Loading...
2012 11-01E IDIAN~- MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING IDAHO COMMISSION MEETING AGENDA City Council Chambers 33 E. Broadway Avenue, Meridian, Idaho Thursday, November 01, 2012 at 7:00 p.m. 1. Roll-call Attendance _X Tom O'Brien _O Steven Yearsley X Michael Rohm X Joe Marshall X Scott Freeman -Chairman 2. 3 4. Adoption of the Agenda Approved as Amended Consent Agenda A. Approve Minutes of October 18, 2012 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Approved B. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: CUP 12-011 Backstage Dance Center by Backstage Dance Center Located 1535 E. Commercial Drive Request: Conditional Use Permit to Operate an Indoor Recreation Facility (Dance Studio) from an Existing Building in an I-L Zoning District Approved Action Items A. Continued Public Hearing from October 18, 2012: Request for a Street Name Change from N. Englewood Way to A new Name to be Decided Upon by Affected Residents OR the Spelling Changed to Inglewood by The City of Meridian Community Development Department Continued Public Hearing to November 15, 2012 B. Continued Public Hearing from October 18, 2012: Request for a Street Name Change from N. Englewood Place to a New Name to be Decided Upon by Affected Residents OR the Spelling Changed to Inglewood by the City of Meridian Community Development Department Continued Public Hearing to November 15, 2012 Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Agenda -Thursday, November 01, 2012Page 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. C. Continued Public Hearing from October 18, 2012: 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 Recommend Approval to City Council D. Continued Public Hearing from October 18, 2012: 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 Recommend Approval to City Council E. Public Hearing: PP 12-013 Bienville Square East by Alliance Management Consultants Located West of N. Eagle Road and South of E. Ustick Road Request: Preliminary Plat Approval for 28 Residential Lots and 5 Common /Other Lots on 7.89 Acres of Land in an R-15 Zoning District Recommend Approval to City Council F. Public Hearing: CUP 12-012 Stor-It Addition by Avest Limited Partnership Located 355 N. Ten Mile Road Request: Conditional Use Permit Approval for aSelf-Service Storage Facility in a C-G Zoning District Approved -Prepare Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval G. Public Hearing: PP 12-012 Scentsy Commons Subdivision by HOT1, LLP Located 3001 E. Commercial and 2701 E. Pine Avenue Request: Preliminary Plat Approval Consisting of Seven (7) Building Lots on 60.727 Acres of Land in the I-L, L-O and C-G Zoning Districts Recommend Approval to City Council Meeting adjourned at 8:46 p.m. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Agenda -Thursday, November 01, 2012Page 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 Commission November 1, 2012 Meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission of November 1, 2012, was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Chairman Scott Freeman. Present: Chairman Scott Freeman, Commissioner Michael Rohm, Commissioner Tom O'Brien, and Commissioner Joe Marshall. Members Absent: Commissioner Steven Yearsley. Others Present: Machelle Hill, Ted Baird, Bruce Chatterton, Bill Parsons, Sonya Wafters, and Dean Willis. Item 1: Roll-Call Attendance: Roll-call Steven Yearsley X Tom O'Brien X 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 Planning and Zoning Commission for this date of November 1st, 2012. Could we begin with roll call, please. Item 2: Adoption of the Agenda. Freeman: Thank you. The first order of business is the adoption of the agenda. We do have some changes to the agenda that's before you. Items 4-A and 4-B, regarding the street name change from North Inglewood way to a new name will be continued again to the November 15th hearing date. So, we will be opening that item only for the purpose of continuing it, so if anybody was here to hear that item or offer testimony, you can come back, then, when we actually put it on the table. With that could I get a motion to adopt the agenda as amended. O'Brien: So moved. Marshall: Second. Freeman: I have a motion and a second to adopt the agenda as amended. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries. Thank you. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. Item 3. Consent Agenda Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 1, 2012 Page 2 of 35 A. Approve Minutes of October 18, 2012 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting B. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: CUP 12-011 Backstage Dance Center by Backstage Dance Center Located 1535 E. Commercial Drive Request: Conditional Use Permit to Operate an Indoor Recreation Facility (Dance Studio) from an Existing Building in an I-L Zoning District Freeman: Next item on the agenda is the Consent Agenda. We have two items on the Consent Agenda this evening, the approval of the minutes of the October 18th, 2012, Planning and Zoning Commission hearing and the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for approval of CUP 12-011, Backstage Dance Center. Could I get a motion to accept the -- or approve or the Consent Agenda. Rohm: So moved. Marshall: Second. Freeman: I have a motion and a second to approve the Consent Agenda. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries, MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. Item 4: Action Items A. Continued Public Hearing from October 18, 2012: Request for a Street Name Change from N. Englewood Way to A new Name to be Decided Upon by Affected Residents OR the Spelling Changed to Inglewood by The City of Meridian Community Development Department Continued Public Hearing to November 15, 2012 B. Continued Public Hearing from October 18, 2012: Request for a Street Name Change from N. Englewood Place to a New Name to be Decided Upon by Affected Residents OR the Spelling Changed to Inglewood by the City of Meridian Community Development Department Freeman: Okay. I'm going to go ahead and open the public hearing on Items 4-A and 4-B, the request for a street name change from North Englewood Way to a new name, for the sole purpose of continuing it to the next regularly scheduled meeting on November 14th. Could I get a motion? Rohm: So moved. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 1, 2012 Page 3 of 35 Marshall: Second. Freeman: I have a motion and a second to continue the public hearing for the request of street name change from North Englewood Way to a new street name to the November 15th hearing date. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. Freeman: Okay. Before I open our first public hearing tonight we are actually going to hear something. I'd like to explain the process a little bit for those of you who might be new or want to offer testimony this evening. We are going to order -- or we are going to open each item in order and we are going to hear the staff report on each item first. After the staff report the applicant will be given 15 minutes to come forward and present their application, after which time if you wish to offer public testimony there will be an opportunity for you to come forward and state your opinion, your case on the matter. You will be given three minutes each to do so if you want to. There are sign-up sheets in the back for each of the items on the agenda, so if you are here with the purpose of testifying on anything, it would be helpful if you signed up on the sign-up sheet, that way I'm sure not to miss you when we go through the public hearing and the public testimony. If you're not on the sign-up sheet 1 still will give you an opportunity to come up .and speak.. I will take a show of hands on each item before we close the public hearing. After we take public testimony the applicant will have ten minutes to come up again and respond to anything that has been discussed or heard, after which time we will close the public hearing, the Commissioners will deliberate and, hopefully, we can come up with a recommendation to City Council on each item. C. Continued Public Hearing from October 18, 2012: 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 D. Continued Public Hearing from October 18, 2012: 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 Freeman: So, with that I would like to at this time open the public hearing for AZ 12- 008, Isola Creek Subdivision. These are Items C and D. That will include PP 12-004. And let's begin with the staff report. Parsons: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. The first application before you this evening is the Isola Creek Subdivision. This project has been continued several times. It's been continued since the October 4th hearing, basically in order to get some issues resolved with the dedication of the park site that's planned with the Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 1, 2012 Page 4 of 35 subdivision. The property is currently 74.6 acres of land, zoned RUT in county. The applicant is requesting an R-4 zoning designation with the annexation. I would mention to you that along the northeast and south boundary are residential subdivisions in the city, zoned R-4 and R-8. To the west is the city's industrial -- or sewer wastewater treatment plant and, then, some county residences zoned RUT in the county as well. As you can see here it is the last remnant parcel here along Ten Mile between McMillan and Ustick Road. The applicant is proposing a subdivision before you as well. The plat includes 168 residential lots and 18 common lots. As I mentioned earlier, one of those lots will be a city park lot dedicated to the city. That's located here along the southern boundary. The applicant is also providing street connectivity with the subdivision. So, one access point, which is designated a collector street will come off of Ten Mile and terminate in this location and the remainder of the streets will be internal local streets. Stub streets have been provided through the subdivision along the north boundary and also the east boundary here. I would like to mention at some point there was a stub street along here, but due to that intersection project along Ustick Road and Ten Mile, ACHD has purchased that property now that has become, basically, a detention site for that intersection and that roadway, so just -- just wanted to make note of that, that there is a stub street will go nowhere in the future, but this parcel is not part of the application, just in case you had any questions moving forward. The applicant is proposing approximately 13.6 acres of open space with the subdivision. You can see here a majority of it will be street buffers and, then, also eight. foot parkways and tree-lined streets. Again, this park site is along the south boundary that includes multi-use pathways along the south boundary running east, going through the common lot and, then, ultimately connecting to the Bridgetower Subdivision. Amenities -- private amenities for this subdivision include a pool, a pool facility, a tot lot, and a covered picnic shelter there. The applicant is proposing to develop this in several phases on the submitted plan they indicate five phases in total. The first phase would begin in this portion here. Because this is an annexation before you this evening staff is recommending a DA with the annexation of the property. One of those recommended DA provisions does include these amenities and development of this common lot and those amenities with the first phase of development. Moving on. Lots range in size between 8,900 square feet and 12,000 -- I believe 22,000 square feet. Average lot size is approximately 13,000 square feet. The Comp Plan does designate this property as medium density residential. This project comes in just slightly under that target of 2.3 to eight units to the acre. The density is at 2.25. But it is -- if you look at how Bridgetower -- Bridgetower has developed around this, it is really consistent with what's happening there. So, staff is -- finds that it is consistent with the Comp Plan. The applicant has also provided multiple garages of elevations for you to look at. A mixture of single family -- or single story and two story homes as well, that include also a mix of materials. Here is a close-up of some of the new product that they planned for this. It is my understanding that some of the home sizes will be anywhere from 16 or 18 hundred square feet up to 5,000 square feet, to give you the size that's planned for this subdivision. As I mentioned to you earlier, this has been continued for over a month now and I did want to read into the record some of the changes that staff is proposing to you this evening. There