Loading...
2011 09-15E IDIAN~--- MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING I ~ q ~ p COMMISSION MEETING AGENDA City Council Chambers 33 E. Broadway Avenue, Meridian, Idaho Thursday, September 15, 2011 at 7:00 p.m. 1. Roll-call Attendance X Tom O'Brien O Michael Rohm X _X Steven Yearsley _X Joe Marshall Scott Freeman -Chairman 2. Adoption of the Agenda Approved as Amended 3. Consent Agenda A. Approve Minutes of September 1, 2011 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Approved as Amended B. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: CUP 11-002 Walmart -Overland/Stoddard by Walmart Real Estate Business Trust Located Southeast Corner of W. Overland Road and S. Stoddard Road Request: Conditional Use Permit for aDrive-Thru Establishment Within 300 Feet of Another Drive Thru Facility, a Residential District and Existing Residences Approved C. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: CUP 11-003 Life Church by Life Church Located at 3225 E. Commercial Court Request: Conditional Use Permit to Operate a Church from an Existing Building in an I-L Zoning District Approved 4. Action Items A. Public Hearing: RZ 11-003 Kingsbridge by BHH Kingsbridge, LLC Generally Located East Side of S. Eagle Road; Midway Between E. Victory Road and E. Amity Road Request: Rezone of 38.31 Acres of Land from the R-2 Zoning District to the R-4 Zoning District Recommend Approval to City Council B. Public Hearing: CPAM 11-002 Millennium Retail Center by Jeffrey Hall Located Generally at the Southwest Corner of W. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Agenda -Thursday, September 15, 2011 Page 1 of 2 All materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. Anyone desiring accommodation for disabilities related to documents and/or hearing, please contact the City Clerk's Office at 888-4433 at least 48 hours prior to the public meeting. Overland Road and S. Millennium Way at 2045 E. Overland Road: Request to Amend the Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map Designation on 2.54 Acres of Land from High Density Residential (HDR) to Commercial Recommend Denial to City Council C. Public Hearing: PFP 11-002 VanAuken Subdivision by Mason & Stanfield Inc. Located at 34 E. Fairview Avenue Request: Combined Preliminary/Final Plat Approval Consisting of Two (2) Building Lots on 5.20 Acres of Land in a C-C Zoning District Recommend Approval to City Council D. Public Hearing: CPAM 11-001 Southridge Apartments by The Farran Group, LLC Located South Side of W. Overland Road Midway Between S. Ten Mile Road and S. Linder Road Request: Amend the Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map Designation on 26.38 Acres of Land from Medium Density Residential (MDR) to Medium High Density Residential (MHDR) Recommend Approval to City Council E. Public Hearing: RZ 11-002 Southridge Apartments by The Farran Group, LLC Generally Located South Side of W. Overland Road Midway Between S. Ten Mile Road and S. Linder Road Request: Rezone of 42.36 Acres of Land from the TN-R and R-8 Zoning Districts to the R-15 Zoning Districts Recommend Approval to City Council F. Public Hearing: RZ 11-004 Chesterfield by Liberty Development, Inc. Located South Side of W. Pine Avenue; Midway Between N. Black Cat Road and N. Ten Mile Road Request: Rezone of 1.48 Acres of Land from the R-8 Zoning District to the R-15 Zoning District Continue Public Hearing to October 6, 2011 G. Public Hearing: PP 11-007 Cheste~eld by Liberty Development, Inc. Located South Side of W. Pine Avenue; Midway Between N. Black Cat Road and N. Ten Mile Road Request: Preliminary Plat Approval of 148 Residential Lots and Twelve (12) Common Lots on 28.2 Acres in an Existing R-8 Zone and a Proposed R-15 Zone Continue Public Hearing to October 6, 2011 Adjourned at 8:46 p.m. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Agenda -Thursday, September 15, 2011 Page 2 of 2 All materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. Anyone desiring accommodation for disabilities related to documents and/or hearing, please contact the City Clerk's Office at 888-4433 at least 48 hours prior to the public meeting. Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting September 15, 2011 Meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission of September 15, 2011, was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Chairman Scott Freeman. Members Present: Chairman Scott Freeman, Commissioner Joe Marshall, Commissioner Steven Yearsley and Commissioner Tom O'Brien. Member Absent: Commissioner Michael Rohm. Others Present: Machelle Hill, Ted Baird, Pete Friedman, Sonya Wafters, Bill Parson, Scott Steckline and Dean Willis. Item 1: Roll-Call Attendance: Roll-call X Steven Yearsley X Tom O'Brien Michael Rohm X Joe Marshall X Scott Freeman -Chairman Freeman: Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. At this time I'd like to call to order the regularly scheduled meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission for the date of September 15th, 2011. And, Machelle, could we begin with roll call. Item 2: Adoption of the Agenda Freeman: Thank you. Okay. The first item we need to take care of is the adoption of the agenda. I do have some changes to the agenda. Items F and G on the agenda that have to do with RZ 11-004 and PP 11-007, Chesterfield, they have asked for a continuance on that, so that will not be heard until October 6th. So, if anybody in the audience is here to speak to that application, we are only going to open it tonight for the sole purpose of continuing it, there won't be a public hearing until they are ready on the 6th. Okay. So, with that could I get a motion to adopt the agenda as amended? O'Brien: So moved. Yearsley: Second. Freeman: Okay. It's been moved and seconded to adopt the agenda as amended. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? Okay. Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. Item 3: Consent Agenda A. Approve Minutes of September 1, 2011 Planning and Meridian Planning & Zoning September 15, 2011 Page 2 of 40 Zoning Commission Meeting B. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: CUP 11-002 Walmart -Overland/Stoddard by Walmart Real Estate Business Trust Located Southeast Corner of W. Overland Road and S. Stoddard Road Request: Conditional Use Permit for aDrive- Thru Establishment Within 300 Feet of Another Drive Thru Facility, a Residential District and Existing Residences C. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: CUP 11-003 Life Church by Life Church Located at 3225 E. Commercial Court Request: Conditional Use Permit to Operate a Church from an Existing Building in an I-L Zoning District Freeman: Okay. On the Consent Agenda tonight, which is our next item, we have three items, the approval of the minutes on September 11th, 2001, of the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting, the Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law for approval of CUP 11-002 and the Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law for approval of CUP 11-003. Are there any changes that need to be made? Marshall: Mr. Chair, I'd like to change that to the minutes of September 1. Freeman: Did I say something else? Marshall: I believe it was the 11th. Freeman: Noted, then. September 1. I had my son's birthday, actually, in mind, guess. Okay. I do actually have one correction. In the meeting minutes where we started off page two, it was actually Commissioner Freeman at the top of the page, not Commissioner Rohm. That's the only item I have to change. So, could I get a motion to accept the Consent Agenda as noted? Yearsley: So moved. Marshall: Second. Freeman: Okay. It's been motioned and seconded to accept the Consent Agenda. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? All right. Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. Freeman: Okay. Before we get onto our main items for today on the agenda, just want to kind of go over the process for everybody in the audience so you understand how this is going to work if you haven't been here before. We are going to open each item one by one and we will begin with a staff report. At that time Commissioners might have Meridian Planning & Zoning September 15, 2011 Page 3 of 40 some questions of staff and, then, after that the applicant will have 15 minutes to come forward and present the application to us. After the applicant speaks, then, we will take public testimony and there is a sign-up sheet in the back if you are planning on testifying today. It will be helpful to sign up on that sheet. It's not absolutely necessary, though. Once I go through all the names on the sheet, then, I will ask if there is anybody else in the audience that wants to speak. After we hear public testimony, then, the applicant will have an opportunity to come up for another ten minutes and respond to anything heard in the public testimony. At that time we will close the public hearing and the Commissioners will deliberate here and, hopefully, we will be able to make a decision and offer up a recommendation on that item and, then, we will move onto the next item. Item 4: Action Items A. Public Hearing: RZ 11-003 Kingsbridge by BHH Kingsbridge, LLC Generally Located East Side of S. Eagle Road; Midway Between E. Victory Road and E. Amity Road Request: Rezone of 38.31 Acres of Land from the R-2 Zoning District to the R-4 Zoning District Freeman: So, with that I'd like to open the public hearing on Item RZ 11-003, Kingsbridge by BHH Kingsbridge, starting with the staff report. Parsons: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. The application before you this evening is for a rezone of a previous project that you approved in late 2010 known as Kingsbridge Subdivision. This is phase two and phase three. Anew preliminary plat was approved by Council in 2011 as well and, then, also the applicant has commenced with construction on phase two. The subject property is located east of South Eagle Road, midway between Amity Road and Victory Road here. I would point out to the Commission that phase one has been recorded and also has homes constructed as well. So, the reason why we are here tonight is really to discuss the rezone of this property. It's currently zoned R-2. The property is zoned low density residential in the comprehensive map and anticipates dwelling units between -- anticipates dwelling units between -- anticipates three dwelling units or less to the acre. If you recall when you acted on this preliminary plat back in 2010, the density proposed at that time was 1.88 units to the acre. So, if you look at the exhibit on the left-hand side here you will see that this is pretty much similar, the same identical plat that you -- you acted on and Council acted on, so it does reference the 72 buildable lots. It does reference those lot sizes and the applicant has also gone one step further and also provided to you, basically, had a detailed sheet that kind outlines both zoning districts as well for a comparison. I would let you know that there is a development agreement modification concurrent with this application, but City Council will be the final decision- making body on that application. So, just for information purposes only, I have attached this as an exhibit, just to kind of explain to you what -- what's going to transpire here. would point out, again, that lot count -- it is 72 lots. The applicant is not proposing to deviate from that, nor the density. So, what you see on the left-hand side here, there is some green asterisks on some of the lots, those are highlighted for single story homes, which is consistent with the past approvals. And, then, also the applicant is proposing Meridian Planning & Zoning September 15, 2011 Page 4 of 40 to minimize or proposing to limit the size of homes on the property. So, for example, if you look at the exhibit on the right, the minimum for single story houses will be 2,000 square feet and the minimum house size for two story homes would be 2,400 square feet. Also in 2011, if I can just digress one bit, the applicant tried to proceed with a variance on the property, against staffs recommendation and they got before Council and we determined -- Council did, that avariance -- a blanket variance wasn't the appropriate mechanism to seek relief from the setback standards in the R-2 zone and so during that hearing it was discussed that the applicant should probably proceed with the rezone and that's why we are here before you this evening. So, again, with the exhibit on the right, you can see the R-4 zone and the R-2 zone -- in the UDC the density -- the maximum density requirement in the R-4 zone is four units to the acre and in the R-2 zone it's two units to the acre. Again, this plat was approved with 1.88 and that is -- they are not deviating from that. And, then, the applicant's kind of broke out your front yard, side yard, and rear yard setbacks. The major difference between the setbacks in the two zones is really the side yard setback. In the R-2 zone you're required to provide 15 foot setbacks for a two story home and in the R-4 zone it's just a flat five foot minimum and that's, basically, the reason for the rezone as well, it's just so that they can have at least a little bit more flexibility in the home designs that they are proposing to construct in there. If I go to the next slide here, these are the elevations that staff recommended for approval and Council acted on and these are going to be tied to the DA as well. So, you can see they are planning quite a variety of different style homes in there and they just want that flexibility in there. I would point out to you as well that we did get verbal confirmation from the applicant and they are in agreement with the conditions in the staff report and also he sent me an a-mail from one of the -- the homeowners association -- or not the homeowners association, but the advisory committee for Kingsbridge Subdivision No. 1. In that