Loading...
2012 10-04Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission October 4, 2012 Meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission of October 4, 2012, was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Vice-Chairman Steven Yearsley. Present: Commissioner Michael Rohm, Commissioner Tom O'Brien, Commissioner Steven Yearsley and Commissioner Joe Marshall. Members Absent: Chairman Scott Freeman. Others Present: Machelle Hill, Bill Nary, Bruce Chatterton, Bill Parsons, Sonya Wafters, and Dean Willis. Item 1: Roll-Call Attendance: Roll-call X Steven Yearsley X Tom O'Brien X Michael Rohm X Joe Marshall Scott Freeman -Chairman Yearsley: Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. At this time I'd like to call the order -- call to order the regularly scheduled meeting for the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission on October 4th. Let's begin with roll call. Item 2: Adoption of the Agenda. Yearsley: Thank you. The next item on -- is the adoption of the agenda. The only change that we have today for the agenda is on Item 4, Action Items A and B are to be continued to next week that that is AZ 12-008 and PP 12-004, the Isola Creek Subdivision will be continued until the October 18th. With that can I get a motion? O'Brien: So moved. Rohm: Second. Yearsley: I have got a motion and a second to approve the agenda as amended. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries. Thank you. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 3. Consent Agenda A. Approve Minutes of September 20, 2012 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Meridian Planning & Zoning October 4, 2012 Page 2 of 31 B. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: MCU 12-003 Southridge Subdivision Gravel Mining by Idaho Sand & Gravel Located South of W. Overland Road and the Ridenbaugh Canal and East of S. Ten Mile Road Within Future Development Areas of Southridge Subdivision Request: Modify the Time Period Allowed for the Gravel Mining Operation at Southridge Subdivision to Allow the Use to be Extended an Additional 18 Months Yearsley: Next item on the agenda is the Consent Agenda. There are two items on the Consent Agenda. The first one is the approval of the meeting minutes of September 20th, 2012, Planning and Zoning Commission meeting. The next one is the Findings of Fact and Conclusion of Law for the approval of MCU 12-003, Southridge Subdivision Gravel Mining by Idaho Sand and Gravel. Any comments, changes? Marshall: Mr. Chair? Yearsley: Yes. Marshall: I move that we approve the Consent Agenda. O'Brien: Second. Yearsley: We have a motion and a second. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carried. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 4: Action Items A. Public Hearing: AZ 12-008 Isola Creek Subdivision by Coleman Homes, LLC Located East Side of N. Ten Mile Road, North of W. Ustick Road Request: Annexation and Zoning of 74.6 Acres of Land from RUT in Ada County to the R-4 (Medium Low Density Residential) Zone. B. Public Hearing: PP 12.004 Isola Creek Subdivision by Coleman Homes, LLC Located East Side of N. Ten Mile Road, North of W. Ustick Road Request: Preliminary Plat Approval of 168 Residential Lots and 18 Common Lots on 74.6 Acres in a Proposed R-4 Zone. Yearsley: So, at this time we will open items -- or the public hearing for AZ 12-008 and PP 12-004 by Isola Creek Subdivision by Coleman Homes for the sole purpose of continuing it to October 18th. Do I have a motion? Meridian Planning & Zoning October 4, 2012 Page3of31 Marshall: Mr. Chair, so moved. Yearsley: I have a motion. Do I have a second? Rohm: Second. Yearsley: I have a motion and a second to continue the public hearing for AZ 12-008 and PP 12-004, the Isola Creek Subdivision. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carried. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Yearsley: At this point I'd like to explain the public hearing process. First we are going to open each item one by one. The staff will report the findings regarding how the item adheres to our Comprehensive Plan and Uniform Development Code with staff recommendations. At that time the applicant will come forward to present their case for approval of their application and respond to staff comments. The applicant will have up to 15 minutes to do so. The public will have an opportunity to then follow with testimony. There is a sign-up sheet in the back of the room. As you enter for anyone wishing to testify. Any person testifying will come forward and be allowed three minutes. If they are speaking fora larger group, like an HOA they will be given up to ten minutes. After testimony has been heard the applicant will have an opportunity to respond if they desire for maximum time up to ten minutes. At that time we will close the public hearing and the Commission will have a time to deliberate. C. Public Hearing: AZ 12-009 Villas @Lochsa Falls by Arete Investment Group, LLC Located West Side of N. Linder Road Between Chinden Boulevard and W. McMillan Road Request: Annexation and Zoning of 5.67 Acres of Land from RUT in Ada County to the R-8 (Medium-Density Residential) Zone D. Public Hearing: PP 12-008 Villas @Lochsa Falls by Arete Investment Group, LLC Located West Side of N. Linder Road Between Chinden Boulevard and W. McMillan Road Request: Preliminary Plat Approval of 31 Residential Lots and 5 Common Lots on 4.95 Acres in a Proposed R-8 Zone Yearsley: So, at this time I would like to open the public hearing for AZ 12-009 and PP 12-008, the Villas at Lochsa Falls and starting with the staff report. Parsons: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. The applications before you this evening is an annexation and a preliminary plat request for two parcels that are approximately 5.6 acres in size. These are two remnant parcels that are out parcels surrounded by Lochsa Falls Subdivision to the north, to the west and to the south and across the street we have Rocky Mountain High School. Back in 2008 the northern parcel came before you was also called Villas at Lochsa Falls. That was a Meridian Planning & Zoning October 4, 2012 Page 4 of 31 different project. Applicant at that time had proposed R-15 zoning and a conditional use permit to construct 21 multi-family units. That developer never signed the development agreement. Thereby those approvals never got in place and the property was never officially annexed into the city. The applicant is before you this evening requesting preliminary plan approval for 31 residential lots. The property is currently medium density residential on the Comprehensive Plan, which anticipates densities between three and eight units to the acre. This property -- this project before you is at two point -- 6.26 acres, which is slightly below the maximum density allowed with the requested R-8 zoning. It does comport with the maximum density allowed under the R-8 zoning district as well. I would point out as some quick notes to the Commission. The properties currently house two existing homes, which are to remain part of the project. have those highlighted in the red squares before you this evening. What that has done is predicated one of the access points to remain open and serve those houses from Linder Road and arterial streets. I know in discussions with ACHD their recommendation to their commission will, be that that access will remain open as well. For them to have this access remain open it will take a Council waiver as they move forward to City Council hearing. Also let you know that all the lots do comport to the R-8 dimensional standards. The majority of these lots will take access from common driveways and also shared driveways. If you look at the exhibit on here in the lower right-hand corner here you can see how those lots are to be accommodated with the shared driveways and, then, access in the future. Also it's highlighted on each one of these lots as well. I did want to point out to you that the applicant does have some changes before you and I will get into those as soon as we get to the landscape plan. Also as part of the request the applicant is asking for a reduced buffer along Linder Road. The UDC requires a 25 foot landscape buffer along arterial streets. As I mentioned to you earlier, the two existing homes are to remain, thereby it's unfeasible for these -- for the 25 foot landscape buffer to be constructed in front of those homes at a staff level approval and city staff does support the reduction in the landscape buffer from the 25 foot down to ten feet in width. Also the remaining 25 foot landscape will be constructed in its entirety with other development phases. The applicant is also proposing to develop this in three phases. The first phase will be the three lots that front on Linder Road and, then, a second phase would be the northern half and, then, the third and final phase would be along the southern half. I would mention to you that this project is a little bit denser than the surrounding properties, but all the homes planned for this subdivision will be single family detached homes, which is generally consistent to what's happening in the area right now. As I mentioned to you earlier, there are some changes before you this evening. I'd start with some real quickly. Originally the applicant had proposed to do -- to mimic the design that's currently along West Cedar Grove Street, which is four foot detached sidewalks and five foot parkways. Currently under the UDC a five foot parkway is not -- a minimal of six foot parkway is required thereby we couldn't honor that request. Also, ACHD has changed some of their policies. They no longer allow a five foot -- a four foot detached sidewalk, so all of their sidewalks have to be five foot in width and so what the applicant has done is gone back to ACHD, agreed to a five foot attached sidewalk and that seems to have cleared up any issues with the conditions in our staff report and also from the recommendations that ACHD had on the project. I'd also let you know that this corner lot here, as it was Meridian Planning & Zoning October 4, 2012 Page 5 of 31 shown in the staff report, it was under the 5,000 square foot minimum lot size. By removing that parkway and the attached -- the detached sidewalks the applicant was able to get that square footage up and increase that size and so now all the lots do comport with the R-8 dimensional standards. I'd also mention to you that with the applicant proposing to keep the existing homes it does create a nonconformity for the city. Under the UDC nonconforming