should be a memo in front of you. Staff and the Parks Department has been working with this applicant to come to some agreement and a lot Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 1, 2012 Page 5 of 35 of the changes have to do with the development agreement provisions, but there are a few changes to the conditions of approval as well. And other than what I'm going to read into the record, I did receive written testimony from the applicant and they are in general agreement with all the conditions, including the ones that I'm about to read into the record for you this evening. Freeman: Thank you. Parsons: So, the first thing we are -- first item we want to address is modify DA provision number two and Condition 1.23. Staff had made an error in the staff report. We had stated that they should provide a clubhouse. That wasn't the intent of the applicant. It's really meant to be a pool facility, changing rooms for those residents that use that facility. So, staff is in agreement with that change. As far as DA provisions that the Parks Department provided, the first one will read: Concurrent with recording the final plat for phase of the development that includes any portion of Lots 13, 14 and 15 in Block 5, as shown on the preliminary plat, the developer has agreed to donate and convey Lot 12, Block 4, as shown on the preliminary plat, to the city for use as a neighborhood park. A portion of the donated parcel has been used in the calculation of the ten percent open space UDC requirements of the development. Bullet number two shall read: Prior to conveyance of the neighborhood park lot, developer -- developer will coordinate with Parks Department staff to develop a set of park design. and construction plans. Developer and the city will be -- will each be responsible for 50 percent of the cost of the plan preparation. Since the city is paying for the park improvements, the city also has the final say in the amenities to be included in the park. I would make mention that on this -- on the landscape plan you will see that there is some tot lots and some basketball courts and a parking lot that's showing on there. Keep in mind that this is really conceptual at this point. That park's planning will happen behind the scenes sometime in the future. Next bullet point. The developer reserves the right to install Ada County Highway District storm drainage facilities on or across the park lot. The developer shall coordinate the storm drainage design with the Parks Department staff. The design shall include subsurface facilities and not compromise the functionality or esthetics of the park. Staff is also recommending Commission omit DA provisions five, six, seven, eight, nine, 11 and 12. Number three. Condition 1.2.1. The applicant shall construct the pathway along the Five Mile Creek per the city specifications and coordinate with the Parks Department. Additionally, the applicant shall construct a ten foot wide pathway along the east boundary of the future park and within Lot 11, Block 5, to provide connectivity to the Bridgetower Subdivision. Number four. Condition 1.2.5. We want to omit that condition as it's no longer relevant to the project. Number five. Condition 1.3.10. Modify condition to read: Thirty foot wide landscape buffer along Ten Mile Road, instead of 40, as conditioned now. And, then, modify Condition 2.6. One thing that I did fail to mention to you is the applicant is seeking a waiver to leave a portion of the Creason Lateral open along this linear parkway due to the size of the facility that would be required to pipe would probably be -- include in excess of 48 inches in diameter. The UDC does allow that to be included as an amenity and left open if it is part of a linear open space, in which this will be. Staff is recommending that portion be left open. A portion of that Creason that is running along the eastern Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 1, 2012 Page 6 of 35 boundary, that will be tiled -- it will be tiled and piped and this portion and this common lot has already been piped with an earlier project. So, all that the applicant is seeking at this point is this portion -- this linear portion along the park here. Again, that will take Council's waiver once we get there. So, with those recommended changes staff is recommending approval of the project and at this time I'd stand for any questions you have. Freeman: Thank you, Bill. Are there any questions of staff at this time? O'Brien: I have none. Freeman: No questions? Would the applicant like to come forward? And you have been through the drill as you -- please state your name and address for the record when you reach the microphone. McKay: Becky McKay. Engineering Solutions. 1029 North Rosario, Meridian. Business address. I'm here representing Coleman Homes on this application. Bill's covered a lot of the specifics. I do have a PowerPoint, if you want to put that up, Bill. So, I will try not to be repetitive. This is Isola Creek Subdivision. It's out there located -- has Bridgetower -- Bridgetower is located along its north boundary, it's east boundary, and the south boundary here. As Bill indicated, this is an ACRD owned. parcel on the other side of Five Mile Creek. Five Mile Creek is a natural waterway. There is a floodway associated with it. The floodway is reflected with the dark dashed lines that you see. There is a flood plain and our lots have been set right at the edge of that one hundred year flood plain, so none of our buildable lots encroach into that, even though they are allowed to. To the west of the property here is Ten Mile mini storage that I did a few years back when I worked on Bridgetower and, then, we have some estate residential lots that run along the northwest section. When I did the Bridgetower design the -- the primary goal was to create more intimate neighborhoods, what we called pod areas, and have a continuous collector that ran through the project that bore the majority of the traffic, created a nice greenway, parkway look and allowed the subdivision to just feel a lot more open. When Mr. Coleman acquired this site here at 74 acres in size, it was his desire, he's built in Bridgetower and he said, you know, would like this to mesh in. I would like it similar lot sizes, similar density, similar houses. So, you know, I want it -- it's almost like it's just a continuation of Bridgetower. So, that -- that was our objective when we were working on site planning. As you can see in this particular section -- in this particular section here it's about 80 percent built out. It's been building out now for about 12 years. So, this is one of the last larger parcels that is vacant. The city limits don't completely surround it, but it's close to being an enclave. There is another parcel owned by Mr. Berninger over here on Linder Road. When we met with the staff they indicated that there was an asterisk in this particular section on the Comp Plan designating a neighborhood park. Now, you can't -- you can't specify on a particular piece of property where those parks will go. The asterisks were just placed on the map indicating that somewhere in this section they wanted a neighborhood park. Sadly, when I did Bridgetower we had a nice eight plus acre area right next to the future multi-use pathway of Five Mile Creek and the parks director at that time indicated that Meridian Planning 8~ Zoning Commission November 1, 2012 Page 7 of 35 they did not want a neighborhood park there. So, it ended up being private open space. So, when we came through with Isola Creek, the Parks Department indicated, well, geez, you know, you're one of the last parcels to develop here and we sure need a park. So, we did redesign our concept, because we did have a concept without that and we came up with the preliminary plat that's before you this evening and incorporated that neighborhood park. tt's about 8.95 acres and it is located right through here. We did have -- sorry. We did have the landscape architect, like Bill said, do the conceptual there. That is not approved by the Parks Department. So, the actual improvements within the park as far as its amenities may deviate from what we show. There is a large Meridian trunk sewer, it's called the White Drain Trunk that's in Ten Mile. We are connected to that and that kind of drilled the location of collector entrance at Ten Mile. We are also directly across an emergency access for Ten Mile Storage. We came in with this noncontinuous collector, it's a collector up to this intersection here and so when people would drive in they would see the park. So, it's open and it's -- it's, you know, face -- we have agreed to nonsight obscuring wrought iron fencing along those lots, which will -- backed up to that and, then, your Parks Department is working on a multi- use pathway that will run along Five Mile Creek. We had two stub streets that we had to connect to in Bridgetower, so we will be looping our water and so as far as fire flow and central services, we don't have any problems with this development. When worked on this design I tried to make sure that we didn't receive a lot of cut-through traffic. from Bridgetower and so that's. why we kind of have this go like that .and I minimized the number of lots that were placed on that street and as you can see our private open space is located right there. Everything is kind of oriented to the park or to the open space. We have included pedestrian pathways here. We have another one located here. This one links up to not a pedestrian pathway, but a paved drive that goes back to the assisted living. It was -- it was a joint drive for the office lots that I did along Ten Mile, so they would not have direct lot access. It's a great thing to connect to, because it will have to always remain open, because there are multiple lots and the public can just continue up to the north, go up to the coffee shop, there is Gino's Restaurant, there is other commercial. Walmart's going in on the northwest corner of Ustick and Ten Mile. So, you know, we are seeing a lot of commercial services coming into this area. One other nice facet that we have is the Creason Lateral we piped it in Bridgetower here and, then, constructed a 14 foot gravel access road for Nampa- Meridian to maintain that facility. It's since been piped along this boundary here and we intend on making a connection to that gravel pathway and, then, creating a pathway, since we have to provide access to Nampa-Meridian anyway, it will be like a joint access and pathway. But that will give Bridgetower residents when they -- they can come in and directly access right into the park and they don't necessarily have to go down our streets, they have a nice pedestrian friendly corridor. As Bill indicated, the Creason daylights at this point here. I guess I should use another color. Daylights right here and, then, it's piped through here. It is our intent to pipe this section. Obviously to maximize, you know, as far as the open space that's available for development of the park in the future and, then, the Creason is a slow meandering waterway through here and so we want to kind of leave that open. There is a nice green area. We also have the Five Mile Creek there. We have got about -- I think at the most about 80 feet of distance between the two, so we feel it's going to give a nice soft corridor. The multi- Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 1, 2012 Page 8 of 35 use pathway that goes west of Ten Mile is in McNeelis Subdivision, which I did a few years back. So, eventually, they will have this nice multi-use pathway that will link all the parks and so forth along those -- the Five Mile Creek corridor. Let me switch to this one. This kind of gives you a better look. Here is our pool facility. We are going to also have playground, picnic, be landscaped. There will be a parking lot, so not only are we providing public open space, we are providing our own private open space that is segregated from it, so there is no question on what is public and what is private. Our density is pretty low at 2.25 dwelling units per acre. Our lot sizes -- like Bill said, they are average lot sizes in excess of 12,000 square feet and we have tried to provide a variety of lot sizes, depths and widths here, so that it would accommodate different types of homes and, obviously, different incomes. This is a new product that Coleman Homes has come up with. This is what -- a streetscape. This is what they call their countryside selection. These homes I want to, you know, obviously, qualify that these are some of the larger homes that will be built within this development and this gives you -- hold on. There we go. There is some other styles -- you know, they use a mixture