Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
2010 08-19
Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting August 19, 2010 Meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission of August 19, 2010, was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Chairman Michael Rohm. Members Present: Chairman Michael Rohm, Commissioner Joe Marshall, Commissioner Tom O'Brien, Commissioner Scott Freeman and Commissioner Wendy Newton-Huckabay. Others Present: Machelle Hill, Ted Baird, Pete Friedman, Sonya Watters, Bill Parsons, Scott Steckline and Dean Willis. Item 1: Roll-Call Attendance: Roll-call X Wendy Newton-Huckabay X Tom O'Brien X Scott Freeman X Joe Marshall X Michael Rohm -Chairman Rohm: Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. At this time I'd like to call the regularly scheduled meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission to order and begin with the roll call. Item 2: Adoption of the Agenda. Rohm: Okay. At this time I will have the adoption of the agenda and there is one item --one change and there is no Consent Agenda tonight. So, if -- with that change could 1 get a motion to adopt the agenda? O'Brien: So moved. Freeman: Second. Rohm: It's been moved and seconded to adopt the agenda. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 3: Consent Agenda. Rohm: Okay. Good. Before we start our first hearing tonight, I'd like to go through a couple of things that -- just procedural that we use here at the Planning and Zoning Commission. We will open up a hearing and at that time we will ask staff to give their report and, basically, what the staff does is it gives us their assessment of an application as it pertains to the Comprehensive Plan and Unified Development Code and once they have completed their presentation, we will, then, ask the applicant to Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission August 19, 2010 Page 2 of 39 come forward and give their presentation and, basically, it's the applicant's opportunity to provide us with additional information that maybe pertinent to the project itself. Once those two presentations have been completed, then, we will open it up to the public to make comment. After all comments have been made, then, we will close the public hearing and discuss it amongst the Commission and presuming that we have all the necessary information, we will draw conclusions this evening on each proposed project that is before us. Item 4: Public Hearing: CUP 10-006 Request for Conditional Use Permit approval of a daycare center for up to 40 children in an R-8 zoning district for Blairmore Pre-School Daycare by Laurie Gallia - 3150 N. Blairmore: Rohm: So, with that in mind, I'd like to start by opening up public hearing CUP 10-006 for the Blairmore Pre-School Daycare and begin with the staff report. Wafters: Thank you, Chairman Rohm, Members of the Commission. The site consists of .59 of an acre and is zoned R-8. The site is located on the southeast corner of Ustick and Blairmore at 3150 Blairmore. The surrounding area to the east, south and west consists of existing and future residential properties, zoned R-8 and not yet developed commercial property across Ustick zoned C-C. The applicant is requesting a modification to the previous Conditional Use Permit approved for this site that allowed for the operation of a 2,112 square foot daycare center for up to 40 children in an R-8 zoning district. Since the original approval the property has changed ownerghip. For this reason a modification to the Conditional Use Permit is required in accord with UDC 11-5B-6G. The applicant has submitted a site and landscape plan that shows the existing building, access via one ingress and one egress driveway to Blairmore. Parking, play area, and landscaping. The Comprehensive Plan designation for this property is mixed use community, which is consistent with the proposed use and the proposed use is in accord with the UDC with the conditions of approval in Exhibit B of the staff report. This is a photo of the existing structure and there are no outstanding issued for the Commission. Kathryn -- I'm going to slaughter this -- Bovier, the applicant, submitted written testimony in agreement with the staff report. Staff is recommending approval of the Conditional Use Permit modifications with the conditions listed in the staff report. Staff will stand for any questions at this time. Rohm: Thanks very much. Any questions of staff? O'Brien: I have none. Rohm: It sounds very straight forward. Would the applicant like to come forward, please? And, please, state your name and address for the record. Gallia: My name is Laurie Gallia. My address is 4082 Tomigan Place, Star, Idaho. 83669. And we would like to open apre-school daycare for children zero to 12 years of age and that's pretty much it. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission August 19, 2010 Page 3 of 39 Rohm: Okay. And have you had an opportunity to review the staff report? Gallia: Yes. Rohm: And are you in concurrence with it? Gallia: Yes. Rohm: Okay. Thank you. Any questions of the applicant? Freeman: Yes. Is this a new daycare center or just a change of ownership? Gallia: No. We are just a change of ownership. Freeman: Thank you. Rohm: Thank you. Is there anyone else that would like to testify to this application? Just one moment, please. Well, she's just going to go get the sheets, but I, actually, don't think there is anybody that's going to offer up any additional testimony, so would someone like to make a motion to close the public hearing? Freeman: So moved. Newton-Huckabay: Second. Rohm: It's been moved and seconded to close the public hearing on CUP 10-006. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Rohm: Discussion? Marshall: Mr. Chair, seeing how we went through this before and it seemed appropriate and the only difference is change of ownership, I don't see any issues personally. Rohm: I agree. Would you like to make a motion, Commissioner Marshall? Marshall: Well, I was wondering if anybody else had any comments first. It doesn't look like it, so, Mr. Chair, I move that we approve CUP 10-006 as written in the staff report for the date of August 19th, 2010. O'Brien: Second. Rohm: It's been moved and seconded to approve CUP 10-006 to include the staff report. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carried. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission August 19, 2010 Page 4 of 39 MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Rohm: We will have our Findings of Fact and Conclusion of Law at the end of this hearing tonight, which, basically, gives you the permission to move forward if you want to stay for that portion of the project. Item 5: Public Hearing: CUP 10-008 Request for Conditional Use Permit approval of a daycare center for up to 48 children in a C-G zoning district for Bright Start Pre-School by Colette Culp and Heidi Linzbach - 2250 N. Meridian Road: Rohm: Okay. At this time I'd like to open up CUP 10-008 for the Bright Star Pre-School and begin with the staff report. Watters: Chairman Rohm, Members of the Commission, the site before you consists of 1.3 acres and is zoned C-G and RUT in Ada Counth. The site is located at 2250 North Meridian Road on the east side of Meridian between Fairview and Ustick. This site is surrounded by residential property, zoned R-40. A church across Meridian Road to the west, zoned L-O, and commercial Curriculum Cottage to the south, zoned C-C. The application before you is a Conditional Use Permit requesting approval fora 1,796 square foot pre-school facility, which is classified as a daycare center in our Unified Development Code for up to 48 children per day in a C-G zoning district as required by the UDC. The facility will serve three to five year old children with three separate classrooms, offering several different class schedules throughout the day. This is a copy of the site plan and the landscape plan the applicant is proposing. The site plan submitted by the applicant includes a separate parcel of land consisting of .19 of an acre along the south property boundary and I will flip back here and show you which one it is. If you look at the aerial here it's outlined there on the south. It is -- the zoning map depicts it as being zoned RUT in Ada Counth. However, it does have a city tax code and the property owner has been paying city taxes on the property since 1998. Staff is researching this issue further with the assessor's office to determine if an error was made in the original annexation. At this point it doesn't appear that there was, so staff has conditioned that the application -- that the applicant needs to obtain Council approval of an annexation of that portion of the property within one year of approval of this Conditional Use Permit for it to remain valid. The site plan just depicts existing building, parking area, existing trees. Landscape plan shows existing and proposed landscaping for the site and the fenced in play area for the children. The Comprehensive Plan designation for this property is mixed use neighborhood, which is consistent with the proposed use and the proposed use does comply with the Unified Development Code with the conditions in the staff report. These are photos of the existing structure. No additions are proposed. There are no outstanding issues for the Commission. We did receive written testimony in agreement with the staff report from the applicant Colette Culp and staff is recommending approval of the Conditional Use Permit with the conditions in Exhibits B of the staff report. Staff will stand for any questions Commission may have. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission August 19, 2010 Page 5 of 39 Rohm: Thank you very much. Any questions of staff? O'Brien: Not at this time. Rohm: Okay. Good. Would the applicant like to come forward, please. And, please, state your name and address for the record. Culp: I'm Colette Culp. 3924 North Longabaugh Avenue in Meridian, Idaho. Linzbach: And I'm Heidi Linzbach. 4402 North Montelino in Meridian. Rohm: Okay. Thank you. Do you have anything to add to the staff report? Culp: I don't believe we do. We are just apre-school serving three to five year old children. We have mixed class schedules, so the most that will be in the building at a time is 16 children at this point. Rohm: Oh. Okay. Good. Thank you. Any questions of the applicant? Okay. Good. Thank you very much. There is nobody signed up to testify to this application, but if anyone would like to come forward at this time now is the time to be heard. Sciscoe: My name is Cynthia Sciscoe and I live just south -- the house just south and I own Curriculum Cottage right next to -- Rohm: And the address is? Sciscoe: 2210 North Meridian Road. Rohm: Okay. Thank you. Sciscoe: I have no objections to the pre-school at all. My only concern, as I have talked with the property owners, Borup, who I think are the property owners, that little piece of land you're speaking of that's just to the south, that's an irrigation ditch right of way and I'm just wanting to -- my concern is just that that ditch is not covered in. He's talked about landscaping issues and it's just an irrigation ditch that hasn't been kept up and we are having a little bit of a conflict with this not being kept up, but my issue is just that that ditch doesn't get covered over or closed up with the development of the property, so I can still utilize it. Rohm: One of the things that happens with development of any properties in our jurisdiction is irrigation rights continue and are not abdicated by any application. So, your water rights won't go away because of this project moving forward. Sciscoe: Is there somebody that I can talk to about it that can help Mr. Borup understand that, because he's not -- one of the brothers is a little more understanding than the other about just wanting to cover that ditch up, because he's been dealing with Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission August 19, 2010 Page 6 of 39 the property maintenance and having it look nice and it's just a ditch that hasn't been kept up and I think one of them just wants to cover it over. So, is there anybody I can talk to that can help him understand that development? Rohm: Let me ask staff here. Could you elaborate on what the applicant can or cannot do as far as the irrigation ditch that flows through the property? Wafters: Yes. Chairman Rohm, Members of the Commission, our Unified Development Code does require that ditches either be piped that cross the property or that they be improved as a water amenity. If that property owner to the south does have rights to the water in this ditch, then, they will have to make sure that that continues. Sciscoe: Okay. Rohm: Thanks. Wafters: I don't know what the situation is personally out there. Marshall: Mr. Chair, if I could ask, then. That would include being able to pipe it, cover it over, but somehow having an irrigation box that provided water flow to that address. Wafters: Sure. Yes. Marshall: Okay. Thank you. Rohm: Does that answer your question? Sciscoe: Yes. Rohm: Okay. Thank you very much. Sciscoe: Thank you. Rohm: Is there anyone else that would like to testify to this application? Would the applicant like to respond to the testimony offered or -- you don't have to, but you have that opportunity. Culp: I will just say because of the landscaping issues Keith was told that he would have to do something with that ditch. That's where the confusion lies. So, if she still has her water rights, do we have to do the work to the ditch? Wafters: The code requires it. Excuse me. Chairman Rohm. Rohm: No. That's fine. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission August 19, 2010 Page 7 of 39 Wafters: Didn't mean to butt in there. Yeah. The staff report is written such that applicant owner has the choice to improve it as a water amenity or to pipe it and that this what our code requires. Culp: Okay. So, that will not impede on her water rights. Wafters: If she has water rights, the two property owners need to work together to insure that that continues for her. Culp: All right. That's all I have. Rohm: Okay. Thank you. Okay. Any discussion prior to closing this public hearing? Could I get a motion to move forward, then, please. Marshall: Mr. Chair, I move that we close the public hearing on CUP 10-008. Freeman: Second. Rohm: It's been moved and seconded to close the public hearing on CUP 10-008. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carried. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Freeman: Discussion time? Rohm: Yes. Discussion. Freeman: Reading the staff report it looks like everything is in order for this use. I don't see any reason to object to it. I did note that some of the requirements include widening driveways and either eliminating a tennis court or -- a little bit. Yeah. Somebody is going to be playing an unfair game of tennis I'm afraid, but -- yeah. I don't really have any questions or concerns with it myself. Looks -- looks good. Rohm: Okay. Thank you. Could I get a motion to move this forward, please. Marshall: Mr. Chair, after considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move to approve file number CUP 10-008 as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of August 19th, 2010, with no modification. Newton-Huckabay: Second. Rohm: It's been moved and seconded to approve CUP 10-008, to include the staff report with no modifications. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carried. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission August 19, 2010 Page 8 of 39 Rohm: Again, with this application we will have the Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law at the end of this Planning and Zoning meeting tonight and you're welcome to stay to hear that portion of it as well if you choose. Item 6: Public Hearing: PP 10-001 Request for Preliminary Plat approval for 214 residential building lots and 16 common lots on approximately 86.66 acres in an R-2, R-8 and R-15 zoning district for Spurwing Greens by Spurwing Greens, LLC -north of Chinden Boulevard, approximately'/ mile east of Black Cat Road and west of Spurwing Subdivision: Rohm: Okay. At this time I'd like to open the public hearing to PP 10-001 associated with Spurwing Greens and begin with the staff report. Parsons:. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. The application before you tonight is a preliminary plat and variance request. The subject site consists of 86.66 acres and zoned -- currently zoned R-2, R-8 and R-15. The subject property is located on the north side of Chinden Boulevard, approximately a quarter mile east of Black Cat Road and west of the Spurwing Subdivision. Here is the zoning map before you. You can see that the proposed plat before you is bisected in two segments, a northwest portion and, then, we have a southeast portion. Currently the property is vacant -- a portion of it is vacant. There are some single family homes under construction or constructed on some of the lots that were approved with the Jayker Subdivision. Brief history on this site. In 2006 the property was annexed as the Tree Farm property. As they moved forward and got plans together for a preliminary plat they came back in 2007 and platted it as the Jayker Subdivision that included approximately 277 residential lots, one commercial lot, and 27 common lots on 142 acres. If we go ahead -- excuse me for going ahead, but the final plat itself came in at Jayker as well in 2007 and that platted 140 residential lots and 21 common lots on 89.7 acres. And so now that property when it was first before you it was under separate ownership. Now, there are multiple owners on this residential portion, so the plat before you this evening really includes a couple of pieces. It includes a new property being proposed to be platted, but it also is a remaining portion that was approved with the original preliminary plat back in 2007 and what I will highlight for you here. So, here is the proposed plat. Again, they are proposing a street system. Fairly consistent to what was originally approved with the first preliminary plat. All the streets have detached sidewalks and either a six foot parkway or an eight foot parkway. Most of the lots do comply with the R-2, R-8 and R-15 standards with just afew -- I highlighted that in the staff report for you and I will talk about that a little bit further in this discussion. Here is a conceptual landscape plan. I thought this slide here told most of the story for you and this way I can walk through what's -- what's planned, what exists and what's proposed for the future. Right now access to this subdivision was provided with the first phase of Jayker Subdivision, which is at the half mile from Chinden Boulevard. As you move up on this exhibit you can see there is a lighter gray or a lighter tan lots and, then, a darker beige lot. The lighter beige -- or the lighter tan lots are those that were final platted with Jayker's number one. So, those are -- those are final platted lots. The darker color lots are what the applicant's proposing with the plat before you this evening. Again, some of Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission August 19, 2010 Page 9 of 39 the highlights. You can see with phase one of Jaykers a lot of the common open space was platted with that. Quite a few amenities were installed with that and included several water features, a pedestrian pathway throughout, a lot of trees and also a community center was planned for -- and I have highlighted that here on this exhibit. What we have done behind the scenes before the plat came before you is we have went through a development agreement modification after new owners took over and they came back and met with staff and they wanted to add an additional amenity and that's what you see along the eastern boundary, which is that tennis court facility and, then, you will also see that there is a gated drive was approved with that CZC and that DA mod. That now provides fire access and vehicular connectivity with Spurwing Greens to the east. When this came through in 2006 there were no other additional access points and that was a concern for the fire department, but they agree that this is abetter solution to what they had before in 2006. I would mention that is a gated drive, it is not a public street. It is merely a gated driveway. So, that's how we were able to meet the findings that it wasn't a street and they could provide that connection. A couple issues that were also raised in that previous staff report included the stub street to the Hinkle property. If you can follow my mouse that's at the north boundary of -- the southern boundary of the new plat and, then, also the eastern boundary here of the vacant parcel -- county parcel. That staff report had asked for those streets to move, so that there could be some --abetter lot layout when that property to the east was to develop. The applicant has complied with those previous requirements of staff and so staff was in agreement with those stub streets as well. Another change from the -- for this .plat from the previous plat was the extension of Jaykers Way here. The previous plat contemplated that collector street moving all the way to the left and stubbing at the western boundary. What the applicant has done is actually straightened that roadway a little bit more and stubbed it to this property here, which is known as the TICO property. That is really more consistent with the half mile collector street and so, eventually, that roadway will connect and provide access over the Phyllis Canal and into the property to the north. As far as the various request goes, I would point out that that really will take a Council action on that application. It's not really an issue before the Commission tonight. However, you could provide a recommendation going forward this evening if you would -- if you would prefer that. Basically, they are asking fora 65 foot cul-de-sac length. Our ordinance holds that to a 450 foot minimum -- or maximum. So, again, like I said, Council will take that action and in lieu of extending that cul-de-sac, they have provided a northwest connection here and this property here along the western boundary of this portion of the plat is called -the Carnahan property. So, they -- this gentleman -- the Carnahan parcel, he was also part of the original development agreement -- or concept plan and the annexation request back in 2006. So, he's very familiar with what was planned for that area. So, really, the new portions that the applicant's proposing for you is some estate lots here to the north -- in the northwest corner. This new portion some estate lots that's proposed. And, then, also some R-8 lots proposed here along the eastern boundary. So, that's why the number of lots has increased from 277 to 354 with the new plat before you. The other major change is the original plat also approved 27 percent open space. With this plat they are now proposing 21 percent. Ordinance. The UDC requires ten percent, so the applicant definitely far exceeds the minimum required by the ordinance. Based on the size of the Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission August 19, 2010 Page 10 of 39 plat that they are proposing before you this evening four amenities would also be required. The tennis court facility counts. The parkways along the local streets count as open space as an amenity. They already constructed -- ponds, pathways, and water features all count as well. So, staff is of the opinion that there is ample amenities for the site and open space. The Comprehensive Plan designation for the property is currently low density and medium density residential. This plat -- obviously, the density -- the net density -- or gross density for the project has increased slightly due to the reduction in open space and increase in lots, but it's still found to be in compliance with that. I would mention that the elevations are already tied to this property, so there weren't any elevations required with the submission of this application. Those elevations were tied to the DA mod that was handled back in March -- or May of this year. Excuse me. Here are the elevations that were tied to that DA. Again, they are not attached to the plat, but future elevations you can expect would be -- for the R-8 portion lots you will see the elevations on the left-hand side and, then, of course, the estate lots are -- will be built something similar to what you see on the right hand. Staff did receive written comments from the applicant. I have attached that in your hearing outline tonight for which items they would like to discuss with you. The first one is pertaining to condition 1.1.1 and that's simply, as I mentioned to you, a few lots did not conform with the frontage standard of the R-8 zone, R-16 slash R-8 zone and so staff conditioned them to either comply with that 30 feet of frontage requirement. They have said, well, what if we provided a common drive. I looked up the ordinance and the ordinance says, well, if you provide a common drive, each lot, and it serves two homes -- two lots, it has to provide a minimum of 15 feet of frontage. So, what the applicant has proposed with this condition of approval staff is in agreement with -- it comports with the UDC. Second condition of approval 1.1.3, again, that has to deal with staffs recommendation for a stub street. Again, that will be handled at Council when we go there and Council takes action on the variance request. 