uses are allowed to remain -- or nonconforming structures are allowed to remain as long as any additions they do in the future comply with the R-8 standards. The only setback they are not complying with is the one that's required -- the front setback along Linder Road. They will be approximately 20 feet from that buffer -- or, excuse me, from the street. And, of course, UDC requires a 25 foot landscape buffer and additional setback. So, we recognize that. We do have a provision in the recommended DA provisions that -- that recognizes that. We understand they cannot comply with that front setback. But all other setbacks are to be complied with, as well as the lot sizes. Those all do comport with the standards. The applicant is proposed -- has proposed elevations with the project. These are pretty complimentary to what you see in the surrounding area. There will be a mix of materials, covered porches, you know, shutters, some of those decorative corbels. Staff is supportive of these. Before you this evening are some recommended DA provisions that are compliance with these elevations is required moving forward and I want to go back really quick and, then, go over what staff is asking you to modify this evening. I did get written comments from the applicant and based on the changes that just discussed with you staff is recommending that you strike condition 1.2.4 and 1.3.9. The first condition references the minimum lot size of 5,000 square feet and as I mentioned that's been complied with. The other one references compliance with our detached sidewalks and the parkway standards of six feet. Again, there are no -- parkways are no longer proposed, so, therefore; that condition is no longer applicable. I'd also let you know that the -- one of the DA provisions requires the applicant to hook up the existing homes to city utilities within 60 days of annexation approval. The applicant would like you to take into consideration and extend that time frame from 60 days to 18 months. So, if you are inclined to go with applicant's recommendation we will have to modify -- staff recommends you modify condition -- excuse me -- DA provision B and just simply add -- strike 60 days and include that 18 month provision. With those changes I propose to you there are no other outstanding issues before you this evening and at this time I'd stand for any questions you have. Yearsley: Thank you very much. Is there any questions? Marshall: Mr. Chair. Bill, that was DA provision B? Thank you. Yearsley: Anything else? Thank you very much. At this time we'd like to have the applicant come up. Please state your name and address for the record. Telford: Gentlemen, my name is Jeremy Telford. My address is 2151 West Teano Drive in Meridian. Thank you for -- thank you, Mr. Parsons, for going through a little bit of the presentation ahead of time. Some of what I'm going to present today will be a little bit of overlap, not knowing what level of detail Bill would go into on that and I'd like Meridian Planning & Zoning October 4, 2012 Page 6 of 31 to add a little bit more detail on some of the recommendations and requests that we are adding. First of all, Arete Investment Group is a misleading name. It's really just me. We started this company in 2009. I came out of southern California working for a home builder in land acquisition and development and when they filed for bankruptcy we needed something to do and so we came up here and actually started investing in bank owned properties and so for the last three and a half years we have now completed over 3.5 million dollars in transactions of taking this stuff that the banks can't get rid of and bettering those for communities and putting them back -- back on the market. The word Areta means excellence of any kind. It basically means that if there is something out there that we can add value to and I get some profits from we are always interested in that. As mentioned, prior to starting this I was a project manager for Woodside Homes in California and I have presented to many city councils, but this is the first time I have ever done something for my own accord, so -- or planning and zoning. Sorry to mislabel. As Bill mentioned, just a quick outline of what we have. We are across the street from Rocky Mountain High School and nestled into the Lochsa Falls Subdivision. We -- the property is two parcels put together and the first one was approved. Mr. Parsons had mentioned in 2008 this was approved for 21 condo units on just that half and so it was approved as an R-15 zoning and the development agreement expired and was not extended and during the approval process I was informed that they actually recommended that both parcels work together, that the gentleman who owns the south parcel told everybody that he would never ever sell that and luckily we bought it after he lost it to foreclosure a couple years later. But that was the original map that was put on just the north parcel of the property. Right now -- oh. Excuse me. Right now there are two homes that are on the two pieces of land. They have -- these are visuals of what the homes look -- also look like at this point. One is Kathy Nelson owns the house to the north. It's a 4,700 square foot home built in 1956 and we have that under contract to purchase in March of 2013 and as part of this plan that will be renovated to new construction standards we will tear off the majority of the outside and rebuild a new garage. As an example of that, what we have done with the south parcel, which we own right now, it was a 2,100 square foot home built in 1942. We purchased it in March. It was a former L&L Tree Farm property. The home has now been fully renovated by Areta Investments Group. This is a couple of before and after pictures of what my company has done with that home and the reason that I mention this is because these two homes are a factor in the land plan that we are presenting, but we aren't going to have old dilapidated homes next to brand new homes by the time that we put probably 50 to 75 thousand dollars into that renovation. They will be up to par with the new construction that will be happening there. For the traffic access that Bill had mentioned as well, there are currently three traffic access points on these two properties from Linder Road. As mentioned, we are going to try and shift the garage over to the -- the south side of 5555 North Linder Road, so that those two can share. There is also a third lot in between there that -- depending on how everything lays out when we are done. We do actually have the potential to put another home there, but we will have to decide on that as we go forward. We will fence off that property, which will leave us a net acreage of 4.3 acres of what will be zoned as R-8 development land per the comp plan. The access for those developed lots will come through Lochsa Falls Subdivision on Cedar Grove Street and by doing so we will also put the buffer, including the Meridian Planning & Zoning October 4, 2012 Page 7 of 31 landscaping along Linder Road and eliminate the two other access points right now, thereby reducing it from three access points to one and that was a popular point with ACHD as it's across to a high school and you get some pretty crazy drivers coming in and out of there. The few access points and specifically crosswalks, we don't want anymore crosswalks along Linder Road just for the safety of pedestrians. This is -- this is a slightly -- there is a couple of changes, but just a general layout of the -- excuse me -- the preliminary plat map. We have 28 new lots at the Villas at Lochsa Falls, plus three phasing lots, and, then, there is also five common area lots. Minimum lot size is 50 feet by 85 feet. Fifty feet is a standard construction width in the building community. Eight-five feet will be a little bit shallow, but we plan to actually bring the -- the garage will be set at the 20 foot mark off of the back of curb, but we will come forward a little bit per architectural guidelines. We will come forward as far as possible to maximize the rear yard space and also create kind of a cool looking streetscape with porches and overhangs on the front of the homes and we will go into that. Zoning as mentioned comes out at 6.26 per acre and all utilities for this project have already been stubbed to the project. Actually shared on our property lines for sewer and water. All of them have been stubbed out. Part of that was with the expansion of Linder Road and so there is very little -- very little extension, no disruption to any of the major roads. And, then, we will maintain the 25 foot landscape buffer on Linder Road for all new lots and as Mr. Parsons mentioned, we will only have the exception for the existing homes. From an architectural design we will be putting 28 new medium density single family detached homes ranging from 1,600 to 2,400 square feet, one to two story homes with the garage setback floor plans as I mentioned and, then, shared driveway. One neat part about this shared driveway format is it actually ends up leaving 70 out of a hundred feet -- linear feet of frontage becomes landscaped and so we actually condense those entry points into a smaller, more tightly packed community such as this one that we add to the streetscape there. Optimal price point -- I'm also a designated real estate broker. Ideal in the real estate community quite a bit and between the 180 to 240 price range is something that sells very well in the community right now and we think that it will be a good -- a good -- good price point. And, then, lastly, the -- our focus in this community will -- you know, I call it gingerbread -- we can't make the lot size any bigger, we are kind of constrained on how big -- what we can do with the land, it's packed in there pretty tight, but we -- just from a personal perspective is we are able to take it all the way through the end. We'd love to make these homes as beautiful as possible. Just make them something that would be a very well designed community. This is -- Mr. Parsons had also shown this graphic. This will just go through some -- left to right. The homes will have five foot minimum setbacks between the property lines creating ten feet of space between each home and, then, just a good variety, we would like to mix one and two story elements. We do have -- we have trees growing up all over the place. We have some that are coming down, that we will need to mitigate for and we look forward to doing that as it will enhance the visual of the community there. And just a little bit