a-mail it looks like they support the rezone, provided the applicant complies with that exhibit we just saw on the previous slide. To my knowledge there are no other outstanding issues before you this evening and with that I would be happy to answer any questions you may have. Freeman: Thank you. Any questions? O'Brien: I have a question, Mr. Chair. Freeman: Commissioner O'Brien. O'Brien: Bill, I don't know if you would have this -- this information available, but on the west side of Eagle Road -- I assuming it's just across the road from where this is proposed -- I think those are Corey Barton Homes as well. Are these Corey Barton? No? Okay. So, the similar density -- I think they are proposing a very similar -- but I'm not sure if you're familiar with that particular area, but you're looking about the same kind of density is across Eagle Road or more? Parsons: Mr. Chair, Commissioner O'Brien, this is far less than probably what you see across the road. I mean we are talking 1.8 units to the acre. That's -- we are consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. The Corey Barton sub that you were referencing is Meridian Planning & Zoning September 15, 2011 Page 5 of 40 located on the southwest corner, I believe, of Victory and Eagle and they're R-8 up there, so I would imagine they are probably closer to -- with that Comprehensive Plan designation, that -- they can range anywhere from three to eight units to the acre. So, this is well below what -- O'Brien: I just wanted to make a comparison. I wasn't sure what they had, so thank you, appreciate it. Freeman: Any other questions of staff? Okay. Well, at this time if the applicant would like to come forward. Please state your name and address into the microphone and speak clearly into it. Schultz: Good evening. Commissioners. My name is Matt Schultz, with the Schultz company, at 5463 Acheron in Boise, representing the applicant BHH Kingsbridge, LLC, which is a company of Boise Hunter Homes, who owns the property of 38.3 acres, just east of Kingsbridge phase one, Kingsbridge phase one was built five or six years ago. Boise Hunter Homes bought this back end last year and, then, as Bill -- Bill went through, replatted it, didn't change the density, didn't change the lot sizes, it's pretty rare that I'm up representing an R-2 subdivision. I have done a lot of subdivisions over the years and, excuse me, these are large lots, these are 12,000 square foot minimum, 16,000 square foot average. Used to doing an R-4 at the biggest, but this is an R-2 sub -- Marshall: Mr. Chair? Freeman: Just a moment. Marshall: Could we turn up the volume? Is there any way to turn up the volume? Friedman: The volume is up as high as it can go, so if Mr. Schultz can lean in closer to the microphone -- Schultz: Get in closer? Is that better? Okay. I'll lean closer. Maybe that will make it -- Freeman: Thank you. Schultz: It's a large lot subdivision, but with a little quirk, if you will, in the -- in the dimensional standards of the zoning, which allows an 80 foot minimum lot in an R-4 an 80 by 145 is a 12,000 square foot lot, which we have several of. The two story homes with a 15 and 15, you're allowed a 55 foot wide house, which is a fine home, don't get me wrong, but it really doesn't do any justice to the overall Kingsbridge Subdivision, it doesn't allow for flexibility to do side entry garage, you know, an RV bay, really deemphasizes the garage and that front design, really create homes with a nice upper end street presence, if you will. And so the reason we are here is only for the side yard setbacks and, I agree, the zoning is the appropriate venue to -- to work with the setbacks. It's not a variance. Only in specific situations are variances allowed and Meridian Planning & Zoning September 15, 2011 Page 6 of 40 those are very rare. So, it's definitely a zoning and the next zoning up is R-4. It is a low density designation like R-2. We have R-2 frontage limits built into our DA modification. So, really, a DA modification really goes hand in glove with this, is that, yes, we are asking for a rezone. However, we are going to limit phase three, which we are not under construction on right now, to be 80 foot wide minimum, 12,000 square foot minimum, 72 lots overall, and really tie everything in that you need to as a neighborhood and as a city to make sure that with phase three anew --anew plat doesn't come forward with 8,000 square foot lots. And so that -- even though you guys don't act on that, it is important for you to know that that is a companion item with it going to Council, that in addition we have highlighted on that exhibit -- you see in front of you those three in the northwest, you have aunique -- it's not a unique. We had a situation where you have a rear yard abutting a side yard for existing homes and we felt it was important -- that was -- we talked to some of the neighbors and they were concerned, we felt it was important to limit -- put an extra wide setback there that regardless of two story or single story, that will be 15 foot wide, which is the same as a rear -- a rear minimum and I think it's important to point out that we are not asking to go build right to the minimums on all these lots, these lots are so wide -- a lot of them -- some of them are 125, 97, you know, the architecture is going to be what it is and it's probably going to have ten and tens or -- but there are going to be some, especially those in the middle, that are 85 by 145 that some of those may be 75 foot wide houses and that would be okay. I think we have a lot of R-4, nice homes in the city approved over the years, considered large lot subdivisions with upper end homes, that have some five and five's and that's okay and we did run it by the fire department and they were okay with that as well. So, you know, with that I'm here to answer any questions and ask for your approval. Freeman: Thank you. Any questions? Thank you very much. Do we have sign-up sheets, Machelle? We will get the sign-up sheets in just a moment and I will just go down those in order if anybody has signed up to testify. When you do come forward please state your name and address for the record and speak into the mike closely, so that everybody can hear. I did skip over the fact that when you do come forward to testify you're given three minutes to speak, unless you're speaking for a group that's represented here. If that's the case let me know and I will take a show of hands, so that we know who you are speaking for, and in that case you will be given ten minutes. Okay. So, the first person on the list -- Matt, we already heard from you -- is Scott Flemming. Again, just state your name and address for the record when you approach the mike. Thank you. Flemming: My name is Scott Flemming. I reside at 3910 South Tavistock on -- right on the border with the new phase that's going in. I don't really have much of an issue with the zoning that's going on, other than I would like to see the developer honor the original setbacks for lots like mine that butt up against the new phase, just for -- you know, when bought the lot it was part of why I bought it, I thought, you know, that it would restrict maybe my view of the mountains and -- or that a house being built would not, I should say, obstruct the view that I have of the mountains and I'm afraid that with the changes in the setback, just for those lots specifically, that -- that it could block those views, one of them being mine, and I would like the Council to, you know, consider that when Meridian Planning & Zoning September 15, 2011 Page 7 of 40 thinking of approving. Like I said, it's just a handful of lots there that I believe, you know, we would like to see them honor those. Freeman: Mr. Flemming, I have a question for you. Flemming: Uh-huh. Freeman: Are you referring to the same handful of lots where the applicant stated he intends to maintain that 15 foot setback even though it's a side yard? Flemming: I didn't -- I didn't understand what he was -- what he was saying. Freeman: Okay. There are -- there are three lots he's identified on here that have side yards abutting adjacent existing properties, but the development agreement as stated will maintain 15 feet of side yard, which is the same as the rear yard for those. So, I was just curious if you're aware of any other areas where it was an issue or if we are speaking to the same thing. Flemming: We could be speaking of the same -- Freeman: Okay. When the applicant comes back up, maybe he can clarify for us, but think he has addressed that. Flemming: Okay. Good. Freeman: Okay. Great. Thank you. Next in line is Laurie Allen. Please state your name and address for the record. Allen: My name is Laurie Allen and I live north of the property on a small acreage on Terri Drive, 3550 Terri Drive, and we -- we originally had winding streets back there and large lots and we have, as a group, fought very hard, the surrounding properties, to get that for several years and, then, all of a sudden it's turned into these little square lots and now they want them even to be closer, five feet apart from the property line, and I object to the plan all the way around, but specifically that these people with the yellow highlight, they got what they wanted was the 15 -- 15 foot side setback, but not along the north perimeter and we did go and talk to him and he kind of said that he would take care of that. So, I am afraid that if it gets zoned R-4, that two years from now, three years from now, what would keep them from coming in and saying, well, you know, now that we are zoned R-4, we would like to change the density and change the lot -- the plot -- excuse me -- the lot lines for the -- the lots, like they did on phase two and what would keep that from happening that's what I'm questioning. Freeman: Commissioner Marshall, would you like to speak to that? Marshall: First, I'd like to ask a quick question. Were you here back last year when -- Meridian Planning & Zoning September 15, 2011 Page 8 of 40 Allen: I'm not hearing you. Freeman: Were you here last year when this plat was approved? Allen: I missed this -- this change. No. Marshall: Okay. That was a noticed approval and this plat's already approved. Allen: I realize that. Marshall: Okay. Now -- Allen: But what I'm saying is it got changed, so what would keep it from getting changed again to match the R-4 if it gets rezoned? Marshall: Well, that would be the development agreement, of which I believe staff could help you with. Friedman: Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, there is nothing to say that they couldn't request it. There is no assurance it would be granted. But, again, to change any provisions of either the development agreement or come back and resubdivide it, have to go back through this whole process again, has to be considered by the -- by the Commission and, then, ultimately by the City Council. Allen: I understand that. That's why I'm objecting to changing the zoning to R-4, because that just makes it that much easier for them to come and make smaller lots the next time and every year less people come, they get use to it, and they stop fighting. It doesn't affect them directly, so they give up. That's my say on it. Freeman: Okay. Thank you. Phillip Allen. Please state your name and address for the record. P.Allen: My name is Phillip Allen. Laurie is my wife. I live in the same place. I just have to say what she said, but further to say that it doesn't seem quite right that when we have an agreement that everybody's made and over time they can chip away at it and chip away at it and in a few years the river is running in a whole new direction and so what we have done to -- we have done for nothing. Everything's changed. You people change. They change. You know. But the money is going into their pockets to get what they want and sometimes that comes back to the city to get what the city wants, but that doesn't help us, that doesn't help what we originally got here. So, I say no. Enough is enough, you know. What are they going to include and help us out do -- or do? Nothing. So, it just doesn't seem right that we go to all that trouble, we fight it, and they keep chipping and now there is three of us here instead of 30 of us, because people are losing interest and a lot of people believe in this system, which I know better. It's going to change and as long as you allow it to change, it's going to keep right on going until it's a new ball game. So, that's why I object to it. Thank you. Meridian Planning & Zoning September 15, 2011 Page 9 of 40 Freeman: Thank you, Mr. Allen. Is there anybody else that came to testify on this item? No. Okay. Any other questions? Commissioner Marshall, you were about to speak? Marshall: I was just going to ask the applicant back up to rebut. Freeman: Thank you. Okay. If the applicant would like to come forward. You have another ten minutes to respond to anything that you heard. Schultz: Thank you. I don't know if I will need the whole ten, but I do appreciate it. I did talk to Mr. Flemming after he came and sat down. He -- he lives abutting that -- just south of our main entrance there, that big number one lot -- try this thing out. Oops. Did I do something wrong? How do I point on here? Parsons: Choose your color at the top, Matt. Schultz: Right there. He lives abutting right there. Abutting that lot and I pointed out fortunately he backs up to a 220 foot deep lot, which in my opinion is extremely large and deep and it does maintain the same setbacks as were originally approved on the first plat if I remember correctly, those lots that were originally approved in the first plat might have been 130 feet deep or 140. So, it's definitely an improvement on those and those lots abutting phase one are very large -- we have some 20,000 square foot lots abutting up to phase one. As far as the Allens, I do appreciate their comments. They did come to the neighborhood meeting and