1.1.6 deals the timing for the community center and the amenities associated with that. Just a little history on that. The previous plat contemplated a 9,000 square foot community center, pool, fitness center, et cetera. Staff felt that the condition at that time that was in the staff report that it would have to have occupancy by the 201st building permit made sense, given the fact that 142 lots were already platted out there and given the timing for their -- for those homes to be constructed on that 201st building permit seemed to make sense. The applicant has requested that they not be held to all of those amenities. There is -- they are still in agreement of doing a community center, doing a pool, but just would like to do that at the 351st building permit. Their contention is that folks that buy in this subdivision have clubhouse rights to the Spurwing Greens -- excuse me -- Spurwing Subdivision to east of this site. I would just like to point out to Commission that, however, there are ample amenities and open space in the subdivision. We can't count off-site amenities as amenities for this subdivision. That has to be included with this one. So, staff feels like the 201st timing for that -- it seems to be fair and adequate, but we will leave it up to you -- let the applicant present their case to you and, then, we will see what Commission wants to do. We will put in your hands to determine the timing for that. They have also requested a size limitation for that. They are requesting 1,800 square feet. Staff -- staffs fine with not even putting a size requirement on it. We are fine with just construction of a community center. We feel that still meets the intent of, one, the Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission August 19, 2010 Page 11 of 39 previous approval and, two, the approval of the concept plan. The original -- the concept plan tied to the property did depict a community center on that portion of the property. And the final condition of approval they want to discuss has to do with the Public Works condition 2.2.1. Again, that deals with some sewer issues that are occurring on the property. Staff is not going to attempt to address that before you. Planning staff isn't -- will defer that to Mr. Steckline if you have any questions regarding that issue. Again, staff has not received any negative testimony or any other written testimony regarding the subject application. We are recommending approval of the preliminary plat and, again, as we move forward to City Council we are taking a recommendation of denial with the variance. With that I'd be happy to answer any questions you may have. Marshall: Mr. Chair, I do have a question of staff. In lieu of the elongated cul-de-sac, what is staffs recommendation to that? That road stubs to the north or to the west or -- Parsons: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Marshall, staffs recommendation is to, basically, provide a western stub about mid way through that cul-de-sac. As you can see, if I can go to the aerial here, you can see there is a backage road or some kind of dirt road that provides -- that runs along this boundary that staff feels can provide some connection. The reason for that analysis that staff had mentioned in the report is the fact that this property was always tied to the concept plan. It was part of the estate lots planning, so staff felt, well, if it's tied to the concept plan it needs to have connectivity with the concept plan and so that's why our recommendation -- initial recommendation came through as stubbing -- provide a stub there. The other issue is code just doesn't allow for it and so it really is a Council action. We just can't overlook those things and not come up with a recommendation. But that's -- that's the best recommendation staff could come up with. Rohm: Any additional questions of staff before we have the applicant come forward? Okay. At this time would the applicant like to come forward and state your name and address for the record. Blackstead: Good evening, Chairman Rohm and Commissioners. My name is Rod Blackstead. My address 11760 West Executive. I'm the manager for Spurwing Greens. Also, this is a joint venture with Brighton Homes and David Turnbull is here also tonight. Just, again, thank you for giving us time to review this. We have worked with some of your staff here over the last year and made a lot of changes.. We are excited for this new relaunch and get this project moving again. What I'd like to do is just maybe kind of walk you through the project a little bit and give you an update and address some of the thoughts there and stand for questions. Okay. So, again, what I'd like to do is just walk you through the project, starting out on State Street, we are on the way to do a make over estates -- or the entry coming into the main project. As the project sits right now there is only monuments and landscaping on the east side. We are going to duplicate that over on the west side and we are just finishing up our plans. The next section I'd just like to draw your attention to is what we are calling the estates -- the estates section, which is located right here. We are just about through the building permit Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission August 19, 2010 Page 12 of 39 process to start that -- that new entry coming into the estates. It will be a really very nice, attractive, covered entry coming in. We are going to have a little private driveway coming off to a private post office system that instead of having mailboxes in front of every home, we are going to cluster mailboxes, we are going to put them all in one area where people can come in, go underneath the port a tier, get out of their car, go into the -- get their mail and et cetera. Just a little different concept. As Bill did a great job presenting everything, we did realign the connection here to this property to the south. That certainly made a lot of sense to us as we studied that property and worked with that neighbor. On the tennis area, we are real -- what we have done is kind of moved up an added amenity that was never really in the original development agreement and that's the tennis center and the connection to Spurwing Country Club. I'm excited to tell you that we just actually paved the driveway today, so that work is well on its way. We will be finishing up the landscaping and that project over the next couple weeks. The tennis courts will actually be -- the concrete will be poured on Monday. So, we will let that dry and they will be ready to play in September. Bill did a great job of explaining everything through the project. The only other thing I'd like to comment on over here is Mr. Carnahan's property. When I visited with Doug, basically, he's got about five acres here, about half of this property is pretty well set up with a very large home, large pond, large landscaping. So, what we are kind of talking to down here is about five acres that some day his intention is to have his family live on site with him, perhaps build three or four one to two acre-type lots. So, he asked us to design a street to come in here with a cul-de-sac where he could have three or four home sites around that cul-de-sac. The property just didn't lay out very well to make any other connections to Mr. Carnahan's -- basically from this road what -- what would happen is we would have a lot and, then, a road and, then, a lot and the same on Doug's site, you'd have a lot, a road, and a Lot and just kid of cut through this property and made it a little more challenging for us. So, that's why we are asking for the variance. I'd like to expand just a little bit on our community center and our tennis center that we have built. Again, what the owners have decided was to move forward on the tennis center, which is, like I pointed out, is pretty much finished. With the current owner we were able to work out a relationship with Spurwing Country Club, so that when anyone buys in the Spurwing Greens they automatically become a social member of the country club. So, that will give them access to the swimming pool, which is a very large pool. Around the pool they actually have a restaurant and they have lifeguards, so it's apretty -- a nice amenity for folks that live here to go over, have lunch, swim, and have lifeguards. If they want to go play golf or tennis, you know, they have got to leave their kids in a safe spot. So, everyone that buys in here is contributed -- through the homeowners association will be contributing some funds for that right to do that. Okay. So, what we have done is kind of added an amenity, added some common area, but we are asking to postpone building the new pool and community center here when -- as the project fills up a little bit. With that I'll kind of stand for some questions. Rohm: Okay. Any questions of the applicant? O'Brien: Yeah. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission August 19, 2010 Page 13 of 39 Rohm: Commissioner O'Brien. O'Brien: What about the flood plain? Have there been any concerns about that? Where do you lie with that? Blackstead: Oh. The flood plain we are great. We are elevated there I think about 20 feet above the river bottom. O'Brien: Is that a hundred year, 500 year, what -- Blackstead: I'm sure it's over a hundred year. O'Brien: Okay. Thank you. That's all I have. Marshall: Mr. Chair, I do have some questions. Rohm: Okay. Marshall: First -- now, how many lots are we talking total again? Blackstead: At the moment there is 140 lots platted. Total with platted lots and proposed preliminary platted lots will be 350. And, then, we have another large parcel that we haven't done anything with at this stage. Marshall: All right. And you're requesting to build the amenity -- it's going to have to be done, because we can't -- the UDC doesn't allow an off-site amenity to count. You're asking to do that after you have built everything out. Blackstead: Well, yes, but we have also added an amenity, too. We have added the tennis court and stuff on site that is being built. Marshall: Which I applaud you for. I think that's great. But it sounds like we are going to kind of sidestep the whole clubhouse period, because they have already got a clubhouse. It's off site, but it kind of sounds like you're sidestepping the whole thing. Blackstead: Yeah. If I may, that 350 is also a condition at Spurwing Country Club. We have got that with them that we have agreed with them that we will provide another swimming pool and community center within our own project prior to 350 building permits, just for their assurance also and so we are just trying to tie those two dates together. Marshall: All right. Thanks very much, sir. Parsons: Mr. Chair, if I may elaborate on that a little bit more. Keep in mind that there is already an approved preliminary plat on this and the condition does stand in that preliminary plat. So, if the applicant was to move forward on phrase three of that Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission August 19, 2010 Page 14 of 39 preliminary plat in '06, they would still be bound by that condition of approval. Just food for thought. Rohm: So, are you saying that we would have to address their request to change it from the 200 to the 350 in our -- any proposed motion? Friedman: Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, that's correct. The recommendation to you was to maintain existing condition if it's the pleasure of the Commission to change that either to the requested number or another number that you would feel comfortable with, then, you would entertain that during your --during your motion. Rohm: Okay. All right. All right. Thank you. I appreciate that. Any additional questions of staff for -- Freeman: I do have one more question of staff. You mentioned the requirement for 30 feet of frontage on some of these lots that was maintained and I wasn't quite clear on how you said that was proposed to be resolved. Could you explain that for me again? Parsons: Sure, Mr. Chairman, Commission Freeman. A few of the lots along the southeast corner -- so, if you look at my mouse here, here is a few lots here that front on this street. So, it's this portion of the plat that I was discussing. Apologize it's not larger for you, but they have frontages of 27 and 25 feet respectively. Currently the ordinance requires a 90 degree turn like that requires a 30 foot minimum frontage. Spoke with the applicant and informed them of that and they said, okay, we will deal with it at final plat, which I said, okay, I will just condition you in the staff report. Well, after they got the staff report they were like, well, what if we did common driveways and I was like, okay, well, let's see what the code would allow and the way the ordinance is set up is that if you have two lots that front on a common drive, you only need to provide 15 feet of frontage. So, if they provide a common lot, then, those four lots that don't conform need to only provide 15 feet of frontage. So, that's the -- seems to be a reasonable solution to that deficiency at this point. So, they are just saying either/or. Either they will modify the plat, so that the lots conform to the 30 foot requirement or they will just provide a common lot -- or a common drive and provide 15 feet of access. Freeman: Okay. Parsons: Which inconsistent both -- either way. Or at least consistent with code as far as common driveways are concerned. Freeman: Thank you. Rohm: Any additional questions? Newton-Huckabay: I just have one. I wasn't clear on the clubhouse. Without it they meet the code for amenities; is that what you said? Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission August 19, 2010 Page 15 of 39 Parsons: Chairman, Commissioner Newton-Huckabay, that is correct. I mean the tennis court under the UDC they need to provide ten percent open space and, then, again, four amenities. So, if I can walk you through this exhibit again. It's the same exhibit that's in front of you, so if you need a larger version, please, reference that. This large area here counts as an amenity. It's 5,000 square feet in size. So, that counts as an open space amenity. The ponds and the water features that are constructed counts as an amenity. These other open spaces -- again, large open counts as an amenity. The sports court or the tennis amenity is, again, another amenity. All the parkways along the streets can count as open space. That's also an amenity. The applicant has entryway features, the clubhouse -- or not the clubhouse, but the mailbox locations, that's an amenity. So, you can see they provide amore -- and, then, they have the micropath system and the multi-use pathway along North Jaykers way that extends from the entrance of the Tree Farm or Spurwing Greens Subdivision all the way up to where it stubs to the TICO One property per a condition of the previous plat. So, staffs opinion is, yes, they do meet the minimum -- they exceed what code would require. The DA -- or the DA never required the clubhouse, that was only a requirement of the preliminary plat. So, that's what's on the table right now and I believe the applicant hasn't agreed not to do it, they just said they want to do it towards the end of the phasing process, not the beginning or mid phase. I would like to add that they are proposing eight phases with the subdivision, so -- Newton-Huckabay: Eight phases? Parsons: Eight phases. Correct. Marshall: Starting where? Parsons: I don't have that exhibit for you. Maybe the applicant could elaborate for me, if they have something in front of them. Or let me get to the staff report here and look at it. Newton-Huckabay: Does it start on the south or the -- Parsons: Let me pull up my staff report and I will pull it over and let you look at it. Okay. Public Works has assisted me, so thanks. So, phase two would be -- if you can follow my arrow here, here is phase two. This portion here. Phase three would be the estate lots up here. Phase four would, then, bounce back here that we were just talking about the lots that didn't meet the frontage requirements. Five would be located in this portion of the plat, which now we are moving to the northwest segment. Six is the addition of estate lots for this portion. Seven would move to the eastern boundary, the R-8 zone lots here. And finish up with phase eight with estate lots along the northwest corner. Newton-Huckabay: Thank you. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission August 19, 2010 Page 16 of 39 Rohm: Any other questions of staff? With the discussions that we have had here, if the applicant would like to come forward and offer any additional testimony, this -- now would be a good time for that. Turnbull: Commissioner Rohm, Members of the Commission, my name is David Turnbull. Is this working? Rohm: Yeah. Turnbull: David Turnbull. Address is 12601 West Explorer Drive in Boise. I would like to take a little minute to address Commissioner Marshall's comments about the amenities and I hope that you have gotten a sense here that we are spending a lot of money on repositioning this project. We are going to be spending well over a million dollars, tennis facility alone, and the entrances that we are doing and the beautiful thing about this is -- and I know we don't get credit for it, but the tie-in with the Spurwing Country Club actually offers every one of these residents that -- what we consider probably would be the finest clubhouse that any neighborhood could have, including restaurants, pools, workout rooms, and the whole works. We understand that that won't technically count as an amenity as required by the UDC, but as Bill has explained, we have more than double the open space. We probably have at least over double the amenities that are required as a -- you know, if you go by the checklist. We have six and a half miles of trails and pathways in this project already. So, I hope you get a sense that we are really creating a premier community here and it's not just an exclusive type of community, we are -- we are positioning this to be accessible and affordable and so forth, but it has some great amenities and we think that -- we certainly hope that you appreciate that and will recognize that in your action tonight. So, the lot issue on the frontage issue, we are actually building our model home -- this is a Brighton Investment and Roger Anderson, Sundance, are the partners in this. Brighton Homes is one of the builders that are building in this project and Brighton Homes right now is building on just such a lot a model home that has, actually, kind of an innovative private drive that -- that addresses that concern. So, there are actually some platted lots currently that have that same condition and will comply with that same condition. And I don't know if there is anything else you wanted me to go over, but I think I have covered those highlights. I suppose that we probably expect to cover the variance issue on the cul-de-sac at the City Council level and still expect to have some discussions with the fire department and so forth. I think it's more of a planning issue, rather than a fire code issue, and I think Rod did a pretty good job of explaining what the -- what the thinking is there. So, we are not asking that the Planning and Zoning Commission take a position on that one way or the other, but, of course, you're welcome to do so if you see fit. Rohm: Okay. Thank you very much. Any questions of this applicant? Thank you. Okay. There is nobody else signed up to testify to this application, but if anyone would like to come forward now is that time. Okay. Didn't expect any, but nobody's coming forward, so could we get a motion to close the public hearing. Marshall: So moved. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission August 19, 2010 Page 17 of 39 O'Brien: Second. Rohm: It's been moved and seconded to close the public hearing on PP 10-001 for Spurwing Greens. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carried. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Rohm: Discussion? Mr. Marshall. Marshall: I'm really excited to see this move forward. I mean I am very excited. I really like -- I'm not found of cul-de-sacs. I'm a little bit more of a new urbanist in what I like, but at the same time they are all acceptable. I'm really torn. I like the idea that you have talked to those people over there and that's what they wanted, the stub down below, and that really forces you to a cul-de-sac in that location. There are other ways to draw that in and I know it could be done to get a stub up there in another location, if it means dropping the main road down. But at the same time this is nice. I'm -- I'm really torn about the clubhouse thing as well, because I mean they are way overboard on the amenities and -- with Spurwing there they meet the amenities, it's going to be nice and I'm excited to see this go forward. I don't really -- I'm not real fond of putting that clubhouse off to the 350 level, because -- but, you know, historically I know it will get done. I just -- I don't know. The variance is a really tough one just to even comment on for me. I'm very torn with that, again, but as far as the preliminary plat I'm very excited to see this move forward. I think it's going to be a great project and I'm very excited to see it. Again, I'd like to hear other people's thoughts on anything else on this. Freeman: Sure. Mr. Chair? Rohm: Commissioner Freeman. Freeman: I don't really want to comment on the variance. I don't know that it's -- it's not really my place to do that. We will see what City Council does with that one. But I'm excited about the project, too. It's, obviously, a very nice project, well thought out, nice amenities, and I, too, am torn about this question of when they should be required to build the clubhouse and the pool. I'm a little confused and maybe somebody can help me. I think it's already been said. Because it is required on the preliminary plat, repeat for me, please, what we would need to do in making a motion in order to recommend that we change the timing of those amenities. Friedman: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, Commissioner Freeman, what you would do is in your motion to approve the project you would come up with language to amend the specific condition that has the requirement that the clubhouse be built at the -- after the 200th home was constructed and merely insert whatever number is the pleasure of the Commission to recommend to the Council. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission August 19, 2010 Page 18 of 39 Freeman: Will there, then, be a modification to the preliminary plat after that occurs, if we go that route? No? Friedman: No. Mr. Chairman -- Mr. Chairman, Commissioner, what happens is -- what we are going to end up having is two preliminary plats overlying one another. The Jayker preliminary plat doesn't go away, it will ultimately expire on its own, and this project will, then, take its place. Freeman: Thank you. I guess I'll have to decide what I think about that in the next few minutes, but I am torn, because building it after 200 seems very reasonable when you're only going to be building 350 some odd homes on this, when it's half built out. I think it's reasonable to assume that that would be included. I do understand the time. I understand that you have done a lot of other amenities. Unfortunately, we have a preliminary plat that does require it, so I will -- I guess I'll listen to what the other commissioners have to say about it and make up my mind in the next few minutes. Rohm: Commissioner Newton-Huckabay. Newton-Huckabay: 1 was -- wanted to comment, first, on -- in the staff report and in the overview that Bill did, he mentions 2.2.1 related to the sewer issue and I guess I just want to understand what exactly we are talking about here, because we didn't expound on that at all. Steckline: Mr. Chair, Commissioners, and Commissioner Newton-Huckabay. Thank you. I appreciate that. Staff actually had the opportunity to meet with the applicant and discuss that condition and both sides agree that it's agreeable to go ahead and keep that condition in there. Not to elaborate too much. We have had a couple of deficiencies in the infrastructure there with the 11 month warranty inspection. We have kind of worked with the applicant on getting those addressed, identifying them, and fixing those before we allow building permits and the applicant has agreed, so not to say disregard it, but just continue to have that a condition in there and the Public Works director can rescind that condition once those deficiencies are taken care of and both staff and the applicant feel comfortable with that resolving the issue. Newton-Huckabay: Okay. So, it's just a deficiency compliance kind of thing? Steckline: Debris, rocks, things like that. Newton-Huckabay: Oh. Okay. All right. I understand that now. I was not reading through it and understanding exactly what the repercussions of that could be. I don't want to belabor the point. I think it's a great development. I look forward to seeing it come together. I think moving -- delaying the clubhouse is a reasonable compromise. I have no issue with that. I don't think that given all the amenities in this subdivision already or that will be as it builds out. I don't think it's an unreasonable request to the applicant. That's all I have. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission August 19, 2010 Page 19 of 39 Rohm: Commissioner O'Brien. O'Brien: Yes, Mr. Chair, thank you. I've lived in cul-de-sacs myself and I think if there is anyplace for the need for -- and well designed, I think this would be the place that would not hinder anything. I think they work pretty good. I think they did a good job in laying it out. So, I think the cul-de-sacs are a necessity here and I think it's going to work well. I, too, had a concern about the clubhouse, when it would be built, and if I was buying in there, even though there is amenities available close by, that I -- you know, I'm paying a lot of money for the amenities to be there at some time and, who knows, depending on how long it takes to -- for people to buy into this particular project, it could be a long time, and I don't know if I would want to wait that long, so I'm thinking that if it was shortened up in a time frame that would certainly be worth to the people that buy early. Otherwise, I think there is -- it would be way too long for people to wait until the end of a project before those amenities become available. So, I'm in favor of moving that time frame up. Don't know what number, though. Newton-Huckabay: Commissioner O'Brien, are you suggesting leaving it at the 201st lot or making even less than that? O'Brien: I think it's -- personally, I think it should be less than that. I think 200 is more than 50 percent of the build up of the project and I think that's -- you know, it's -- to wait longer I think you just delay this thing -- it could be a couple years more. We don't know with the economy the way it is. We don't know how fast this thing is going to go and I don't think there is a real good time frame when all these phases will be phased in and built up. So, yeah, I have a concern with that. I don't know if 200 is the right number. don't know what the number should be. Marshall: Mr. Chair, may I -- Rohm: Absolutely. Marshall: Commissioner O'Brien, I think the issue is that they really already have a clubhouse, swimming pool and amenities already available to them the minute they move in today through the Spurwing golf course. Although we are not able to count thal as an amenity on this plat that was previously there -- because now they have an agreement with Spurwing golf course that was not there in the previous plat -- preliminary plat. So, they needed a clubhouse back, then, because they didn't -- they didn't have this connection. Now, there is a connection there and so the need for the clubhouse really, to me, doesn't seem to be as necessary as it was. It is nowhere close, because when they move in today they have got a clubhouse. In fact, a much nicer one than they were ever going to get. O'Brien: I agree with you on that, sir. Commissioner. That wasn't my point. The point was that if you go into a subdivision and they have got to have these amenities eventually, I don't know if I would want to wait that long to have one that's -- not only as close -- certainly may not be as nice, but I still have access to the other one, but the Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission August 19, 2010 Page 20 of 39 point is it's what a person would pay for and why wait so long after that money has been spent to buy property and build a home that those things would not be available. So, I -- those are my thoughts there, you know. Even though it's available, it's still outside of where I'm living and I think it's going to be long through part of that particular community, that new community, then, I think those amenities should be built as soon as they could. Rohm: Okay. Thank you for all your comments and because I'm the chairman I get to be the last one to speak. I think the applicant's done a great job on this and the cul-de- sac issue I believe the primary function of communication is to make sure that the property adjacent to a development has been addressed both the property owner to the west and north, if you will, and these folks have come to an agreement that will be mutually beneficial as the project moves forward and so the cul-de-sac in my mind is the best option, given the lay of the land, and I hope City Council moves forward and grants that variance. The issue with the clubhouse, even though they are requesting that we wait until the 350th lot has been developed, there is additional properties that are tied to this overall development that are not being included in a lot format at this time, so even though there is -- they are asking for -- at the 350 level, there will be a significant additional development beyond that which is being proposed tonight, so it's not like we are at the end of the project, we are at the mid point, if you will, because the additional lots that come on line after this is built out will complete the project and the additional clubhouse will probably be more necessary at the time that those additional lots are developed than it will be as we move through this project. So, given all of the amenities that have been included on this proposal, 20 percent, 21 percent open land, I think overall the project is -- has significant amenities that it would not take away from the project to delay the clubhouse until the 350 mark. End of comment. Okay. Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair, I recommend we close -- or did we close the public hearing already? Sorry. Marshall: I'm going to make a quick comment. Rohm: Please do. Marshall: I'm for delaying that clubhouse, but I don't want to do it after every single lot here is built out, I'd like to move it to like the -- my thought is the 325 level or something like that, where it's got to be finished before this is done. Everybody's -- Freeman: What was their request? Marshall: To move it to 350 and there is 350 lots. Freeman: Three hundred? Marshall: No. There is 350 and there is 350 lots. At lease that was my understanding. I think, you know, with the country club already there and especially with the economy Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission August 19, 2010 Page 21 of 39 the way it is, they are putting in a lot of amenities -- they are already putting in a lot of money into this, building it on a house -- essentially, the cost of another house and throwing it up and getting it in there, it's pretty significant and I'd like to move it out for them, but I'd still like to see it finished before this is completed, if that makes any sense. Rohm: Mr. Marshall, I would propose that you make a motion to move this forward with your recommendation and we will see if we get a second. Marshall: Okay. After considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move to recommend to City Council file number PP 10-001 and of variance 10-001 -- no. I'm going to -- no comment on the variance 10-001. Recommend to City Council file number PP 10-001 as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of August 19th, 2007, with the following modification: That the clubhouse that is currently required to be built at the 200th lot build out now read to be moved to the 325th lot build out. End of motion. Newton-Huckabay: Commissioner Marshall, you need to add the language in 1.1.1 providing the alternative for the common driveways in your motion. Marshall: Oh. Thank you. Yes. I would like to add to that motion 1.1.1 should also read: Or -- it's just the underlined area; right? Or as an alternative Lots 34, 35 and Lot 39 and Lot 40 shall be served by common driveways allowing for the reduction in lot frontage to 15 feet and there is an or before that. End of motion. Very choppy, but it's there. Thank you. Newton-Huckabay: I'll second that. Rohm: Okay. It's been moved and seconded that recommending approval of PP 10-001, with the staff modification. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? O'Brien: Aye. Rohm: Motion carried. Thank you, folks, for coming in. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE NAY. we forward onto City Council report, with the aforementioned Item 7: Public Hearing: I~Z 10-001 Request for Rezone of 5.90 acres from C-N (Neighborhood Business) to C-C (Community Business) zoning district for Fast Eddy's Ten Mile Station by ST Investments -SEC of N. Ten Mile Road and W. Pine Avenue: Item 8: Public Hearing: CUP 10-007 Request for Conditional Use Permit for a fuel sales facility, convenience store with adrive-thru and a vehicle washing facility on approximately 1.89 acres in a proposed C-C zoning district for Fast Eddy's Ten Mile Station by ST Investments -SEC of N. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission August 19, 2010 Page 22 of 39 Ten Mile Road and W. Pine Avenue: Rohm: All right. At this time I'd like to open the public hearing for RZ 10-001 for Fast Eddy's Ten Mile Station and the public hearing for CUP 10-007 for that same project and begin with the staff report. Parsons: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. The subject site before you is -- the actual rezone boundary itself is 5.9 acres, zoned C-N. The area that is proposed for development tonight encompasses 1.89 acres and is also zoned C-N. The site is located on the southwest corner of North Ten Mile Road and West Pine Avenue. Adjacent to the site is some vacant L-O property and some multi-family development -- to the west is multi-family development that was constructed with the C- Nportion lots that are being proposed for development tonight and, then, to the south is L-O zoned property developed with a church and to the west of this site is RUT property in Ada County and is currently land use planned for mixed community in the future. So, the applicant, again, is requesting a rezone. That rezone affects approximately three commercial lots. Just a history, a background for this area. Right now this property came -- was annexed in 2003 known as the Courtyards at Ten Mile. It was approved with a planned development that included the multi-family to the west and, then, a concept plan was tied to the C-N portion of the property that depicted retail with residential above, a gas station, and adrive -- bank with adrive-thru. All access points were approved with that plat and are depicted on the final plat recorded against the property. Right now the applicant -- the Conditional Use Permit before you this evening and design review approval is for a fuel sales facility to include a convenience store and a car wash facility. Here is the site plan that the applicant is proposing. Again, this is one commercial, approximately 1.89 acres. The building itself is centrally located on the lot with the fuel islands towards Ten Mile and, then, car washing facility is located along the eastern boundary of the lot. Access point to this site will be right-in, right-out from Pine -- or, excuse me, from Ten Mile and also this is a local street that was platted with the Ten Mile at Courtyard and so you will have access -- one access point on the -- south -- southeast and, then, along the east boundary here. This driveway here is along a shared boundary, so it will provide future access as well to these lots. The applicant has processed the property boundary adjustment with staff and has also gone through the vacation process to relinquish some of the access easements and utility easements that were on this project that they can move forward with the development that you see before you this evening. Landscape plan the applicant is proposing. They need a 25 foot landscape buffer along Ten Mile, which they comply with. A minimum of ten foot landscape buffer along the local streets. They are providing in excess of 13 feet or 12 feet, so that's in excess. Typically -- to point out for Commission, typically where you have commercially zoned property adjacent to residential, UDC typically requires a 25 foot land use buffer, but in this instance, because it is separated by street, they only have to comply with the ten foot requirement, because it is a designated local street. Because of the types of use proposed for the property and the current zoning of the property, there are some specifics that they have to comply with. Right now, as I mentioned to you, the property is currently zoned C-N and that zoning district the hours of operations are limited from 6:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. Your typical hours of operation Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission August 19, 2010 Page 23 of 39 for a fuel sale facility -- or fuel station -- fuel facility is anywhere from midnight to 24 hours. The applicant has indicated to staff that he wants to operate from 5:30 a.m. to 12:00 o'clock a.m., which is consistent with other fuel stations that he's owned throughout the valley. Based on that requirement and based on the zoning, there was no other mechanism for the applicant to leave those hours of operation without rezoning the property. After meeting with the applicant we informed them that staff probably would not be supportive of rezoning just one commercial lot to a C-C and that they need to probably bring in the whole C-N zone property, because that would be more consistent with the Comp Plan. Right now the property is a mixed use community designation, so the C-C zone is appropriate for that type of land use designation and that's what they