larger image of some of those homes with the porch overhang. This is just an example that was able to find of what we think and we haven't gotten into the actual architectural design yet. Something that has the entrance as close to the street as we can, while not making kind of a box house that just looks like we are packing in sardines into this small piece of land, so -- the benefits that we see -- this is -- everybody keeps Meridian Planning & Zoning October 4, 2012 Page 8 of 31 teasing me that not a lot of people have been bringing new plat maps out, but I think that this is a fairly low impact project that hopefully can prime the pump a little bit. If we do end up doing 28 homes, you know, at an average of 22 or 220,000 dollars sales price is that's six million dollars in economic activity generated, homes being supplied using built by and sold through local companies. Number two, development of affordable medium density housing, which has been on the Comprehensive Plan, while at the same time going with a much lower density than was originally approved by Council in 2008. The elimination of the two access points on Linder Road and, then, lastly, you know, this is across the street from a wonderful high school and as everybody pulls out of Rocky Mountain they just see this field that's had stuff parked in it or -- you know, it's just -- I think it will be a really good looking piece within the community. So, with that that's it. I appreciate your time and if I can answer any questions I'm happy to do so. Yearsley: Thank you very much. Any questions of the applicant? O'Brien: Mr. Chair? Yearsley: Yes. O'Brien:. Sir -- so, these outbuilding currently surrounding the existing homes there, are those going to stay, like the barn and things? Telford: No. The barn -- the barn will be taken down. There is -- there is four outbuildings on the existing homes. Three on the south property. There is a cinder block barn. There is a wood barn and it's like the -- it's like the three little pigs story. There is a cinder block one, there is a metal one, and there is a wood one. The cinder block one we would keep. The metal one we will probably actually sell and, then, the barn -- I don't know what we are going to do with it. I know there are some websites where people can buy and sell old barns, because that really is a very very good looking barn and we wish that we could incorporate it into the community, but I just don't think we can. O'Brien: My question about anything being left there would be kept up to standards like you're doing with the homes. Telford: Yeah. And those ones -- unfortunately, the barn, if we look at the line of where the barn sits, about one third of it is on the properties that will maintain as existing and two-thirds of it actually goes back into -- it would really -- we wouldn't be able to fit a road behind it, quite frankly, and so it's just a big barn, but -- O'Brien: That's all I have. Thank you. Telford: Thank you. And one other item that (mentioned -- or that I forgot to mention. Bill mentioned that we were asking for an 18 month period to connect this to -- the existing homes to the community system versus keeping them on well and septic. The Meridian Planning & Zoning October 4, 2012 Page 9 of 31 reason for doing that is if we have to hire contractors to come out for the sole purpose of opening up the connections off of Linder Road and running services to those and, then, knowing that within the next 18 months we will actually have a public system built within 30 feet of those, that was our reason for asking for the 18 months is so that we could basically tie those connections into the creation and connection of the water and septic system. So that's all. Marshall: I do have a question. You mentioned a -- one of the diagrams here mentioned a block wall to the east up against Linder? Telford: Block wall to the east of Linder. Okay. Marshall: Block fence. Telford: Yeah. It would -- Lochsa Falls has a block wall going all the way across the face of Linder and so -- Marshall: Are you suggesting to match what Lochsa Falls has there? Telford: Yeah. I don't -- I mean it's not smart of me to do that, but I think that it would be good to do. I mean that's a lot more expensive than putting up a vinyl fence, but at the same time for those owners that will be back into those, I think it would be -- it would be a sound barrier, it would be a safety barrier. It's harder to drive through a block wall than a vinyl fence for high school kids, so -- I would like to do that and, then, it would -- it would actually terminate at the -- the north and south boundaries of the existing homes and, then, they will still -- as today they won't have a fence in front of their homes, unless the choose to do that independently, because -- or it would have to be small. It would look awkward to have a fence going right in front of their home. Yearsley: Any other questions? Thank you very much. Telford: You're welcome. Thank you. Yearsley: At this time we would take public testimony. I only have two people signed up here. One is Mike Dunlap. Would he like to -- okay. And then -- anybody else to come testify on this application? All right. With that can I get a motion to close the public hearing. Marshall: Mr. Chair, I move that we close the public hearing on AZ 12-009 and PP 12- 008. Rohm: Second. Yearsley: Okay. We have a motion and a second. All in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carried. Meridian Planning & Zoning October 4, 2012 Page 10 of 31 MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Yearsley: Okay. Who would like to start? Rohm: Sounds good. Good job. Good presentation both by the applicant and Mr. Parsons presentation was pretty good and it looks like we have got a project that should move forward from my perspective. Anyway, good job. Marshall: I would mention not only in my -- I'm for it, but I'm also -- the rationale for extending the sewer hookup to 18 months seems rather reasonable to me as well. Rohm: Logical. Marshall: Yeah. Rather than tearing up Linder 1 like the idea of waiting until they have the sewer system connecting to the back there. Very reasonable. So, I guess Mr. Chair? Yearsley: Commissioner Marshall. Marshall: After considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony I move to recommend to the City Council file numbers AZ 12-009 and PP 12-008 as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of October 4th, 2012, with the following modifications: To strike 1.2.4 regarding 5,000 square foot area and 1.3.9 regarding detached sidewalks and recommend changing the DA provision B from 60 days to 18 months. Yearsley: Okay. I have a motion and a -- Rohm: Second. Yearsley: -- second on file number AZ 12-009 and PP 12-008, Villas at Lochsa Falls. All in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carried. Thank you very much. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. E. Public Hearing: PP 12-011 Hacienda East by Jayo Development Located at East Side of N. Meridian Road and South of Chinden Boulevard Request: Preliminary Plat Approval of 17 Residential Lots on 2.14 Acres in an Existing R-8 Zone Yearsley: The next item on the agenda is public hearing PP 12-001. Hacienda East by Jayco Development located the east side of North Meridian Road and south of Chinden Boulevard. First we will start off with staff comments. Parsons: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. The next application Meridian Planning & Zoning October 4, 2012 Page 11 of 31 is Hacienda East Subdivision. This is a replat of some existing townhome lots that were developed with the Hacienda Subdivision back in 2004. As the chairman mentioned, this site is south of East Chinden Boulevard and on the east side of Meridian Road, currently zoned R-8. Here is the plat that they are proposing for you. I would mention to you that there are some townhomes that are constructed on some of the lots, but that's across the street from this area. Back in the day the PD allowed for reduced lot frontages and narrower lots to construct those townhome lots. The applicant is also proposing to remove a few of the common lots that were platted with that subdivision. Staff has gone back through those approvals. I would let you know that the lots -- the common lots, the reason for them primarily was to get some green space between the townhomes so you could break up that streetscape and get some greenery in the townhome lots. They were not designed for micro path lots by any means, so with the loss of those lots the site does still exceed 14 percent open space, which is above what the code requires under the UDC. Also when that PD came through they were required to provide a minimum of ten percent open space and they will comply with that requirement as well, so rather than having them do a bunch of property boundary adjustments and remove utilities, we felt it was more appropriate for them just to come back and replat those townhome lots. Basically, what they are doing is taking 29 townhomes lots, which total 2.14 acres and creating 17 single family detached home lots consistent to what's already out there. I did not receive any additional testimony from the applicant or their .representative. I would also mention that the street network is all in and that is not changing as well. That will remain in place and intact. Those stub streets will remain as well. So, with that I will stand for any questions you have. Yearsley: Any questions? Okay. Since there is no questions, at this time would ask the applicant to come forward. Please state your name and address for the record, please. Breckon: John Breckon, Breckon Land Design. 181 East 50th Street, Garden City. think it's pretty straight forward what Bill presented. I don't particularly have anymore to add to that, so I stand for questions. Yearsley: Questions from the applicant. O'Brien: I don't have any. Marshall: I do believe I read somewhere where two of the townhomes had already been built? Breckon: There are townhomes within a previous subdivision there where he's showing to the left that are existing. Marshall: There is -- a group of them, more than two? I guess some reason my mind caught two somewhere. Breckon: That bank to the left there includes two existing homes. Meridian Planning & Zoning October 4, 2012 Page 12 of 31 Marshall: Okay. Thank you. Yearsley: Any other questions? Thank you very much. Breckon: Thank you. Yearsley: I don't have anybody signed up to testify. Is there anybody that would like come up and testify regarding this application? With no one wanting to testify, I will stand for a motion to close the public hearing. O'Brien: Mr. Chair, I move to close public hearing PP 12-011. Marshall: Second. Yearsley: I have a motion and a second to close the public hearing on PP 12-011, Hacienda East by Jayco Development. All in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carried. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Yearsley: Comments? Marshall: Mr. Chair? Yearsley: Yes. Marshall: It seems pretty cut and dried me. My only issue -- the only thing that sticks in my mind -- and I didn't hear anybody come testify about it -- is it may be just two townhomes would kind of stand out as being a little different in the rest of a subdivision on single family, but other than that everything seems pretty cut and dried. Yearsley: I think what they are saying is the townhomes aren't within this pre-plat. Marshall: Correct. But just to the side of that -- and this was all intended to be continuous townhomes all through there and so my point was I thought there were a large range of townhomes -- I kept reading two and he was saying two townhomes had been built to the side of this. And maybe that's a question for staff. Are there further townhomes intended to be both in that area to the west. Parsons: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, no. Marshall: Okay. So, my point still stands that it seems a little bit -- maybe those might be a little bit out of place, but we are going back to single family residential, which fits everything else there, so -- and not hearing any testimony against that, I'm for it. Yearsley: Okay. Meridian Planning & Zoning October 4, 2012 Page 13 of 31 Rohm: Things are pretty straight forward to me as well, so -- Yearsley: Could I get a motion? Rohm: Yes. Mr. Chairman? Yearsley: Commissioner Rohm. Rohm: After considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move to recommend approval of file number PP 12-011 as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of October 4th, 2012, with no modifications. Marshall: Second. Yearsley: I have a motion and a second for approval of AZ 12 -- or no. PP 12-001, Hacienda East. All in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries. Thank you very much. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. F. Public Hearing: AZ 12-010 SGI by G4 Acquisitions, LLC Located 2420 N. Eagle Road Request: Annexation and Zoning of 1.45 Acres of Land with a C-G Zoning District G. Public Hearing: CUP 12-008 SGI by G4 Acquisitions, LLC Located at 2420 N. Eagle Road Request: Conditional Use Permit for aDrive-Thru Establishment in a C-G Zoning District Within 300 Feet of an Existing Residence and Residential District Yearsley: Next we wilt go to Public Hearing AZ 12-010, SGI by G4 Acquisitions, LLC. And we will start with the staff report. Watters: Thank you, Chairman Yearsley, Members of the Commission. The next applications before you are an annexation and zoning and a conditional use permit request. The site consists of 1.45 acres of land zoned RUT in Ada County and is located at 2420 North Eagle Road on the Northeast corner of Eagle and East River Valley Street. The applicant requests annexation and zoning approval 1.45 acres of land with a C-G zoning district consistent with a mixed use regional Comprehensive Plan future land use map designation. Two different options for development have been submitted. One option is fora 5,075 square foot multi-tenant retail building to be constructed in phase one, with a 2,879 square foot restaurant with adrive-thru in phase two. This is the -- kind of -- the application was submitted with a couple different plans here I just became aware of this afternoon. So, this is the phase one right here. Actually, just one second here. It's not -- okay. I'm going to back up. I'm getting confused here, so, there is two options, let me put it that way. One option is a 10,000 Meridian Planning & Zoning October 4, 2012 Page 14 of 31 and some odd square foot multi-tenant retail building, as you see here, and the other option is a 5,075 square foot retail building, with a 2,879 square foot restaurant with a drive thru. Access to the site is proposed via River Valley. Access to Eagle Road is prohibited. A north-south driveway is proposed as a backage road along the east boundary as you see here on the site for access to River Valley by the subject property and the properties to the north that are south of the South Slough. Cross-access is required to be provided to those properties. A 35 foot wide landscape street buffer is required along Eagle and a 20 foot wide buffer is required along River Valley. The applicant's actually proposing a 25 foot wide buffer here as shown on the landscape plan. A 25 foot wide landscape buffer is required along the east boundary adjacent to the future residential uses currently under construction in Regency At River Valley apartment complex. The applicant requests Council approval of reduction in the buffer width to 15 feet. At ten foot wide multi-use pathway is proposed on the plan along Eagle and along River Valley in accord with the master pathways plan. A conditional use permit is requested for the drive-thru establishment in a C-G zoning district within 300 feet of a residential use and district. The property to the east is zoned R-40 and is in the construction process, as I stated, for an apartment complex. Business hours of operation in the C-G district are limited from 6:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m., because the property abuts a residential use and district. There are several specific use standards listed in the Unified Development Code for drive-thru establishment that apply to development of this site. The site plan does not comply with two of the standards as shown. The stacking lanes have to have sufficient capacity to prevent obstruction of the public right of way by patrons. As you can see here the drive thru comes around like this. This -- while isn't a public right of way, it will carry a significant amount of traffic through the subject property and the three properties to the north. Once this really is established all access for Eagle Road will be prohibited, so the access currently the Great Wall has will go away. The proposed stacking lane has space for approximately seven cars to stack. If more than seven cars are in line for the drive thru, either the one way drive aisle here will be obstructed or they will stack out into the main access drive here along the east boundary. Therefore, staff is of the opinion there is not sufficient stacking capacity for the drive-thru as proposed. The police department has also noted that this is an issue with them and, then, another specific use standard is that the stacking lane shall be a separate lane from the circulation lanes needed for access and parking. It is a separate lane here for seven cars. It does allow the escape lane as code also requires, but as already stated, it's -- you know, if there is more than seven cars stacking that they will be blocking the circulation lanes needed for access and parking and there is not adequate area to navigate around the cars here. Therefore, this site plan is not in compliance with the specific use standards noted. The applicant did show me a copy of a revised site plan that they do have and will present to you tonight. Staff has not had a chance to evaluate that plan, however, it looks like it is slightly better than this one. It does provide an area so that the traffic won't be sticking out in this aisle. Written testimony was received from Phil Hall, the applicant, in response to the staff report and they are in agreement with the annexation, they are just trying to get the site plan rearranged, so that it will work with staff. Staff is recommending approval of the annexation and zoning with a development agreement per the provisions in the staff report. Staff recommends the design of the drive thru Meridian Planning & Zoning October 4, 2012 Page 15 of 31 proposed with the conditional use be redesigned prior to the Council meeting to comply with the specific use standards previously notes. Staff will stand for any questions the Commission may have. Yearsley: Thank you very much. One clarification I want to make. When I opened this hearing I only opened it for one of the items. There are two that are conjoined, the AZ 12-001 and CUP 12-008 that are being done conjoined with this -- they are the same applicant. Just want to make that clarification. So, with that is there any comments for applicant -- or for the staff? Rohm: I have a question. What is the standards for the stacking? This -- the map we are looking at shows stacking for seven vehicles. What is the standard they should be in compliance with? Watters: Chairman Yearsley, Commissioner Rohm, Commissioners, our code requires that there be an escape lane provided if it's -- the lane is -- if the stacking lane is longer than one hundred feet. They have provided that. There is no code requirement based on the exact number of cars in the stacking lane. So, it doesn't -- I think that's what you're asking. It doesn't say like you have to provide, you know, space for ten cars to stack before they hang out into a drive aisle or driveway. Rohm: Okay. Watters: Does that answer your question or not really? Rohm: Well, I guess I will wait and see what the applicant has to say as far as adjustments, so we will go from there. Watters: Okay. O'Brien: Mr. Chair? Yearsley: Commissioner O'Brien. O'Brien: Sonya, so we have two issues then. We have the one stacking aisle, but the other one is the 300 feet within an existing residential district. What is -- what is the answer to that if -- as far as the UDC is -- of those. How -- you say they were in violation of that? Watters: Chairman Yearsley, Commissioner O'Brien, Commissioners, the conditional use permit is required because the drive thru establishment is proposed within 300 feet of a residence and residential district. So, that's the reason that they are even having to go through a conditional use permit. As part of that conditional use permit for the use proposed, the drive-thru establishment, there are specific use standards in our UDC that they have to comply with. Those two that I discussed are the ones that staff didn't feel they were in compliance with. The other specific use standards they are in compliance Meridian Planning & Zoning October 4, 2012 Page 16 of 31 with. O'Brien: Okay. Thank you. That explains a lot. Yearsley: Okay. At this time we'd ask the applicant to come forward. Russell: Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, my name is Doug Russell, I'm with The Land Group, Incorporated, at 462 East Shore Drive, Eagle, Idaho. 