chatted with them there and they live in the northeast corner of our site next to those three stars that designate single homes that will be built up there adjacent to their property, as well as -- I believe the lot depths are 150, plus a 30 foot buffer there to the north. So, there are ample setbacks, ample depths, ample provisions to our five acre lot neighbors on the north and the east, which we -- and the south and that's why -- those were all negotiated through the original approval process done five years ago and included as part of a settlement agreement with the original developer, who is no longer out there. We are incorporating those. We are bringing all those items forward, like the minimum square footage of 2,000 for single story and minimum square footage for 2,400 on two story and bringing all those items forward and locking them into a development agreement, which runs with the land, regardless of ownership. So, if it sells there is a development agreement that records with the land. The only way to change that development agreement is to come back in front of the City Council and go through a public hearing process, which would be very -- very difficult. So, with that -- that's why we do a development agreement, to assure neighbors, to assure Councils, to assure staff, that, yes, what we are going to build is what you see and, in fact, we are building phase two as we speak, kind of locks in what we can do on phrase three where we have these stub streets and there is not much you can do to redo phrase three right now, even if we wanted to and even if that was something we thought we could get done easily. So, with that I hope you can move us on to City Council, so we can know what size homes we can build and we are excited to say we will be paving probably by Halloween on phase two, which is a good thing in this Meridian Planning & Zoning September 15, 2011 Page 10 of 40 economy and I'm happy to be construction managing that and moving things forward, so I'd ask for your approval. Thanks. Freeman: Mr. Allen, before you go I just want to make sure I'm clear on a couple of things. I'm looking at the chart that I believe you supplied, the comparison of the R-4 zone and R-2 zone. Schultz: Schultz. Freeman: I'm sorry. Mr. Schultz. I knew that. It's right at the top of my paper here. Schultz: I did supply that. Freeman: Okay. And it doesn't appear to me that you are proposing any change on the rear setbacks between -- on these lots. The zoning is the same, it's the 15 feet, and I'm looking at the northern lots, because that's where the Allens live and their concerns are specifically regarding that. I'm correct there, right? Schultz: Correct. And that's -- Freeman: The setbacks are going to be the same? Schultz: -- that's one of the reasons why I -- for my own education, because I haven't done an R-2 sub -- I went through and just compared what are we really asking for here, what is different, and there is no difference between the rear in an R-2 to R-4. None. The front, the only difference is if it's a nongarage you can go to 15, instead of 20. Freeman: And it occurs to me with that being the case, if you had say a 50 or 80 foot deep house, that could actually cause the house to be pushed further away from the north property line, because you can move further south. Schultz: Absolutely. Freeman: So, nothing is lost necessarily, but there might be some -- Schultz: I really feel very comfortable representing this as a good thing for the neighborhood and the community. I mean I have done a lot more difficult applications in terms of the contention, in terms of high density, you know, really pushing them in there and this -- this is not that, this is selling really high end up scale. We want to do something bigger and better, we are just kind of limited by that side yard to do so. Freeman: Okay. Thank you. Any other Commissioners have questions? Go ahead, Commissioner O'Brien. O'Brien: Mr. Chair. So, was there a town meeting held for this particular issue that -- the setbacks with people -- Meridian Planning & Zoning September 15, 2011 Page 11 of 40 Freeman.: Yes, sir. We -- as required before we submit our application we have to have a neighborhood meeting. We had it here at -- across the hallway there in the conference room approximately -- probably 45 days ago. O'Brien: Okay. So it was recent. Schultz: It was recent. It was right before we submitted our application. O'Brien: How many showed up, if I may ask? Schultz: The Allens showed up and I believe two other people. There was some others that couldn't attend that I went and spoke with separately that lived in Kingsbridge to get some of their feedback, too, as well, just to make sure I didn't have any surprises. O'Brien: All right. Schultz: More so than what normally happens. O'Brien: Okay. Freeman: Any other questions? O'Brien: That's all I have. Thanks. Yearsley: I have one. Freeman: Commissioner Yearsley. Yearsley: Just for clarification -- I know it's already been approved, but this was asked for a different change of plat just recently; is that correct? Schultz: I believe it was the end of 2010. Yearsley: Was there increased lots with that change or has -- the lots have stayed the same? Freeman: It was a new configuration, same -- same density, same lot count, same everything, just they reconfigured it. Yearsley: Okay. That's what I want to know. Thanks. Freeman: Okay. Thank you. Schultz: Thanks. Meridian Planning & Zoning September 15, 2011 Page 12 of 40 Freeman: Well, could I get a motion at this time to close the public hearing for RZ 11- 003 and MDA 11-006. Yearsley: So moved. O'Brien: Second. Freeman: It's been moved and seconded to close the public hearing for RZ 11-003 and MDA 11-006. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. Freeman: Discussion? Marshall: Mr. Chair? Freeman: Commissioner Marshall. Marshall: If you don't mind bearing with me just a minute. I'd like to give a little of my perspective on some history here with this. If I recall right -- properly, there was an original development here, a plat that was -- it took, actually, a considerable amount of effort and work with all the neighbors, a lot of effort went into developing it until everybody was happy with it. Unfortunately, I believe the developer went bankrupt or sold -- sold the -- sold the property over time. Part of the problem was that the zoning ordinances changed in the meantime and the previous plat did not fit any of our zones, it wasn't going to fit the specifics of that. So, they felt that it was imperative to redesign the plat. Personally, I -- my personal opinion -- I think I expressed this last time -- was much preferred the last layout, but it would have required variances and the like. There would have been some changes, because the zoning law had changed and based on that I believe we got some acceptance of this with -- with the developer giving some concessions in the development agreement to some of the homeowners and the like and this did come back in late 2010 and was passed. We knew at that time, though, there was probably going to be some variance issues with some of the lighter houses and the variance was not approved and Council said that this should probably go back and be rezoned and simply because of this -- the side yard setbacks and it appears that's all we are referring to now. So, they get to build -- if -- if we don't approve those side yard setbacks, then, the houses are going to sit much deeper in the lots and will go closer to the other houses, rather than closer to houses that they are building and, personally, mostly based on the development agreement and the agreements in that development agreement I believe improves on what's there and offers a better quality offering. I am disappointed that we weren't able to continue with what had been agreed with over a long period of time, but, again, that was due to changes not only in ownership of the land, but changes in the law and the zoning ordinance. Excuse me. And that kind of forced people's hands and -- well, I -- I believe I'm going to vote for this, mostly because of not changing R-4, because I don't think an R-4 is appropriate here, and that kind of density with this development, it's, essentially, an R-2 development, but Meridian Planning & Zoning September 15, 2011 Page 13 of 40 by changing this we allow the setbacks to change and still maintained an R-2 density, which I think is in everybody's best interest. That's all I have. Freeman: Thank you. Anyone else?. Yearsley: Mr. Chairman? Freeman: Commissioner Yearsley. Yearsley: I guess to staff, is there a way to help protect the Allens? I understand their concern of coming back in a couple years and maybe adding a couple of lots. Is there any way that we can put a condition on that or -- or recommendation that it not be changed in the future or something to that effect to hold some of that? I don't know. I'm just asking. Friedman: Sure. Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, Commissioner Yearsley -- pardon me. certainly understand the Allens' concern. In order to have any lots to this in the future they would have to come back for a whole new subdivision and a whole new preliminary plat. So, can we condition against that? Probably not. Everybody has a right to apply for something. That doesn't necessarily guarantee them an assurance that it's going to be approved. Yearsley: Right. Friedman: But there is a process, practically speaking, that doesn't make a lot of sense to come back and replat an existing subdivision to add one or two or three lots, I mean what they would have to do -- it would have to be a significant revision and because of the way that the development agreement will be modified it is going to tie them down to the current density, If you will, so it's not that they could come back and say, well, gee, now we are zoned R-4 and we are going to resubdivide this to the R-4 standard, because they are going to be limited by the development agreement. So, they would have to change that also. Yearsley: Okay. Friedman: Does that answer your question? Yearsley: That does and I was just trying to maybe put a recommendation that it not be approved for an additional preliminary plat, but where it's already tied in the development agreement I'm -- I'm comfortable with that. Freeman: Thank you. O'Brien: Mr. Chair? Freeman: Commissioner O'Brien. Meridian Planning & Zoning September 15, 2011 Page 14 of 40 O'Brien: That was my concern as well and I'm glad you clarified that. It was just like certifiable grandfather clause, if you will. I think that's -- that's a good idea that we are able to put that in there and make sure it -- it would have to come before us again if we want to make a change and that was good. That's all I have. Thanks. Freeman: Okay. Thank you. In that case could I get a motion? Yearsley: After considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move to recommend approval of the City Council file number RZ 11-003 and MDA 11-006 as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of September 15th, 2011. O'Brien: I second. Freeman: Okay. It's been motioned and seconded to approve RZ 11-003 and MDA 11- 006. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries. Thank you. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. B. Public Hearing:CPAM 11-002 Millennium Retail Center by Jeffrey Hall Located Generally at the Southwest Corner of W. Overland Road and S. Millennium Way at 2045 E. Overland Road: Request to Amend the Comprehensive Plan Future land Use Map Designation on 2.54 Acres of land from High Density Residential (HDR) to Commercial Freeman: Okay. The next item on the agenda -- once I find it -- is public hearing for CPAM 11-002, Millennium Retail Center by Jeffrey Hall, starting with the staff report. Wafters: Thank you, Chairman Freeman, Members of the Commission. The next application before you is a request for an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan future land use map to change the land use designation on two parcels of land for high density residential to commercial. The subject property consists of 2.54 acres of land, is currently zoned L-O and is located at 1977 and 2045 East Overland Road on the southwest corner of East Overland and South Millennium Way. Adjacent land use and zoning, to the north is commercial property consisting of a movie theater, retail, and restaurants, zoned C-G. To the south is multi-family residential apartments and offices along the west side of South Millennium Way, zoned L-O and offices to the east, zoned L-O, and vacant land to the west, approved to develop with office uses, zoned L-O. A little history on this property. In 2000 the property was rezoned to L-O and platted. A Conditional Use Permit, planned development was approved that allows for retail uses to develop on the lot on the corner of Overland and Millennium. A conceptual development plan was approved with the planned development that depicts a 22,237 square foot retail building on the corner lot and a 15,960 square foot office building on the lot to the west as you- can see here on screen. An office for Corey Barton Homes was constructed on the western lot, but the corner lot remains vacant. The applicant requests a subject map amendment in order develop the property on the corner with a Meridian Planning & Zoning September 15, 2011 Page 15 of 40 drive-thru restaurant and small retail strip behind, consists of with the proposed commercial land use designation. The office that exits on the western property will remain. A development plan was not submitted with this application. If the site develops as proposed a modification to the development plan approved with the planned development is required, along with the rezone and Conditional Use Permit for a drive-thru establishment. Because the property on the corner is already approved through the planned development to develop with retail uses, which are not typically allowed in the L-O district, the map change to commercial, along with a subsequent rezone of the site to a commercial district, will remedy the nonconformance of the zoning in relation to the approved use. If the applicant proposes to rezone the property in the future to accommodate a restaurant use, staff recommends a less intense commercial zoning designation, such as C-N, which would also allow for retail uses. This designation would restrict the hours of operation of businesses from 6:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. and be more compatible with adjacent residential uses. However, no rezone is requested at this time, this is just staffs recommendation on a future zoning. Written testimony was received on this application from the applicant Jim Jewett. He is in agreement with the staff report, except for staffs recommended future zoning of C-N for the property. Staff will stand for any questions the Commission may have. Freeman: Thank you, Sonya. Any questions? O'Brien: Don't have any. Freeman: Okay. Sonya, so if I understand it's currently zoned L-O, we are only changing the future land use plan, so it's going to stay L-O for now, but that will open it up to a different zoning in the future. There is no zoning -- no rezone associated with this applicant -- okay. Wafters: That is correct, Chairman Freeman. Freeman: And the only item that the applicant objects to is just a recommendation, so there is no -- there is no condition placed on this application as you have stated it. Wafters: That's correct, Chairman Freeman. It's only a written recommendation -- or just a recommendation. Freeman: Recommendation. The way I see it. Wafters: It's nothing in stone. Freeman: All right. Thank you for clarifying. Okay. If there are no other questions of staff, would the applicant like to come forward? We will give you 15 minutes and could you, please, state your name and address for the record. Hall: You bet. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Commissioners. My name is Jeffrey Hall with DK Commercial. My address 1880 South Cobalt Point Way in Meridian. 83642. Meridian Planning & Zoning September 15, 2011 Page 16 of 40 And I definitely won't take 15 minutes. I will make this quick. Sonya's report was exceptional, so you can't ever deny that, but, basically, I'm here on behalf of the developer Edge, LLC, and, of course, we are here in support of the land use from HGR to commercial on this property. As a developer and commercial broker, specializing in retail and office uses, I can tell you that the -- the retail component on the south side of the freeway under right now. The retail that is there is challenged by parking issues and I'm talking across from Overland on Majestic east and west, if you know where Rudy's is and, then, also where Harry's is, both those parking lots are challenged. We can't get new tenants in those -- in those because a retail user has parking requirements and, obviously, these -- the landlord brought in users that just had too much parking. I mean, for example, you have -- right directly across the street you have an Army and Navy office, they have 12 vehicles, government cars, alone. So, with their cars and government, that's 12 parking spaces. So, it's been very restrictive. So, we have had a lot of requests to do something out there as far as a retail development and this property serves it well. As Sonya said, this property was approved for a retail building of 22,000 some odd square feet back in 2000 and I can't say that we are going to go that big, but, yeah, we will have, hopefully, a strip center plus adrive-thru on the hard corner. I would have to say that, you know, at this intersection the -- we presently would like to have a C-G or a C-C zone. I know that's going to come down the road, I'm just letting you guys know this now, that, unfortunately, retailers don't like being restricted on the hours of operation, it's not in the trend. The trend right now is to open earlier and stay open later. That's what the trend is, especially on the south side of the freeway. If you go on the south side of the freeway, you know, there is very little as far as staying open past 11:00 o'clock or 12:00 o'clock, except for the bars that we know of. And other retail users, like one of my clients, Subway, they are opening later and later. They are staying open and it's something that -- it's just the trend. You can see other places like Taco Bell, they area 24 hour operation. I don't see them going there. But I do see some -- some great uses, like financial, a bank, possibly, insurance, and, of course, food and beverage. So, that's about it. We, of course, are in support of everything Sonya said, so -- Freeman: Okay. Any questions? Marshall: Mr. Chair? Freeman: Commissioner Marshall. Marshall: If I could just really quick. So, do you still want it to go commercial if we were adamantly -- let's say me, speaking for myself -- were adamantly opposed to any C-G or C-C going in there, would you still be acceptable to a C-N in the future? My issue is -- agree with you, first, that the trend for things is to go later and later and we are seeing more problems with that when we abut residences and this is abutting residential and, then, I can pretty much assure you that I am pretty much against any C-G abutting residential whatsoever. So, would you still be wanting this to go to a C-N and would that still be useful to you? Meridian Planning & Zoning September 15, 2011 Page 17 of 40 Hall: Okay. Well, the answer to your question, first of all, I believe, yes, we would want to move forward. You know, this needs to be commercial and, then, there are uses that we could put in a C-N zone. They are not the preferred uses, they don't always make the numbers work, and the one other thing that I would mention to you is, you know, just like at Mountain View High School, you know, those games get out at after 10:00 o'clock. In this restrictive time we can only go until 10:00 p.m. and that doesn't -- I mean that -- what are we going to put in there that can serve the food needs and everything of those folks, so -- Marshall: Well, I would recommend to you that there are other pieces of property that don't abut residential. Hall: Sure. Any other questions? Freeman: Okay. Thank you. All right. I do have a list of a few names of people wishing to testify on this application today. Let's start with Melissa Rushing. Okay. think it's Tara -- and I can't read the last name. Okay. Jared Heiner. Please state your name and address for the record when you get to the microphone. Heiner: Okay. My name is Jared Heiner. I live at 1333 East Doberman Street and can I go back on this picture? And can I go one more back? So, I live near this intersection here of Locust Grove and Overland. I live -- I live on Doberman Street here in Sportsman Point. So, I live in the area. I also own this building right here, 38, in the Sage Crest development and this building, 11, in the Sage Crest development. My concerns are for the quality of life of the tenants that live there. A lot of them are shift workers, they work night shift or day shift. It is high density, so they have a lot of neighbors. This is a high traffic area right here on Overland. Putting a restaurant into -- this was described as undeveloped land here to the west. They are actually putting a large convenience store, gas station, and possibly truck stop type area in there. So, there is -- there is going to be a lot more traffic, noise, diesel odors for the -- for the residents of Sage Crest. There are several concerns I have with putting a restaurant in here. Some of them -- most of it's environmental concerns. Noise, a lot more traffic, a lot of these fast food restaurants, like Taco Bell that was described -- before I even go into these restaurants I can smell what restaurants they are. So, I can imagine being a tenant in my building, living directly behind one, with the smells of the restaurant, with cars idling in the drive-thru -- I don't know where everyone else lives, but there is so much traffic along here and a lot of them are motorcycles of a particularly loud variety -- Mr. Hall talked about the parking problems, which they do have near Rudy's and Harry's and the restaurant type of establishments that are serving food are the ones that are attracting all this traffic. It's my understanding that the only access to this may be off Millennium Road and if you look, the Sage Crest has two accesses, one's here, one's here. So, when I go to work in the morning there is such a snarl of traffic in here from the kids going to high school that it -- sometimes I will go up Locust Grove and go through the Woodbridge neighborhood to get to where 1 work. I can't imagine the traffic lessening by having a restaurant open at 6:00 a.m. with people going to the restaurant and coming out here and trying to turn left when there is thousands of -- or hundred of Meridian Planning & Zoning September 15, 2011 Page 18 of 40 cars trying to come in from the north. So, for the quality of life of the tenants, for my sake as an investor who owns a couple of these buildings that I bought out of foreclosure from other investors who lost them because the value -- property values went down -- to make the quality of life less for these tenants will do them no good, I'm concerned about my investments, and also, you know, the other concerns. We have got -- now we have got the Public House here, we have got the Curb bar down on Meridian that is -- they are parking in the Jiffy Lube parking lot and the CPA parking lot that's behind there, just because they are spilling over. So, those are my concerns. think if I own that property -- if I owned this property I would want to do whatever I could to maximize my profit potential, so I don't blame the developers at all. As it is, I own these properties, I live in the neighborhood nearby, I know probably ten families -- don't personally know anyone that lives in my buildings, but I know families that live in there, because of the church that's right here that I attend that a lot of these people attend. So, I think it would be detrimental. That's why I oppose it. Freeman: That was Jeffrey Hall. Did I call Jared Heiner's name? I don't know what I'm doing, but when you came up I wrote down Jeffrey Hall, thinking that's what you said, so I'm having a day. Bear with me. Thank you. Would Jeffrey Hall like to come up and -- thank you. Okay. See, I told you I'm having a hard time. David Meisner. You are David. Meisner: Yes. Freeman: Please state your name and address for the record. That will give me three repeats and I will remember. Meisner: Okay. My name is David Meisner. I live at 2978 South Baystar Way, Meridian, Idaho. 83642. I'm one of the owners in the Sage Crest development also and here to kind of represent the Sage Crest property owners association. So, as part of the association -- it's located adjacent to the rezoning, applicant's proposed property. We are a residential community of approximately 200 plus residents. The association has an obligation to protect the quality of life for the community, meaning homogenizing the residential side and the business side of the area. Each owner, which there are approximately 50 plus owners, purchased these properties with the understanding the surrounding businesses of Sage Crest would become offices or similar businesses. To the ones located on the east side of the complex these businesses are real estate offices, day cares, doctor's offices, professional types of businesses. We are opposed to the proposed rezoning of the subject property. We believe what is proposed, adrive- in or a fast food establishment, would be detrimental to the area based on increased traffic. Access would be off the side street and not Overland, therefore, increasing the traffic loads of the side streets. The high school is located on the side street, along with professional offices and apartments, creating traffic issues currently. The smell of the fast food is not compatible with the area. If you have ever lived by a fast food restaurant the smell starts early in the and remains all night. Not desirable living conditions. In addition, the high school students would be walking on a street with no sidewalks, thereby either cutting through apartments or walking on the streets or even treading Meridian Planning & Zoning September 15, 2011 Page 19 of 40 through pathways through the landscape of the professional businesses. There are similar businesses proposed -- to the proposed on the north side of Overland. Wouldn't this be a better place for such a development and thereby keeping similar types of businesses together. The owners and residents of Sage Crest respectfully request the zoning remain unchanged and keep the professional type of buildings or offices to be located next to the residential community Sage Crest. That's all I have got. Freeman: Thank you. Commissioner Marshall, did you have a -- Marshall: I was simply going to point out that this -- this application was not a rezone, but a Comprehensive Plan map amendment, so the zoning is not in question tonight, but it is -- and I appreciate what you're saying, too, so -- Freeman: Thank you. Okay. Was there anybody else that planned on testifying this evening on this item? Okay. Would the applicant like to return to the podium and address anything that you heard. You have ten minutes. Hall: Okay. Definitely we understand neighbors -- you know, we have -- I have got a retail development on the corner of Franklin and Linder, Hark's Corner. I built a 20 foot sound barrier on that behind an Arctic Circle and everything. So, we definitely understand neighbors and when the time comes and we figure out what the uses are going to be, we are going to address that and we are going to make sure they are happy and do the best we can, you know, and it's great to poll neighbors and find out what kind of services they are looking for there and that's what we are going to do. So, that's about all I have to say. Freeman: Okay. Thank you. Could I get a motion to close the public hearing? O'Brien: So moved. Marshall: Second. Yearsley: Second. Freeman: It's been moved and seconded to close the public hearing on CPAM 11-002, Millennium Retail Center. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. Freeman: Discussion? O'Brien: Mr. Chair? Freeman: Commissioner O'Brien. Meridian Planning & Zoning September 15, 2011 Page 20 of 40 O'Brien: Yeah. I have some concerns on -- long term concerns. I'm dead against having a commercial designation there on the map. I just believe this opens for so many issues downstream. I agree with the responses of the citizens that live and own property near that particular zone and I -- I use that area quite a bit. I use a credit union there, my grandkids have their doctor's offices there. I have a pulmonary doctor there. like the -- that light office environment and it really fits well for that zone. For the high school there is enough of the commercial on the corner with Fast Eddy's going in there and that's enough for -- for that area already and that's going to generate some unwanted I guess noise and activity. But add anymore to that I think it's just a -- not a good idea. I still see changing that map to change -- change anything else that leave it like it is. Freeman: Thank you. Anyone else? Commissioner Yearsley. Yearsley: I guess question of staff. This is kind of clearing a hurled for the next step; is that not correct? Watters: Chairman Freeman, Commissioner Yearsley, Commissioners, yes. More or less. It will come back in for a rezone most likely. Yearsley: Okay. But making it on the map -- it makes it a lot easier to come back for a rezone where it's already stated in the map; is that not correct? Watters: That's correct. The current adopted future land use map designation is high density residential. They cannot get a commercial designation under -- zoning designation under that land use designation. Yearsley: Okay. Watters: That's why they are requesting the change. Yearsley: Okay. But Sonya -- Watters: But be clear, you know, the thing that's unique about this property is that the previous planned development clear back in 2000 when we used to do planned developments, approved retail uses on that corner parcel. Right now, you know, the applicant could go in and develop the site with a 24 hour retail use. Yearsley: Like a pharmacy store or something like that; is that correct? Watters: Anything retail that is consistent with the concept plan. If they proposed something that was not consistent with this concept plan, they would have to come back and apply for a modification to that Conditional Use Permit planned development. Yearsley: Okay. Meridian Planning & Zoning September 15, 2011 Page 21 of 40 Wafters: That's the thing that's unique about this site. That was a large part of staffs recommendation on this. Yearsley: So, I guess ultimately my decision on this is just kind of where I'm thinking is don't necessarily disagree that it should be commercial, but I'd prefer it to come in with the whole package at once, instead of let's do this hurdle and, then, go this route, because if we clear this hurdle it makes it easier to do something different that we may not want to happen. So, just kind of give my opinion on that. Freeman: Commissioner Marshall. Marshall: Mr. Chair, thank you. Sonya, quick question. Now isn't there already a light office already built there, a Corey Barton Homes building, that's the one on the west side; right? Wafters: That is correct, Commissioner Marshall. Marshall: It's already built. Wafters: Yes. The property on the corner is vacant. Marshall: Yet it's zoned high density residential? Wafters: No. The zoning on the property is L-O. Marshall: L-O. Wafters: For both properties. Marshall: Thank you. That's what I thought. there and should -- would be appropriate in Permits or anything; is that correct? So, at this time light office could go in that zone without any Conditional Use Wafters: That is correct. Marshall: Okay. Well, Commissioners, my opinion is that L-O is appropriate for this location. I'm against a high intensity commercial project up against residential and you will hear me say this every time it comes up. I think it all -- commercial C-G has its place, we need it, and there needs to be a lot of it along this property, but not up against residential. I don't believe in 20 foot concrete walls being a buffer, nor do I believe in a berm with some trees on top being a buffer. It is my opinion that an appropriate buffer between high intensity uses and residential is lower intensity uses. L-O, professional offices, things like that, should be up against residential and should buffer those residential uses to high intensity uses. I know there needs to be some C-G along there and I understand it's underserved and I know this -- it would be great to put -- you know, Meridian Planning & Zoning September 15, 2011 Page 22 of 40 I'll bet a fast food restaurant would do wonders there. Would be wonderful, you know, for the owner of that, but not for the rest of the people living next to it and, therefore, am against changing the comprehensive map at this time, unless -- I would be -- I would consider going to a C-N if there was some use that had to be in a C-N that couldn't be an L-O, but was still a low intensity use to abut residences and only in that situation would I considered it. So, Commissioner Yearsley, I'm in agreement with you that without the full package Ican't -- I can't vote for a Comprehensive Plan amendment change. Freeman: Thank you, Commissioner Marshall. I -- to be honest, I think I'm just starting to piece a few things together here on this and you supplied one of the missing pieces that I'm sure I heard two or three times, but my understanding currently is we have got an L-O zoning district. The odd thing about this, as you just said and I think I just heard it -- is that there is already a CUP in place that allows a retail use. Okay. So, a retail -- without this passing a retail building could go on this site. However, I see in your report that CUP does not allow for a restaurant use at this time and most of those people that tried -- that came up and testified were concerned specifically about the possibility of a restaurant use, which if this passes could conceivably happen. Again, this is not an application for a rezone, but that is likely to follow this. I just wanted to state that, so that I understood clearly and got nods from staff, because 1 think I have got that together. Having said that, I -- I tend to agree. Having heard the public testimony today I am concerned about opening this up for additional uses that don't seem appropriate for that site. It seems to be kind of a different special case to me. Any other comments? Marshall: I have a quick question for staff. That Conditional Use Permit for a retail facility, would it have to operate under the L-O restrictions of time and things like that? Wafters: Commissioner Marshall, there were no restrictions on that hours of operation included with that Conditional Use Permit planned development, so I would have to say no. Friedman: We would have to look at that, but -- I don't like to disagree in public, but there sometimes are hour restrictions in the L-O zone. L-O is the zoning. So, really, even though the planned development did not include restrictions, it allowed a retail use to be established in an L-O zone. In my mind, even though normally you wouldn't allow retail in the L-O, the fact that we have retail allowed through the planned development still leaves it subject to the hours of operation of the L-O. The difference being is that they have more freedom of the types of uses that can go in there. So, my apologies to my fellow staff member. Wafters: Good point. Marshall: Okay. I was hoping that was the case. Thank you. Freeman: Any other discussion? Could I get a motion, then? Meridian Planning & Zoning September 15, 2011 Page 23 of 40 Marshall: Mr. Chair? Freeman: Commissioner Marshall. Marshall: After considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I recommend denial of file number CPAM 11-002 as presented during the hearing on September 5th, 2011, for the following reasons: Because -- mainly because such a high intensity use as projected would not be appropriate directly abutting residential uses. O'Brien: Second. Freeman: Okay. It's been moved and seconded to deny CPAM 11-002. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. C. Public Hearing: PFP 11-002 VanAuken Subdivision by Mason & Stanfield Inc. located at 34 E. Fairview Avenue Request: Combined Preliminary/Final Plat Approval Consisting of Two (2) Building lots on 5.20 Acres of land in a C-C Zoning District Freeman: Okay. At this time I would like to open the public hearing on PFP 11-002, the Van Auken Subdivision by Mason and Stanfield, Incorporated, beginning with the staff report. Wafters: Thank you, Chairman Freeman, Members of the Commission. The next application before you is a combined preliminary/final plat consisting of two building lots on 5.2 acres of land in a C-C zoning district. This site is located at 34 East Fairview Avenue on the northeast corner of North Meridian Road and East Fairview Avenue. This is where the existing or former Pioneer Federal Credit Union was located and the other portion of the strip commercial area that's adjacent to the Albertson's store. The adjacent land use and zoning is commercial property, zoned C-C and abuts this property on the northeast and south. Rural residential property, zoned RUT in Ada County, exists to the west across Meridian Road. A little history on this property. In 1996 the City Council approved a lot split through the reduction in platting process that included the subject property. The proposed plat will subdivide one parcel into two parcels on which each of the existing structures and associated parking will be located. Staff recommends cross-access ingress-egress and cross-parking easements be provided internally between the proposed lots and externally to the Albertson's property and the property to the east as applicable. The existing parking lot and street buffer landscaping does not meet current UDC requirements. However, it's considered a nonconforming use it lawfully existed prior to the effective date of the Unified Development Code. As such the nonconforming use may continue as long as the use remains lawful and is not expanded or extended. If an addition is proposed in the future to any of the existing structures, the guidelines for conformance to landscape standards listed in UDC 11-3B-2D, and the requirements listed in UDC 11-1B-4 for the extension of nonconforming uses are applicable. The Comprehensive Plan designation for this Meridian Planning & Zoning September 15, 2011 Page 24 of 40 property is commercial and the proposed plat is in compliance with that designation and the Unified Development Code. Written testimony was received on this application from Scott Stanfield, the applicant's representative, in agreement with the staff report. Staff is recommending approval. And I'll stand for any questions the Council -- or, excuse me, Commission may have. Freeman: Any questions? O'Brien: I have none. Yearsley: I have one. Freeman: Commissioner Yearsley. Yearsley: Trying to get clarification on this. What they are wanting to do is split off the lot on the corner from the strip mall section; is that not the case? And that's pretty much it? Wafters: If you look at this map right here, you can see the outline of the existing building. The Albertson's exists on the western parcel here. Yearsley: Okay. Wafters: That is not a part of this plat and, of the plat, they are just splitting off the old the other building. then, everything that's hatched here is part Pioneer Federal Credit Union building from Yearsley: Okay. Thank you. Freeman: Any other questions? Okay. Would the applicant like to come forward? Please state your name and address for the record. Stanfield: Thank you, Chairman, Members of the Commission. Robert Scott Stanfield, 826 3rd Street South in Nampa, Idaho, representing Holly Plaza, LLC, in this application before you this evening. Pretty much straight forward. Commissioner Yearsley hit it on the head, we just want to break off the old credit union building. The owner is having some difficulty finding tenants that want to lease that, people want to buy it, and the only way to convey that legally is to plat it. There is no land use change before you this evening, just simply want the right to sell it and convey it to somebody that wants to buy it. And with that I'll leave it open for any questions. Freeman: Questions? O'Brien: I have none. Yearsley: I have none. Meridian Planning & Zoning September 15, 2011 Page 25 of 40 Freeman: Thank you. Stanfield: Thank you. Freeman: I didn't have anybody else signed up testify on this item. Is there anyone in the audience that would care to testify? No? Okay. Well, there is nothing to respond to, so if I could get a motion to close the public hearing. Marshall: Mr. Chair, I move that we close the public hearing on PFP 11-002. Yearsley: I second that. Freeman: It's been moved and seconded to close the public hearing on PFP 11-002. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. Freeman: Discussion? Marshall: Pretty straight forward. Freeman: I agree, Commissioner Marshall. It seems very straight forward. Yearsley: I have none. O'Brien: I agree. Marshall: Mr. Chair? Freeman: Could I get a motion. Marshall: I move -- after considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move to recommend file number PFP 11-002 as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of September 5th, 2011, with no modifications. Yearsley: Second. Freeman: It's been motioned and seconded to recommend for approval of PFP 11-002. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries. Thank you. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. D. Public Hearing: CPAM 11-001 South ridge Apartments by The Farran Group, IIC located South Side of W. Overland' Road Midway Between S. Ten Mile Road and S. Linder Road Request: Amend the Comprehensive Plan Future land Use Meridian Planning & Zoning September 15, 2011 Page 26 of 40 Map Designation on 26.38 Acres of land from Medium Density Residential (MDR) to Medium High Density Residential (MHDR) E. Public Hearing: RZ 11-002 South ridge Apartments by The Farran Group, IIC Generally located South Side of W. Overland Road Midway Between S. Ten Mile Road and S. Linder Road Request: Rezone of 42.36 Acres of land from the TN-R and R-8 Zoning Districts to the R-15 Zoning Districts Freeman: Okay. The next item on the agenda -- we are going to open D and E at the same time, CPAM 11-001 and RZ 11-002. However, when it comes time to make a motion we actually need to vote on the CPAM before we vote on the rezone. So, we will have to deal with those separately when we get into that portion of the application. Okay. With that could I have the staff report. Wafters: Yes, Chairman Freeman, Members of the Commission. The first application before you is a request for an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan future land use map to change the land use designation on 26.38 acres of land from medium density residential to medium high density residential. The second application is a request for a rezone of 42.36 acres of land from the TN-R, R-4, and R-8 zoning districts to the R-15 zoning district, consistent with the proposed medium high density residential designation. If you look on the screen here this is the subject property. The Comprehensive Plan map amendment is shown here in the upper right and the rezone area on the lower left -- or right. The adjacent land use and zoning. To the north is rural residential, agricultural land, zoned RUT in Ada County. To the south is vacant land, zoned R-2, R-4 and R-8. To the east is rural residential property, zoned RUT in Ada County. And vacant land, zoned R-4, TN-C, and TN-R. And to the west is vacant land, zoned L-O, TN-R, and R-8. The property is located on the south side of West Overland Road, midway between South Linder Road and South Ten Mile Road. History on this property. In 2007 it was annexed with a development agreement and included in the preliminary plat for Southridge Subdivision. A property boundary adjustment was approved in 2008 that created the subject parcels. The applicant has submitted a conceptual development plan. You can see here. Actually, that's the future land use map proposed changes. This is the conceptual development plan and sample building elevation for phases one and two that shows how the site may develop with a multi- family apartment complex, consisting of two and three story structures. This plan does not include a development plan for the third phase of development shown down here. The proposed R-15 zoning district allows a maximum gross density of up to 15 dwelling units per acre. Because this property is located adjacent to land that is designated for mixed employment uses on the north and northwest sides of Overland and a medium density -- oh, I just lost my presentation here. Just one sec. And now I'm coloring. Scott's creeping over on me here. Sorry about that. Because this property is located adjacent to land that is designated for mixed employment uses on the north sides of Overland, shown in gray there on the map and medium density residential uses to the south and east, staff is of the opinion the proposed medium high density residential designation in R-15 zoning will provide a good transition and be compatible with these Meridian Planning & Zoning September 15, 2011 Page 27 of 40 uses. Additionally, the adjacent mixed employment areas will provide jobs for residents and be convenient and easily accessible. The Ridenbaugh Canal runs along the southern boundary of the site, will also provide a buffer between the proposed multi- family development and future lower density development to the south and east. Because the property has changed ownership since the annexation and development agreement was approved, staff recommends, as a provision of the rezone, that a new development agreement be required that will separate this site from the larger Southridge development. Future development will be required to substantially comply with the conceptual development plan and design standards contained in the Unified Development Code and the guidelines contained in the Meridian design manual. Prior to development of the third phase the development agreement shall be modified to update the conceptual site plan to include a development plan for this area. A Conditional Use Permit is required for amulti-family development in R-15 districts. Written testimony has been received from John Malletta, the applicant, in response to the staff report. He requests -- he is in agreement with the staff report. However, requests that DA provision number 1.1.2E be stricken and that the multi-use pathway be required on the south side of the Ridenbaugh Canal as previously approved in the development agreement for the Southridge. Staff is in agreement with the applicant's request as the pedestrian interconnectivity plan referenced in the development agreement shows the pathway along the south side of the canal and recommends DA provision 1.1.2E be stricken as requested by the applicant. Staff is recommending approval of the subject map amendment and rezone, with approval of the aforementioned -- with the aforementioned change. Staff will stand for any questions Commission may have. Freeman: Thank you, Sonya. Any questions of staff? Marshall: I do have a quick question. Freeman: Commissioner Marshall. Marshall: Sonya, looking at this -- the preliminary plat submittal 12/4/06 that the applicant attached to his response letter, showing the -- the pathway on the south side of the Ridenbaugh Canal, it appears there is a bridge there. Now, Iknow -- actually, it appears that the applicant land is just barely touching the top of this drawing, the one I'm talking about here, L1.04, the preliminary plat from Southridge on the south side there, where it shows there is a bridge across the Ridenbaugh and a pathway going up into that property and it appears there is some trees and whatnot there, a retaining wall, a Nampa-Meridian Irrigation pump station and lot. Do you see where I'm referring to? Wafters: I do not have that map in front of me, Commissioner Marshall. I did get his letter. I didn't see the attachment. Marshall: What I was wondering -- and I guess this question probably is best for the applicant, then. If -- what that pathway is referring to. That was with the Southridge Subdivision. It appears that pathway winds back up to the north there, tying the Meridian Planning & Zoning September 15, 2011 Page 28 of 40 pathway on the south to the north, but I believe somewhere in here in all -- somewhere in this there was no bridge across the Ridenbaugh. There is a comment about there was no crossing path across the Ridenbaugh and that, you know, I just happen to see one here and I was wondering where it says pedestrian bridge on this preliminary plat, dated 12/14/06 by The Land Group for Southridge Subdivision. Wafters: I believe there is a pedestrian bridge -- actually, it's a vehicular bridge, believe, planned further to the south. I'm sorry, I don't have that in front of me. Marshall: I do see that vehicular bridge as well. Wafters: Yeah. There is a bridge now -- Marshall: But this is at the point where the Ridenbaugh Canal drops -- it comes north, drops south, and, then, back up north again. There is a little key there. Freeman: Maybe we can ask for clarification from the applicant. Waters: I would ask the applicant to address that question. Marshall: I will ask that question of the applicant. Thank you. Freeman: Okay. Any other questions of staff? O'Brien: I have a question, Mr. Chair. Freeman: Commissioner O'Brien. O'Brien: This is for Scott. Okay. So, when we change these zonings from lower density up to higher density, how does that affect the -- the drainage issues or -- do you build out just to accommodate the maximum all the time or how do you address that? Steckline: Mr. Chair, Commissioners, Commissioner O'Brien, that's a very good question. I'm glad you asked that. That was one of the first things that crossed my mind with seeing this application. What I did was take -- we take a look at our sewer drainage master plan, you're correct, and the sizing of the sewer line that was installed by the applicant, actually, for this site. We take a look at the residential component, the commercial component, their sewer discharge rates, we take a look at the overall velocity that goes through those pipes. I did that study. I worked with Roxanne Holland at the engineering department and she has assured me that we have adequate capacity for this rezone. O'Brien: Okay. What about others in this case -- and I was just going to ask you before the meeting, but I'm glad I didn't, let's get this on the record, but in other instances where things may change -- when you build a main trunk, if you will, do you always maximize that -- that utility, if you will, all the time? Meridian Planning & Zoning September 15, 2011 Page 29 of 40 Steckline: Mr. Chair, Commissioners, Commissioner O'Brien, we actually use an outside consultant who designs our sewer drainage master plan for us and we work with the Planning Department on what is currently zoned for that area and that's, basically, the equation that we use for the sewer pipe for our sewer drainage master plan. I could kind of go into the specifics and bore you to death with the engineering terms of it, if you would like. O'Brien: Yeah. I understand what you're saying. Freeman: Probably pass. O'Brien: I just think that this is an important aspect of when we -- when it's requested to go from light office, for instance, to commercial and it's already planned out that, no, this is not going to go commercial and so, yes, the applicant might request that. So, I haven't heard in the past these issues come up about the capacity, had we planned for that. Steckline: That's one of the things behind the scenes that staff does in preparation for this. We would definitely put that -- Public Works would not support that kind of a rezone if we did not have adequate infrastructure. We also work with the applicant, their design engineers, through the construction drawing process, that in the case that if we do want to rezone to up the density and we can do that and we can process that in our wastewater treatment plant, we take every effort to do that, to make sure that we have adequate infrastructure, not only with water, but wastewater, drainage, and such. So, that's a very good question. I appreciate you asking that. O'Brien: Thank you. I appreciate your answer. Freeman: Thank you. Are we ready for the applicant? All right. Will the applicant, please, come forward and state your name and address for the record. Malletta: Good evening. My name is John Malletta. 13095 North Andy's Gulch, Boise. 83714. I am here representing the landowners for this rezone and Comp Plan amendment. I want to thank Sonya and the planning staff for recommending approval and would be more than happy to answer the question with regard to the bridge. Marshall: Thank you. Malletta: As -- my understanding of the bridge, that was a landscape plan that was done in the original design with the original development agreement. The public pathway is on the south side of the Ridenbaugh Canal and the Nampa-Meridian Irrigation District maintenance corridor is on the north side of that canal. That is a maintenance bridge as it exists today. It's my understanding that they will not allow the public to access that bridge. The one thing that we have done with that to address connectivity is certainly to have that interconnectivity through the apartment phase one Meridian Planning & Zoning September 15, 2011 Page 30 of 40 complex and phase two that we have designed, that would connect to Overland and, then, they would cross on the southern tip of the Overland bridge or overpass. Marshall: I appreciate that. Thank you. Freeman: Are you just standing for questions or anything else you want us to -- Malletta: I'd be more than happy to answer any questions. I mean we agree with -- Freeman: Is there anything you wanted to present with your 15 minutes? Anything further you wanted to say about your application? Malletta: We are ready to work with the City Council on -- an approved rezone and comp plan amendment. We have worked with our design. Be more than happy to answer any questions that any of you may have. Freeman: Okay. Are there any other questions of the applicant? O'Brien: I don't have any. Yearsley: I don't either. Freeman: Okay. Thank you. Malletta: Thank you. Freeman: Okay. I do have some people on the list for offering public testimony today. Let's begin with Scott Nichols. And, please, state your name and address for the record when you get to the mike. Nichols: Commissioner, Members of the Commission, Scott Nichols, 2730 West Val Vista Court, just to the south of Southridge Subdivision is my -- my residence. I came tonight just to find out what the rezone was all about and find out if I really wanted to testify for or against or neutral on this -- on the rezone and I guess a few things have gone through my mind tonight in regards to this. I guess the first question I have is why? The staff here tonight don't see the numbers of people from Bear Creek, Aspen Cove, Val Vista, to the west of the subdivision that when Southridge was originally planned we spent slot -- I mean a lot of time meeting with neighbors in all directions to come up with a plan for this piece of property and I don't think the applicant has shown any need for that. They bought the property, they have a plan to develop it. This is fully -- this rezone represents fully 25 percent of all of the acreage just by round numbers south of Overland Road. Now, we already know that the planning intention was to have a -- sort of a staged community where we could have low entry homeowner, moving to a middle entry homeowner, moving to a high entry homeowner, all within walking, commuting distance. And so I really don't see a need for us to go back and rehash this. One of the issues we have and probably the biggest issue is that if we are going to Meridian Planning & Zoning September 15, 2011 Page 31 of 40 rezone this, then, let's just rezone every parcel, unless there is some, you know, critical issue, like Commissioner Mr. Marshall brought up, which is very valid, I think, about one of the previous issues about the adjacent -- adjacent land owners or adjacent residences. I think we should stick with the plan that we made that really was committed to by the entire community and it would be disingenuous of the Commission to say, fine, if somebody just wants to change it we can change it. That said you're going hear some other testimony, I'm sure, and have other things to consider, so if you do decide to approve this I would ask that you put a condition on this -- on this rezone that this is it, there are no more for Southridge, because my neighbors, myself, Aspen Cove, Bear Creek, the community to the west, don't want to be back here every six months or every year listening to a developer say now we want to change it again. We -- we came to you, to the Commissioners, in good faith and we all agreed that this was what it was going to be. Thank you. Freeman: Thank you. Nichols: Stand for questions. Marshall: I think I would -- Mr. Chair, if I might. Freeman: Commissioner Marshall. Marshall: I would look to Mr. Baird here, our legal counsel, to quickly address the fact -- I don't think we can put a condition on the fact that somebody can come and ask to change something. I mean they can just come ask to change anytime they want legally; right? Baird: Commissioners, Chairman, that's -- that's correct. The landowners would have the right to come in and petition subject to proper notice. Until it gets built out that's just the nature of the land entitlements is that the property owner would have the right to request a change, but we would be going through this process each time. You would be notified, we would have hearings, and the live questions would be asked. I'd ask planning staff, who is probably familiar with that whole process, if they have anything to add to that. But that's, you know, the nature of the beast. Friedman: Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, you, actually, already asked the question was going to ask, so it's back to Ted. Nichols: I tell you what -- this is Scott Nichols with Val Vista again. I think part of the reason there are not a plethora of residents here tonight is because there was no notice. Nobody knew about this. You had to walk way out in the field to see any sort of notice of the conditioning -- of the conditional use hearing or the rezone tonight. I had to have my neighbor call it and he saw the white sign, walked back and saw it. I have yet to see the sign. I don't want to argue legal issues, but unless somebody can show me a section in Idaho Code or the city planning code that says you cannot condition, you have the power to condition this approval however you want and I'd like to -- you know, Meridian Planning & Zoning September 15, 2011 Page 32 of 40 at least if you're not going to condition it, make note that that was a part of the discussion and that it was recommended that no future zoning and I would say -- Freeman: It is. It is on the record. Nichols: Thank you. Freeman: And we have exceeded your time. Nichols: Thank you. Marshall: I just want to assure you very quickly that when -- when developments come back again and again and again, it becomes quite an annoyance. Nichols: I appreciate it. Thanks. Freeman: Next on the list is Steven -- and I'm not going to say this right. Prisbos. Wow. Please state your name and address for the record when you get to the mike. Prisbos: Steve Prisbos. 2530 South Del Rey. My neighbor is Scott. He said just about everything that I was going to say, except for one thing that we did fight long and hard and originally -- it's a planned community with houses and we did not want apartments to begin with, but a long fight, we finally came to an agreement for a certain amount and now I disagree about putting anymore in. It just -- it kind of changes the whole thing we fought for. Thank you. Freeman: Thank you. And Susan Prisbos. Please state your name and address for the record. S.Prisbos: Susan Prisbos. 2530 South Del Rey Lane. We -- I do echo both of their concerns, but also that when you put in properties that are large apartments, you lower the quality of our homes, the value of our homes -- they fall into the ground, which we already have done with the economy. But why would they want to depreciate our property even further by having riffraff, loud cars, garbage -- I mean just having that land vacant has been horrible and the gravel pit, which we temporarily approved, is a nightmare. But if we allow all those apartments and the traffic on Overland Road is already dangerous, the gravel trucks coming out create a problem with the bend -- don't see where they are going to enter and exit from this apartment building, it -- it is not -- it's a danger to the people that live there already and a deficit to our property value. Thank you. Freeman: Thank you. Curtis Elton. Please state your name and address for the record. Elton: Curtis Elton. 2906 West Val Vista. 83642. 1 am totally against this. We just got through developing a plan, coordinating it with the city and the developer and we went Meridian Planning & Zoning September 15, 2011 Page 33 of 40 through a whole year last year trying to get a plan set up, we finally agreed on one and now it's totally changed to high density, which, again, affects the community that we are living in. It's a low density community and that's why we bought land there and why we live there and, then, to turn around and go to high density and throw out the plan that we spent the whole year last year working on and developing and getting an agreement to all parties and, then, turn around and change it completely, I'm totally -- totally against it. Also I'm sure the majority of our neighbors are. I felt it was fairly poorly publicized where most of them weren't aware of or weren't able to be here and it's a total switch as far as the community to go from -- go to residential like it was planned, to go to high density and I'm totally against it and I hope it does not pass. Thank you. Freeman: Thank you. Naomi Elton. N.Elton: Most of our neighbors did not know about this -- Freeman: I'm sorry. Please state your name and address for the record. N.Elton: Naomi Elton. 2906 West Val Vista. Freeman: Thank you. N.Elton: Meridian. 8642. Most of our neighbors did not know anything about this. There is a sign hidden in the woods back in the grass and one of my neighbors happened to see it and noticed that it was there and told me about it, pointed it out, but most of our neighbors don't know this and when we came last year there were probably 20 of us sitting back here testifying and most of our neighbors feel pretty strongly about this, but they just did not know it was coming up and that's unfair. That's not right. Thank you. Freeman: Thank you. Was there anyone else that came wishing to testify on this item? Please state your name and address for the record. Jewett: Jim Jewett. 2040 South Eagle Road. I am the original developer of Southridge and worked with all these neighbors for all these master plans and changes and we constructed Overland Road as part of the project. Unfortunately, economic trends forced us to, you know, divide some of the property away and which results in some of these changes. We have done it with the Lutheran church, that's to -- directly to the east of this parcel. We have done it across Overland Road with all our commercial. But I think the main thing you got look at is the concept with the original plan was to be able to change with economic trends and as long as we are still -- or they are still within parameters of what that original development agreement -- had a minimum and a maximum residential density and I believe that this -- this plan probably meets that and I would simply suggest that maybe instead of trying to take this development agreement and break it away from the original Southridge development agreement, is just modify the original development agreement to give these neighbors some assurances that there is not going to be further changes without their notification, because the only Meridian Planning & Zoning September 15, 2011 Page 34 of 40 reason they are not notified is because the original development agreement is not being modified. If the original development agreement was being modified they would clearly be notified, because they would be in the range. So, I haven't looked at this plan for specifics. We sold it to these -- to this development group. They are going about it in the proper fashion. But Ijust -- for the whole concept of the project I'll stand for any questions for you so that you can understand what our thoughts were coming into it originally and why we had to do what we did. And I'd stand for questions. Freeman: Any questions? Marshall: Mr. Chair? Freeman: Commissioner Marshall. Marshall: Mr. Jewett, I appreciate the fact that you seem to be concerned that they should have been notified, that maybe this should have been all one development agreement, even though I think maybe it ought to be split out. I don't know and I'm not -- I'm not arguing that at all. But the requirements for notification by the city are a minimum and I would applaud you if you were to notify them anytime something in this area goes on and -- and they were to be notified because they are fairly close neighbors. I would absolutely applaud you, sir. Just a comment. Jewett: As a principle for when we were doing our applications out there or any modifications, we notified at a thousand foot radius, instead of 300 foot. So, we adopted a policy. This is not my application. I'm only here to answer any questions having to do with the original plan that might help you guys make a decision. I haven't looked at this plan, I'm not prepared to comment on it. I feel that's you guys' job. But if it is within the parameters of the original development agreement as far as a minimum- maximum, at the end of the day there is going to be -- it is proposed to be a lot of employment to the north and we have to be able to feed that with -- with homes of all types, all the way from apartments to homes, and I hope no more changes happen to this plan long term, but this was one of our troubled areas when we were doing the planning. It's odd shaped, it's sloped, so, you know, I think they have probably looked at that and done the best they could with it. Freeman: Unless we have other questions, we have exceeded our time limit for your testimony. Are there other questions? Okay. Thank you very much. Jewett: Thank you. Freeman: Would the applicant like to come back up. You have ten more minutes to respond. I don't believe there was anybody else that raised their hand, first of all, to testify on this. Am I correct? Okay. And your name and address again. Malletta: Thank you. John Malletta. 13095 North Andy's Gulch, Boise, Idaho. 83714. Originally when we did take on this -- this plat of land we did want to improve on the Meridian Planning & Zoning September 15, 2011 Page 35 of 40 existing design that was set for the apartment site. It was very thin. It was very militaryesk. So, what we have done is we have expanded it, we have made it a little deeper. We want to improve this site. Our intentions are to have proper design, quality design. We are an apartment group and we do have experience in these areas and it doesn't behoove us whatsoever to put up a poorly designed building without, you know, interconnectivity, livability, walkability, accessibility to retail down the road and what have you. Jim did mention the fact that there is the employment district across the road that says -- as referenced in the -- in the staff report that it does -- it is a compatible use with the comp plan and with that being said I would be more than happy to answer any further questions. Freeman: Thank you. Any further questions? Commissioner O'Brien. O'Brien: Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Was there a town meeting notification or held with these latest changes or requests from the people that live in or around that area? Malletta: Yes, there was, sir. O'Brien: How long ago was that? Malletta: How long ago? O'Brien: Yes. Malletta: Well, Ican -- let me grab it here. O'Brien: An approximate month. Malletta: Oh, it was -- I believe it was done in August. I thought I had it with me. apologize. O'Brien: This last August? Malletta: Yes. It was done within the time constraints required by the city. O'Brien: So you were there, I assume? Malletta: I was, sir. O'Brien: And how many people showed up? Malletta: Six to eight people showed up and I spoke with a number of people -- probably two or three people over the telephone. The notice that did go out had my contact information. O'Brien: Was the notice by mail? Meridian Planning & Zoning September 15, 2011 Page 36 of 40 Malletta: Yes. It was done by mail and I got that list from the city. O'Brien: Okay. That's all I have. Thank you. Freeman: Okay. Thank you very much. Malletta: Thank you. Freeman: At this time could I get a motion to close the public hearing? O'Brien: Mr. Chair, I move to close public hearing CPAM 11-001 and RZ 11-002. Yearsley: I'll second that. Freeman: Okay. I have a motion and a second to close the public hearing for CPAM 11-001 and RZ 11-002 regarding the Southridge Apartments. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. Freeman: Discussion? And, actually, I'd like to start the discussion, if that's okay. Just a couple of items I wanted to respond to from what I heard. The fact is this project was legally noticed and I'm sorry if it snuck by anybody, but anytime we get to this stage in the process where we have the public hearing, it's required to be legally noticed in three different ways. It's printed in the newspaper, it's posted on the site, and anybody within 300 feet is sent a letter notifying them. So, it was legally noticed. I'm sorry if anybody did not see that that was within the 300 feet. Another thing that I just want to clarify really quickly is, you know, we -- we do get tired of having to go through the same thing over and over again often. But, frankly, this is the process. Things change. In this case we have owner changes and when new owners come in, you know, they may have entirely different ideas for a piece of property. This is the process and it's a good process, it tries to balance owner's rights with the community needs and so I just want to clarify that, you know, there is not a whole bunch we can do about that. We can't say no more changes ever. That's not legally possible. But I do appreciate the fact that you get weary of things sometimes, but it's the process, it's the way it is. With that I'll add my comments on the project. I -- I really believe that the increase in density is not going to cause a detriment in this area. It seems like the R-15 at this location, especially with the uses to the west and the south, is giving us variety of residential uses, which we want. We need both owners and renters of all kinds in our city and we have to plan for those and this is one of those places where this seems to me a very appropriate location for a higher density residential project. With that I'll open it up to any of the other Commissioners that have comments for questions. Marshall: Mr. Chair? Meridian Planning & Zoning September 15, 2011 Page 37 of 40 Freeman: Commissioner Marshall. Marshall: You took the words out of my mouth. Well said, sir. You have echoed my sentiments. Thank you. Freeman: That was easy. Thank you. Anybody else? Yearsley: I do have a couple. Trying to figure out where to start. I do think that this is probably a good use for this piece of property. I know it's unfortunate that the neighbors did not get notified for this -- for this project. I do believe that there is a fair enough buffer strip between them and this property and, you know, if this was up against your back yards, absolutely, I would not approve this. But the only thing I have is coming from the Parks Department I know the specifics on the pathways. I don't know north side, south side. I would like clarification from the Parks Department why they wanted it on this side versus the other side prior to strike that off of the -- the Findings of Facts -- or for this motion. So, I would recommend keeping it until we get better clarification from the Parks Department of why they want it on this side of the -- Freeman: Commissioner Yearsley, are you speaking to the pathway -- Yearsley: Yes. Freeman: -- on the canal? Yearsley: Yes. Freeman: Staff, can you address that? Watters: Excuse me. Commissioner Yearsley, the location of the pathway was determined back in 2007 with the development agreement when this property was annexed. I was confused when I reviewed this current request, I looked at the pathways plan and the general location shown on that was on the north side. However, the pathway had already been approved on the south side. So, I did meet with Jay Gibbons in the Parks Department extensively on this to go over it and make sure that's where it needed to be and that's where we determined that it -- it was previously approved and required to be. Yearsley: Okay. Then I'm okay with that, because -- that clears that up. Freeman: Thank you, Sonya, for that. O'Brien: Yes. Freeman: Commissioner O'Brien. Meridian Planning & Zoning September 15, 2011 Page 38 of 40 O'Brien: I'd just like to make an observation and I have to agree with the developer that times have changed, the economy has changed and it's forced people to do things -- to go places and to change their lifestyle. With this I see the reason -- let's back up a little bit. The reason that we have so many foreclosures and other things going on -- the people and the growth of new home ownership is down is for one -- one reason and that is people feel safer renting and so what -- what has happened is where in the past we have got this mind set that people that rent are of a lower class people and that just isn't true. Meridian won't allow it and I won't allow it, if I can help it, but you will find that people that go into through high density rentals do not want the hassle of home ownership and we find more and more blue collar workers are renting now and they are bringing in high class people and they are not to be a concern that -- that there is going to be riffraff accordingly. There is always going to be that -- some people that are going to maybe have -- or be a problem, but overall I think it's a good idea and I think that we are going to find that we are not going to have the kind of problems that people have associated in the past with low income people, if you will, because they are all good people. They all want to be successful and I don't think they are going to bring anything negative to the city. Thank you. Freeman: Thank you. With that could I get a motion? Marshall: Mr. Chair? Freeman: Oh. And let me remind you we do have to -- we have to present each of these separately in our motion. So, our first motion will be whatever it is will be regarding CPAM 11-001. After we get a result on that we will see where we go from there. Go ahead, Commissioner Marshall. Marshall: Now -- is 112E part of the -- That's got to be part of the rezone. Condition 112E; correct? Freeman: I believe that is the case, yes. So, we will have to do a modification of that one. Marshall: Mr. Chair, after considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move to recommend approval of file number CPA 11-001 as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of September 15th, 2011, with no modifications. Yearsley: I'll second that. Freeman: Okay. I have a motion and a second to recommend approval of CPAM 11- 001, Southridge Apartments. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. Freeman: Now could I get a motion regarding RZ 11-002. Meridian Planning & Zoning September 15, 2011 Page 39 of 40 Marshall: Mr. Chair? Freeman: Commissioner Marshall. Marshall: After considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move to recommend approval of file number RZ 11-002 as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of September 15th, 2011, with the following modification: That condition 1.1.2E be stricken. Yearsley: I'll second that. Freeman: Okay. I have a motion and a second to recommend approval of RZ 11-002, as noted with the amendment. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries. Thank you. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. F. Public Hearing: RZ 11-004 Chesterfield by Liberty Development, Inc. located South Side of W. Pine Avenue; Midway Between N. Black Cat Road and N. Ten Mile Road Request: Rezone of 1.48 Acres of land from the R-8 Zoning District to the R-15 Zoning District G. Public Hearing: PP 11-007 Chesterfield by Liberty Development, Inc. located South Side of W. Pine Avenue; Midway Between N. Black Cat Road and N. Ten Mile Road Request: Preliminary Plat Approval of 148 Residential lots and Twelve (12) Common lots on 28.2 Acres in an Existing R-8 Zone and a Proposed R-15 Zone Freeman: Okay. We do have one more item that we need to open. This will be quick. So, at this time I would like to open RZ 11-004 and PP 11-007. I'd like to open the public hearings for both items for the sole purpose of continuing these items to .the regularly scheduled meeting of October 6th, 2011. Could I get a motion? O'Brien: So moved. Marshall: Second. Freeman: It's been moved and seconded to continue Items RZ 11-004 and PP 11-007 to the October 6th meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission. All those in favor say aye. Opposed: Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. Freeman: I think we just have one more motion. Meridian Planning & Zoning September 15, 2011 Page 40 of 40 Yearsley: Mr. Chairman, I move to adjourn. Marshall: Second. O'Brien: Second. Freeman: We have a motion and a second to adjourn. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. Freeman: We are adjourned. MEETING ADJOURNED AT 8:46 P.M. (AUDIO R~fORDING ON F,bLE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS) ~f. SCOTT FREE ATTEST: JAYCEE HOLI CITY CLERK ,~s APPROVED Tf ~~.o c.~ey of IDAHO f'B Sr-~ ~ . ~~u ~~,A~~~I~ TII4A4Q~,~~y Meridian Planning Zoning Commission Meeting DATE: September 15, 2011 ITEM NUMBER: 3A PROJECT NUMBER: ITEM TITLE: Approve Minutes of September 1, 2011 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes MEETING NOTES ~p~ ~ ~~~ CLERKS OFFICE FINAL ACTION DATE: E-MAILED TO STAFF SENT TO AGENCY SENT TO APPLICANT NOTES INITIALS Meridian Planning Zoning Commission Meeting DATE: September 15, 2011 ITEM NUMBER: 36 PROJECT NUMBER: CUP 11-002 ITEM TITLE: Walmart -Overland / Stoddard Findings of Fact 8~ Conclusisions of Law for Approval -Conditional Use Permit for a drive thru establishment within 300 feet of another drive thru facility, a residential district and existing residences by Walmart Real Estate Business Trust -SEC of W. Overland Road and S. Stoddard Road MEETING NOTES ~p ~l ~ ~-~ CLERKS OFFICE FINAL ACTION DATE: E-MAILED TO STAFF SENT TO AGENCY SENT TO APPLICANT NOTES INITIALS Meridian Planning Zoning Commission Meeting DATE: September 15, 2011 ITEM NUMBER: 3C PROJECT NUMBER: CUP 11-003 ITEM TITLE: Life Church Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval -Conditional Use Permit approval to operate a Church from an existing builidng in an I-L zoning district by Life Church - 3225 E. Commercial Drive MEETING NOTES ~P-_ ~ w o~ Svw Td CLERKS OFFICE FINAL ACTION DATE: E-MAILED TO STAFF SENT TO AGENCY SENT TO APPLICANT NOTES INITIALS Meridian Planning Zoning Commission Meeting DATE: September 15, 20~ ~ ITEM NUMBER: 4A PROJECT NUMBER: RZ 11-003 ITEM TITLE: Kingsbridge Public Hearing -Rezone of 38.31 acres of land from the R-2 zoning district to the R-4 zoning district by BHH Kingsbridge, LLC -east side of S. Eagle Road; midway between E. Victory and E. Amity Roads MEETING NOTES ~ rn m~.~ ~-~~~ ~ G e ~.?t,-~ -~ r G~ C / 0--18-11 CLERKS OFFICE FINAL ACTION DATE: E-MAILED TO STAFF SENT TO AGENCY SENT TO APPLICANT NOTES INITIALS Meridian Planning Zoning Commission Meeting DATE: September 15, 2011 ITEM NUMBER: 46 PROJECT NUMBER: CPAM 11-002 ITEM TITLE: Millenium Retail Center Public Hearing -Request to Amend the Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map Designation on 2.54 Acres of Land from High Denisty Residential (HDR) to Commercial MEETING NOTES ~2~orn n~en~C V-~cnJra~ -~o ~/e S~~ ~ 4~ fix---fem.- ~/~ ~ai8 ~~ CLERKS OFFICE FINAL ACTION DATE: E-MAILED TO STAFF SENT TO AGENCY SENT TO APPLICANT NOTES INITIALS Meridian Planning Zoning Commission Meeting DATE: September 15, 2011 ITEM NUMBER: 4C PROJECT NUMBER: PFP 11-002 ITEM TITLE: VanAuken Subdivision Public Hearing -Preliminary /Final Plat approal consisting of 2 building lots on 5.20 acres of land in a C-C zoning district by Mason 8~ Stanfield, Inc. - 34 E. Fairview Ave MEETING NOTES ~~ ~ CLERKS OFFICE FINAL ACTION DATE: E-MAILED TO STAFF SENT TO AGENCY SENT TO APPLICANT NOTES INITIALS Meridian Planning Zoning Commission Meeting DATE: September 15, 2011 ITEM NUMBER: 4D PROJECT NUMBER: CPAM 11-001 ITEM TITLE: Southridge Apartments Public Hearing -Amend the Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map designation on 26.38 acres of land from Medium Density Residential (MDR) to Medium High Density Residential (MHDR) by The Farran Group, LLC -south side of W. Overland Road midway between S. Ten Mile Road and S. Linder Road MEETING NOTES ,~ ~m.e.~C ~p~va~' -f~ cl c sir- ~.- D--la~ ~l `~ o ~ i CLERKS OFFICE FINAL ACTION DATE: E-MAILED TO STAFF SENT TO AGENCY SENT TO APPLICANT NOTES INITIALS Meridian Planning Zoning Commission Meeting DATE: September 15, 2011 ITEM NUMBER: 4E PROJECT NUMBER: RZ 11-002 ITEM TITLE: Southridge Apartments Public Hearing -Rezone of 42.36 acres of land from the TN-R and R-8 zoning districts to the R-15 zoning district by DBTV, LLC -south side of W. Overland Road, midway between S. Ten Mile Road and S. Linder Road MEETING NOTES ~cGe~-rmv~d- firp~a~A.2 '~ ~l ~ ~,~s ~ ~- 0 CLERKS OFFICE FINAL ACTION DATE: E-MAILED TO STAFF SENT TO AGENCY SENT TO APPLICANT NOTES INITIALS Meridian Planning Zoning Commission Meeting DATE: September 15, 2011 ITEM NUMBER: 4F PROJECT NUMBER: RZ 11-004 ITEM TITLE: Chesterfield Public Hearing -Rezone of 1.48 acres of land from the R-8 zoning district to the R-15 zoning district by Liberty Development, Inc. - s/side of W. Pine Avenue; midway between N. Black Cat Road and N. Ten Mile Road MEETING NOTES ~~.~~ ~-o CLERKS OFFICE FINAL ACTION DATE: E-MAILED TO STAFF SENT TO AGENCY SENT TO APPLICANT NOTES INITIALS Meridian Planning Zoning Commission Meeting DATE: September 15, 20~ ~ ITEM NUMBER: 4G PROJECT NUMBER: PP 11-007 ITEM TITLE: Chesterfield Public Hearing -Preliminary Plat approval of 148 residential lots and 12 common lots on 28.2 acres in an existing R-8 and a proposed R-15 zone by Liberty Development - s/side of W. Pine Avenue; midway between N. Black Cat Road and N. Ten Mile Road MEETING NOTES l.:oa~inuz ~ lD--G -l( ~l~ ~ CLERKS OFFICE FINAL ACTION DATE: E-MAILED TO STAFF SENT TO AGENCY SENT TO APPLICANT NOTES INITIALS