of material, stone, stucco, you know, different vertical lines, horizontal lines, but we feel that this will compliment this area and we have worked pretty hard with the staff, both the Planning and Parks Department, to try to come up with something that works for both. There has been a lot of homes, as I said, built out here, so a significant number of park impact fees have been collected over the past 12 years. This park is within the park CIP, so we feel .that, you know, we are doing our .contribution by dedicating the park area for the Parks Department and the City of Meridian. Do you have any questions? Freeman: Thank you. Any questions for the applicant? O'Brien: Mr. Chair. Hi, Becky. First of all, I compliment you on a fine job. The layout looks pretty functional. The question I have is the inclusion of 8.95 acres of park, but you included the pathway area that goes to Ten Mile from -- it looks to me like the park itself. So, it's not going to be usable for space for -- for a park per se; right? It's -- do you understand what I'm saying? McKay: Yeah. Mr. Chairman, Commission O'Brien, it was the Parks Department's desire to, basically, control this whole corridor, since they are -- they do plan this is in your multi-use pathway plan. So, they would control the whole corridor. One of the things that we, obviously, worked on was creating an area that was large enough and functional, just like you said, to construct your normal neighborhood park facilities. We did demonstrate -- we had our landscape architect work on it and provide, you know, kind of a park layout that see before you. As far as open space, we far exceed the ten percent. I think we are at about 18 percent eligible open space and we only need to provide ten percent. Now, I believe in the conditions of approval it states that the donation -- the only credits that we get would be over and above the ten percent that is required. O'Brien: Okay. So, again, then, the -- acreage that -- of usable park space is probably closer to seven, seven and a half? Just curious. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 1, 2012 Page 9 of 35 McKay: I believe we calculated this, sir -- and I think that was about just shy of six acres. O'Brien: Okay. McKay: If we -- we did -- we did provide those calculations to the Parks Department, what falls within the pathway and, then, what would be developable park areas that's not just passive, but more usable. O'Brien: Okay. Thank you. Appreciate that. McKay: One thing, Mr. Chairman, I did forget to mention, I think, as Bill indicated, we have come to an agreement on the conditions. I think in my responses -- Bill already went through those, so 1 believe the only thing in question is staffs request for a pedestrian pathway through this block here and Bill and I kind of talked about that and I said, you know, I looked at that and determined that it didn't make a lot of sense where everything is oriented to the center of the project and so we will see Bridgetower come this way. Here is our central open space. We will see Bridgetower come this direction, drop down this direction, and come this way and, then, we have got ped paths here and here and everything as far as a destination will be coming either to the park, .the pathway, or our amenities. So, you know, I didn't see that there was a lot of function there when you could just drop down along the meandering path and landscaping along the collector. It's, obviously, up to the -- the Commission and the Council to make that determination. But the code does allow, if we can justify that a pathway doesn't make sense, that -- that we can be waived from that 750 foot maximum block length and for the record none of our block lengths exceed the 750. This one (think -- I guess it depends on how you measure it, which is always fun on the odd blocks. Freeman: Thank you. McKay: Thank you, sir. Freeman: Are there any other questions of the applicant? Marshall: Mr. Chair? Freeman: Yes. Commissioner Marshall. Marshall: Becky, that's -- the pathway that staff is requesting is within the DA. Do you have a provision number? McKay: Pardon? Marshall: Do you have a -- is that within the DA that that pathway is developed? It's not? Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 1, 2012 Page 10 of 35 McKay: I think it is item -- I think it's just in the conditions of approval. Marshall: Ah. McKay: Bill, which number was that? Oh. 1.3.6. Marshall: Okay. Now, I've got another question. Orient me now for the schools -- where the school is located. The closest elementary and middle school. Rocky Mountain would be the high school I'm guessing. McKay: Yes. Rocky Mountain would be the high school. The middle school is located over on the northeast corner of Meridian Road and McMillan. Yes. And, then, when I did Bridgetower -- this is Hunter Elementary up here on McMillan -- Marshall: Uh-huh. McKay: -- and that was the intended elementary that would serve this section. There is also another elementary that I did down here -- whoa. There is another elementary right here in Dakota Ridge. So, these are the two elementaries. This one is, obviously, within walking distance. and has access off of this. Bridgetower collector, so these residents could go up through the northern stub and through Bridgetower and go up to the -- up to the school right there without ever going onto the arterial. Or they could go out to Ten Mile and go in the continuous collector at Bridgetower and come down to the -- in this direction. Marshall: And students would be attending Sawtooth Middle School. McKay: I think that's what they call it. Yeah. Marshall: I guess everybody is going to be bused. McKay: The one that -- Marshall: Just trying to get an idea of traffic patterns. I bought into some of your traffic patterns and walking within the paths, I was just trying to get that towards elementaries as well Freeman: McKay: Yeah. The other thing we did, Commissioner Marshall, is when we -- when we designed Bridgetower we have a drop off and pick up turnout lane there with parking, so parents come in from the south side versus all congregating off of McMillan in their central parking area and conflicting with the buses and this was the first one we did that. I was kind of proud of that. Marshall: Now I have got another question. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 1, 2012 Page 11 of 35 McKay: Yes, sir. Marshall: If we can go back to the site plan again. Looking at piping -- it's Five Mile Creek we are piping in; right? That's already tiled along the eastern side coming in on the south; right? And, then, it's open running south and, then, again, running to the west it's piped -- you're going to pipe it here or it's piped for a short period? McKay: Yes, sir. Mr. Chairman, it's piped through here. There is a box here and it opens up and it starts dropping in elevation and, then, it is -- goes into a box here and, then, it's piped to this point and here is where it flattens out, daylights, and, then, it comes across and goes right by the sewer treatment facility. Marshall: Okay. McKay: Five Mile Creek is located here and it is all open. Marshall: Okay. McKay: So, this would be the open portion -- Marshall: All right.. Now -- McKay: -- from that point. I think it was 900 feet and that is a 48 inch reinforced concrete pipe, which it is kind of cost prohibitive and the reason the pipe so large is because the waterway is so flat and we did calculate that based on the slope and the volume that we received from Nampa-Meridian it would take a 48 inch. Marshall: Now, a couple questions. This whole area is to be developed -- this is only a concept plan and that is to actually be developed by the city; is that correct? McKay: Yes, sir. Freeman: And so, again, it's up to the city to work with the Nampa-Meridian Irrigation District to try to, then, open attractive greenscape through there; is that correct? McKay: Mr. Chairman -- Marshall: Has that been worked out with Nampa-Meridian? McKay: Yeah. I have met with the Nampa-Meridian director Greg Curtis on multiple occasions and our planning involved him directly and we have discussed this with him and he indicated that if we did leave that section open they would require, between the pathway and the Creason, a wrought iron fence. So, it would be fenced from the pathway. They don't require that you fence the drains, but they do require that you fence any live facility. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 1, 2012 Page 12 of 35 Marshall: And then -- McKay: And we would work with -- with Nampa-Meridian, because we will be entering into license agreements and urban irrigation contracts and so forth for the work that we do. Marshall: And I'm assuming they would also require their drive path to be inside that fenced area? McKay: We are trying to work with them just to have one through there. What -- what they do -- in some instances they have us to -- on those wrought iron sections to have panels that we can, basically, lift off and, then, get access to the facility. So, we have, obviously, got to work out the details of that. One of the other things is sometimes Nampa-Meridian will place projects on their list for the district to pipe and so I did talk to them about that. You know, if -- if the Parks Department decided that they wanted it to be piped would it be possible to get on that list. They take two projects September 1st and that gives their employees projects through the winter, because they are paid through the winter and so they typically work out a deal that materials are supplied, but they provide all the labor and installation. So, that's another option. But I guess, you know, I think the -- the Council has to grant us that waiver and it does allow, within the ordinance, within linear open space, to utilize these waterways and it does have esthetic value. This section. Marshall: t absolutely agree with that. McKay: Thank you. Marshall: Thank you. Freeman: Any other questions? All right. Thank you very much. McKay: Thank you. Freeman: Before I get public testimony I do have a question of staff. The one item that was pointed out as being somewhat in question is 1.36. Could you clarify for us staffs position on that and the 750 feet calculations? Parsons: Sure. Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. A couple items -- a couple items came into play when making that recommend. One, we, obviously, look at the block length and under the UDC anything that exceeds 750 feet you would provide a street connection or Council can allow the applicant to provide a pedestrian connection. The other item that we looked at was the Comprehensive Plan and that encourages linking subdivisions together and getting some of those mid-block connections. My rationale behind it is, one, obviously, from this point to here -- I mean there are breaks here. There is -- this is defined as an intersection by ACHD. I won't argue that point with you. But if you look at this side of the road that certainly exceeds 750 feet. I mean Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 1, 2012 Page 13 of 35 these -- the other idea was -- so, in order to break that up in this block length here you could potentially get that connection -- the rationale would be if I lived here and my buddy lived over here, I would have to go all the way around -- almost go over a quarter mile just to get to my friend's house when I could get a nice mid-block connection here, cut through, and get to the neighborhood. I think Ms. McKay would agree with me that Bridgetower is set up that way where there is quite a bit of mid-block connections and those -- that pod design that she had back in the day did allow for a lot of those things to happen as well and so it just makes sense here to get that connection there, one, to help break up that block length and, two, just get kids to the other subdivision and their friends where it's possible and, like I said, it is generally something that we are looking through through the Comprehensive Plan as well. Freeman: Okay. Thank you. Was there anyone who wished to offer testimony on this item this evening? I didn't have anybody signed up. No one? Okay. So, with that could I get a motion to close the public hearing then? O'Brien: Mr. Chair, move to close the public hearing AZ 12-008 and PP 12-004 Marshall: Second. Freeman: I have a motion and a second to close the public hearing on AZ 12-008 and PP 12-004 regarding the Isola -- I'm sorry. Yes. The Isola Creek Subdivision. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. Freeman: Discussion? Who would like to begin? O'Brien: I -- Freeman: Commissioner O'Brien, go ahead. O'Brien: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I -- I don't have a lot to add, other than the question I had and they were answered pretty well. But I don't think there is any great concern that I see. The connection that you're talking about I think looks promising if that were to happen. Outside of that I think it's been fairly well covered. So, I don't have any objections. Freeman: Okay. Commissioner Rohm, did you have any comments? Rohm: I think it looks like a good project and Bridgetower has been real well received within this community and this appears to be kind of a continuation of that same process and so I have no problems with it. Freeman: And Commissioner Marshall? Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 1, 2012 Page 14 of 35 Marshall: I really like the project and, in fact, I kind of like the idea of that open area, the open waterway, especially of it's fairly shallow and had very shallow banks and the like and I wish we could work a little better with some of the irrigation districts to have more of that and not have to fence them off and everything. Sometimes it's a little difficult and -- but I'm glad to see this progressing the way it is. Freeman: Okay. Any comments on the one item in question regarding the pathway? O'Brien: Mr. Chair, my only comment would be -- it seems to me like that section down below that's -- would offer the same kind of situation I think of -- if you're going to add one you may want to add another for the same reason. You have to go around to get to the other side of the subdivision. So, the lower right portion where it's talking about the southeast section versus the northeast. So, if you make a connection on one I would think that you can almost put one on both ways to make it look -- Marshall: Mr. Chair, if I could. Commissioner O'Brien, I would argue that there is already a couple connections, one in the southeast, one in the north -- southwest -- O'Brien: Yeah. .Marshall: -- one in the northwest and, then, the. park, you have got several pathway connections there as well. O'Brien: I'm talking about coming from the north down to the south, but just -- anyway just -- it was a thought of continuity. Freeman: Okay. I tend to agree with staff's recommendation for that pathway. Having used some pathways in Bridgetower before, they are very convenient and I know one thing that goes on there is there are several pools within the subdivision and sometimes you favor going to one pool or park or another one and that would be a long route. So, would -- I would tend to leave the recommendations as they are. So, if there are no further comments I guess I need a motion. O'Brien: I will give it a try. Mr. Chairman, after considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move to recommend approval to the City Council of file AZ 12-008 and PP 12-004 as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of October 18th, 2012, including the memorandum dated November 1st, 2012, from Bill Parsons in Planning regarding the modification for the DA. End of motion. Freeman: Thank you. Do I have a second? Rohm: Second. Freeman: I have a motion and a second to recommend approval of AZ 12-008 and PP 12-004, Isola Creek Subdivision with the amendments noted. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries. Thank you. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 1, 2012 Page 15 of 35 MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. E. Public Hearing: PP 12-013 Bienville Square East by Alliance Management Consultants Located West of N. Eagle Road and South of E. Ustick Road Request: Preliminary Plat Approval for 28 Residential Lots and 5 Common /Other Lots on 7.89 Acres of Land in an R-15 Zoning District Freeman: At this time I'd like to open the public hearing for Item PP 12-013 Bienville Square East, beginning with the staff report. Parsons: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. Next project is Bienville East Subdivision. It is a preliminary plat before you this evening. The applicant is proposing 29 residential lots, which include 28 single family lots and one multi-family lot and five common lots. The project does have some history on it. In 2004 a portion of it was annexed into the city, zoned C-G. In 2005 that applicant at the time came in and subdivided the property, rezoned a portion of it. The other conditional use permit for a mixed use planned community development, which included that commercial zoning along Eagle Road, amulti-family lot in the middle. This at the time it was presented of townhomes and, then, some single .family lots are on the west boundary. This project is surrounded by county and city residences along the west and the south boundary and, then, along a lot of this area here, which is currently zoned R- 8, is transitioning fairly quickly and has numerous homes constructed in there. Along here it's still vacant commercial property along the north and, then, if you have noticed driving down Eagle Road you can see quite a bit of commercial activity happening along Eagle Road along the corridor here. This exhibit on the left -- excuse me -- the right- hand side shows how it's laid out. The existing street network does exist, except for a portion here and I will discuss that a little bit later. But right now they did get a variance approval for an access from Eagle Road here, which is, essentially, a private drive and, then, this portion of the roads are private and, then, there is a public street connectivity that comes from Ustick and, then, provides access to the single family homes along the west boundary. Here is what the conceptual plan is before you this evening. At this time, as I mentioned to you, there is one multi-family development lot proposed. There are no plans for that at this time. The applicant will have to come back in the future and go through the conditional use process in order to get that density and that unit mix on that lot. For now the applicant is proposing single family attached homes on 28 residential lots here. Access will be provided by a private alley, which connects to two private streets. Here is the preliminary plat that they are proposing. These are fairly narrow lots. Their frontages are 27 feet wide. They do average approximately 3,200 square feet. There is, again, this block length does exceed what the code requires. Keep in mind that this already exists out there. The applicant is providing that pedestrian activity to help mitigate for that and it does, generally, lend itself to other micropath lots that are constructed within the development. Here is the landscape plan that the applicant is proposing. They are deficient of the ten percent required by ordinance. The applicant is .proposing to construct two temporary common lots on the Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 1, 2012 Page 16 of 35 multi-family lot. Going forward here the applicant is -- needs to amend the development agreement. As part of that development agreement modification staff is amenable to allowing these common lots to be developed with phase one, but when -- if and when Lot 1, Block 1, develops that same amount of -- amount of open space has to be provided and be included as an amenity for the entire subdivision. So, it can't just be isolated to the multi-family development, the intent is that it will have usable open space for everyone in the development to use and enjoy. Here are the elevations that the applicant is proposing this evening. Obviously, in the staff report I made mention that we question the ability to develop single family homes on this subdivision. Given the narrow lots the applicant has provided an exhibit depicting how these lots are to sit on the lots and I will show you that in a minute, but I did want to point out that all of the units will be single family attached, similar to the rendering that you see here in the left -- upper left-hand corner. You can see it's a fairly contemporary design. It is different than what is constructed out there, but it is definitely something new for the City of Meridian. One of the recommended DA provisions include compliance with these elevations. As I mentioned to you earlier, with staffs reservations, the applicant has provided that exhibit. You can see that there will be five foot setbacks on either side of that and, then, there will be a shared wall there, so you can see that the home product can actually fit on the proposed lots. I would mention to Commission that because these are attached units they do require design review and certificate of zoning compliance approval as well, so we will be insuring that these are compatible and do fit and match these elevations as well. I did receive written testimony from the applicant in agreement with the conditions of the staff report. In regards to one condition he is not amenable to and that's the requirement that he complete this -- the remaining portion of the private street section. Back in 2005, as I mentioned to you, this private street was approved with that final platting and that's -- a short segment of that street has not been constructed. When the applicant submitted their plans they showed that with phase one they would only, again, continue to construct a small portion of that segment. Staff felt it appropriate that since this is the final road section that that needs to be completed within the development. We had recommended that the entire street segment be completed with phase one. The applicant's proposal before you this evening includes them paving the roadway, but they want to hold off on curb, gutter and sidewalk until a future phase. They are willing to do the landscaping, curb, gutter, on this side as well, but they are asking for relief along this boundary and the commercial boundary as well. Staffs recommendation is to stand as we have it written in the staff report, that all of it be done with phase one. It's just something that should have happened in 2007. This property went in foreclosure. It's something that didn't happen and now -- now that we have development proposed we have a lot of residential to the west, we have more residential possibly coming on line, we have some construction -- commercial construction happening to the -- to the east. It's certainly important to finish that out and give other people options to diverge and get to Eagle Road and get to the subdivision and get out onto Ustick. Other than that there are no other outstanding issues before you. Staff is recommending approval of the application and at this time I would stand for any questions you have. Freeman: Thank you, Bill. Any questions of staff? Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 1, 2012 Page 17 of 35 O'Brien: Mr. Chair, I just have one question. Freeman: Commissioner O'Brien. O'Brien: So, some of these things that need to be qualified through -- for the design of -- design review, do any of these things have to happen before he goes to the City Council? Parsons: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, all the exhibits that I'm providing before you this evening show that these homes can fit on there. If you feel comfortable with the exhibit as presented to you, then, your recommendation can just move forward without any changes, except for that private street change, but I think staff is confident that this product can fit on these lots, at least the single family attached product. Single family detached more than likely won't fit on there. I would also mention to you that just because the applicant is proposing 28 lots or 29 lots, they could final plat less lots moving forward and still be in substantial compliance with the preliminary plat. So, if they want that ability to do that they could, you know, have larger lots and do something else. But right now those elevations are tied to that and this is a concept plan that's been before the Council -- or that we are recommending to you to move forward to Council. O'Brien: Okay. Thank you, Bill. Marshall: Mr. Chair, if I could? Freeman: Commissioner Marshall. Marshall: Bill, the common areas, what's required of the common areas? I mean what -- do you just fence it off? I mean -- I mean I see dog park area. Is there going to be grass or any amenities or -- Parsons: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, I failed to mention that. Under the subdivision amenity requirements a dog park is an acceptable amenity. It states -- and there are some provisions for that dog park that the applicant has to comply with. One, they could either fence it or, two, it doesn't have to be fenced, but there are options, either -- either provide acertain -- I don't know the provisions off the top of my head, but short answer is it does not have to be fenced, unless they choose to. Marshall: But do they have to do anything to it? I mean -- Parsons: They have to provide areas to provide for waste cleanup, essentially, is how it reads in the ordinance. Marshall: So, there would be no work to it, just here -- Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 1, 2012 Page 18 of 35 Parsons: It will be lawn -- yeah. Freeman: It will be turf. Marshall: There has to be turf. Parsons: There is trees as proposed and that's what they will provide, trees and lawn for now. Marshall: Okay. And that's also for the common area that they have, they are going to provide both grass -- Parsons: And trees. That is correct. Marshall: -- and trees to maintain -- Parsons: And those are the only two -- and that's why I mentioned to you that they are deficient about five percent open space, because the only two qualifying open space lots are those two temporary -- or two lots on Lot 1, Block 1. The street buffers don't count as open space. Or qualifying open space. Marshall: They reach -- they reach the required percentage with those lots though? Parsons: They do not. They are still five percent deficient. Marshall: Still five percent deficient. Parsons: Yeah. Marshall: Okay. Thank you. Parsons: Yeah. Freeman: Any other questions? Would the applicant like to come forward. And, please, state your name and address for the record when you reach the microphone. Unger: Good evening, Mr. Chairman, Commissioners. My name is Bob Unger with ULC Management. My address is 6104 North Gary Lane, Boise, Idaho. 