83616. And we have a brief slide show presentation that we would like to present this evening that hopefully will answer some of your questions and -- so we appreciate staffs help on this and the staff for what they have put together. We do have a couple of items that I would say that we slightly disagree with them on, but we have made modifications to our site plan and that's one of the things that you're going to see in this presentation this evening. So, just kind a recap of the site, we are asking for annexation and rezone of this property, which clearly works very well with the surrounding developments that are occurring in this area, specifically the CenterCal Meridian development to the south -- Meridian Town Center to the south. So, just kind of a little bit of a clarification, I know it is definitely a confusing application when we first started working with staff on this, because we were kind of asking for various options. Basically we were looking for a little bit of flexibility going forward. If we get a client that's interested in a 10,000 square foot retail building, then, we have one site plan that covers that and if we don't, then, we have a 5,000 square foot retail building, which has a different type of marketability, along with a drive thru facility. So, what we are asking for here is -- I believe you're seeing what I'm seeing here on your computer screen. We are showing the site plan for phase one, which includes the 5,000 square foot retail building with an open pad site, basically. This slot here shows the landscaping and the buffers that we have provided along with that and, then, we moved to what we refer as the site plan phase two Option A. We are currently working with various possible tenants on this and Option A is that we have the 5,000 square foot retail building, along with the drive thru, what you're seeing in this slide here. And, then, Option B is just full build out of the 10,000 square foot retail building that may -- may or may not have multiple tenants, kind of depending on how that goes forward. Here you see a little bit of the architectural style that we are proposing. It's very much in line with the Village at Meridian Town Center to the south. You can see we have very similar architectural style with, you know, rock bases, undulating columns, various roof heights and different materials that are -- that are identified with -- with awnings as well shown there just above windows. It's a very nice architectural feel, works very well with the -- with the type of architecture that is surrounding the site currently. And here I have some just Meridian City Code here that kind of talks about the facades, the fact that we are meeting some of the modulation requirements with the variable roof lines, the fact that we have different roof planes, along with color banding, different types of materials and those sorts of things. I'm sure you guys are very well versed in the code and I won't, you know, read through this in various detail unless you have some questions we can definitely go back to that. So, in an effort to address some of staffs concerns that were included in the report regarding the stacking, we have come up with this alternative site plan and it's not extremely different. I -- is there a way for me to point on this so that you see my movements Meridian Planning & Zoning October 4, 2012 Page 17 of 31 around here? Nary: Push the color at the top of that screen. Russell: Excellent. Thank you. So, the biggest difference is that instead of people moving through in that manner, what we are proposing is that people move through in this manner and what that does is that -- that eliminates the possibility of excessive stacking occurring in this location and potentially backing traffic up to River Valley. As staff mentioned, we are -- there is -- there is no possibility of us backing traffic up into public right of way, but we understand with there being a couple of facilities taking access to the north that stacking in this location could be an issue. So, this is going to be the main route. The other thing that we would mention is in our -- in the original site plan that we presented the dimension between the stalls was 17 feet in width. This site plan is providing 20 feet in width, which if the need ever did arise for someone that's heading into here that someone coming through and they wanted to leave they could do so in -- you know, by going out of this area and exiting back to the south. So, this design provides for eight vehicles in the queue. It's not -- it's not designed in such a way that it's not going to -- not sure what happened there. It's not -- it's not designed in such a way that it's going to be blocking any access into the facilities to the north. And, then, again, we have some -- some code here that we feel like we have worked very hard to comply with, but I think one of the key questions that was asked is, you know, what is Meridian city's requirement in regard to stacking and when we were going through this process it is -- we were kind of surprised that staff even asked us, you know, what are some of the other codes in the Treasure Valley and by comparison the city of Eagle does have a standard in that they -- you have to provide a minimum of five cars to the queue. We called the city of Boise and they don't necessarily have a -- a number that's required, but they said they kind of just look at it on -- on a use basis, you know, basing it on square footage and the number of patrons that they anticipate they are going to have. Unfortunately, in this case we don't know exactly what the tenant's going to be, but I think we can all assume it's going to be some sort of drive-thru restaurant. So, Eagle requires five, Boise city is very similar to the City of Meridian in that they want to make sure that you're not creating any sort of, you know, flow issues with your -- with your cars, but in this case we are, again, providing eight, which we feel is more than adequate and, again, based on the changes that we have made on the site plan we think that we have eliminated the -- the possibility of, you know, creating any sort of issues along this way. I would also mention that this is one way out this way, so there is no -- and we also have the do not enter sign in this location here, so we, you know, are trying to do everything we can to keep people from entering in that -- that direction. And, you know, we did go through, you know, viewing some different aerial photographs within the City of Meridian to kind of just provide you guys a feel for what sort of situations we are dealing with in Meridian, what has been approved prior. This is the McDonald's at Ustick and Eagle. They have a very interesting situation where they have two entry points here, that you can see in this location that they have eight vehicles in the queue and a ninth that's kind of starting to get out there towards the drive aisle, but not quite. This is a -- the Kneaders Bakery and Cafe, which is located along Eagle Road, this scenario provides for five vehicles in the queue with a sixth vehicle in Meridian Planning & Zoning October 4, 2012 Page 18 of 31 the drive aisle here in this location. So, a little bit less than what we are providing for you in our current design. This is a Carl's Junior on Eagle Road, which provides for seven vehicles in the queue and an eighth vehicle in the drive aisle -- you can't really see it from the way this aerial angle is, but you get the picture there. And, then, the Starbucks with six vehicles in the queue, that includes this one here that's kind of hidden under the canopy, we kind of modified this a little bit, so that you could kind of get the picture. But there is a vehicle here and, then, six in the queue and, you know, still room for another one with the way this -- this vehicle truck -- or this pickup truck is kind of set up there. And, then, we have a Starbucks at Portico, which shows six vehicles in a queue and a seventh in the drive aisle. So, again, we are providing queuing for eight vehicles, with additional room down through this area. Also with a dimension across here that allows for a car to pass through if necessary. You know, there may be certain times when that scenario occurs, but we think for the most part that eight is more than adequate and we are very comfortable with the design that we presented and we think that we have worked very hard resolve staffs main concern. With that I would say that, you know, our first modification deals with the drive-thru comments. Just presented that to you. I think we have addressed those accordingly. And we respectfully request that you would really approve of -- not only our annexation and rezone, but also this CUP request tonight, rather than trying to go back to the drawing board and redesign it prior to City Council, we would really -- really like your support tonight based on these changes that we have made and with all that being said I would be happy to answer any questions that you might have about the design. If we need to back up and look at some code that we presented tonight, I would be glad to go through that as well. So, I appreciate your time and thank you for your support. Yearsley: Thank you much. Marshall: Mr. Chair, if I could. Yearsley: Commissioner Marshall. Marshall: I'd simply comment on your examples. I only saw one of your several examples. I appreciate the examples, but I only saw one of those examples where backing up outside of the queue actually placed cars in a full ingress-egress easement between properties, whereas the others, if they backed up were in drive aisles between parking stalls, I agree, much like your second design is, but I do appreciate the work on the second design. I think it's significantly better, because I do worry about -- if you get an eighth car you're going to have somebody blocking that, people will just drive up there and park right there and block that easement in this valley, I know they do. But I appreciate your addressing that and with the one way do not enter sign, I -- personally it sounded much better, but, again, with your example I only saw the one and maybe I'm missing something here, but I only saw one, which would be the McDonald's that actually backed up into an ingress-egress that transported traffic between properties. Russell: Yeah. We can go back and look at those again for