are proposing now. Here are the elevations that the applicant's proposing. Staffs reviewed them. Very adequate building elevations. A mix of materials, shake shingles, stucco, a mixture of metal and fabric awnings, raised parapets, they have got cornice detail in the roof lines. Two tower elements to add accent and these little visual presence on the site and, then, also, the 3,400 square foot building along the eastern boundary, the washing facility. He is also complimentary. Has the roofing materials, same building materials as far as wood composite, but as far as -- the building material won't be stucco, it will be split-faced block. One thing that I would like to mention to you is that there are specific standards that go along with these types of use. One of the issues that we had to deal with on this project was the location of the vehicle washing bays. Typically when you're adjacent to a residential district any open bays have to be at least 100 feet from the residential district. In this instance this proposed facility will be 13 feet from the boundary. Currently, if I could go back up to the zoning map, you can see typically on a rezone of property we go to the center line of the street. Regarding this particular property, the actual C-N boundary is along the eastern boundary of the commercial lots, so once the applicant -- if Commission recommends or Council moved forward on the rezone applicant, that boundary line will be moved to the center line. It still doesn't -- they still don't -- as far as the distance between residential, it's still about 40 feet from the residential boundary, but the applicant has provided enclosures for the three bays to comply with the one hundred foot requirement. So, I didn't want to leave you that it didn't comport, it does, but it was just there is a fine line there as far as fully enclosed and open bays and the applicant has been made aware of that and he's had enclosed three of the four bays. One bay, the RV bay that he's proposing, which is located right here at the west end of the building, it's still to remain open and it is outside of that one hundred foot requirement. So, he is complying with the ordinance requirements. As far as the vacuum bays, that's still all part of that vehicle washing bay use and so he has removed one of his vacuums bays off the site plan and has -- only proposing one vacuum station at this time and, again, that is outside of that hundred foot buffer. The other thing I'd like to add is if you had a chance to visit the site, the actual four-plexes across the street, they are actually garage front, so you actually have a two car garage -- actually, a parking pad, two car garage and, then, you actually, have carports behind that and, then, you actually have the living quarters. So, if you were to scale it out, there is approximately 120 feet from the residents living quarters to the edge of this facility. So, staff is of the opinion that they -- there is pretty good separation between the use and the residential across the street. As far as a fuel sales facility, everything is in -- as far as specific uses, the only Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission August 19, 2010 Page 24 of 39 outstanding issue on that is, really, the canopy height. As far as the circulation pattern for the site, staff feels the applicant's done a nice job segregating the uses, meaning vehicle on the east side, the canopy and the fuel sales canopy on the other side and, then, the building as kind of the buffer. I would point out that the applicant has proposed several patio or seating areas on the site, which is consistent with a mixed use designation. It's also consistent with the design manual. It encourages mixed use developments to provide amenities and outdoor seating areas and the applicant has done a nice job of that. One issue I did bring up in the staff report was the menu board location. Right now along the eastern -- east side of the building there is a menu board that's located within the six foot sidewalk. So, based on what I could see in scale on the site plan it looks like that could impede pedestrians from using that back area or may make them swerve or have to go around around a sign and we wanted clear visibility and an open pathway for them to access that amenity. So, the applicant's been made aware of that. Staff did get verbal confirmation from the applicant regarding the staff report. Really, he's in agreement with the staff report. He understands that the canopy height does exceed the 20 foot maximum requirement and they are in the process of correcting that. We -- again, we have not received any other negative comments or any calls regarding the project. Staff is recommending approval with DA provisions and exhibit -- or, excuse me, and conditions of approval in the staff report. With that I'd stand for any questions Commission may have. Rohm: Thank you very much. Any questions of staff? Newton-Huckabay: I have none. Rohm: Would the applicant like to come forward, please. Please state your name and address for the record. Eddy: I'm Steve Eddy. 770 West Ustick, Meridian, Idaho. And I'm the applicant, so thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. Bill's done a good job of meeting with me, going over all the issues and I think with our staff report we have met most of the concerns and tried to address everything up front and I guess I'm just here to answer any questions if you guys have any questions. Rohm: I don't have any questions, but I have a comment. Eddy: Okay. Rohm: That your facilities are the nicest that I have seen anywhere. I think I could order a dinner. It's just -- 1 think you do an excellent job when you build a facility and the one on -- on Ustick there between Meridian and Linder I think that's just a real nice development and you have done a good job. Eddy: Well, thanks. We -- that's what we try to do and this building, as you saw the elevations, we are trying to really set the industry apart with our elevations and it won't Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission August 19, 2010 Page 25 of 39 be a box, it will be something very unique and it will change the whole -- the whole C store industry we believe, so -- Rohm: And -- go ahead Commissioner O'Brien. O'Brien: When do you put in the pool table? Eddy: We don't have a pool table yet. Rohm: Okay. Any additional questions for the applicant? Freeman: Yes. I have a question. What -- do you have plans in mind already for how you're going to adjust this menu board? Eddy: Yeah. There is a way to -- we have a 37 foot buffer there of a driveway, I mean the access to me is key to have great flow and we have really good flow here. That distance between the back of the C store and the car wash is roughly 37 feet. So, we will find a way. I mean to meander that sidewalk or something in that area to make the menu board not an issue. Freeman: Okay. Thank you. Eddy: And the canopy was just a mess up with an additional detail we added to the canopy and we didn't bring it back to the 20 feet when we added the cornice detail on the top. That wasn't an issue either. Freeman: Fortunately you haven't built it yet. Eddy: Yeah. Freeman: Thank you. Rohm: Any additional questions for the applicant? Newton-Huckabay: I have none. Rohm: Okay. Thanks very much. Eddy: Thank you. Rohm: There was nobody signed up to testify on this application, but at this time if anyone would like to come forward now is that time. Okay. No one has come forward, so could I get a motion to close the public hearing. O'Brien: So moved. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission August 19, 2010 Page 26 of 39 Marshall: Second. Rohm: It's been moved and seconded to close the public hearing on RZ 10-001 and CUP 10-007. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carried. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Rohm: Discussion? Commissioner O'Brien, would you -- O'Brien: Hey, I think this is a great place for it and, like you said, the stations are great. think it's needed. It's going to be good for the community -- local community in that area. I have no other issues, concerns. Rohm: Thank you. Commissioner Newton-Huckabay. Newton-Huckabay: I think I'm going to ask a redundant question, Mr. Chair, but I just want to make sure that approving the staff report as is sets the operation hours of 5:00 a.m. to midnight, without any -- correct? Parsons: Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission, Commissioner Newton-Huckabay, not necessarily. We did not impose any hours of operation on the site. The rezone itself -- it's called out in the staff report what he's proposing, but there is no condition of approval that states you shall operate from 5:30 a.m. to 12:00 a.m. You can certainly add that as a provision if you want more certainty for that site. Staff felt since we had not received any public comment or testimony on it, that it seemed to be appropriate and everyone was in agreement with that plan in the area and the applicant's followed all the other neighborhood requirements and posting requirements. At this time we didn't -- we didn't impose any hours of operation. Newton-Huckabay: Okay. So, because it's C-C, it's not subject to the 6:00 to 10:00 of the C-N. Parsons: That is correct. The rezone -- Newton-Huckabay: All right. Now, I understand what -- Parsons: The rezone is critical there. Newton-Huckabay: Okay. Got you. Parsons: If the rezone isn't approved, they will be subject to the hours of operation from 6:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. per their zoning. Newton-Huckabay: Okay. Thank you. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission August 19, 2010 Page 27 of 39 Marshall: Quick question for some of the members here, as well as maybe staff. Would somebody help me remember -- haven't we been stipulating hours of operation in neighborhoods areas? Rohm: In the C-N, but not -- Marshall: No. I mean in C-C's with other convenience stores. Parsons: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, Commissioner Marshall, the UDC does allow for you to add provisions within a CUP for hours of operations. If you deem it appropriate, absolutely, and the staff felt that way. I mean that's what I try to do on my analysis, realizing that, yeah, there are some 24 hour uses that may not be appropriate for this site and that's why if you read through the DA provisions staff had recommended some uses be excluded from commencing on this site, because it would tend to have later hours of operations or 24 hour uses. Mr. Eddy has communicated to staff that his typical hours of operation is to midnight. He doesn't see anything. One other thing I'd like to point out, too, is that that drive-thru use proposed for the site isn't for restaurant or fast food, it's really for someone to go up there and order a gallon of milk and someone hand it to you outside the window, so it's really a fast food convenience store or drive-thru convenience. And so that's something that the applicant's testing the waters on, too. Marshall: I guess my question was based on a couple convenience stores that have come in the past year and a half, two years ago, that we were imposing some hours of operation that went to midnight or something like that. I'm just trying to be consistent here and I could not -- I can't recall exactly when and exactly where, but I do recall something about that. Newton-Huckabay: Commissioner Marshall, I think that in the past we have tried to accomplish things like that, but I think one thing that I consider is how much of a 24 hour society that we are becoming and it's a -- not everybody -- I think that if you have a general hours of operation you're going to only operate when you have customers using your business and you're going to extend those or condense those based on when you're bringing in revenue and I think probably the business owner is probably the best -- best determiner -- person to determine that, in my opinion. Marshall: Unless you're abutting residences. Newton-Huckabay: Who are going to be the majority of your customer base. Marshall: So, I think that's why we have limited hours of operation on previous convenience stores, but I do believe we have public testimony in those cases, people not wanting them to operate all day and all night. Rohm: I think that's the compelling factor right there is this application doesn't have any objections and -- Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission August 19, 2010 Page 28 of 39 Marshall: Very good point. Rohm: -- the applicant has demonstrated in the past a willingness to work with the community and other locations if this is as applied as Commissioner Newton-Huckabay has pointed out that it seems to be appropriate. But that's my opinion on that. Commissioner Freeman, do you have additional comments? Freeman: I just have one question and it may seem like an odd one, but in the Public Works Department comments item 2.6, it says street signs are to be in place, water system shall be approved and activated, fencing installed, drainage lots constructed and the road base approved prior to applying for building permits. Is that a typical requirement? That seemed odd to me that construction is actually required before they can even apply for a building permit. I just wanted to make sure that was understood by everybody. Steckline: Mr. Chair, Commissioners, Commissioner Freeman, that is an actual typical standard that Public Works does require for applying for a building permit. Freeman: That's all for me. Rohm: Okay. Thank you. Newton-Huckabay: I propose that we ask the Public Works Department two more questions before the end of this meeting, because that would be a record. Rohm: All right. We will take that under advisement. At this time could I get a motion to move this project forward? Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair, after considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move to recommend approval to City Council of file number RZ 10-001, CUP 10-007, and DES 10-00 -- excuse me -- 10-032 as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of August 19, with no notifications. Marshall: Second. Rohm: It's been moved and seconded to forward onto City Council recommending approval of RZ 10-001 and CUP 10-007 and the -- Marshall: DES 10-032. Rohm: And 10 dash -- Marshall: DEC 10 dash -- Rohm: DES 10-002? Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission August 19, 2010 Page 29 of 39 Marshall: 032. Newton-Huckabay: 032. Rohm: 032. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carried. Thank you, folks. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Rohm: Okay. Moving on -- Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair, I would just like to make the comment on these two Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law related to the daycare and the pre-school. I think not understanding the process might have led the members in the audience to think that something exciting was going to happen at the end of the meeting when this -- that they might want to hang around for and -- but the, certainly, we are getting close to the end I know, but it -- it is going to be rather underwhelming. Item 10: Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: CUP 10-006 Request for Conditional Use Permit approval of a daycare center for up to 40 children in an R-8 zoning district for Blairmore Pre-School Daycare by Laurie Gallia - 3150 N. Blairmore: Item 11: Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: CUP 10-008 Request for Conditional Use Permit approval of a daycare center for up to 48 children in a C-G zoning district for Bright Start Pre-School by Colette Culp and Heidi Linzbach - 2250 N. Meridian Road: Rohm: Can we change the order and go ahead and do the Findings of Facts. We will just do those real quick like and, then, we will move onto the Comprehensive Plan discussion. So, at this time I'd like to go to Item No. 10 and 11 and let's do them both at the same time. We have before us the Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law for approval of CUP 10-006 and CUP 10-008. Could I get a motion to approve those? Freeman: So moved. O'Brien: Second. Rohm: It's been moved to approve the Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law for CUP 10-006 for Blaimore Pre-School Daycare and CUP 10-008 Bright Star Pre-School. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carried. Thank you, folks, for coming in. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission August 19, 2010 Page 30 of 39 Item 9: Public Hearing: CPAT 10-001 Request to amend the text of the Comprehensive Plan pertaining to the Mixed Use land use designations contained in Chapter VII by City of Meridian Planning Department: Rohm: Okay. At this time I'd like to open the public hearing on CPAT 10-001 and begin with the staff report. Hood: Thank you, Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission. I'm afraid you just chased away most of my audience. I thought there was going to be some folks here, maybe, to testify on the mixed use proposal that I will run through for you and one other person in the audience this evening. Thank you for being there. A CPAT 10-001 is a proposal to amend some of the text of the Comprehensive Plan. All of the text that is proposed to be amended is on -- in Chapter 7 between pages 100 and 107 and they do all apply to the mixed use designations in the Comprehensive Plan. Planning staff has heard over the years -- or at least since 2002 when the Comprehensive Plan was adopted, that -- and certainly our experience would also go to the fact that the current comp plan and the designations of the mixed use categories don't adequately guide development in those areas. Certainly you can attest to some of those, too, and we weren't getting some of the diversity and wasn't really guiding development the way we had hoped it to originally. So, the Planning Department has put together an update to the definitions. We drafted the changes. I solicited, along with Bill's help -- thank you, Bill -- from some developers. We invited some property owners that we knew had already owned properties on our Comprehensive Plan that were designated for mixed uses and as well as some that had developed mix use developments. So, we both had potential there and future developers there. I invited some real estate agents that we knew were involved in some mixed use developments and, then, I went in April of this year to the Building Contractors Association and presented our draft changes at that point, too. Mr. Turnbull didn't even stick around. He was one of the developers that probably looked at this the hardest and gave us the time. I appreciate his review, as well as some of the other staff over there at Brighton. We actually -- Anna and myself went over to Brighton one day and went through some of the concerns that they had and what you see before you now. I guess it's a testament we have reached an agreement on some of those things and that they didn't even stick around to testify. So, we did have some back and forth, but, again, we have come to some agreement on the guide for the mixed use areas. Just a little bit of the background on -- and kind of where we are with mixed use in general. There is about 4,000 acres on our future land use map. They are shown as one of the five categories of mixed use. That doesn't include the Ten Mile area, there is some additional acreage in there. But the five -- five main categories of mixed use is about 4,000 acres. About half of those are already developed, so we have got about 2,100 -- a little under 2,100 acres still in the city to develop in mixed use. So, we are about halfway built out of the mixed use area shown on the Comp Plan. As I mentioned before, the revised definitions try to better explain the general standards for most of the five categories -- really, interconnectivity, open space, combination of compatible uses, higher than normal densities. Also we tried to clean up the neighborhood center overlay, it was a little weird with how it was -- you jumped into the mixed use and it jumps right off the bat you're talking about a neighborhood center. Well, that's just one Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission August 19, 2010 Page 31 of 39 overlay area of the mixed use designation. We also tried to clarify what types of uses and the ratios are envisioned in each -- at each scale and in each category. And we also tried to give some visual examples. Again, Bill helped me out finding some of those visual examples to further show what the -- what a mixed use area could potentially look like. I will just -- and it's in the staff report as well, but we will clean those up. Those are some good placeholders with the Comp Plan, reformat and update that we are currently in process with. We have got -- actually, Will Thornton in our office is going to work on doing some sketches that we can make our own and customize those. But at least as a good placeholder for another six month or so to kind of paint that picture of what we are looking for in those areas. Again, you know, it's just a guide, it's not code, but we do -- we are excited about easing these standards or the guides that help review mixed use developments. And we hope the development community will use them, too. I mean that's the real intent is that we can get some buy in and that it helps produce better product. In most of the five subcategories we require at least three different types of land uses, so most of them need to have a combination of three of the five. The five are residential, commercial, office, civic and industrial, so except for the non-residential where, obviously, there is not going to be residential in those, most of the other ones require a mix of those. The text changes proposed are both in content and format, as I mentioned. Because of the mixed use regional, mixed use nonresidential, and the mixed use interchange definitions have all been updated within the past 18 months or so, we didn't monkey around with those too much, other than to format them with the other ones so it's consistent. It reads consistently throughout the pages 100 to 107. So, the meat of those areas haven't changed too much. The most significant changes, then, occur with the general mixed use and the neighborhood center definitions and mixed use neighborhood and mixed use community, we spent quite a bit of time on those ratios and what appropriate acreages are for open space and densities and those types of things. We have, again, attempted to organize and the layout of the various definitions in the standard format and with the figures. I will -- before Igive my concluding remarks I mentioned that the diagrams that we have put in there are kind of placeholders. Just -- I haven't talked to you for awhile, so I'm going to go off on a tangent for just a second, but the Comp Plan update that the existing conditions report, we had a joint workshop six months ago or so with the Council, we will be doing -- looking to do another one of those this fall, so we will have some updated information and pick that back up with a reformatted Comp Plan, at least a draft, so be looking for more comments from the Commission and the Council later on this fall. I don't have a date yet from the Mayor's office when that will work. Just another note just to keep you in the loop. We are going to do a town hall meeting in October, so mid October we will have something central Meridian, again, the location hasn't been determined yet, but we are going to invite the public out to come and testify and that will kind of be our -- really our roll out of this. We will do some things on the Internet, too, on our website, we will blog about it, we will put it on Facebook, we will do those types of things to get people to that neighborhood meeting, but that will, essentially, be the draft rollout of our new Comp Plan. So, anyways, just to -- just to kind of keep you informed of the .progress that way, at least a brief update, so -- mentioned that we met -- we worked with Brighton and that the BCS and some other developers and real estate folks, received those comments earlier. We haven't seen Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission August 19, 2010 Page 32 of 39 any comments since I sent out the draft and the only one I think that the clerk received was from NMID stating they didn't have any comments. So, I'm not aware of any opposition to the application, so staff believes that the proposed amendment to the text to the Comprehensive Plan provides an improved guide to future growth and development in Meridian and we would request your forwarding on a recommendation of approval to the City Council. Rohm: Thank you very much. Any questions of staff? Newton-Huckabay: I have none. Rohm: I just have one comment and, yc has this residential component to it, I actually moved forward with that in it ar developments. I really like that idea. development community on that portion Thanks. I think you did a great job. •u know, this mixed use designation that has -- can't think of a single development that has d I'm anxious to see that component in future So, I'm glad you got the buy-in from the of it and look forward to seeing the changes. Hood: Thank you. Freeman: I read through some of this, so I do have some comments, Mr. Chair, and some questions. I read through some of it and I like the clarifications. I think it reads a lot better, a lot more ability for me to differentiate one use from another. I did have some comments as I went through here. On page six one of the -- one of the things we added was that because of the existing small lots within Old Town development is not subject to mixed use standards listed herein and my question is does that leave us wide open to whatever or are there other standards, then, that come in and pick up those lots? Hood: Mr. Chair, Commissioner Freeman, yeah, that's the case. There certainly are other standards and that would apply to the OT, Old Town, so this was just to clarify for the reader that these are for those five subcategories. Our Old Town standards, as well as Ten Mile interchange standards that apply, and you need to go see the Destination Downtown document and our UDC for some of the other codes and standards that would apply, then, in Old Town. Freeman: Answers that question. Another one was for mixed use neighborhood. I see that we are -- we have got a maximum building site of 20,000 square feet, but, then, when I saw sample uses, one of those being schools, I thought that probably most schools that we are going to be building would exceed that, so I wonder if we are being a bit contradictory there for schools. In another zone I notice you had some exceptions for certain uses. Hood: Right. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission August 19, 2010 Page 33 of 39 Freeman: You say 30,000 feet, but for this use, this use, we will allow maybe 50 and wonder if we shouldn't consider that for mixed use neighborhood. Hood: Mr. Chair, again, Commissioner Freeman, yeah, I think that's in the mixed use community. We talked about small grocers and Ithink -- yeah, it's the MUC -- I don't have a page number here, but it's the one, two, three, four, five -- sixth bullet. Unless the structure contains a mix of both residential and office or residential and commercial land use, the maximum building size will be limited to 30,000 square feet -- 30,000 square foot building footprint. For community grocery stores maximum building size should be limited to 60,000 square -- so, that one we realized, you know, a grocery store is really neighborhood serving and they are typically larger than a 30,000 square square foot, so we want -- we want to jump that up, because that use seems to fit nicely in mixed use and we weren't -- quite honestly, I wasn't thinking about schools, so if you wanted some similar language there for aschool -- Freeman: Not that I think might apply. No. Hood: We could cut and paste that sentence, essentially, for a school and -- I don't know what a typical square footage of a school -- we could just exclude schools. Freeman: We can look it up for some of our local schools, because they are pretty much prototype. Hood: Yeah. Or just exclude them. Freeman: Or exclude them. Well, it's an appropriate use still. Hood: Right. Freeman: An example use. Hood: I'm not concerned about the square footage of a school necessarily in the neighborhood. Freeman: I have one more before the rest of the Commissioners shoot me. It's a question -- Marshall: These are good questions. Freeman: Page eight and this is typical, page eight is just an example, but the grid street pattern within the neighborhood allows traffic to the disperse, eases congestion, slows traffic and is safer for residents. I'm just curious when I see the grid pattern -- and I live in a neighborhood that has kind of a grid pattern, I like it, but you don't see it anymore. It just doesn't seem to be the way development works anymore. I'm curious did you get any comments or feedback from some of the developers you spoke to on whether that seemed a practical to them or not? Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission August 19, 2010 Page 34 of 39 Hood: Mr. Chair, just to -- I don't have page numbers on my copy, I apologize, but page eight is -- Freeman: It's just in general. The grid pattern that we are requiring for these, I just wonder if the developers balked at it or if they are all for it. Hood: Well -- and that's why I just want to make -- make certain that I'm looking at the same one. The grid patterns in general, you know, it wasn't a big thing that we highlighted, because the diagram that's repeated in here a couple times for neighborhood centers is actually a carry over from my current Comp Plan, so it wasn't something that is new for the development community in Meridian. You're right, typically we don't get that street pattern. We actually bumped up the most -- the block lengths, because, you're right, we don't see grid patterns and we don't see -- it used to be 300 feet was a maximum block length and we bumped that up to five to six hundred feet or we gave a couple of examples similar to Old Town and Heritage Commons. Freeman: I live in Heritage Commons and it's kind of got a nice character to do it, so -- Hood: Right. So, we have kind of tweaked that a little bit, recognizing that the 300 foot, you know, blocks didn't work, but we still -- they are for traffic calming and making, you know, traffic volumes and the flows, it does still work, we just -- we worked that out a little bit -- that was one of the things we talked about with some of the developers. Freeman: It doesn't sound like the developers had any comments, though. Hood: But, again, that standard did move up, because of some of the conversations we had with developers. Freeman: Okay. Hood: And we aren't going to be -- again, with it being a guide it's not going to be you have to be exactly parallel. Like in Heritage they kind of -- Freeman: Yeah. Hood: -- radiate out from that, so, you know, it's that idea of the gridded pattern, but there is variations of that, too. Freeman: Thank you. Marshall: You have got to admit, though, that developers here have really been kind of late to embrace the more neo-traditional ideas and that is a very neo-traditional idea. It stemmed out of the new urbanism and, again, it's anti-cul-de-sac, which was my point earlier tonight. More in. More out. It distributes the flow better. I'm excited to have that in there. Yeah. And it's been in there and Iguess -- yeah. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission August 19, 2010 Page 35 of 39 Freeman: That's all. Thank you for your additional time. Rohm: Commissioner O'Brien. O'Brien: Yeah. Regarding the comment on the school and the size, typically, of course, most schools are more than 20,000 square feet or 30, but I -- it did happen -- and, in fact, my wife worked for one, a charter school in Garden City that was less than that and also don't they also have like -- is it called a seminary or something that LDS uses quite frequently around the area? I don't know how close -- they usually have them pretty close to a high school, but -- but I mean I could see where that would qualify. Marshall: I think those fall under a church building, as opposed to a school. O'Brien: I have no idea. But the charter schools don't. That's the only comment wanted to make. Hood: Yeah. I think the concern is that schools are larger than 20,000. I'm not aware of any private schools or charter schools or any of those in that realm that are -- have a huge building. Certainly a church that operates a school out of it could be bigger than that, but -- O'Brien: Yeah. Because they -- the school my wife worked for in Garden City on Chinden, they took over a little bakery, some buildings, and a strip mall like, you know, and combined them together and they are relatively small. I don't know how many children they had there, but -- but it was called a charter school and it was small. Just thought I'd throw that out there. Rohm: Okay. Thanks for your comment. Could we get a motion to, then, support this action? Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair? Rohm: Commissioner Newton-Huckabay. Newton-Huckabay: After considering all staff, applicant, public testimony, I move to recommend approval to City Council of file number CPAT 10-001 as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of August 19, 2010, with the following comment related to mixed use community, possibly rewording the appropriate size of school. End of motion. Freeman: I'll second that. Hood: Actually, Mr. Chair, sorry. The mixed use neighborhood is the one that -- Newton-Huckabay: Excuse me. Mixed use neighborhood. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission August 19, 2010 Page 36 of 39 Hood: Public school can be a mixed use community as well. But it can be one that's larger than -- sorry about that. Freeman: Thirty thousand? Hood: From 30,000 feet, so I -- Rohm: I think you get the point. Hood: So, mixed use community excludes schools. Marshall: The idea is to delete schools from these areas? Freeman: No. The idea is not to limit the size of schools in those areas -- Marshall: Right. Freeman: -- is the way it's worded. Hood: Excluding schools -- not excluding schools. Marshall: Oh, excluding them from the -- excluding them from the -- Hood: Square footage limit. Newton-Huckabay: Square foot limit. Marshall: Thank you. I'm a little slow. I'm getting there. Freeman: Well, I'll still second that motion. Rohm: Okay. Good. It's been moved and seconded for forward onto City Council recommending approval of CPAT 10-001 as presented in the staff report within the aforementioned modifications. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carried. Thank you very much. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Rohm: Could 1 get one more motion. Marshall. 1 move that we adjourn. Newton-Huckabay: We have one more item. Marshall: Oh, we do? What else have we got? Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission August 19, 2010 Page 37 of 39 Rohm: Oh. Excuse me. Marshall: Move to withdraw my motion. Freeman: We do? Newton-Huckabay: We have the memorandum from Kristi Vigil. Item 12: Request for Approval to Create /Change New Development Application Forms /Checklists by City of Meridian Planning Department: Rohm: At this time I'd like to move to the request -- what is this? Request for approval to create change in new development application forms. Would the staff like to comment on this approval to create new document application form application? Hood: Very briefly. Thank you, Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission. The UDC requires us to take any changes to our development checklist -- any substantive changes to the Planning and Zoning Commission. So, we are proposing to add to the -- excuse me --the development agreement modification checklist to require an affidavit of legal interest from the person submitting the application actually showing that they have a legal interest in the property. So, that would be the only requested change to the application. Currently anybody could submit an application to amend a development agreement for any property that they so choose. So, we would like to get an affidavit of legal interests on these applications. So, that's the requested change. Rohm: That seems to make sense. Any comments or -- Marshall: My only question is what type of -- how many hoops is somebody going to have to go through before they provide that? What do they have to show? Hood: What you have to show is that one of the properties subject to the development agreement -- any of the property owners subject to the development agreement has authorized whoever is submitting the application to us, the right to -- Marshall: A signed letter? Hood: Right. Marshall: Okay. Hood: It's essentially -- we do have a -- it's a template that you fill out. Marshall: Got you. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission August 19, 2010 Page 38 of 39 Hood: But it's simple. Marshall: Awesome. Rohm: Motion? Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair? Rohm: Commissioner Newton-Huckabay. Newton-Huckabay: 1 would like to -- we are granting approval; right? Yeah. Grant approval to the Planning Department to change the development application forms to add an affidavit of legal interest. End of motion. Freeman: Second. And well done. Newton-Huckabay: Thank you. Rohm: Very good. It's been moved and seconded to approve the Planning Department to add a line to their application form requiring a legal interest -- Newton-Huckabay: Affidavit of legal interests. Rohm: Affidavit of legal interest. All those in favor say aye. Oppose? Motion carried. MOTION CARRIED: -ALL AYES. Rohm: Now, Mr. Marshall. Marshall: Mr. Chair, I move that we adjourn. Freeman: Second. Newton-Huckabay: Second. Rohm: It's been moved and seconded to adjourn. All those in favor say aye. Motion carried. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. MEETING ADJOURNED AT 8:50 P.M. (AUDIO RECORDING ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS.) Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission August 19, 2010 Page 39 of 39 APPROVE -- r~ 7 MICHA L E. OHM -CHAIRMAN ~I~I ~ ~ DATE APPROVED ATTEST: ll: l-[.dl ". VL~~k~ ~--(~ ~- JAYCEE L. HOLMAN, CITY CLERK v~pr ~~ ti oRP q r'd~ * > SEAL o c~~, a ~S r 1st ' ,~d y~ moo. Q,• ~ ~~dAsTY ~ ~©