is located at the north of the site there by the entrance to the drive through and the best route for the trash hauler is going to be come in that south entrance, head straight north into the trash enclosure, pick up the trash and, then, back up a short distance and turn right and head out of that north most access point and if we were to close that off to a one way the trash -- I'm not sure if the trash hauler would be able to do it, unless the trash companies had the requirement about how far they are able to back up and they have also got limited -- limited turn radius. So, this would present a pretty significant issue for us with our trash pickups by having it reduced to a one-way only. I think one that Chik-Fil-A really excels at and they are the industry leader in is that they provide a great speed of service and safe circulation of vehicles and pedestrians throughout the site. Chik-Fil-A has invested a lot of time and effort to get this right and they have been proven to get it right in city after city and they have been proving that consistently. So, by having this restriction -- F18 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission November 16,2023 Page 16 of 46 we kind of restrict Chik-Fil-A's ability to do what it does best and that's to manage their traffic on site in the most efficient and safest way possible. So, we would ask that the Commission remove conditioned 2-C from the conditions of approval. Starman: And, sir, may I interject just for one moment and, Mr. Chairman, with your permission -- that's what -- both the record, but also for Commissioners Stoddard and Grace, the city clerk has scanned the letter from the traffic engineer Kittelson and Associates. That's been forwarded to both of you electronically, so that you have it available to you. So, I just wanted the record to reflect that our Commissioners that are joined by Zoom do have the letter and are able to review it and wanted you to be aware of that as well. Thank you. Watson: Thank you. I appreciate that. And the next one we would like to address is condition six. Condition six requests a boundary line adjustment be completed prior to submittal for the certificate of zoning compliance. When we first started this project the planning staff did mention that they would prefer if we combine this lot and combine the three parcels into one, but they did say that it wasn't a requirement unless there was a permanent structure built over one of the parcel lines. So, we took that -- since we didn't have a permanent structure built over the parcel lines to mean that we wouldn't be required to do it. We, in fact, have no problem complying with this condition. We just have one issue with the timing of it. It would cause pretty significant delays to our project to be required to complete this prior to the certificate of zoning compliance. So, we would ask that the Commission revise this condition to state that we must -- must complete the property boundary line adjustment prior to permit issuance. Hersh: Mr. Chair and Commissioners. And staff's good with that. Smith: Okay. Thank you. Watson: Thank you. Moving on Condition 2-G back towards the beginning. Requested a pedestrian crossing is added to the site plan from the east boundary of the site adjacent to Innovation Lane to the front of the building. We believe the code section reference with this condition -- condition, 11-4-3-11, specifically subsection C requiring safe vehicular and pedestrian access and circulation is actually met by our safe pedestrian access from Vanguard Way on the southwest site, as well as the significant striping and signage that we have provided throughout the site. But we understand the intent of the city is to provide a site that circulates well, is safe for pedestrians and is effective. So, when we look at other similar recent developments in the area, like the new Starbucks located at 113 Ten Mile Road just north of our site, we see a really well circulate -- circulating lot, efficient -- efficiently -- works efficiently. Safe pedestrian access. But it doesn't have a specified pedestrian walkway from anywhere in the lot to the front of the building. I think we understand that pedestrians kind of intuitively know how to walk through parking lots and will choose the safest route through, especially if the site is circulating well. Additionally, we believe that the site will be better served with the additional parking provided by the five -- there will be five spaces that would be removed if we were to add that central walkway. We think that it's actually safer for us Fig Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission November 16,2023 Page 17 of 46 to have those five spaces, rather than to have potentially cars circulating through the lot looking for a parking space. Chik-Fil-A intends on having upwards of 45 to 50 employees, especially in those busy first grand opening times and they are going to be taking up a lot of parking spots. I think we are going to be needing as many parking spots as possible on this site and I think it presents a greater hazard to have cars circulating around the site looking for a spot to park than actually pedestrians being able to walk safely to the -- to the front of the building. With these points in mind we would like the condition 2-G to be revised to strike the first sentence and read the pedestrian walkways from the perimeter sidewalk to the main building entrance shall be distinguished from the vehicular driving surface through the use of pavers, colored or scored concrete, or bricks as set forth in UDC-11-3A-1913.413, which we have made that adjustment to our site plan with our safe pedestrian access as stamped concrete. Finally remove -- I think we already have reached an understanding on this with our building elevations as we have received design approval, but their condition does read: The conceptual elevation shall incorporate a more pronounced parapet change to enhance the design on the west side -- west facing side along South Ten Mile Road in contrast to the current proposal. Since we have received design approval and I believe that was prior to planning staff making this condition -- or, I'm sorry, we have received approval post-planning staff making this condition, we would ask that that -- that Condition 7 be revised to read: Final design is required to comply with the adopted TM Crossing design guidelines and strike the first sentence and I believe the last one that we would like to address -- and I think we have also already come to an understanding with planning staff that Condition 2-B request additional signage and striping throughout the site. As planning staff noted, we have provided this striping and signage throughout the site. So, we would request that that condition be revised to read -- strike the word additional and just read: Signage and parking lot striping is required throughout the site to efficiently and adequately direct patrons to the menu boards and throughout the site with minimal conflict as shown on the approved site plan. And I believe those are all of them that we wanted to go over. Once again I thank the Commission for your time and consideration. Smith: Any Commissioners have questions? Rivera: I'm sorry. Can you repeat your Condition 7 request on site elevations? Watson: Yeah. Oh, Condition 7. So, we would request that the Condition 7 be revised to read: Final design -- it's basically strike the first sentence and we request that it read: Final design is required to comply with the adopted TM Crossing design guidelines. Rivera: Thank you. Grace: Mr. Chairman? Smith: Commissioner Grace. F20] Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission November 16,2023 Page 18 of 46 Grace: I'm sorry, Commissioner Rivera, were you done? I didn't mean to cut you off, sir. Smith: I believe Commissioner Rivera -- Grace: Okay. Smith: -- was done. Rivera: Yes. Sorry. Yeah. Thank you. Grace: Yeah. Sorry. I turned on my camera. I had the benefit of seeing you, but you can't see me, so I thought it was only fair to turn my camera on. So, Mr. Watson, I know this probably isn't fair to project this onto you and your project, but I feel like we got to do that a little better than we did with the -- with the Chik-Fil-A in The Village and I think mostly that -- in my opinion that -- that revolves around the traffic concerns and I like what you are saying about -- it seems like there is more -- more lanes and you -- I thought I heard you could handle 37 vehicles, which I'm guessing is more than what's probably available at The Village Chik-Fil-A, but as it relates to your request on 2-C, can you confirm -- so, you want that north access to be both ways. I just was trying to look at the -- the site plan here. Is the drive through -- does that directly go -- flow south into the drive through that access area? That north access does flow directly south into the drive through area and we would like to clarify that functionally this north access and that north drive aisle will likely operate as a one way during peak hours. I don't know if you guys are familiar -- and you are familiar with the Meridian location that we do provide much more staking and a much -- this site has been designed much better than that location and we have got more staking, better circulation on site, but one of the things is that site uses magnetic delineators and I imagine you have seen them little posts that are in the parking lot and they help direct the drive-through traffic. Those are removable and they are used during their high volume peak hours to kind of direct traffic in the way it limits traffic flow on site during those high -- high intensity hours and, then, during the off-peak times they are able to remove them to restore better circulation on site. I think that what we are asking for is not that we always want the north access drive aisle to be continuously two way, is that we want the operator to be able to be flexible with that and to be able to limit it, maybe add in magnetic delineators and limit the access to that, so that it does flow directly into the drive through during -- during those high -- high volume times, but within -- then at the same time be able to remove that during the slow times, so that we have access for the trash haulers, so that during quieter hours people aren't restricted in their movements on the parking lot. Grace: Okay. I'm going to ask my other question, but as it relates to 2-C, I think I would like to hear from the city on that, but let me just ask my other question and, then, I can -- I will stop talking. On 2-G I feel like there is probably a reason why we are looking for that walkway. I was confused as to your -- you were saying strike the first sentence, which basically says to incorporate -- incorporate a pedestrian walkway, but to leave the F21 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission November 16,2023 Page 19 of 46 second, which says the pedestrian walkway from the perimeter sidewalk shall be distinguished. So, can you just clarify that for me? Watson: Yeah. I believe the second sentence also refers to our southern pedestrian safe access point. If you look to the south at the exit of our drive through that's also a safe pedestrian access from Vanguard Way. I think we understood that that second half of the condition to also apply to that pedestrian access and so we did not want to strike the whole condition as we totally -- we definitely understand that having a change in material or texture there to really make sure we signifying that that's a safe pedestrian crossing is important and we revised our plans to show the stamped concrete that we plan on putting there. Grace: So, that second part of that condition relates to a different pedestrian walkway than was what you are saying? Watson: Yeah. We understood that condition to relate to all pedestrian crossings on the site and not only the one that was being asked for through the central portion of the site from Innovation Lane, but also from the south -- the south area of the site along Vanguard. Grace: Okay. Okay. Thank you. And I can -- the other conditions I -- I would like to hear from the others, but I don't know that I have too much heartache over them. But I would like -- I think I would like to hear from staff if they had any comment at all about the request on 2-C. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Smith: Would staff like to comment on 2-C? Hersh: Mr. Chair, Commissioners, staff had put that condition in because we just wanted to see safe pedestrian access through the parking lot, because we know how busy Chik-Fil-A gets, just to make sure that people had a safe way to get from the parking lot to the building. That was our thoughts on that and how we feel about that, but it is up to Commission how they -- how they see it and want to condition this project. Smith: I believe -- is that -- that's the 2-G ask; right? That was -- Grace: Thank you. I was -- I was really hoping for an opinion on 2-C regarding the one way -- yeah. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. Hersh: Oh, I'm sorry, Commissioner Grace. So, the one way -- staff wants to see that, because all the traffic is flowing into the -- the drive through area and, then, if you have, like they said, really busy times that people are going to be driving north and trying to get out that way and it's going to kind of create some safety issues for people -- or people pulling out, but they -- from the north, but they said that they were going to designate that as employee parking. Grace: Thank you. I appreciate that. F22 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission November 16,2023 Page 20 of 46 Smith: I actually do have questions on 2-G though and I guess my question is mainly of Kurt, that there is the -- the applicants don't -- correct me if I'm putting words in your mouth. It sounds like they are saying that they are already in compliance without the proposed policies -- without the proposed additional pedestrian walkway down the middle of the parking lot. Is that your interpretation of that statute as it's applied? Is that consistent with kind of how the city has operated up to this point? Starman: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. Really that's a judgment call for the Commission. I would answer -- or add a couple thoughts. One is that -- so, the -- the city's development code does require pedestrian safety from the parking lot to the building and so we -- that's a requirement of code. The Commission and the applicant needs to adhere to that code requirement. We can't just wave that. In terms of what constitutes compliance that there is no bright line there, it's really going to be a judgment for the Commission and I would say that even if, for argument's sake, the applicant is correct that what they propose meets the minimum requirements of the code, I would also know that the Commission has the authority with the conditional use permit to require something in excess of the minimum based upon specific site conditions and -- and issues going on with this particular development. So, even if you believe that the proposal before you meets the minimum intent of the code, you do have the ability to condition something more to mitigate the potential negative impacts of the project being proposed. But, ultimately, I'm going to probably punt back to you and say it's going to be the Commission's decision as to whether or not this is -- the applicant's version is a -- creates enough safe pedestrian connections. Smith: Okay. Thank you. I guess my question, then, goes to the applicant. Looking at this map here -- let me pick a spot -- near the Innovation Lane there is a circle that's -- with a four in it. Just -- just south of -- the first lot -- the first parking spot south of that entrance -- entrance -- entrance and exit point. How do you anticipate, absent a pedestrian walkway, a pedestrian could safely get from there to that Chik-Fit-A? Watson: Well, I think we believe that the major points of circulation are going to be kind of in that highlighted fire lane. Entering the drive through, exiting the drive through, entering the site, exiting the site. I think we would expect that most of the traffic's going to be coming along those lanes. So, I would think just as I would do at any grocery store or Target or Home Depot, that I would get out of my car and I would look both ways and make sure a car wasn't driving through the drive aisle and I would walk directly towards the restaurant. I think -- I think most of the time in my experience I don't go looking for a safe pedestrian walkway through Home Depot or through a large parking lot, I generally think that most -- most pedestrians intuitively know and I think generally drivers know that when you are driving through a parking lot you are going to have cars that potentially might back out, you are going to have pedestrians who are walking through and it is just a general expectation that -- that safety should be -- should be kind of the top priority for both drivers and pedestrians in that situation. I would like to note that I just also believe that removing those five parking spots -- while it would be nice to just add an extra pedestrian path there, I think that removing those five spots will actually decrease the level of safety on the site and that the site will be better served, 23 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission November 16,2023 Page 21 of 46 safer, circulate better with those spots and with less of a chance of people circulating around the site potentially looking for a parking spot. People tend to get impatient when they don't find a parking spot, so I think ideally we want to provide a spot for everyone who is there to park and I think once they park and they get out of their car they are going to be able to arrive safely to the front of the restaurant. Smith: So, I have an additional question, but I want to address something that you said regarding other stores, other -- other grocery stores. To my understanding, especially for big box stores, the standard tends to be for this -- this kind of parking schematic to be look -- kind of rotated 90 degrees almost, so that the cars back out parallel to the building and not perpendicular to them and what that does, if you are thinking like a Home Depot, for example, you are walking alongside the backs of the cars to get to the -- to get to the store and you are minimally walking through the drive aisle and it seems like that's not the case here, which is -- sorry, I'm moving close and far away from this. That doesn't seem to be the case here and so I'm really concerned by the movement of people down a drive aisle. Obviously there are conflict points crossing the drive aisle. That's inherent to any design. But it seems to me that if you are walking down a drive aisle that entire drive aisle becomes a conflict point and that's my concern here. I understand that the concern of the parking stalls and things like that, but -- but that's kind of the main concern here. So, I will give you an opportunity to address that. But I also want to ask an additional question regarding the one way fire lane, especially around -- specifically around refuse removal. If the concern is refuse removal with the way that these are loaded and I guess this is also a question for staff, if there is anything preventing the applicant from doing so. Is there anything preventing swapping some of those employee parking spaces on the south side with the waste receptacle on the north side? It seems like that would allow a refuse removal truck that's front loaded -- or regarding those issues -- it seems like that would allow for that, while not changing any parking structure kind of calculus. Watson: I wondered if staff wanted to respond? Hersh: Mr. Chair, Commissioners, there isn't anything that prevents them from moving the trash receptacles to the south. They may just lose more parking stalls, which I don't know if it's ideal for them, but they have plenty of parking per our requirements for a restaurant, but I know how busy they get. Watson: So if I can add to that. The trash truck usually does require a straight on head-on delivery. Looking at the site we would have to confirm with the trash hauler, since the parking stalls in our drive through is offset a bit, we could potentially put the trash enclosure there, but it would be offset and I'm not sure if the trash hauler would approve of that location. Secondly -- and I don't know -- I know that we were subject to kind of a higher level of design guidelines and screening for trash enclosure is one of the comments from Jon Wardle with the Ten Mile Crossing design review board, that we had to -- we added additional landscaping and additional trees around the trash enclosure for screening purposes as part of the guidelines for that -- that development. I don't know what he would say about moving the trash enclosure to a very highly visible F24] Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission November 16,2023 Page 22 of 46 area right -- right near the corner of Ten Mile and Vanguard. I know that during our meetings and discussions about design, it was very important to them to make sure that that corner looked really good and that we had great landscaping there, great screening, that we provided a small wall along the outside of our drive through to help with screening. So, I don't know that Jon Wardle is here tonight to be able to comment on that, but my understanding is -- I think he would not be as excited about that location for the trash enclosure. Smith: Thank you. So, it seems to me that this boils down to a question of time of use really. If -- if this is -- as you were saying the -- the applicant being -- or the -- the Chick- Fil-A being able to use cones and traffic cones and things like that to redirect traffic during peak hours, it -- to me that seems to be a bad design and I want to give you an opportunity to address that, because when I see that and I see, you know, I'm driving against the way that the traffic arrow is pointed, because some orange cones are set up in kind of a space, it seems to me that that is -- you know, has high potential to confuse a driver, has high potential to create conflict zones or someone not understanding whether they are able to operate their vehicle in that direction, et cetera, and I also think that there is some concerns I have seen, whether it's other Chik-Fil-As, other In and Outs, other kind of high demand restaurants that implement this, it seems like that has high potential to also kind of turn into -- from what I have seen one day you go and the entry point is at site A and, you know, the next time you go there the entry point is at site B, because of the way that the -- kind of the traffic needs to snake to stay off like the main road, for example. And so I think to my mind it seems like that has high potential to create confusion, to create more complex opportunities