sure. We got way off track here. There we go. Meridian Planning & Zoning October 4, 2012 Page 19 of 31 Rohm: I think his point was really that this redesign is equal to or better than any of those that he presented as existing conditions as -- I think that was the only point to that. But thank you. Russell: You got it. You bet. Rohm: Um -- Yearsley: Commissioner Rohm. Rohm: Mr. Chairman, I have a question of staff. This was the first opportunity that you had to see their alternative stacking proposal and do you have any comments on that that you would care to share with the Commission before we have our applicant sit down? Does that meet your needs? Watters: Chairman Yearsley, Commissioner Rohm, Commissioners, it is better than the other proposal. However, I still think that there could be an issue for blockage on that one way drive aisle. It just -- it really depends on what kind of user they get in there, what kind of traffic they are going to be, you know, having and we really have no way to know that. Rohm: Okay. To block the parking lane it -- is that more acceptable I guess than the ingress-egress easement or is it equal? That's kind of -- Watters: The specific use standards in our code doesn't allow for either of them to be blocked. They want a separate lane all together and in this site it -- it's just small enough really -- unless they flip the drive aisle -- or the drive-thru around on the west of the property and I think they have already tried to do that and they -- and it hasn't worked either. It's definitely better I think blocking the internal drive than the busy -- you know, driveway there on the east, but that one-way drive aisle is only 17 feet wide. Rohm: Well, I was thinking the A&W-Kentucky Fried Chicken, that has a very similar system -- scenario where their drive aisle wraps around the side and they come through the parking spaces very similar to this and it kind of reminds me of the same deal and I think it's worked there. I guess that's my only -- Watters: Yeah. Commissioner Rohm, really staff needs more time to evaluate the site plan and, you know, check with our traffic guys and our police department and, you know, to be fair to the applicant to get a little more input on this. I'm not a traffic engineer, don't intend to be, so -- Rohm: Okay. All right. Well, thank you. That's actually the answer that I was looking for. Watters: Okay. Meridian Planning & Zoning October 4, 2012 Page 20 of 31 Chatterton: Sonya makes a point. To be fair, I mean it's to really pass judgment on this plan. She said it is -- it is better, but we have just seen it. The police department hasn't had a chance to weigh in on it and to be completely fair to the applicant, I think the staff recommendation is reasonable to work this out prior to City Council. Rohm: Okay. Good. Thank you for all comment. O'Brien: I agree. I -- I have the same reservations about -- about this egress as a possibility of vehicles backing up into a parking area is to me just the staff having a lot of through put, so I'm not in favor as it stands right now. I just think it's leaving ourselves open for problems and I don't want to see that. I want something more black and white, something that makes sense. That it's awin-win situation and I see there is the potential for problems and so I can't give my -- my okay on this the way it is on the revised. Marshall: I'd like to -- we are not hearing public testimony yet, but I do know this was flagged by police to -- as being a safety and security issue. O'Brien: Okay. That's all I have to say right now. Thank you. Russell: Am I supposed to comment on these comments now or wait until -- Yearsley: Well, we will wait to have -- see if there is any public testimony and, then, you can come back and comment. Russell: Okay. Yearsley: Thank you. I have no one -- nobody signed up for this. Is there anybody that would like to come up and provide public testimony? Yes. Please come forward. Please state your name and address for the record, please. Kneadler: Ben Kneadler, 6020 Shanty Drive in Meridian and I have the pleasure of being a commercial real estate broker in town and just to comment on some of the discussion regarding the stacking and some of the site design. I have been involved in numerous retail projects, the Fred Meyer project and Kohl's, et cetera, and dealing with fast food users, from what I have seen on the site plan and working through this, this actually is more than what is typically required in other jurisdictions and, quite frankly, has been approved in the vicinity, much like the McDonald's and et cetera. I like the change that that comes through the parking area and, quite frankly, from the consumer standpoint I think people have a reasonable expectation is that if they are going to wait in the drive-in -- drive-thru that there is the possibility that it could stack up in the parking. Classic example is the McDonald's in Eagle out -- the way it comes around from the drive-thru, then, people wait on the end of the drive aisles and allow people to still flow through. I think the consumer is intelligent enough to be respectful to the other drivers, especially people that may want to back out of a parking spot, et cetera. So, my Meridian Planning & Zoning October 4, 2012 Page 21 of 31 impression would be just for my day-to-day knowledge and what I do for a living is that this looks very reasonable and would support that and would ask for your support as well. Any questions for me? Otherwise I'm through. Yearsley: Thank you very much. Kneadler: Thank you. Yearsley: Is there anybody else that would like to come up and offer public testimony? Doug, did you want to come backup? Russell: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Commissioners. I think what I would just like to say in closing is that, you know, we, obviously, presented to you several precedents that have been set within the city that have significantly -- well, not significantly. We are talking about five to eight cars of stacking here, but a number of situations where, you know, our -- the eight that we are proposing exceeds the numbers that are being provided elsewhere. And so with that precedent, you know, we have done our best to provide a site plan that meets all the requirements of the code, meets the intent of the code, and we feel adequately provides access to these drive-thru facilities. The other thing I wanted to make clear, because I -- I heard a little bit of contradiction in the post- presentation discussion is that with the .new site plan that we have provided we do have a 20 foot wide drive aisle in that parking area. So, there is sufficient room just to -- I'm sure you guys know this, but just to kind of, you know, give you a little clarification, the typical parking stall is nine feet and so -- you know, ten feet is enough for a car to drive through pretty easily if it were to get jammed, but I think the point is is that, you know, the times when more than eight stacking stalls is required is pretty infrequent, you know, there is definitely very busy times in the morning at a coffee shop, it might stack up a little bit, potentially for food service companies that -- you know, they may stack up during the lunch hour, but, you know, what is the number? And I think that's one of the reasons why the Meridian Code is -- is not clear on that, but it's not very clear on what is necessary and so we have tried to provide more than other jurisdictions have required. I think eight definitely works and, then, with the change that we have made and the do not enter sign and the 20 foot drive aisle leading up to that, that it is providing, you know, adequate access to this zone or to this -- this drive-thru window. We feel like we presented product that's going to work very well with the local -- with the other uses in the area and we have done everything that we can to make sure that we are not creating any sort of situation or blockage in this cross-access and -- and we feel like, you know, kind of the scrutiny that we are receiving at this point in time on this drive-thru with eight cars is really unnecessary. You know, this is really kind of a first -- first time and kind of dealing with this type of scrutiny and we feel like there is really not a big necessity to go back and have a traffic professional look at it and those sorts of things, because we have complied with the code, we have complied with what the ordinance tells us to do and we have really complied or done what we can to address staffs initial comments. So, we mean that with all due respect. Definitely appreciate the assistance that we receive from staff. We would hope that you would consider these comments as -- as you're working towards a decision tonight. With that I appreciate your time. Meridian Planning & Zoning October 4, 2012 Page 22 of 31 Yearsley: Thank you very much. Russell: Thank you. Yearsley: At this time I'd like to -- or propose -- I guess ask for a motion to close the public hearing. Marshall: Mr. Chair, so moved. Rohm: Second. Yearsley: Okay. I have a motion and a second to close the public hearing for AZ 12- 010and CUP 12-008. All in favor say aye. Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Yearsley: All right. Comments? Rohm: Mr. Chairman? Yearsley: Commissioner Rohm. Rohm: I have a great deal of faith in both our staff and the applicant on this particular application and I think that the general project in and of itself is very worthwhile and should be moved forward and I further believe once staff has had an opportunity to review the alternative presented by the applicant they will be able to make recommendations to the applicant that if needs -- if it needs tweaked prior to City Council those adjustments can made, but that being said, that's why we have the staff that we do and the applicant for them to be able to work together and it's the -- from the 5,000 foot view what we are trying to accomplish and -- and I think that the project as a whole is a very viable project and it just needs to have the blessings of the people that are much better suited to make those decisions as to the stacking and what have you, give them an opportunity for comment and -- and I'm sure that between staff and applicant they will be able to come up with something that is workable prior to City Council and -- and all will be well. Yearsley: Thank you. Commissioner Marshall, any comments? Marshall: I appreciate Commissioner Rohm's comments. Agree with him wholeheartedly. I do want to make the point that 1 appreciate the changes that were made in that having the red flags that the police had put up, it made me stop and think that the rare occasion that it might go over seven cars, it would have put an eighth car possibly back into that ingress-egress easement that is feeding other properties and I think that is a serious concern. Now, to place now in the parking area I would agree that those customers visiting that site are going to tend to be understanding that, yeah, Meridian Planning & Zoning October 4, 2012 Page 23 of 31 it backs up occasionally, with the extra 20 foot width it might get past somebody if they are not right in the middle of the lane, but for the most part I appreciate the fact that it's back out of the ingress-egress easement. So, I would like to see staff get some time to review it and to make some recommendations there, but I think that was a real good attempt at addressing that and I appreciate it. Yearsley: Thank you. Commissioner O'Brien? O'Brien: Yes, Mr. Chair. Thank you. So, I agree with everything that's been discussed so far and I think there is one particular area where Ithink -- which has not been addressed and that is the queue for ordering or to place an order and I have been to several fast food restaurants, as my stomach can tell you, that the stacking usually occurs before you get all around and I went to Jack-in-the-Box here on Eagle Road the other day and it was about 12:30, quarter to 1:00 and they were stacked back into the parking lot area just so the people can get -- place their orders and it was -- and it was almost empty between the order area and the window where you pick it up. So, those are my concerns with the stacking that if you can stack seven, eight cars from the window, that's not the problem. You know, I don't have an issue with that. So, there is some things I think that that -- that staff I feel should have a chance to review and talk them over before we really -- you know, we really vote on this thing. I personally would like to see it continued until we have an opportunity to do that, to find out all this information and have the applicant again review that and get back with us. That's my -- my thoughts on what should happen there. Other than that everything is great. Yearsley: Thank you very much. I guess my comment would be as -- I have a tendency -- I agree with Commissioner Rohm's comment that I have faith that the staff and applicant can work it out prior to Council. I do echo Commissioner O'Brien's concern about where the order location is being put, so I guess those are my comments, so I guess at this point I'll entertain a motion one way or the other. O'Brien: Mr. Chair? Yearsley: Commissioner O'Brien. O'Brien: I move to continue file number AZ 12-010 -- if I'm on the right one here -- and CUP 12-008 to the next hearing date of November -- Yearsley: October 18th. O'Brien: -- October 18th -- oh, that's right. October 18th, 2012. Yearsley: I have a motion. Do I have a second? Nary: You have to wait until they make a decision on the second. You don't have a -- you don't have the right to make a request at this point. No. He opened them both. You have to decide, Mr. Chair, if there is a second. If not, then, that would die. Meridian Planning & Zoning October 4, 2012 Page 24 of 31 Yearsley: At this point I don't hear a second, so the motion dies. Do I have any other motions? Rohm: Mr. Chairman, after considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony I move to recommend to City Council -- to recommend approval to City Council of file number AZ 12-010 and CUP 12-08, and the applicant coming up with an adequate drive aisle for the proposed drive-thru prior to City Council. Marshall: I will second. Yearsley: Okay. I have a motion and a second. All in favor say aye. Opposed? O'Brien: Aye. Yearsley: Motion carried. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. H. Public Hearing: PP 12-009 Zebulon Village Subdivision by The Traditions by Amyx 11, LLP Located. Approximately 1/4 Mile West of N. Eagle Road and South of E. McMillan Road Request: Preliminary Plat Approval Consisting of 40 Building Lots and 7 Common /Other Lots on 14.94 Acres of Land in the R-4 Zoning District Yearsley: Mr. Russell, just concerning your comment, I initially opened just the one, but after staff I recanted and said that we opened for both, so -- sorry. Thank you very much. All right. The next item on the agenda is public hearing PP 12-009, Zebulon Village Subdivision and we will start with the staff report. Watters: Commissioners, the next application before you is a preliminary plat request for Zebulon Village Subdivision. And give me just one second here. This property consists of 14.94 acres of land. It's zoned R-4 and is located on -- south of East McMillan Road and west of North Eagle Road. This site was annexed in 2005 and included in the preliminary plat and planned development for Zebulon Heights Subdivision. The proposed plat consists of 40 building lots and seven common other lots on 14.94 acres in an R-4 zoning district. The proposed density is 2.68 dwelling units per acre, consistent with the reduced density approved with the planned development. The proposed lots meet the dimensional standards of the R-4 zoning district. Access to the portion of the plat that is south of Settlers Canal is proposed internally via previous phases of Zebulon Heights Subdivision. The area north of the canal up here will be accessed by an existing stub street in Madison Park Subdivision at the northeast boundary of the site. A pedestrian bridge is proposed over the Settlers Canal for access from the northern portion of the site to amenities in Zebulon Heights to the south. The south -- or the Settlers Canal runs right here along this area here. Open Meridian Planning & Zoning October 4, 2012 Page 25 of 31 space is proposed in the amount of 11.8 percent of the site and site amenities are proposed in accord with UDC standards. Written testimony was received from Becky McKay and she had a couple things noted in her written testimony. Let me address those real quick here. Condition number 1.1.3.A requires pathway lighting in the form of bollards. She has noted that it's anticipated the street lighting will be provided from each public street adjoining the pathway, therefore, they didn't feel that separate bollard lighting should be required. The code does require that. However, it does allow for a waiver by the director, so that is something that staff can work with the applicant on to see if it's warranted in this case. The next item is 1.1.3.C, which requires ten foot wide parkways when class one trees are planted and I have asked them to either change the tree species to that of a class two tree, which is desired typically in parkways or to widen the parkway to ten feet to comply with that requirement. The applicant asked that -- to maintain continuity and symmetry with the previous phases of Zebulon they request that the chamfer pears remain throughout all phases with an eight -- within an eight foot wide planter. If -- if that is, indeed, a class one tree our code doesn't allow for that unless they widen the parkway, so that's staffs response on that. I'm not sure what was approved in the previous phases. Condition number 1.1.3.B requires landscaping along all pathways a minimum of one tree per one hundred linear feet of pathway along with a mix of shrubs and other vegetative ground cover as required. I have asked them to add two trees in compliance with that requirement. There is a sewer and water main along the Settlers Canal there. Trees aren't allowed within the easements. That's fine. It doesn't need two. Put those in there, we don't want them in our easements, so we would like them to relocate them elsewhere on the site. Staff is recommending approval of the proposed plat and staff will stand for any questions the Commission may have. Yearsley: Thank you very much. Any questions of staff? All right. Would the applicant like to come forward? McKay: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. Becky McKay, Engineering Solutions. Business address 1029 North Rosario, Meridian. As Sonya indicated, this project was originally approved back in 2005. It was annexed, zoned, and preliminary plat and a PUD was ran through the process, because in 2005 the old Meridian zoning ordinance was applicable to this project. Your UDC I think was adopted in 2007. With this particular project the whole reason behind the PUD was because we were below the three units per acre as designated in the Comp Plan and, then, we had a couple of pie shaped lots where we wanted to reduce the frontage. The purpose for this resubmittal of this portion -- everything else has been constructed out at the site, except for what you see in this application and originally we had two vehicular bridges crossing the Settlers Canal. In 2005 it made sense. We constructed our primary collector across the Settlers Canal, intersected with McMillan Road. We have a collector coming off of Wainwright that intersects with Eagle Road. We have also have secondary -- other secondary connections to the left to Settlers Bridge Subdivision. So, our collector comes across Settlers Canal. Initially we proposed alocal -- oh, I knew it was going to do that. which one do I press, Sonya? Wafters: You should be able to press one of the colors. Yeah. There you go. Meridian Planning & Zoning October 4, 2012 Page 26 of 31 McKay: Initially we had a local street that was going to come across and intersect with this stub street in Madison Park. I did Madison Park back in the early 1990s and at the time we proposed the vehicular connection we did get some resistance from Madison Park about cut through traffic that may come from our subdivision, go across the Settlers Canal bridge and go eastbound out to either McMillan or -- northbound to McMillan or east out to Eagle Road. So, as times change, lot values changed, and we spent about 135, 140 thousand for our vehicular bridge across the Settlers Canal, we determined this local street bridge doesn't make any sense, there just are not enough lots north of the Settlers Canal in this area to economically make it viable. So, one of the things that we talked to staff about was eliminating that and they said if you do that you will have to come back through with a revised preliminary plat and that's what we have before you. However, the staff said, you know, we would still like some type of interconnectivity and that's why we are proposing a pedestrian bridge in lieu of the public street across the Setters Canal. So, therefore, these people