83714. And represent Alliance Management Consultants, who is the developer on this project. First of all, I want to say -- I mean I think Bill covered this history of this project very well with the -- the original approval of the project and the single family development that was -- that was done with phase one and, like you said, in this area here -- I have never used this. This area here was -- that's all single family detached development. This area was designated for multi-family and, of course, we had the retail out in this area. As a part of the original development -- I'm going to switch over to this aerial. Part of the original development, substantial landscaping and the pathways were provided along the -- the Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 1, 2012 Page 19 of 35 South Slough here and also a wall and pathways along the western portion of the project, including some open space area in this area, with some amenities. There is a basketball court. There is horseshoe pits. Things like that. And, then, there was also additional landscaping provided over here. Open space. And, Bill, if we can go to the next one. Appreciate it. One of the -- what we are talking about here, like Bill said, we are looking at 28 lots right in through here. Originally, the project was -- was going to have a group of ten condos here, a group of eight condos here, another group of ten condos in this area and since that time it's become quite apparent that condominiums just are not a good product anymore. So, the thought was since the project was approved and the development agreement allowed for the townhouses or condos to come back in and actually plot -- plat these lots for the townhouses. So, these are attached single family dwellings. So, that's kind of where we are with that portion of it. The eastern lot here, that is open for future development, multi-family development. What we are looking at in conjunction with this development, we do have some open lots here, landscape lots here. We have running down through here is an easement for the Almond Water Users Association and it runs right down through here. That's why we have taken this lot and provided a pathway connection and the easement for the irrigation runs -- actually runs over here, ties into another lot with another pathway that connects all the way to the west. Okay. So, we are trying to follow through with that same pathway and, actually, we will -- you know, when -- when this -- when Lot 1 develops the multi-family lot, that pathway will continue on up to Cajun Court.. Okay. Bill, can we get the master up here? Thank you. Okay. In response to the question I heard from you folks on the required open space, certainly we -- we will go ahead and expand these to meet the requirements that we need. Bill and I have talked about that and that's not a real issue. These two areas would -- when Lot 1 develops they would be probably -- possibly relocated to be incorporated in the rest of the project, but still would be given access to by all of the -- or all of the residents of the project. As far as utilities, all of the utilities are in place for all these lots. When we originally developed this project and we put in LeBlanc Street, which is this one right here, we anticipated putting in the townhouses -- or the condominiums or townhouses, so we actually went ahead and did all the sewer stubs, all the water stubs, including meters, all the power, gas, everything is ready for all these lots, including pressurize irrigation. So, really, the only other thing that we needed to do to make these viable lots was to come in with the -- the alley, because these are all rear load buildings, so we just needed to come in with the -- with the alley, which is all going to be paved. It will be all paved, curbed, all the drainage will be handled on site and, actually, the minimum requirement on these is 25 feet and we are actually at 30 feet, because anybody that's got a decent size pickup truck may have a little trouble getting in and out. The setbacks on the rear back here are 20 feet, so we will have 20 foot driveways prior to going into the garage. As Bill said, we are -- we were planning on building this portion of the road to provide access in for emergency services and the residents and a proper turnaround here. Since that time, of course, Bill has come back and said they -- they would like to see the entire balance of that street constructed and we totally agree with the connectivity. Our only concern is we can build the curb and gutter a long this side, including the landscape strip that goes along with it. Our only concern is that when the future development of Lot 1 happens, if we put in the curb, gutter, sidewalk along this -- this area here, we are Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 1, 2012 Page 20 of 35 not exactly sure what curb cuts are going to be needed to access lot number one. So, our thought was that if we could get that -- that portion of it postponed, just the curb, gutter, sidewalk, until lot number one develops, that that would save some cost down the road, but we would install all the pavement to make the full connection, so that there would be pavement all the way down through there, so there is connectivity. So, that's really the only -- the only change in the condition of approval that we are even requesting. As far as the rest of the conditions of approval, we are totally in favor of them and support them one hundred percent. If we could -- Bill, could you -- let's go to that -- the one that has the building -- the next one. Yeah. This one here. In this particular plan we show -- we show the lot lines and they are kind of light and kind of hard to see. We have got a lot line here, a lot line here, a lot line here. And, of course, the building would share this lot -- this center lot line and, then, we have the five foot setbacks right here and right here. And the buildings would fit and meet all the requirements of the code. These -- these buildings -- the individual unit or buildings, they are between 14 and 15 hundred square feet. They are three bedroom, two and a half bath, two car garages and the architectural design on the exterior of these will be modified from building to building to building, so that we get a good mix, a good variation and also they can be flipped, so -- so we have -- could we back up one, Bill? One more. Sorry. Okay. Maybe one more. There you go. As you -- you know, because we -- our setback in the front -- actually, Bill, we can go down to ten feet. We don't even want to go ten feet. But we -- but the thought is -- because we have designed these to where we actually have a 20 foot setback and 20 foot in the rear. But we can actually shift these back and forth to give it more of a breakup along the front of these, so that we don't have a straight line of buildings when we look down the road. Of course, the curved road certainly helps in that, but we can shift these buildings back and forth to get more of a breakup, so that we have a much better streetscape down through there. Okay. And, really, there is not a lot more to review on the project. I think staffs done a great job reviewing it. We worked with staff on this. Had a couple of meetings with them. As far as the development agreement, we really have no issues with that. The only -- the only change that we were asking for was -- in the conditions of approval was the 1.11, which is the one where we add new language in section five that requires the complete construction of West Bourbon Lane and Cajun Court, which I have kind of gone over with you and outlined with you. And other than that, we think it's a great project. The townhomes really provide a great buffer between the detached single family homes to the west and the future multi-family to the east and, of course, the retail, which is further east. So, we are kind of looking at this as kind of a nice buffer, a nice transition to the multi-family. So, with that I think we have covered everything and we look forward to working with the city again. It's been a few years since we did any work with the city and I thank you for your time this evening and request your approval -- or recommendation of approval and I will stand for any questions. Freeman: Thank you. Any questions of the applicant? O'Brien: Mr. Chair? Marshall: Mr. Chair? Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 1, 2012 Page 21 of 35 Freeman: Let's go with Commissioner O'Brien first. O'Brien: Do you have -- Bill, do you have an elevation of the rear -- for the alley side of the structures showing the garage area? Parsons: Chairman, Members of the Commission, Commissioner O'Brien, we do not. Only a street rendering at this time. O'Brien: Okay. So, Mr. Unger, are the garages side by side or a common driveway? Unger: Yeah. They would pretty much be a common driveway. They are side by side. They are staggered. O'Brien: Oh. Okay. Unger: Okay. They are staggered. They are not -- so you won't have a straight row of garages down through there either. O'Brien: All right. Unger: Because these buildings -- the way this is set up is that this -- you know, one side -- let's say this side comes -- projects out further than the one on the left and as such the garage for the one on the right is -- it sits in deeper than the one on the left. O'Brien: Okay. Okay. Thank you. That's all I have. Marshall: Mr. Chair? Freeman: Commissioner Marshall. Marshall: After -- a couple questions. Since you got -- you're planning mostly three bedroom, two bath? Unger: Yes, sir. Two and a half. Marshall: And so you're looking at probably young families, families more than just a couple -- probably some people with kids, too; right? Unger: We are anticipating more of a younger -- you know, younger beginner family, maybe one or two small children to that effect, but, really, what we are thinking, even beyond that, is more of professionals -- you know, professional couples, maybe they don't have any children yet, you know, but this is their beginner -- beginner home. And we really anticipate more of that than people with, you know, two or three or four children. That's our anticipation. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 1, 2012 Page 22 of 35 Marshall: Young families -- Unger: Basically because of what -- what is located in this area as far as employment, et cetera. Marshall: Right. Okay. Okay. So, if we can go back to the site plan, please. Yeah. Okay. So, looking at this, you're saying you have got -- is there a two car garage? Freeman: Yes, sir. Marshall: So, that's 20 foot wide of concrete on that 27 foot lot, so you have got a seven foot strip of grass. The front -- because they are rear loaded. So, you have got a seven foot strip of grass in the back and the front -- not much of a yard. Which is nice, you know, a lot of people like that, because there is not a lot of maintenance. understand. But, you know, young professional family, you know, if you're just starting out and you have a kid or two and want to move to a larger yard and stuff, you got to have someplace for the kids and -- and I appreciate your -- your suggestion that you could increase the common lot area to the ten percent, because, yeah, they are going to have to. I mean they really don't have much for a yard and it's got kids and stuff, you want to go have a picnic, have your friends over and have a picnic outside, you got to have someplace to do this. But I sure wouldn't want to see it moved, because what's going to happen is people are going to -- you're going to get people in here and they are going to start using it and they are going to get some ownership over this and, then, you're going to come in and build these multi-unit apartment complexes and suddenly rip all of this out and they are going to feel like, well, they have thrown away ours and given them something and they won't feel ownership of that. I -- I don't know. I -- isn't there any way you could locate something permanently for them that would not move in the future, so that once multi-family came in they would still feel ownership of that. It would still be shared. Is there any way you could do that? Unger: Mr. Chair, Mr. Marshall, as I showed on the other plan, we have the -- we have got a buried pipe right there, a fairly large pipe that runs right through there, so when -- when lot number one develops, the basic common area is going to be around that, because we can't build over it. We can't do anything over it. So, the location of this particular -- particularly the lot that will be used to -- you know, for children's play, et cetera, really isn't going to move much from that point and, in fact, ultimately there -- when this multi-family develops, this general location I just kind of circled here is going -- probably going to be something that's going to have a clubhouse and a pool and things like that and through the -- through the CC&Rs and everything it's anticipated that the owners of these lots would be -- through some process would be allowed to have use of those facilities in addition. But, really, we are looking at a corridor that sits right in here that's going to be all open space. I mean, you know, picnic tables, barbecue pits, playground equipment, et cetera. Marshall: I understand. I'm just not found of the idea of ripping things out later and moving things around. Because once these people, essentially, get ownership of that, Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 1, 2012 Page 23 of 35 they are going to feel pretty cheated, you know, like we screwed them over if you rip that out. Well, you're talking about moving it later and -- I don't know. Well -- Freeman: Good for now? Any other questions? Rohm: I have none. Freeman: I have one. And normally I don't comment on the design of the actual buildings, but because of the narrowness of the lots I think this is a relevant question and I do like the design of your buildings. I think it's attractive. Contemporary. I think it will be great for Meridian. My question is the way that these are oriented -- could you go back to the floor plan with the elevations, Bill? I'm a little bit concerned about the ten foot yards between the units. I'm curious what you plan on doing with those yards. It looks like the patios won't really be staggered, they are going to be kind of toe to toe, so people's semi-private outdoor space is going to be right upon somebody else's private outdoor space and the other concern I have is because you're actually taking your walls to five -- within five feet of the setback you're going to -- you're going to run into some code issues in the future as far as fire protection on anything that projects beyond that and you have roofs projecting into that five foot setback, so we are going to see things probably change as a result to save costs. But could you address how you envision these yards working between the. units and how the patios are going to work for the residents? Unger: Mr. Chairman, the -- within the five foot setback, those will be landscaped, they are going to have grass and some landscaping, bushes, maybe you could put a small tree in there as shown -- as depicted on the elevation shot there and it's really not any different than what you see in the development -- or in the single family detached to the west. All of those yards have five yard setbacks on the side, so it's kind of the same situation, you're still five foot -- five foot. So, you have a ten foot separation between -- actually between buildings. Freeman: Are they -- have you staggered those on your other lots, so that they are not just right upon each other? Unger: Well, Ithink -- I think we do have the ability to stagger those. Freeman: You could. Unger: Like I say, we are -- you know, we can move the building -- Freeman: And I'm not looking for you to solve it right now, I just wondered what you had envisioned. I'm a little concerned about the use of those -- of those yards and how private they are going to be for the residents, but that was really my -- my question of how far you had thought that through. Is there any other questions? Okay. Thank you very much. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 1, 2012 Page 24 of 35 Unger: Thank you. Freeman: I don't have anybody else signed up to offer public testimony on this item. Was there anybody that wished to? Okay. Please come forward and state your name and address for the record when you reach the microphone. McBrayer: My name is Pat McBrayer. I live at 2976 Centerpoint in Meridian. And my concern about this, for one thing, we have a problem already with Jimmy Johns and his traffic going down through the traffic circle that you see and, then, out and, then, onto Ustick. We have got a problem there already. They are racing down through there and so on, so I'd like somebody, maybe the city, maybe this builder, put in some speed bumps to slow everything down. Number two. The rendering of his property or his homes does not fit the design of the existing homes. This looks more ultra-modern versus the design of our homes existing and I have kind of a problem with that, too. We had people prior to -- and Bill knows this -- coming and trying to put in three story apartments and everybody got together and we all signed petitions and played the game and so on and ran him off and I'm a little also concerned about lot number one. He says it's amulti-family situation, which says to me apartments. We ran them off once, we will run them off again if necessary. Thank you, gentlemen. Freeman: Thank you. Was there anybody else wishing to offer testimony? And, please, state your name and address for the record. McClare: My name is Brian McClare. I live at 2819 North LeBlanc Way and I'd just say that I moved in this area because of the mixed use character of it, looking for a place in Meridian that was a little more lively and engaged and, literally, I live across the street from these modern apartments -- or modern houses and I think they are a great design. You know, it's -- diversity is the spice of life and I look forward to that and also the apartments in the future. So, that's it. Freeman: Okay. Thank you very much. Is there anyone else? Okay. Would the applicant like to come forward? We can give you another ten minutes to respond to any of these statements or anything else you would like to clarify. Unger: Mr. Chair, Bob Unger again with ULC Management. Just a couple of points of clarification. You know, when we talk about room for, you know, children to play, okay, you know, we don't want you to forget that -- that we have, you know, at least a 20 foot front yard, you know, and I realize that that's along the street, but we still have a 20 foot front yard along the front that families can use -- can utilize. And Ithink -- I think what we can do here -- because Iknow -- I know that this particular area right here is going to have to stay that way. You know, we need to add some more open space. I would propose that we bring in some more open space right into the west -- to the east of that to meet the requirements, but allow that to be kind of modified and maybe not removed, but modified, maybe, in its width, et cetera, when -- when lot number one develops. Because we are going to have afull-blown corridor all the way through here, including the pathway that gets you out -- all the way out here. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 1, 2012 Page 25 of 35 Freeman: Okay. Unger: Those are the only two real comments that we had there. You know, we had a great neighborhood meeting at the site and everybody that showed up was -- seemed to be very happy with our proposal and we also made a commitment to the folks that once we had a builder on board and a building that we could really show them that we were proposing that we would have an additional neighborhood meeting, which we plan on having prior to going to City Council. So, you know, if there is any other issues with the neighbors I think we can resolve the rest of them. Freeman: Okay. Unger: So, thank you very much. Freeman: Thank you. It's time to close the public hearing. I need a motion for that. Marshall: Mr. Chair, I move we close the public hearing on PP 12-013. O'Brien: Second. Freeman: I have a motion and a second to close the public hearing on Item PP 12-013, Bienville Square East. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries. Freeman: Discussion? Who would like to start? Rohm: Mr. Chairman? Freeman: Commissioner Rohm. Rohm: You know, this project is one that it's kind of what you see is what you get and, you know, we talk a little bit about the open space and places for children to play and all the things that seem to be almost void, but the fact of the matter is is this is a development for a unique group of people that will be buying into it and there is no mysteries when they are looking at this for purchase and it's been well thought out and it appears to me that they are trying to build a segment of our community that currently doesn't have a lot of options, because most of the single family homes have larger lawns or the alternative to that is an apartment complex and this is kind of a mix between the two and so it doesn't appear to me to be a mystery when people are looking to go this direction and it's something that I think will fit in our community and I look forward to seeing it move forward. Freeman: Thank you, Commissioner Rohm. Commissioner O'Brien? O'Brien: Yes, Mr. Chair. I ditto Commissioner Rohm. I think he covered it all very nicely. It is -- it is an area that I think we are lacking in, especially in a -- there is so Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 1, 2012 Page 26 of 35 much growth, business life around there, I think it's going to be very helpful to the people who work around there -- want to live there and don't want to have a lot of upkeep, I think it's a perfect setting for that and I don't have any problem with that's, so would like to see it go forward. Freeman: And Commissioner Marshall. Marshall: I find a lot of Commissioner Rohm's points appropriate. I do like the fact that this is something different than what we have been offering within community for a large part. I like that. It is targeting an area that we do have some need at I believe. Commenting on the what you see is what you get, is what I was a little concerned about in the park area, because they are moving in and they see a park that will be moved on them and relocated or hidden behind amulti-family house is what Iwas -- you know, the apartment complex is something that -- is what I was concerned about and I'm pleased to hear that we will be able to expand that to meet the requirements of open space and that we can pretty much guarantee that it will occupy a similar position because of that area, because of the uniqueness of that area and that they can't be built upon and that once people come to rely upon it it will continue to exist and be where they expect it to be. I think it is what see is what you get is very important here. I do have some concern about the issue that chairman brought up about the yards and I understand that the houses nearby .also have five foot setbacks, but .they are also front loaded product and they have backyards -- they don't have backyards, but -- okay. I thought they were front loaded. I guess they are back -- rear loaded. Okay. They are rear loaded. Okay. So -- well, again, I have to admit -- again, like you say, what you see is what you get when you walk into it, but it would be nice to have some staggering in the -- in your private outside space, at least some type of isolation there. But other than that, I'm pleased to see a product fit this space that seems to be a transition between multi- family and single family detached. I do recognize there is a problem with the traffic from Jimmy John's. There is -- and that's -- that's an issue that, unfortunately, this developer didn't create, nor is -- it is a private drive and the problem is you cannot leave those commercial facilities and go north on Eagle period. You leave those -- those commercial facilities and your only way out is south, unless you come back through these private roads and -- and there is a commercial road that needs to be completed over to Ustick. When that property develops, unfortunately, that's not part of this and it needs -- I pray it develops soon, so these people are not saddled with that traffic, because that is a problem for them and I know there is considerable consternation with the emergency vehicles with speed bumps and the like and I don't know what the answer is there. Maybe it should go in front of the traffic safety committee or something like that. Those are my thoughts there. Freeman: Thank you, Commissioner Marshall. Commissioner O'Brien, did you want to finish up? O'Brien: Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Just a comment on what Commissioner Marshall was saying. I think there is -- we are putting too much emphasis on this patio party thing or barbecue thing. The people that buy into these particular residences already Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 1, 2012 Page 27 of 35 know and understand that they are -- it's not an entertainment center, if they wanted to it's no big deal to go out there and throw a steak on a barbecue and that's it. If they are going to throw a party they are going to go to the park or somewhere else, but the purpose of the whole thing is ease of use and I don't think that's going to be an issue with the people who buy these homes as far as the -- having to have a patio like that. Thank you. Freeman: Okay. Thank you. My comments -- I pretty much stated my -- my one concern is the patios being face to face. It looks like there is flexibility to do something to correct that with some staggering. I do -- again, I like the architecture. It's different than what's out there, but it's not so different as to stick out like a sore thumb and be incompatible with the surroundings. I think it's very attractive in its use of colors and materials and form. And, again, that's really not what we are here to talk about, but just wanted to compliment you on those designs. That's it for me. I don't need to reiterate anything else I have already said, so could I get a motion on this item? Rohm: Before we make a motion, I just have another question about that -- completion of the roadway. The staff report says that it needs to be completed in its entirety and the applicant has requested that we don't require that in its entirety. Freeman: Yes. Thank you for reminding me. Rohm: I don't think we have come to a consensus on that portion of the -- Freeman: Can I start that one, since you reminded me that I did intend to speak to it? Rohm: Would you, please? Freeman: Okay. My -- my perspective on that is that we should stick with the staff recommendation to require a curb, gutter and sidewalk. I would advise the applicant in that case to do your best to carefully plan where you may want the curb cut and work with staff to get that positioned in there, but I do agree with staffs recommendation to go ahead and put those in at this time to complete it as it should have been completed before. That's my opinion. Commissioner Rohm, would you like to remark? Rohm: No. I -- that's what I was looking for. I wanted -- Freeman: Thank you. Rohm: -- something on the record of -- stating that we are either going with staff or we want to do something else. So, with that being said I'm ready to make a motion. Freeman: Commissioner Rohm. Rohm: After considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move to recommend approval to the City Council of file number PP 12-013 and MDA 12-008 as presented in Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 1, 2012 Page 28 of 35 the staff report for the hearing date of November 1st, 2012, with no modifications. End of motion. O'Brien: Second. Freeman: I have a motion and a second to recommend approval of PP 12-013 and MDA 12-008, Bienville Square East. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries unanimously. Thank you. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. F. Public Hearing: CUP 12-012 Stor-It Addition by Avest Limited Partnership Located 355 N. Ten Mile Road Request: Conditional Use Permit Approval for aSelf-Service Storage Facility in a C-G Zoning District Freeman: Next item on the agenda -- I would like to now open the public hearing for CUP 12-012, Stor-It addition, beginning with the staff report. Watters: Thank you, Chairman Freeman, Members of the Commission. The next application before. you is a conditional use permit. This property consists of 15.6 acres of land. It's currently zoned C-G and is located at 355 North Ten Mile Road. Adjacent land use and zoning. To the north are the railroad tracks, zoned C-G and rural residential properties zone RUT in Ada County. To the east is Ten Mile Road and vacant land across Ten Mile zoned RUT in Ada County. To the west is vacant property approved for apartments, zoned R-15 and the south is the Ten Mile Christian Church, zoned C-N. A little history on this site. The existing storage facility was approved in Ada County prior to annexation of the property into the city. In 2005 the property was annexed with a C-G zoning district and a development agreement was required as a provision of annexation. The applicant received approval of a previous conditional use permit for expansion of the storage facility, but it has expired. So, they are reapplying at this time. The applicant requests conditional use permit for an expansion of existing self-service storage facility. The applicant proposes to develop the portion of this site west of the Ten Mile Creek and here in the kind of gray area and east of the creek along the southern boundary of the site with enclosed storage units. The site plan depicts ten new structures consisting of a total of 184,942 square feet. A ten foot wide section of the city's multi-use pathway is proposed along the southwest side of the Ten Mile Creek, consistent with the master pathways plan. Elevations for the perimeter buildings have been submitted that show split face block with metal roofing for the building materials. The block wall of the structures will serve as a sound attenuation wall adjacent to the residentially zoned property to the east. Additionally because the site abuts a residential district the hours of operation of the facility are required to be limited from 6:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m. All outdoor storage material is required to be screened from public view. Written testimony was received from Craig Callaham, the applicant in response in agreement with the staff report. Staff is recommending approval of the Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 1, 2012 Page 29 of 35 proposed conditional use permit with the conditions in the staff report. Staff will stand for any questions. Freeman: Thank you, Sonya. Questions of staff? Rohm: My only question, Sonya, is how much of a change is this from the previously approved conditional use permit that has now expired? There is not ostensibly much of a change is there? Watters: Commissioner Rohm, Commissioners, no, it's substantially the same. Rohm: That's what I thought. I remember -- Watters: The applicant can address any -- any changes that I may be unaware of. Rohm: Yeah. I think the big deal at the time that that went through last time was having an assurance that it didn't have 24-hour-a-day access. Watters: Right. Rohm: That it had limited access as stated in -- in your staff report. Watters: Right. Yeah. They did receive a couple extensions on it and, then, they just finally let it die and they decided to come back again. Rohm: All right. I just wanted to make sure I had it clear in my mind where we had been before. Thank you. Watters: Yeah. Freeman: Thank you. Other questions? Would the applicant like to come forward? And, please, state your name and address for the record. Callaham: My name is Craig Callaham. I'm Quadrant Consulting, 1904 West Overland in Boise, Idaho. 83705. I'm here tonight to represent the owners, Avest Limited Partnership, to address the question that you just brought up about the change. The basic change would go to the overall plan. The previous application did not have some of these buildings in the eastern portion of it and so by reapplying they are adding in those buildings the ability to go with those building at this time. That helps provide for some extra screening along that side of the property to help screen a church from the project, too, and give a -- sort of overall screening around the entire project. Rohm: Wasn't there a bridge or something that had to be constructed to get to that western portion? Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 1, 2012 Page 30 of 35 Callaham: Yeah. When this property was -- originally added on this back section back here, one of the requirements of Ada County at that time was that the --abridge be put across the Ten Mile Creek in order to get the fire trucks across there. So, probably five or six years ago a concrete bridge was constructed at that time. Rohm: Okay. So, it's done. Callaham: It's done and in. The only thing that has to be done is some guardrails put on it and it will be ready to go. Rohm: Okay. Callaham: And so there is an existing fence along the back side right here now. The applicant is proposing another fence on this side. So, what they will have to do is -- they will have to have a double gate system to open up this side and this side, drive across the bridge to get access to the back side of it. Other than that, they are planning on building the ten foot pathway along the western side of Ten Mile Creek and dedicating an easement to the city for public access along that and we have been working extensively with the church next door to put in fire access -- joint fire access easements, so that they have got separate ways of getting back into both sides, so they don't have to just rely on crossing the bridge. Other than that, it's substantially what was approved before by the Commission. Rohm: Okay. Thank you. Freeman: Any other questions of the applicant? Okay. Thank you very much. Callaham: Thank you. Freeman: I did have one person on the list, Chad Kinkela. I hope I'm not -- oh. Okay. No problem. So, there is nobody out there, then, I assume, because the two of you appear to be together on one project. We have heard from the public, then, or theoretically so. Marshall: Mr. Chair? Freeman: Yes. Marshall: I move that we close the public hearing on CUP 12-012. O'Brien: Second. Freeman: Thank you. That's what I was looking for. I have a motion and a second to close the public hearing on CUP 12-012, Stor-It addition. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 1, 2012 Page 31 of 35 MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. Freeman: Any discussion? O'Brien: I don't have any questions at all. I think -- Freeman: I don't either. I think it's awfully straight forward. Marshall: Mr. Chair? Freeman: Yes, Commissioner Marshall. Marshall: After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to approve file number CUP 12-012 as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of November 1st, 2012, with no modifications. I further direct staff to prepare an appropriate findings document to be considered at the next Planning and Zoning Commission hearing of November 15th, 2012. Rohm: Second. Freeman: I have a motion and a .second to recommend approval .for CUP 12-012, Stor-It addition. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries again unanimously. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. G. Public Hearing: PP 12-012 Scentsy Commons Subdivision by HOT1, LLP Located 3001 E. Commercial and 2701 E. Pine Avenue Request: Preliminary Plat Approval Consisting of Seven (7) Building Lots on 60.727 Acres of Land in the I-L, L-O and C-G Zoning Districts Freeman: For the next item, before I open the public hearing I have to recuse myself. The next applicant is Scentsy, which I am indirectly involved with in an employment situation, so I will leave and turn it over to Commissioner Marshall. Marshall: Okay. Well, then, I'd like to open the public hearing for PP 12-012 and ask for the staff report. Wafters: Thank you, Commissioner Marshall, Commissioners. The next application before you is a preliminary plat request. This site consists of 60,73 acres of land. It's currently zoned I-L, L-O and C-G and is located at the southwest corner of North Eagle Road and East Pine Avenue. Adjacent land use and zoning. To the north is Blue Cross Corporate Center offices, zone I-L. To the east is Eagle Road and across Eagle is Jackson's convenient store and fuel facility, zoned C-G and an equipment rental store zoned I-L. To the south is industrial property and the railroad tracks, zoned I-L. And to Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 1, 2012 Page 32 of 35 the west is commercial and industrial property, zoned C-G and I-L. Here are some aerial views of the property that the applicant just had taken. A little history. A portion of this site was included in the preliminary plat for the Pinebridge development in 2007, but was never final platted. When Scentsy purchased the property it separated from the Pinebridge development in 2010 and acquired more of the adjacent property for expansion. The Scentsy campus now consists of a warehouse, wax storage, manufacturing office, and facilities maintenance buildings on the south side of Commercial Street and distribution center and an office tower that is currently under construction on the north side of Commercial Street. A gymnasium and auditorium is proposed to be constructed east of the office tower. The proposed preliminary plat consists of seven building lots on 60.73 acres of land. All of the existing structures meet the setbacks of the applicable zoning district. The street buffers along Pine, Eagle and Commercial have already been installed, except for the portion on Lot 7, Block 1, along Pine right here. And that was property which was recently required by -- or acquired by the applicant. This landscaping will be installed as a condition of this preliminary plat. A ten foot multi-use pathway has been constructed within the street buffer along North Eagle Road. Access to the site via Pine was approved through the Pinebridge Subdivision plat. Access via Eagle Road was approved through two separate variance applications. Commercial Street is a private street and does not currently connect to North Machine Avenue at the west boundary of the site. Hickory Avenue that exists to the north across Pine is not proposed to be extended as a public. street through the site to Commercial, because Commercial is a private street. The fire department and police department recommend emergency access be provided to Commercial Street, either via a gated connection to Machine or a driveway connection in alignment with Hickory. Any open ditches within the platted area required to be piped, unless improved as a water amenity. Written testimony was received from Sam Johnson, the applicant, in response -- in agreement with the staff report. Staff is recommending approval of the proposed preliminary plat with the conditions in Exhibit B of the staff report. Staff will stand for any questions. Marshall: Commissioner, any questions of staff? O'Brien: Yes. Marshall: Commissioner O'Brien. O'Brien: Yes. Thank you. Sonya -- so, are there any open ditches? Wafters: There may be on that newly acquired property here on the west end. I'm not positive. O'Brien: So, they can't build on that, can they, or -- Wafters: They can. They would have to pipe those ditches. O'Brien: Okay. All right. Thank you. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 1, 2012 Page 33 of 35 Wafters: Yeah. Marshall: So, would the applicant like to come forward, please. And, please, state your name and address for the record. Johnson: Hello. My name is Sam Johnson. I represent Scentsy, as well as HOT1 LLLP. 2701 East Pine in Meridian. 83642. Scentsy is, obviously, a large employer here in the City of Meridian. They are the -- they are not technically the owners. Scentsy is not the owner of the property, HOT1 LLLP, is, which stands for Heidi Orville Thompson. That's -- we always get that question of why HOT. But the -- they are building -- they are building this campus. It's very visible. Everybody has seen it. We have this open -- the open ditch question. There is just a slight corner of that, the west 12 acres, that is -- has a -- a sliver of -- of the Schneider Lateral that goes through it and it is -- we are currently planning to cover it with approval from the current irrigation district. But we are -- we appreciate the -- working with staff and there is really no other changes to this plat. We -- the reason we are platting this is to subdivide it into -- each lot has its own building and we want to separate ourselves even further from the previous preliminary plat, which was Pinebridge and we went through a development agreement modification a year or so ago, but it did not include all of this property, because we had not acquired it at that time.. We are also wanting to eliminate the condition -- an ACHD condition that requires Hickory to be a public road, but we at this time would like it to be private. And with that I stand for questions. Marshall: Commissioners? O'Brien: So, just a question on the last part, the things you said. Is that in the staff report -- your request, the one you just stated? Johnson: Our proposal right now does not -- does not include a public street for Hickory. We just have a designated private driveway in the placement of Hickory, where it would connect from Pine down south to Commercial. So, our preliminary plat is proposing no public street there. The previous preliminary plat with Pinebridge did have it as a public street. O'Brien: Okay. So, Sonya, is that any kind of an issue? Wafters: Commissioner O'Brien, Commissioners, it's not an issue for the city. ACHD would be the one that controls that or requires a public street connection and to my knowledge they are not requiring one. O'Brien: Okay. All right. Thanks. Marshall: My question to you, Sonya, would, then, be this meets the requirements -- the fire department's requesting as a -- as a circular connection for the fire department to get back out to Pine, if that were completed as a private street? Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 1, 2012 Page 34 of 35 Wafters: Commissioner Marshall, Commissioners, the way the access currently exists on the site meets the fire department's requirements. That's why they are only recommending, rather requiring another access. Marshall: Oh. Wafters: The applicant has stated that once this preliminary plat is approved they will move forward with constructing that driveway in alignment with Hickory down to Commercial Street. Marshall: So, they are not only meeting the code, but they are going beyond and meeting the request. Wafters: Yes. Marshall: Commissioners, anything else? O'Brien: I have nothing else. Rohm: Sounds pretty thorough to me. Marshall: Thank you very much, sir. Johnson: Thank you. Marshall: I would ask at this time if there is anyone else that would like to speak on this issue? No. No one signed up. No one raising their hand. So, Commissioners, close the public hearing maybe? Rohm: Mr. Chairman, I move that we close the public hearing on PP 12-012. O'Brien: Second. Marshall: I have a motion and a second to close the public hearing on PP 12-012. All those in favor say aye. All those opposed? No? Okay. So that we are closed. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. TWO ABSENT. Marshall: Gentlemen, discussion? O'Brien: I think it's pretty cut and dry myself. Just -- I think it's a fit. It's going to be a boon for Meridian to have this company in there I think, so, yeah, I'm good to go with it Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 1, 2012 Page 35 of 35 Rohm: Yeah. I'm in concurrence. It's actually stuff that's already in the works. I mean all they are doing is they are putting a plat to a development that's already well on its way. So, it doesn't seem like there is any issues from this perspective. Marshall: They cleaned it right up. So, can I get a motion? Rohm: Mr. Chairman? Marshall: Commissioner Rohm. Rohm: After considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move to recommend approval to City Council of file number PP 12-012 as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of November 1st, 2012, with no modifications. O'Brien: Second. Marshall: I have a motion and a second. All those in favor say aye. Those opposed? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. TWO ABSENT. Rohm: Mr. Chairman? Marshall: Commissioner Rohm. Rohm: I move we adjourn. O'Brien: Aye. Marshall: That would be a second? I have a motion and a second to adjourn. All those In favor say aye. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. TWO ABSENT. Marshall: Okay. We are adjourned. MEETING ADJOURNED AT 8:46 P. (AUDIO REC DING ON FILE O HESE PROCEEDINGS.) APPROVE SCO FREEMAN - H MAN v`~GO~D~"~°AUap9~~ ATE APPROVED ATTEST: ~,~ ~+c~.~ ,~~ ~-iVL ~ IDIAN ~ IDAMp JAYCEE HOLMAN, CITY CLERK ~`° SEA `~ ~~~~~~a~ rBFr,su~'~' ems,. Meridian Planning Zoning Commission Meeting DATE: November 1, 2012 ITEM NUMBER: 3A PROJECT NUMBER: ITEM TITLE: Approve Minutes of October 18, 2012 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting MEETING NOTES r~K..~~ CLERKS OFFICE FINAL ACTION DATE: E-MAILED TO STAFF SENT TO AGENCY SENT TO APPLICANT NOTES INITIALS Meridian Planning Zoning Commission Meeting DATE: November 1, 2012 ITEM NUMBER: 3B PROJECT NUMBER: CUP 12-011 ITEM TITLE: Backstage Dance Center Findings for Approval: Conditional use permit approval to operate an indoor recreation facility (dance studio) from an existing building in an I-L zoning district by Backstage Dance Center - 1535 E. Commercial Drive MEETING NOTES m~ ~ --~ CLERKS OFFICE FINAL ACTION DATE: E-MAILED TO STAFF SENT TO AGENCY SENT TO APPLICANT NOTES INITIALS << a ~ ~ ~~~ Meridian Planning Zoning Commission Meeting DATE: November ~, 2012 ITEM NUMBER: 4A PROJECT NUMBER: ITEM TITLE: Street Name Change N. Englewwod Way Continued Public Hearing from 10/18/12- Street Name Change from N. Englewood Way to a new name to be decided upon by affected residents OR the spelling changed to Inglewood by COM Community Development Department MEETING NOTES ~a /~ u-o CLERKS OFFICE FINAL ACTION DATE: E-MAILED TO STAFF SENT TO AGENCY SENT TO APPLICANT NOTES INITIALS Meridian Planning Zoning Commission Meeting DATE: November ~, 2012 ITEM NUMBER: 4B PROJECT NUMBER: ITEM TITLE: Street Name Change N. Englewwod Place Continued Public Hearing from 10/18/12 -Street Name Change from N. Englewood Place to a new name to be decided upon by affected residents OR the spelling changed to Inglewood by COM Community Development Department MEETING NOTES ~ ~ J~ 4-D CLERKS OFFICE FINAL ACTION DATE: E-MAILED TO STAFF SENT TO AGENCY SENT TO APPLICANT NOTES INITIALS Meridian Planning Zoning Commission Meeting DATE: November ~, 2012 ITEM NUMBER: 4C PROJECT NUMBER: AZ 12-008 ITEM TITLE: Isola Creek Subdivision Continued Public Hearing from 10/18/12 -Annexation and Zoning of 74.6 acres of land from RUT in Ada County to the R-4 (Medium low-density residential) zone by Coleman Homes, LLC -east side of N. Ten Mile Road and north of W. Ustick Road MEETING NOTES y-o S~,i-~a- c~C tZ~4 ~ iz CLERKS OFFICE FINAL ACTION DATE: E-MAILED TO STAFF SENT TO AGENCY SENT TO APPLICANT NOTES INITIALS Meridian Planning Zoning Commission Meeting DATE: November 1, 2012 ITEM NUMBER: 4~ PROJECT NUMBER: PP 12-004 ITEM TITLE: Isola Creek Subdivision Continued Public Hearing from 10/18/12: Prelijinary Plat approval of 168 residential lots and 18 common lots on 74.6 acres in a proposed R-4 zone by Coleman Homes, LLC -east side of N. Ten Mile Road, north of W. Ustick Road MEETING NOTES !k~p7'bt2~-Q ~L G ~ 7D~m2 l~ sc~- -~ c~ rL~~+ JiZ CLERKS OFFICE FINAL ACTION DATE: E-MAILED TO STAFF SENT TO AGENCY SENT TO APPLICANT NOTES INITIALS Meridian Planning Zoning Commission Meeting DATE: November 1, 2012 ITEM NUMBER: 4E PROJECT NUMBER: PP 12-013 ITEM TITLE: Bienville Square East Public Hearing -Preliminary Plat approval for 28 residential lots and 5 common /other lots on 7.89 acres of land in an R-15 zoning district by Alliance Management Consultants - w/of N. Eagle Road and s/of E. Ustick Road MEETING NOTES ~e.~ ~1ppi-vva-e -1D ~-~ c h'll2/ TD sCt--R~ r,~c ~ ~~ ~~Z CLERKS OFFICE FINAL ACTION DATE: E-MAILED TO STAFF SENT TO AGENCY SENT TO APPLICANT NOTES INITIALS Meridian Planning Zoning Commission Meeting DATE: November 1, 2012 ITEM NUMBER: 4F PROJECT NUMBER: CUP 12-012 ITEM TITLE: Stor-It Addition Public Heaing: Conditional Use Permit approval for aself-service storage facility in a C-G zoning district by Avest Limited Partnership - 355 N. Ten Mile Road 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: November 1, 2012 ITEM NUMBER: 4G PROJECT NUMBER: PP 12-012 ITEM TITLE: Scentsy Commons Sub Public Hearing -Preliminary Plat consisting of 7 building lots on 60.727 acres of land in the I- L, L-O and C-G zoning districts by HOTI, LLP - 3001 E. Commerical 8~ 2701 E. Pine Avenue MEETING NOTES ~ce Po~p~~~ -f0 c~c nn~ /-r~ S,et"~-ar C~C IZ~y ~ la CLERKS OFFICE FINAL ACTION DATE: E-MAILED TO STAFF SENT TO AGENCY SENT TO APPLICANT NOTES INITIALS