with people trying to understand -- understand exactly where they are supposed to be going, based on time of day what entrance to use and things like that. I guess could you -- could you speak to that? Watson: Yeah. And I -- and I can understand that concern. I think it would be my opinion that magnetic delineators that are placed temporarily -- those are going to be highly visible and they are going to be in your path and they are going to be blocking your path. That may seem somewhat confusing, but if you were to start heading north there, you know, you could turn right into the drive aisle and head off site or you could go and -- go any which direction you are required to if you didn't realize that that was not the way to go. I think a sign being placed at every single one of these intersections, which is likely what would be required to -- to try and enforce and try and stripe and sign this appropriately to limit it to one way, I think people are more likely to miss a sign located in a planter than they are to miss something blocking their path that's bright and it's in the road. I think everyone understands that cones in the road means don't drive there. So, as far as the level of confusion that might be -- that might be induced, I think signs are more likely to confuse people and more likely to -- you will be more likely to have wrong way movements in that drive aisle, rather than magnetic delineators and I think the intent -- the city's intent and concern there I think is valid. What we are asking is that the operator have the -- have the flexibility to be able to handle that on site, because he wants it to be handled and safe as well. It's just different times of day can F25] Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission November 16,2023 Page 23 of 46 require different things and that's why those magnetic delineators are a good -- a good option for that. Smith: Thank you. Any other commissioners have any other questions before we move on to testimony? Grace: Yeah. Mr. Chairman, just a follow up on that last exchange. So, if it's a off- peak hour and you are saying you could really benefit from that north access point being both ways, I guess what I'm thinking is if it's off peak why does it really matter? I mean there will be -- I think the benefit you get is when it's -- when you are in peak hours and basically I don't think anyone's going to be able to exit there. I think you will have -- based on my -- the reading of what the community -- the affection it has for Chik-Fil-A and peak hours, you are going to have a lot of cars going in there. I just -- I guess I was just questioning what -- what's -- what's the value if it is off peak? There is -- there is two other places to come and go. But you don't have to answer that, I'm just more thinking out loud and if you don't want to. Watson: Yeah. This is Sabrina. This is a representative from Chik -- Chik-Fil-A development lead. Smith: Could I get your address as well? Wright: 2220 Denver Street, San Diego, California. 90110. Sabrina Wright. W-r-i-g-h-t. Smith: Thank you. Wright: Thank you, Commissioner and staff. I just wanted to clarify and help -- there has been a lot of talk around traffic. As Kevin has done a great job pointing out, we do have operators -- individual operators who own and operate individually in the community and bring employees in. The traffic concerns -- we just want to give them the flexibility. We completely understand the innate nature of people wanting to go one way into our drive-through lane. We are just asking for the flexibility so that during off- peak times, you know, we know we are going to be busy from noon to -- 11.00 to 2.00 o'clock times and maybe in the evening, but in the off-peak times to help our customers who are parking and, then, our employees who are also getting out, that both way access in that north drive is pretty critical, just in those other times of day. The magnet delineators that Kevin mentioned are a great tool for us to use. They are actually in ground so they don't protrude. They come off and they go up when they are needed and they just help that traffic flow. The operator -- and additionally will come through and make some additional changes as needed daily. I think that was one of the things that was mentioned was having the point of entry change. Our entry to our drive through isn't going to change. Our stack is significant here. It's a double stack. It's 37 cars -- almost 40 cars. There is not another stack like that around. Plus we have a third escape lane that will help keep cars moving in and off. We generally -- our speed of service comes in, you know, around under a minute. So, I mean we are constantly F26 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission November 16,2023 Page 24 of 46 having cars flow. So, we understand the need to make sure that cars are moving both in and out and off of our lot. So, just wanted to add that. Thank you. Smith: Thank you. Any other Commissioners' questions? Rivera: Yes. Smith: Commissioner Rivera. Rivera: Thank you, Commissioner Smith. Rivera: For someone that visits Chik-Fil-A quite too often, we have been there twice this week already. Smith: You and me both. Rivera: I appreciate the -- the stack, because, like I said, I'm there pretty often with my kids. But on this one just real quick I have a couple of questions, but there is -- there is three lanes into the drive through; right? Or there is three exits, like emergency -- Watson: That's correct. This city requires an escape lane for a drive through over believe a hundred feet or a certain number of feet. So, that third lane all the way around is to provide an escape lane. So, we will be right -- provide drive through services all the way around through the inner two lanes and the outer lane will be as an escape lane for any cars that might have gotten stuck in the drive through. Rivera: I also was going to question where the trash, you know, is located, but he -- Commissioner Smith already addressed that. But I -- I personally am in favor of the -- having the flow of traffic go both ways, you know, instead of just one way, just to -- or the flow to be easier in my opinion and also I also am in favor of having more parking spaces than not. I would rather see better compared to some of the other businesses at The Village, like better lighting in the parking lot, like -- like these -- like now in the fall where it gets dark earlier, you know, the -- right there there is no necessarily pedestrian, you know, straight to the store, but it gets dark and I think that's more dangerous than -- than -- I just don't feel other people following the pedestrian walkway, I would rather have more parking spots, but I would rather have better lighting than -- than adding that, but just something that I don't -- I don't see right here how much light is going to be there, but I do like the two way -- have the lane be two way and, then, have more parking spaces than -- than that. But other than that I think -- and I say that because I think the -- the stacking is deep enough compared to some of the other stores where it was just probably not too -- not doable to add more, but I think it's deep enough and -- for the -- for this -- for this section right here and this area right here. Watson: Thank you, Commissioner Rivera. We appreciate that. The lighting as shown on here -- it's just a little bit difficult to see and it's not highlighted, but we do have two lights at the first -- the first island kind of south of the center -- of the center drive aisle. F27 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission November 16,2023 Page 25 of 46 Another light in the center of the next island to the -- to the east and, then, a light as well and, then, if you go south they just -- they are kind of small in there and they are difficult to see, but we absolutely -- it's one of -- one of the things that we do as we are doing a construction site is go through -- we look at our photometric and we make sure an address if any of the foot candles look too low in an area, especially around the drive through and around the corners of the drive through where vehicles are going through, there is areas that can get missed and so we double check all of those to make sure that -- that we have really provided really good lighting, because you got to be able to see and same -- same in the parking lot. So, we are -- we are right there with you. Rivera: Yeah. It's just hard to tell right there. Watson: They are difficult. Rivera: I'm sure you guys have addressed it, but I think strong good better lighting than preferred more parking spaces and better lighting for -- for you like when it gets dark really -- really early. Watson: Thank you. Smith: Any other questions of the applicant or staff from Commissioners? All right. will, then, move on to public testimony. Is there anyone -- you can be seated. Anyone signed up? Lomeli: No one signed up in person and I do not have a hand raised online. Smith: Anyone in the audience like to come and testify? Seeing none. Okay. The applicant -- would you like to -- is there anything you would like to come back up in closing or anything like that? Wright: Again in closing I just want to thank you all. I want to thank all the effort staff has put in and worked with us to present a plan. You know, I think one of the Commissioners mentioned earlier the concerns over the previous Chik-Fil-A Meridian. We learned from our lessons, we get better with each one, and this site is -- it's a nice big site, we have addressed traffic concerns, parking concerns. We are trying to continue to get better as we develop and we are very excited to have this second Chik- Fil-A coming in Meridian. So, thank you again for your time and appreciate all your concerns. Smith: Thank you. Any other Commissioners have questions? I have one additional one at the end -- if you want to go for it? Rivera: No, I -- I'm good. Smith: Okay. Sorry. Any other questions from other Commissioners? F28 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission November 16,2023 Page 26 of 46 Stoddard: I don't have any questions. Smith: All right. My question is -- and I guess this is a question of fellow Commissioners, as well as the applicant. I just want to make sure we are all on the same page before we close the public hearing -- around what the specific asks are for the items in the staff report. Especially, if anyone is planning on making a motion. Rivera: Are there -- sorry, Commissioners. Under -- on the adjustments requested by the applicant, I guess to staff are there any of those -- you know, the 2-C, condition 6, 2- B, are any of those out of -- you know, are they all like doable for in the eyes of staff and meeting our, you know, plan or -- Hersh: Mr. Chair, Commissioners, so the ones that were -- they were asking to remove staff had put those as conditions, so that would be actually your decision whether or not you wanted to keep them in or agree with the applicant to remove them or change them in some other form or way and I believe they were removing 2-C and was it 2-B? I don't actually have the staff report in front of me, but -- Smith: That is my understanding. Watson: Yeah. Would you like me to go through specifically our revisions? Starman: Yeah. That would be helpful if you would. And for our planning staff, Stacy in particular, I -- as the applicant goes through and just kind of summarizes the request, I do think there was agreement amongst staff and the applicant relative to at least a couple of these -- I think it was items -- or conditions six and seven. So, maybe you can make a note of that along the way, so we can -- for the Commission's benefit we can distinguish what is -- whether it's agreement and whether it's not agreement. Watson: Great. So, the first one I mentioned was Condition 2-C and we asked that the -- the Commission remove Condition 2-C. For Condition 2-B, I believe that planning staff already kind of concurred that we have provided the signage required and the striping required for -- for safety on the site. So, we have requested just a revision in that condition, so that it's a little more clear to remove the word additional from the beginning of this -- the condition and just say signage and parking lot striping is required throughout the site to efficiently and adequately direct patrons to the menu boards and throughout the site with minimal conflict as shown on the approved site plan. Hersh: Mr. Chair, Commissioners, staff is good with that. Smith: All right. Rivera: That's 2-B; right? Smith: That was 2-B. Yeah. 29 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission November 16,2023 Page 27 of 46 Watson: Condition six is regarding a -- I believe we already had -- we concur with staff on this one as well, that to adjust condition six to read: Submit a property boundary adjust -- adjustment to combine all three properties into one party -- or property. I will not list each parcel, but remove prior to submitting for the certificate of zoning compliance and change that to prior to issuance of building permits. Hersh: Mr. Chair, Commissioners, staff is good with that. Watson: Conditions seven as well I think we already have reached agreement with staff. But we have asked to strike the first sentence on condition seven, just to make it more clear that there will be no more changes that require elevations and just state final design is required to comply with the adopted TM Crossing design guidelines. And, finally, condition 2-G, we have requested that the first sentence of condition 2-G be removed, so that it reads: The pedestrian walkways from the perimeter sidewalk to the main building entrance shall be distinguished from the vehicular driving surface through the use of pavers, excuse me, colored or scored concrete or bricks as set forth in UDC 11-3A-19BAB. Smith: All right. Thank you. Any other questions from Commissioners? Seeing none, will take a motion to close the public hearing. Grace: So moved. Stoddard: So moved. Second. Smith: I have a motion and a second. All in favor, please, say aye. Opposed? I didn't actually hear anyone from Zoom. Could you say aye if you -- thank you. Aye as well. Any opposed? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. THREE ABSENT. Smith: So, I will just kind of give my thoughts on this. I mean I kind of discussed it a bit already. I think I would slightly prefer seeing that to be a -- a one way in that filing regarding the 2-C request. I'm not -- you know, I -- there is just -- seeing it implemented elsewhere I just don't think it's a great design and I think there is better opportunities. I also would agree with Commissioner Grace that if the concern is peak hours and it's going to be designated that way during peak hours, it seems like that would actually make the most sense anyway to reduce confusion. But I'm less concerned about that one as I am concerned with the request on 2-G. I -- I really do feel that there is a need for better pedestrian safety and better pedestrian interconnectivity within this -- or I guess just not inter -- pedestrian connectivity within this parking lot. Just -- you know, having -- having gone to Chik-Fil-A with nieces, nephews, young kids, with elderly family, you know, parking lots even -- even well designed parking lots -- even, you know, really great designed parking lots can be huge risk areas for those folks and I think the -- I would disagree with the idea that enhancing pedestrian safety with a walkway would create more opportunity for conflicts I -- I personally -- and, again, F30 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission November 16,2023 Page 28 of 46 whoever makes the motion is allowed to make the motion as they desire, but I really would -- would like to see that walkway required. I think the five -- they are already pretty significantly exceeding parking requirements and that is the updated parking requirements. Sorry. I think they -- it looks like they -- they are going to have a good amount of parking here and so I don't know what the -- you know, the net cost to the operator in terms of, you know -- clientele would be for that parking issue, but I do know that, you know, if you can reduce the risk for pedestrians with a pretty -- pretty simple fix I think that's worth it. So, that's -- that's just kind of my thoughts there. But I will leave it up to rest of the Commission if anyone has any discussion or thoughts. Parsons: Mr. Chair, before we get too deep into your deliberations, you know, the applicant testified we have a pretty good working relationship and I think we could probably find some common ground on that pedestrian connectivity as we move through the CZC and design review process. But I want to be very clear, I think it is important to have something in that parking area for sure. Looking at their site design it looks like some of their planter islands are larger than what code requires, so I think if we were just to finesse their site design a little bit more I think we would probably lose less parking than what they think, if you would maybe potentially think about modifying the condition. I don't know how specific it is, because I don't have the staff report either, but at the same time just maybe add that they continue to work with staff on addressing the pedestrian circulation with the CZC process and allow us to continue to build on relationships and make sure that we get that adequately addressed. I think that would -- I think that gives them some flexibility. It gets them moving along, gets them under -- you know, gets them in front of staff again to try to make sure that we do get something else -- another pedestrian connection out there in that central parking area, because again, as this -- as Kurt mentioned, you know, it's -- the code isn't black and white, it doesn't say thou shalt do this, it says provide safe pedestrian and so that's where all of us are working together to make sure that happens and so that's where Stacy and I came up with our recommendation, felt that it was important enough here to do that, just because the amount of trips this type of business generates, we know there is going to be a lot of people at this facility, so we want to make sure we get it right as well. Smith: Thank you. I guess to that extent I think maybe something like tweaking -- to strike the words middle of the -- and the front of the -- in the first sentence to read incorporate a pedestrian walkway from the easternmost parking area through the parking lot leading to the building to facilitate safe pedestrian access, that might leave room for, you know, finagling that through the parking lot, however you want, but ensuring that that connectivity is the same. I agree, I would really like to see something there. Whether it's a question of -- of code requirements, if it's already in compliance or just on kind of good policy grounds, I think that is one that I feel really strongly about. There does need to be something there. Parsons: And, Mr. Chair, on the -- the elevation requirement that was brought up, the applicant is correct, the -- the say is by the terminal crossing design review. There is a process for them to go through. Again, this is a conditional use permit. So, again, we can impose certain things that we want to see and so I had Stacy bring up this graphic, 31 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission November 16,2023 Page 29 of 46 because I don't think we are talking about a huge significant change to their elevation. If you look at this rendering here you can see under the one parapet there they have their signage and they have a nice cap on top of the ridge line there. It looks like it's the southwest corner of the building there. All we are saying is say take that same treatment and do that on the farther edge of the building there to break up the roof line. That's all we wanted to see. So, hopefully, the applicant can -- can see that we are just trying to get a little bit more architectural detailing on a prominent roadway, which is Ten Mile Road, just like Jon Wardle wants for the development, so it -- to me it was a minimal ask to have that cap added to that corner. Again, it's -- it's -- it's in your purview, but we just -- I just want to let you know where staff was coming from on -- on that particular requirement. Smith: All right. Any other questions -- or not questions. Comments, discussion from other Commissioners? Grace: Yeah, Mr. -- Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask a few if I could. Smith: Okay. Commissioner Grace. Grace: Sure. So, I want to thank the applicant and I appreciate their -- all the work they have done on -- on this and building a good relationship with the city and recognizing the challenges maybe that we have had with the -- I guess the first Chik-Fil-A in Meridian. So, I do want to thank them. I -- I guess I feel less strongly about the pedestrian walkway than I did the -- the requests for 2-C regarding the -- the one way north access point. I like staff's comment. I think about 2-G with regard to maybe having the applicant work -- continue to work with staff to sort of finesse and address the pedestrian circulation. So, I think if the applicant is good with that that might be a good solution there. Let me just speak to 2-C a little bit. As I understand that, the entire fire lane is not changing into -- into a -- or strike that. The city's not asking that the entire fire lane change into a one way directional, but rather that that north access point is only an entrance -- entrance and if that's correct -- if it's not someone -- someone throw a shoe at me and tell me I'm wrong, but if it's -- if that's correct, then, I think that's a good -- an important point, that they are just asking that that be an entrance access point. I really would like to avoid traffic cones and other temporary measures as much as we could. I do appreciate that the operator is going to be mindful and probably will make good decisions -- safe decisions. I get that. I don't think that off peak is going to be as big a deal as -- as maybe is -- is represented. I think most of those vehicles are going to exit that -- that drive through and go out the south most -- south -- south most exit. I think we are talking about a handful of parking spaces towards the north where they will have a little further to go to get to that -- maybe that middle access point and so I don't want to get this wrong again either and I don't think it's an unreasonable request by staff. So, I guess I -- that's a long winded way of saying I just feel a little more strongly about 2-C like where maybe we are heading with 2-G and I was -- you know, I'm glad, obviously, that there appears to be some agreement on six and seven -- conditions six and seven and 2-B I guess I don't have a problem with striking the word additional there. So, I don't know if we can all agree on the different requests. I'm not 32 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission November 16,2023 Page 30 of 46 sure who is going to write and say this motion, but that's sort of where I'm at with the requested changes. Smith: Yeah. Commissioner Grace, I would say that I'm probably in agreement with kind of where you are coming from. I think you are -- what you are good with on G is kind of where I'm okay there. I think something being there is adequate terminology for staff to work with the applicant through and ensuring there is some connectivity. I also, you know, thank you for -- for pointing out the entrance only kind of language there. It actually does seem that -- if you were to pull up a map of the site that the trash refuse removal truck could come through the bottom entrance, collect the trash and, then, loop back out that bottom exit through the -- through the drive aisle. So, it does seem like that would be feasible. Sorry. I guess the only question is to staff if having that entrance only, if that requires some amount of space for it to be one way or if there is some requirement in code. Kurt, if you could speak to that as well or if anyone knows if there is any requirements that that being entrance only also does, as a consequence, require that some strip be one way only. There is -- Hersh: Mr. Chair, Commissioners, they could angle their parking on the north, so that the drive aisle was condensed smaller, but there isn't anything in code that says that it needs to shrink and particularly in size. Smith: There is no -- there is no requirements past -- you know, past the entry only -- other than that there is no requirements on the -- the drive aisle being one way only for any period of length or anything like that? Hersh: No. Smith: Okay. Just wanted to confirm. Thank you. Commissioner Grace, I'm -- I think I'm around to kind of where you are at as well on this. If that helps when seeking to make a motion. Any other Commissioners have thoughts? Would anyone like to make a motion or -- Rivera: I think I'm -- clarification on 2-G to work with applicant and staff to create something -- to reduce maybe the planters or the reduction of those islands to come up with some kind of a mutual agreement with a safety walkway. I -- I am on board with that for sure. I still don't see that the -- on the 2-C it will be just that aisle leads into the entry of the -- of the drive through. Is that what we are proposing only as one -- as one way? Hersh: Mr. Chair, Commissioner Rivera, yes. It's just the north drive aisle that goes directly into the drive through lanes. Rivera: So, in between those that -- on that one aisle that leads into the -- into Intervention Way. There is -- there is one, two, three. So, all those cars that are in between -- if they go out that way they are going to have to make a left. They can't go F33] Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission November 16,2023 Page 31 of 46 right. They are all going to have to make a left and, then, loop all the way around to exit. If they -- they are heading that way; right? Hersh: That is correct. Smith: To clarify, if I'm -- what we are speaking to is -- is it doesn't need to be one way there, it's just you can't exit out of that direction. So, if you are coming out -- if you are at the -- in the drive aisle nearest -- I keep reading the name of the road as Innovation. If your nearest Innovation, yeah, you would have to turn left. If you were closer to the Chik-Fil-A you could theoretically turn right to get down to those other drive aisles -- Rivera: And turn right in -- Smith: And turn, you know, out on any -- of those two -- the two bottom exits. It would be my understanding and correct me if I'm wrong from -- from what I was asking of staff is it seems like you could -- it's not a one way, it's just you can't exit out of that -- that location. Rivera: Right. But it's still one way from the entry all the way through. That entire aisle still is just one way. Smith: It would be one way up until -- up until the end of that landscaping buffer essentially, because that's the only direction -- you could still go out toward Innovation as long as you are not planning to exit that. You could go -- yeah, if you want to follow the cursor you could go out to Innovation and turn right in that drive aisle before Innovation and go down there. There is nothing in code preventing it from being two way, just as long as people aren't exiting that one driveway -- Rivera: The one on the very top. Smith: The one on the very top. Right. So, it would -- it could still theoretically have that flexibility, it's just the only point is that point of entry or exit and it's not a requirement of one way or two way through that entire top drive aisle, it's just that kind of small space there. Rivera: Right. And is that -- the recommendation for that is because we -- we -- we fear that the congestion is going to be backed up. Hersh: Mr. Chair, Commissioner Rivera, yes, people coming from the south to the north trying to exit that way -- or if they are parked here pulling out trying to exit while there is multiple people trying to go through the drive through, it could create some type of conflict is what we are seeing. Rivera: I just -- I just think it's -- it's -- it causes more confusion if we have it one way for cars coming up and I think the driveway -- it's deep enough in 37 -- the queue is quite deep, but -- 34 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission November 16,2023 Page 32 of 46 Grace: Mr. Chairman, can I add a comment? I don't want to interrupt Commissioner Rivera, but he made me think about something. Smith: Mr. Rivera, are you -- Rivera: Yeah. Go ahead. Grace: Yeah. You know, you make a good point and, again, if -- if all we are saying is that the entrance way there has got to be one way, but the entire lane can be both ways, I kind of feel like what's the point? I mean if there are going to be cars going east in that lane, but they always -- they can go as far as that last, you know, lane going south, but they can't exit, so they got to go down that last lane going south, we are still creating a -- you know, we are still creating a log jam there. I guess, you know, you make a good point and I -- I wasn't seeing that until maybe this landscape plan map came up where I could see this a little better. I don't know that we -- I don't know that we -- we gain anything. I don't know. What do you think, if we just say, yeah, you can go east all the way, but you just can't exit, does that -- and during peak hours does that really help when -- when there is a lot of cars coming in to the drive through heading west? I don't know. Smith: Yeah. Commissioner Grace, it -- I think to me it -- that that's why I don't feel super strongly about this. It's kind of like I wish I could wave a magic wand and just make it better, but it seems like all of the -- the solutions that -- it's all trade-offs in one way or another and so I think, you know, it's -- it's really -- if we were to require that would the operator -- I mean it seems like the operator would likely probably want to just make it one way, but that would kind of be up to them it seems. Grace: Yeah. I can see, Mr. Chairman, the operator putting cones right -- you know, I can't -- I can't show you, because I can't point to anything, but I can see them blocking that lane off. Right there. Yes. And it -- and when you are coming into the drive through can you get to that south most lane if there are cars exiting there? I have a feeling he's going to block that off anyway. So, I hate to -- I hate to go full circle on every one right here during the meeting, but I guess this is why we have these meetings, but I'm wondering what the value is of saying you can go all the way, but you can't exit. Smith: Yeah. Commissioner Grace, I think you are right, the more I'm thinking about it. I think -- like I said, I still probably am slightly in favor of it kind of being one way there, but -- so I don't feel super strongly about it, so I'm fine with -- Grace: If you made the whole lane one way I'm with you, but that's not what the city -- that's not what staff recommended and I don't want to -- I probably don't want to go that far. Smith: Mr. Rivera, do you have discussion? F35] Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission November 16,2023 Page 33 of 46 Rivera: No. Like I said, we have -- you know, the other two -- both ways. I just don't see why we have all three of them, you know. Like I said, I think it's going to cause more congestion if we go out that way and you can only make a right -- you can only make a left. Parsons: Yeah. Mr. Chair, staff's recommendation is the entire drive lane be one way, not just that entrance. So, if there was any confusion we apologize, but that's not the intent of the condition. But you do bring up -- I mean all of this -- that's why we brought it up, because, again, we -- we know how busy it is. We know the conflict point. It's just when we see the northern drive aisle and how you have to jog to the left to get into the farthest most -- the closest drive through lane, that's where we see the conflict right there is now if that's backed up and cars are going to try to weave out around it -- a bunch of cars that are stacking there, I'm not saying it's going to be stacked up all the time, you are absolutely right, it's not going to -- and with the amount of the stacking they have, this is probably more than I have seen on any drive in Meridian. So, again, it's hard to say whether it will work or not, but we just have to point out those conflict points and to me that's the conflict. But to your point, if you go one way, then, you create other conflicts, because the people backing out of the employee parking -- how are they -- now we are forcing them to enter the traffic that's also trying to get into the drive through and they have to try to weave in and out of traffic where they could be blocked or to your point, then, what if it goes the wrong way and, then, we still have openings into the parking -- to the central parking area from that one-way drive aisle, which will -- again, people that want to back out of their spacing in order to exit out on north, now they can't, because it's one way, now they have got to do a three point turn and try to go the other way to get out of the site. So, again, there is a -- there is -- there is ways to design this and make it work, but, again, when we met with the applicant we asked them to put planter islands and block it all off and do all of those things to try to minimize those impacts and they did not want to do that. They wanted to come forward with this design that you see tonight. Again, we tried to isolate that parking completely from the exit and entrance lanes of that drive through, so that everything would be walled off and you had one entrance point off Innovation Lane and everyone exited from that parking area out of that central area, so you did not have those complex, but that's the only way that I could see this functioning. If we wanted to -- in a perfect world that's -- that's how we had kind of communicated to the applicant and I still think what they are showing here and based on how they are going to operate it still could function what you see tonight. It's just depending on whether or not you have that comfort level moving forward with this conditional use permit. Rivera: As you can see that whole north parking lot -- parking spaces on -- on the north being angled parking when you come in. So, then, when they can pull it out you can try to go to this; right? You have to go out that way and that way it will leave -- and leaving the two things like this, but have that whole north be angled parking. So, you come in like that instead of -- Parsons: And that will require -- that we will lose some parking, because that's a little bit different dimensional standards there and -- but -- 36 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission November 16,2023 Page 34 of 46 Rivera: Right. But I rather -- Parsons: That does minimize some of that back out across -- Rivera: Right. That way we start stack -- Parsons: Absolutely. Rivera: Right that way -- I would rarely lose a couple of parking spots there, but you don't have people trying to back out and go this way and it's causing a traffic jam. Grace: So, can I -- Mr. Chairman, can I just get clarity from the Bill maybe? So, you were saying with that condition 2-C that that entire lane be one way, not just the entrance and exit area; is that accurate? Parson: Yeah. Mr. Chair, Commissioners, that's accurate. That's just not the entrance. It was -- the whole thing -- double arrows going right into the drive through funneling that, because that's -- that's the driveway into the drive through lane. So, from our standpoint that was the easiest way to minimize the conflict, rather than add a bunch of landscape requirements and have them lose a bunch of different shapes, we were just trying to take -- try to make a quick easy fix, but, like I said, I -- I appreciate the applicant bringing this Kittelson study, because we don't see that very much and we are in the middle of changing drive-through standards, so I may steal this from you and maybe make that a requirement. If you want something different you provide a traffic study or some kind of analysis on how this is going to flow, I would appreciate that. I think you educated me a little bit tonight, so I do -- do appreciate you going through that work to show how your site works. But, again, it's your purview tonight, but, again, I could see definitely conflicts with the trash trucks and all those things that were brought up for sure. So, again, I like the suggestion of the angled parking. I think that minimizes some of the conflicts for at least the employees that want to get out of there, if there is some staking there, at least they can merge a little easier and not have to worry about having such a tight turn or area to get out of the parking space. It's a shorter radius to get out. Rivera: Yeah. I think that customers and employees, you know -- Grace: Mr. -- Mr. Chairman, one question for staff if they -- if they know. If the operator operated the site for a certain amount of time and, then, said, you know what, I would rather make that one way and install signs and whatnot, could we do that? Is there -- is there a process we could go through to -- I assume there is, but I just would like to put that on the record if we could. Hersh: Mr. Chair, Commissioner Grace, yes, they could apply for a certificate of zoning compliance to make the changes. They would be small. Grace: I don't want to take away the ability for someone to manage properly the property, you know. He might say to his employees, look, if you are going to be getting F37 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission November 16,2023 Page 35 of 46 off shift at 6:30, 7:00 o'clock on Friday night I wouldn't park there, you know, I -- they are going to manage -- he is going to want to give them the ability to operate and manage it and -- you know. So, I don't want to take that away. So, I guess -- yeah, I can -- it's either all or nothing, if that whole lane is blocked -- is one way or it's not and, you know, I -- I would rather err on the side of giving people the freedom to do what they -- what they think is best. Smith: Yeah. Commissioner Grace, I think I'm -- I'm being swayed that direction as well. If it helps. Yeah. It's just a tough little spot and I'm sure if this is blocked off there is probably trade-offs there that arise as well. So, I'm kind of a shrug on this -- this -- at this point. Yeah. Anyone like to make a motion? Grace: So, Mr. Chairman, if I could -- I don't know -- I know we are probably not supposed to take like straw votes and polls and things, but I just want to make sure -- we seem to be good on the -- I saw five requests for revision of the -- of the conditions. We seem to be good on number -- revision number six. Revision number 2-B. We seem to be all maybe sounding like in favor of 2-G, you know, adding some language to continue to work with staff. I think maybe we will wait until someone makes the motion, but I think we maybe have reached resolution on 2-C of -- at least in my mind of granting that request. And, then, number seven, it was a request to strike the first sentence. I felt like given staff comment about that by leaving in the second sentence, we are going to accomplish with staff why, which is, you know, the final design is required to comply with the -- with the guidelines. I feel like we will be heading there for the applicant to work with staff or make sure it does comply. So, I was comfortable personally with seven -- striking the first sentence. So, again, I don't want to speak for anyone, but that's -- if I make a motion I wanted to make sure that's sort of where we were. Smith: Commissioner Grace, I will check with staff to confirm on that revision number seven at least. Is that the opinion of staff that will be accomplished? Hersh: Mr. Chair, Commissioners, so that is up to the Ten Mile design review board to approve that. We had made a suggestion and that's actually up to the applicant if they would like to add something more or if the design -- Ten Mile guide design review board wants them to add something, but ultimately it's their approval. Smith: Okay. Thank you. Commissioner Rivera, it seemed like you had some feedback. Rivera: No. I just wanted to also clarify that. Smith: Okay. Rivera: Number seven to see that was -- F38] Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission November 16,2023 Page 36 of 46 Smith: Yeah. So, in light of that, Commissioner Grace, I think I'm spot on with that. The only thing I would like to just -- if you could keep in there in G that working with staff to find some pedestrian access, including language that that access is meant to go through the parking lot and have kind of some sidewalk way, whether -- whether that goes, you know, through the middle or, you know, through some other location, that would be -- that -- if -- if the applicant wants to speak when we reopen the public hearing. Starman: I'm sorry. So, we can't take any more testimony. We have closed the public hearing. My apologies. No, we are done with public comment. Thank you. So, the public hearing portion is closed. So, the Commission will deliberate and make its motion. If it's not clear we can work with you from the staff perspective or otherwise. Smith: But, yeah, that's kind of where I'm at, just ensuring that -- and I -- I appreciate these -- the applicant. I'm not insinuating anything about trying to circumvent the desire of the Commission, but I guess what I'm getting at is making it clear that it's meant to go through the parking lot, rather than like a quick, you know, connection out to Innovation and, then, around to that other path. I would like for it to be somewhat of a -- kind of straight -- not straight shot unnecessarily, but from the edge of the parking lot to the Chik-Fil-A rather than around. But that's the only thing that I would kind of maybe tweak or add in there, just to clarify that that's the intention, but -- any other Commissioners have thoughts or feedback? Commissioners? Or if anyone would like to make a motion. Grace: Mr. Chairman, I will try. Smith: We will -- we will appreciate you for the effort. Grace: I make no promises. So, after considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to approve File No. H-2023-0054 as presented in the staff report for hearing date of November 16th, 2023, with the following modifications: To strike the staff Condition 2-B. So, to strike -- excuse me -- 2-C. To strike staff condition 2-C in the report. To strike the word additional in 2-B. Thirdly, to strike the first sentence in 2-G. However -- but instruct the applicant to continue to work with staff to address the pedestrian circulation. To strike in condition six language that indicates the applicant needs to submit the property boundary adjustment prior to submitting the certificate of zoning compliance. So, strike the condition that it needs to be prior to submitting the zoning -- the certificate of zoning compliance. That's number four. And, finally, strike the first sentence in condition number seven related to the conceptual elevations and I think that is it, if I got those correct. Smith: I have a motion. Do I have a second? Rivera: I think on -- just to clarify, Commissioner Grace, condition number six is to remove that and, then, change it to -- to read prior to issuance of -- of occupancy of -- like certificate of occupancy of moving in; correct? And that would -- F39] Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission November 16,2023 Page 37 of 46 Starman: Mr. Chairman and Commissioners, I was going to make a similar comment. The applicant's suggestion was to be prior to the issuance of a building permit. So, that would -- may be your trigger event. Instead of certificate of zoning compliance it would be issuance of a building permit. Rivera: Yeah. Hersh: Mr. Chair and Commissioners, that's correct. Grace: So, if I can amend that motion with respect to the requested change to item six -- condition six that should read submit the property boundary adjustment, et cetera, prior to submission of -- did you say building permit? Starman: Yes. Correct. Grace: Then that's how that would read. Starman: Maybe instead of submitting it would be issuance of. Prior to issuance -- Grace: Prior to the issuance of a building permit. Rivera: I will second the motion. Smith: All right. It's been moved and seconded. All those in favor, please, say aye. Seeing none opposed the motion passes. Thank you very much. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. THREE ABSENT. 4. Public Hearing for Crowley Park Subdivision (H-2023-0053) by Riley Planning Services, located at 4135 W. Cherry Ln. A. Request: Annexation of 1.002 acres of land with an R-8 zoning district. B. Request: Combined Preliminary/Final Plat consisting of 4 residential building lots and 1 common lot (including one existing home to remain). Smith: With that I would like to lastly thank you all for your patience in the audience. would like to open up Item No. H-2023-0053 for Crowley Park Subdivision. We will begin with the staff report. Hersh: Alrighty. Moving on to Crowley Park Subdivision. The applicant is here to present their project. The application submitted is annexation and preliminary plat. The site consists of 1.002 acres of land, zoned R-1 in Ada county, located at 4135 West Cherry Lane. There is no history on the property. The Comprehensive Plan FLUM F40 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission November 16,2023 Page 38 of 46 designation is medium density residential and the summary of the request from the applicant is annexation of one -- again, a little over an acre of land with an R-8 zoning district, preliminary plat consisting of four residential building lots, including one existing home to remain and one common lot. The subject property is an enclave surrounded by existing single family residential homes. The site abuts an R-8 development to the west. To the south. To the east is an R-4 development and to the north R-2, R-4 for developments. The subject property is designated as medium density residential in the future land use map, consistent with the approved development to the west. The applicant proposes, again, a four lot subdivision for single family residential detached home and one single family detached home at a gross density of 3.99 units an acre, which is with the -- within the desired density range for the medium density residential designation. A legal description of the annexation and exhibit map where this is included, the property is within the -- the city's area of city impact boundary. A preliminary plat and conceptual building elevations were -- were submitted showing how the property is proposed to be subdivided and developed. The proposed lots range in size from 5,148 to 9,524 square feet. The subdivision is proposed -- proposed to develop in one phase. The proposed plat and subsequent development are required to comply with the dimensional standards in the UDC table for the R-8 zoning district. The plat appears to comply with the standards in the district, except for the front porch on the existing home, which encroachers a little more than two feet in the required setbacks. Per the UDC lots taking access from a common drive do not require street frontage. Access to the property is proposed from Cherry Lane from a common driveway on Lot 1, Block 1. Direct access from Cherry Lane for Lot 2, Block 1 , is prohibited. Interior Lots 3, 4, 5 at Block 1 are proposed to take access to via the common drive, meeting the -- those requirements in the UDC. Common driveway shall serve a maximum of four dwelling units. In no case shall three -- more than three dwelling units be located on one side of the driveway. The applicant is proposing four dwelling units take access off the main common drive. All four dwelling units are located on one side of the driveway. However, three dwelling units are taking access via a side common driveway that connects to the main common driveway. The director has determined -- determined that the proposed orientation of the dwelling -- of the units off the side of common drive meets the intent of the UDC code. Off-street parking is required to be provided in accordance with the UDC for single family dwellings based on the number of bedrooms per unit. Staff will confirm compliance with these standards at the time of building permit submittal for each residence. The applicant has provided an additional three parking stalls at the end of the common drive on the southeast side of the site for overflow parking. The existing home does not meet the required number of off-street parking spaces per the UDC for a three bedroom home. Four parking spaces are required. At least two in an enclosed garage. Other spaces may be enclosed or a minimum ten foot by 20 foot parking pad. The existing home does not have an enclosed two car garage. However, the required number of parking spaces is provided via an existing carport and driveway. The applicant is proposing to enclose the carport on the northwest side with a material that matches the existing house. The carport shares a roof line with the existing home and is currently accessed from the west. Access to the carport will change to the south upon approval and completion of the subdivision site improvements once the entry point -- point to the carport is shifted to the F41 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission November 16,2023 Page 39 of 46 south and the common drive is constructed. The applicant is also proposing to add a fence to provide additional screening from the carport from West Cherry Lane. The existing home is recognized as nonconforming due to the off-street parking requirements in the UDC. Per the UDC no existing structure containing a nonconforming use may be enlarged, extended, constructed, reconstructed, moved or structurally altered, except through approval of a conditional use permit -- permit. As a result of the nonconformity the applicant is required to apply for a conditional use permit for any future expansions on the property. There are -- there is -- a 25 foot landscape buffer is required along West Cherry Lane in accordance with the UDC. The landscape plan submitted depicts a 20 foot landscape buffer along West Cherry Lane that includes four existing trees. The applicant is proposing a water conserving design aimed to reduce the landscape buffer to 20 feet in width. However, the proposed design lacks features, like boulders, rocks or permeable hardscape material, such as pavers and flagstones and water conserving grasses. The design should incorporate plants and trees that thrive in climates with approximately ten to 12 inches of annual rainfall. Staff recommends that the applicant revise the landscape plan to comply with the requirements for the water conserving design in accordance with the UDC. Cherry Lane is currently improved with an existing seven foot wide attached concrete sidewalk abutting the site in accordance with the UDC standards. Staff is not recommending that the sidewalk be replaced. Utilities connection to city and water, sewerage and services is required in accordance with the UDC. The existing home is proposed to remain on Lot 2, Block 1, is required to connect to city water and services within 60 days of becoming available. Street lighting is also required to be installed in accordance with the city's adopted standards specifications and ordinance -- ordinances. All fencing is required to comply with the standards and the applicant is proposing fencing in front of the carport for screening, provided there is not a conflict with the layout of the fire hydrant services. A detail of the fencing should be provided with the final plat and the pressurized irrigation system -- the underground pressurized irrigation water is required to be provided to each lot within the subdivision as set forth within the UDC. Given that the property possesses irrigation rights and access surface rights -- should be used as a primary source over the groundwater well in accordance with the regulations of Settlers Irrigation District. Settlers Irrigation District does not permit the exclusion of water rights to the subject parcel. The building elevations. Three conceptual building elevations were submitted that demonstrate what future homes in this development will look like. Variations of one story homes with three car garages are proposed. The submitted elevations depict a number of different architectural and design styles and field materials of lap siding, different color and access -- accent roof profiles and stone. Currently there is no written testimony on this project and staff recommends approval of the annexation and preliminary plat subject to the conditions in the staff report and that concludes staff's presentation and I stand for any questions. Smith: Would the applicant like to come up? Constantikes: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Commissioners. For the record Penelope Constantikes representing the property owner Luke Gilbert. My address is Post Office Box 405, Boise, Idaho. 83701. As you know the application is for annexation, zoning F42 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission November 16,2023 Page 40 of 46 and a preliminary plat and it's -- as you know, four detached single family residences with one existing and three new building lots and future homes. And it is consistent with the surrounding residential development. The proposed density as provided in the staff report is 3.99 units per acre and it does provide a variety of lot sizes. One access point to West Cherry Lane is proposed and has been approved by ACHD. Two of the homes face north with the access from the north. One home faces south with access from the south and one home faces north with access from the east. We are reducing the landscape buffer by 20 percent to allow retention of the front porch area and we will be using the water reducing -- water conserving landscape plan ordinance that staff has already referenced. We have reviewed both the Meridian and the ACHD staff reports and are in agreement with the findings and conclusions. The engineer and I met with Public Works for detailed discussions recently about the best location for the water lines, the hydrant service line and sewer service with required easements. The outcome of the meeting was that the hydrant will be located at the northeast corner or near the northeast corner of the site with the benefit of being able to hopefully preserve the two mature trees that are along the Cherry Lane frontage. Just a few highlights. Crowley Park will add three additional p.m. peak hour trips to West Cherry Lane, which is not very many. The site layout includes three guest parking spaces, as staff has already indicated and I believe we may possibly be able to add a few more at the west and of the fire turnaround area. We will check on that as we move through the process. Pedestrian access to West Cherry Lane is -- will be provided along the west side of the existing residents to keep that access away from vehicle access. A streetlight is shown at the northeast corner of the site, although it's a little hard to see. These homes are intended for the middle, which is also frequently referred to as a workforce housing and the middle are essential professionals, such as school teachers, fire departments staff, police and nursing staff. Crowley Park will provide new home options in an existing and mature neighborhood with full-sized trees, which we think is a good thing. The site redesign pairs side yards with existing backyards for the neighbors to the west and the side yards don't get much use and so we thought that this would be a great way to preserve their backyard privacy. I would like to offer some additional details regarding the carport on the existing residence. The carport will be changed as -- as staff has indicated to the south and the north and west sides of the existing carport will be fully clad with siding that will complement the existing residence. From the street it will appear like it's just a garage. The layout for the existing residence includes four parking spaces, two which will be in an enclosed carport and two additional spaces will be provided on the apron area to accommodate two additional parking spaces, which will be a minimum of ten by 20 feet. The landscape plan can now be updated with the water conserving design after our meeting with Public Works and the most -- and that meeting provided us with the most efficient path forward with utility lines and the fire hydrant located in the northeast corner of the site. The fire department is aware of this hydrant change and my understanding is the location will work well for fire emergency services. The change in the location of the water service for the hydrant will allow fencing to screen the west side of the front lot. That was a problem before we changed the waterline location. And there won't be any fencing location -- or, excuse me, any fencing conflict. Like I said, we anticipate that both the mature trees will be retained along the front edge, but we will continue to work with Public Work staff as needed. The F43 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission November 16,2023 Page 41 of 46 project narrative discusses retention of the existing well for site irrigation. The front lot is already irrigated off the well. Surface water delivery in this area is a private lateral, which Settlers Irrigation District does not manage. According to the neighbors this parcel never used surface water. I have tried to contact the water master multiple times with no success, although Settlers has been very helpful. We would like to work with staff on provision of irrigation and the property owner would like to retain the existing well as the irrigation option -- as an irrigation option as it may be needed. With that I would be happy to stand for questions or discussion with the Commission and we respectfully request a recommendation of approval for Crowley Park Subdivision. Thank you for your time and attention. Smith: Commissioners have any questions for the applicant? All right. Grace: Mr. Chairman, can I just get the applicant to clarify -- I probably misheard it, but the comment about the light. Was there a traffic light did you say in the northwest corner or -- can you just clarify that? I was taking notes and I missed that. Hersh: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner, no, it's a streetlight. Grace: Okay. Okay. All right. Thank you. Smith: All right. Thank you. Constantikes: Thank you. Smith: Open up public testimony. Madam Clerk, do we have anyone signed up to speak? Lomeli: We do have -- it looks like five signed up. The first on the list is Sarah Cartwright. Smith: You don't want to -- okay. Can we get the next on the list. Lomeli: Judy Cartwright. Smith Oh, just in support. Okay. Yeah. If you want to come up and -- you can ask a question. That's fine. Cartwright: I'm Judy Cartwright. 4365 West Cherry Lane. The subdivision that went in next to us did not provide a new fence along the whole side and I just wondered if this will have new fencing on both sides? Smith: All right. We have the applicant to come up at the end of testimony. Sorry. Actually, I do have one question. Could you clarify if you are here -- the other names on the list of support or opposition regarding the project? F44 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission November 16,2023 Page 42 of 46 Cartwright: I -- I support it. Is that what you are wondering? Smith: Yes. I just wanted to clarify. Cartwright: I was wondering about the fence. Smith: Yeah. I assumed support, but I figured I would -- for the record that would clarify. Thank you. Lomeli: I have a Bill Crossfield. Coffield? Smith: Just come up and give your name and, then, your address. That would be great. Canfield: Bill Canfield. I live at 4079 West Cherry Lane to the east. I own the property to the east. There is a lateral -- irrigation lateral that feeds off of there. That's what I feed on to. I water my property with that. That actually goes into the back of this existing property that they are going to build. So, I'm just concerned about my water access and everything as far as accessing that. Smith: Okay. Canfield: Plus my -- the fence is on my property. That would be just to the east. That's a wooden -- wooden fence now. I don't know if there is going to be another fence or not. But, anyway, I do approve of this, so -- Smith: Okay. Thank you. That's a question that we can make sure to ask the applicant as well when they come back up. Lomeli: We -- the next on the list is an Esther Burgoyne? I'm sorry I'm pronouncing that -- Burgoyne: Yes. Thank you. Smith: Just get your name and address as well. Grace: Mr. Chairman, can we just get them to speak into the microphone. I'm having a hard time hearing multiple folks. Smith: Absolutely. Grace: Thank you. Burgoyne: So, my name is Esther Burgoyne and I live at 1538 Willow Tree and so I'm right on the west side of -- basically my backyard will be right in the middle of this whole thing and I don't have any problem with the -- with the whole housing and stuff back F45] Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission November 16,2023 Page 43 of 46 there. The only concern I have is there is a tree right on the corner that's existing that the branches and the roots are going right into the fence and under the fence and over the fence and so I think that tree really needs to be either trimmed down or taken out. And, then, the other concern is the fence along the whole way is vinyl on -- on the west side and it's wood fence on the east side and even the vinyl side is really starting to deteriorate at the bottom and so I'm just wondering if all this new construction and stuff going in will harm the fence even more to where, you know, it will like fall apart or anything. But other than those two little items I have no problem at all with the housing coming in. Smith: All right. Thank you very much. Have anyone else signed up to testify? Lomeli: I do have a Sharon Gooding. Smith: Sharon Gooding. Not here. I did see a couple of people leave, so that might have been -- anyone else? Lomeli: No one else. Smith: All right. I think that covered it. Is there anyone else -- sir, if you would like to come testify at all or -- okay. So, would the applicant like to come back up. Constantikes: Mr. Chairman, would you like me to reintroduce myself? Smith: Just your name and address again. Constantikes: Penelope Constantikes. Post Office Box 405, Boise, Idaho. 83701 . I'm not a hundred percent sure where Judy is relative to the project site. Is that something that staff could show me? Smith: Sorry. It could -- unfortunately not -- Starman: First of all, if the applicant is willing to yield some time to -- and, then, if you would reintroduce yourself and, then, if you want to -- thank you. Cartwright: Judy Cartwright. 4365 West Cherry Lane, Meridian, Idaho. 83642. We are R-2 on the map. So, it's not -- it's a ways down, but what I'm saying is I'm just concerned that -- for the people in this new subdivision that they get a new fence, because when the subdivision went in right next to us probably four years ago they left the old fence and it's deteriorated and -- and falling down and I don't want that to happen in this new subdivision. Smith: Thank you. If I could get your name and address that would be great. Thank you, sir. F46 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission November 16,2023 Page 44 of 46 Gilbert: Good evening, everybody. My name is Luke Gilbert at 6245 South Hill Farm Way, south -- south Meridian. As far as the fence goes, it's currently fenced. The fence is in pretty good condition actually. It's a cedar fence pretty well maintained. As we get into the project I haven't yet considered replacing the fence and I'm not saying I'm opposed to it, it's just more -- the fence that we have up currently is cedar, in good condition, relatively well maintained and I think until we get into the project it would be hard for me to commit to that. Smith: Okay. Thank you. Gilbert: Was there anything else -- Smith: I did here -- there were some other questions about tree trim removal and irrigation water access and existing fencing harm. Is there any -- Gilbert: Perfect. Yeah. Well, to the tree trimming piece, the arborist is going to dictate what we can and can't remove. I don't know if this tree falls within a permission to remove. We are going to -- we have -- we have actually taken a couple of bids from arborist on trees on the property, because they are very large trees and they -- they do need some attention over there. We have just been reluctant to move into it before we have permission to do so. So, the trees are on our radar. Smith: Okay. Constantikes: Mr. Chairman, Penelope Constantikes. Post Office Box 405, Boise, Idaho. The gentleman before me is the property owner. The last item that was brought up was water access, I believe, and as we all know Idaho statute prohibits anyone from ever interfering with water delivery. So, the gentleman to our east will -- of course, we will be preserving his water access. We have no reason to disrupt it. So, other than that I think we have covered everything. Are there any other questions that I can answer? Smith: I don't personally have any. Do any other Commissioners have any questions? Rivera: No. Smith: All right. I think -- I think we are good. Thank you. Constantikes: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Smith: With that I will take a motion to close the public hearing. Rivera: I make a motion to close the public hearing. Stoddard: Second. F47 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission November 16,2023 Page 45 of 46 Smith: I have a motion and a second. Can I get all ayes -- or all ayes in favor say aye. Any opposed? All right. Motion passes. Motion carries. Sorry about that. Thanks, folks, for your patience. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. THREE ABSENT. Smith: Any discussion, deliberation? Any thoughts from fellow Commissioners? Grace: Mr. Chairman, I would just say that it's -- you know, we use the term a lot, but it's a little bit of an in-fill project and these are never -- you know -- you know, they are -- they are sort of dictated sometimes by other -- by other factors. So, I get that. I like the idea of their -- sort of their target homeowner and I think that's a great -- you know, to the extent that they have too much control over that. I'm glad there is housing for those -- for those types of folks. It sounds like the -- the trees and the fencing, you know, they are trying to maintain what they can and it sounds like they are going to be sensitive to the concerns of those around them. So, yeah, I am in favor. Smith: Commissioner Rivera. Rivera: I am in agreement with Commissioner Grace and I do -- the main thing here is I do appreciate the owner that's going to be -- as they move forward keep an eye on the fence and -- and the tree removal and making sure that -- that what needs to be done will get done. Smith: I would echo that. It seems like concerns kind of are around -- mostly around -- around kind of marginal stuff, so, you know, it seems like with -- regarding the application itself I think it's -- it's close to as good of an in-fill project we can get in terms of, you know, not being some -- some wonky crazy thing. So, I like the -- like what the -- what the applicant is trying to do here. Just, yeah, with the -- you know, maintaining, you know, a close ear to neighbors and concerns and all that good stuff. I like this a lot. I will take a motion if anyone -- Rivera: I will make a motion here. After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to recommend approval to the City Council of File No. H-2023-0053 as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of November 16th, 2023. Grace: Second. Smith: I have a motion and a second. All those in favor, please, say aye. Any opposed? Motion carries. Thank you very much. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. THREE ABSENT. Smith: All right. It looks like that time of day that I will be looking for one more motion. Rivera: I make a motion to adjourn the meeting. 48 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission November 16,2023 Page 46 of 46 Grace: Second. Smith: Have a motion and a second. All those in favor, please, say aye. Any opposed? Motion carries. Thank you, everyone. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. THREE ABSENT. MEETING ADJOURNED AT 8:35 P.M. (AUDIO RECORDING ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS. ) APPROVED Andy Seal, Chairman 12 17 12023 DATE APPROVED ATTEST CHRIS JOHNSON - CITY CLERK F49