will be connected to the central neighborhood. We have a central community center here with a swimming pool, changing rooms, basketball courts, et cetera, so they will be able to come across the ped bridge and drop down through the detached walk network. When I did my neighborhood meeting with Madison Park the HOA president attended. We had residents who lived back there, they were ecstatic that we were removing the public street connection from the bulk of our project into Madison Park. They said, .you know, we would prefer just to have a dead end cul-de-sac and so they were pleased. The only thing they asked of us is to replace the aging fence that is on the adjoining boundary, which we did commit to doing so when we get ready to build this phase. So, there is not a lot of changes. The density stayed the same. Our lot sizes in through here they ranged from 8,000 and they go all the way up to 20,000 square feet. I think our average lot size just in this portion here is over 11,000 square feet. So, these are pretty big lots. This development's moving really fast, because of the larger lots and they do allow RV garages and that has been very attractive for this neighborhood. So, we think that this alternative or this modification to this preliminary plat makes sense from an economic standpoint. The only thing I wanted to address concerning the conditions -- Sonya -- Sonya made the comment that the code requires bollards. Well, since we are bringing this cul-de-sac clear to the Settlers Canal and, then, we have another public street here, we are going to have -- we are going to end up with street lights on both sides. So, we thought it would be redundant to have a bollard and it just didn't make any sense. The other question was on the eight foot parkways. All of our streets, with the exception of this cul-de-sac and a small cul-de-sac to the north have eight foot parkways of five foot detached walks. We also have a ten foot multi-use pathway that we put in through the project. In talking with the landscape architect, the chamfer pears have been used throughout the rest of the project, so their concern was, obviously, continuing the same look, the same feel and I'm not sure if a ten foot -- I think that's in the UDC, so at the time we were approved it probably was not an issue. We can't go back and, obviously, add another two feet to the landscaped areas, because our setbacks are based on the back of sidewalk and the homes that are being built in here are fairly large and, like I said, they have -- they have RV garages, some of them are four car. On the large corner lots we are allowing detached accessory small building in the rear. So, the Meridian Planning & Zoning October 4, 2012 Page 27 of 31 change now -- to change gears would be difficult and that's why we are asking for relief and, then, I think Sonya said that she's in agreement that where we cross with the sewer and the water that we don't need to install trees, because the Public Work Department does not allow that. I think those were the only conditions. We will be leaving -- obviously leaving the Settlers Canal open. It is cost prohibitive to pipe and in the UDC it says that you shall request a waiver if you're not piping a facility. So, I just wanted that on the record. Do you have any questions? Yearsley: No comments? Thank you very much. McKay: Thank you. Yearsley: At this time I have got Derek Banister. Do you want to come up and testify? Okay. Is there anybody else that would like to come up and testify regarding this application? Well, with that -- Marshall: Mr. Chair, I move we close the public hearing on PP 12-009. O'Brien: Second. Yearsley: I have got a motion and a second. All in favor say aye. Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Yearsley: Comments? O'Brien: I like it, Mr. Chair. Everything she talked about, I thought it was just right on the money. I don't see how we would not like the -- the amenities she's built into the project, so I'm all for that. Yearsley: Anybody want to comment? I guess the question that we have right now outstanding with us is the -- the bollards and the pathway or the landscaped areas on what we want to do with those. Marshall: As in the class one versus class two trees? Yearsley: Yeah. Do we allow them to use those trees and do an eight foot landscaped area and do we need to require -- remove those -- the requirement for the lighting for the bollards. Because those are in the conditions. Is that not correct? Watters: Chairman Yearsley, in response to your question, the bollard lighting code does allow for that to be waived by the director. Yearsley: Okay. Watters: And regarding the parkway with -- that is a code requirement. However, it Meridian Planning & Zoning October 4, 2012 Page 28 of 31 does allow for the director to evaluate class one and class three trees for the suitability of the parkway planter trees based on the ultimate tree canopy, root characteristics, and branching height. But it still requires a minimum parkway planner for class one and class three trees of ten feet. And there is no allowance for a waiver or reduction in that. Yearsley: Okay. Marshall: Mr. Chair, it appears there is not much we can do about 1.1.3.C, since that's code and we can't change that. But I do think we could probably strike 1.1.3.D. Well, don't know as we want to strike it. We should -- the 1.1.3.A should the waiver by staff and they should -- and I would worry about the luminescence and I'm sure staff will do a good job going out and checking to make sure that the street lights on either end provide enough luminescence so that the middle is still lit as well. I think that's pretty reasonable. Rohm: Makes sense to me. Yearsley: Okay. With that I guess do I have a motion? Marshall: Mr. Chair? Yearsley: Commissioner Marshall. Marshall: I move that -- where is my -- after considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move to recommend approval to the City Council of file number PP 12-009 as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of October 4th, 2012, with the following modifications: 1.1.3A is to be allowed as a waiver by staff. 1.1.3C must remain, because that's against code. And 1.1.3D can be struck. And to acknowledge the request of the waiver for piping or tiling the Settlers Canal is -- should also be recommended for approval. Not tiling the Settlers Canal. Yearsley: Okay. Rohm: I'll second that. Yearsley: All right. We have a motion and a second. All in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries. Thank you very much. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. I. Public Hearing: CUP 12-009 Rise Volleyball by Loren Anderson Located at 1900 E. Lanark Street Request: Conditional Use Permit Approval of an Indoor Recreation Facility in an I-L Zoning District Yearsley: Last, but not least, open the public hearing for CUP 12-009, Rise Volleyball Meridian Planning & Zoning October 4, 2012 Page 29 of 31 by Loren Anderson. We will start with the staff comments. Wafters: Thank you, Chairman Yearsley. Having technical difficulties here, so give me just a minute. Our presentation appears to be froze. There we go. Okay. The next application before you is a conditional use permit request. This site consists of 1.02 acres of land, currently zoned C-G and is located near the southeast corner of -- actually, Igot my directions off here. It's located on the north side of Lanark, just east of Locust Grove. The applicant requests conditional use approval of an indoor recreation facility for Club Volleyball in I-L zoning district. The use is proposed within an existing 11,520 square foot building. No exterior improvements are proposed or required. The proposed use is in compliance with the specific use standards for the proposed use. Access to the site is provided via East Lanark Street. Parking and street buffer landscaping already exit on the site. Written testimony was received from Shannon Brandt, the application's representative, in response to the staff report. They are in agreement. This is a copy of the existing site plan on your left and the existing building on your right. Staff is recommending approval with the conditions in the staff report. Staff will stand for any questions. Yearsley: Thank you very much. Any question? At this time we'd like to ask the applicant to come forward. Please state your name and address for the record, please. Anderson: Good evening. My name is Loren Anderson. My address is 2107 North 32nd Street in Boise, Idaho. I have nothing to add to what the staff has said. I feel it's pretty straight forward, so thank you very much. Yearsley: Any comments or questions for the applicant? O'Brien: I like volleyball. Yearsley: Great. Thank you very much. Anderson: Thank you. Yearsley: I have Karen Gilbert. Would you like to come provide testimony? All right. anybody else that would like to provide any comment? At this point we will move -- Marshall: Mr. Chair, I move that we close the public hearing on CUP 12-009. Rohm: Second. Yearsley: It's been moved and seconded to close the public hearing on CUP 12-009. All in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Yearsley: Comments? Meridian Planning & Zoning October 4, 2012 Page 30 of 31 O'Brien: I already gave mine. Rohm: Go play volleyball. Marshall: Very happy to see a club come in and that's neat. Rohm: Mr. Chairman? Yearsley: Commissioner Rohm. Rohm: After considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move to approve file number CUP 12-009 as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of October 4, 2012, with no modifications. I further move to direct staff to prepare an appropriate findings document to be considered at the next Planning and Zoning Commission hearing on October 18, 2012. End of motion. O'Brien: Second. Marshall: Second. Yearsley: I have got a motion and a second for the approval of CUP 12-009. All in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries. Congratulations. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Rohm: We should have had you at the start. Wasn't that fun? Mr. Chairman? Yearsley: Commissioner Rohm. Rohm: I move we adjourn. Marshall: Second. O'Brien: Second. Yearsley: I have got a motion and a second. All in favor say aye. Motion carried. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Yearsley: We are adjourned. MEETING ADJOURNED AT 8:34 P.M. Meridian Planning & Zoning October 4, 2012 Page 31 of 31 (AUDIO RECORDING ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS.) APPROVED ~O_i~i~ STEVE YEARSL -V - H AN DATE APPROVED ATTEST: