Loading...
2013 09-05Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission September 5, 2013 Meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission of September 5, 2013, was called to order at 6:00 p.m. by Chairman Steven Yearsley. Present: Commissioner Steven Yearsley, Commissioner Joe Marshall, Commissioner Macy Miller and Commissioner Michael Rohm. Members Absent: Commissioner Scott Freeman. Others Present: Machelle Hill, Nancy Radford, Ted Baird, Caleb Hood, Sonya Watters, Bill Parsons and Dean Willis. Item 1: Roll-Call Attendance: Roll-call X Scott Freeman X Macy Miller X Michael Rohm X Joe Marshall X Steven Yearsley -Chairman Yearsley: Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. At this time we would like to call to order the regularly scheduled meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission for Thursday, September 5th, 2013, at 6:00 p.m. Let's begin with roll call. Item 2: Adoption of the Agenda Yearsley: Next on the agenda is the adoption of the agenda. At this time we have no changes. Can I get a motion to adopt the agenda as presented? Miller: So moved. Marshall: Second. Yearsley: I have a motion and a second to adopt the agenda. All in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. Item 3: Consent Agenda A. Approve Minutes of August 15, Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting B. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: CUP 13-008 Linder Springs by Linder Springs, LLC Located at NEC Meridian Planning & Zoning September 5, 2013 Page 2 of 38 of W. McMillan Road and N. Linder Road Request: Conditional Use Permit Approval for a Multi-Family Development Consisting of 96 Residential Units in a C-G Zoning District Yearsley: Next on the agenda is the Consent Agenda and we have on the Consent Agenda the approval of the August 15th Planning and Zoning meeting minutes and the Findings of Fact and Conclusion of Law for the approval of CUP 13-008, Linder Springs. Can I get a motion to approve those? Rohm: So moved. Marshall: Second. Yearsley: I have a motion and a second to adopt the -- or approve the Consent Agenda. All in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. Yearsley: Thank you. Before we move any further I want to explain how this process is going to work today. We are going to open each one of these items one by one. We are going to start off with the staff report. The staff will present their findings regarding how the items adhere to the current -- our Comprehensive Plan and Uniform Development Code with staff recommendations. Next we will have the applicant come forward to present their case for approval and they will have 15 minutes to do so. Following that we will open it up to public testimony. Those wishing to testify will be allowed three minutes. Any person wishing to testify as a group for like an HOA and there is a show of hands will be given up to ten minutes. After a -- after the public testimony has been heard we will have the applicant come forward to present their -- to comment on what was presented by the public testimony and they will have another ten minutes to do so. After that we will close the public hearing and the Commission will hopefully have the opportunity to discuss and deliberate and hopefully make a recommendation to City Council. Item 4: Action Items A. Public Hearing: AZ 13-007 Hacienda South Subdivision by Jayo Investments, Inc. Located East Side of N. Meridian Road; Midway Between Chinden Boulevard and E. McMillan Road Request: Annexation of Approximately 20.09 Acres from RUT in Ada County to the R-8 (Medium-Density Residential) Zoning District B. Public Hearing: PP 13-016 Hacienda South Subdivision by Jayo Investments, Inc. Located East Side of N. Meridian Road; Midway Between Chinden Boulevard and E. McMillan Road Request: Preliminary Plat Consisting of Ninety-Three (93) Meridian Planning & Zoning September 5, 2013 Page 3 of 38 Residential Lots, Thirteen (13) Common Lots and One (1) Other Lot on Approximately 19.63 Acres in the Proposed R-8 Zoning District Yearsley: So, with that we would like to open -- open the public hearing for AZ 13-007 and PP 13-006, Hacienda South Subdivision and start off with the staff report. Parsons: Good evening, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. First item on the agenda this evening is the Hacienda South Subdivision. It's currently on the east side of North Meridian Road, in between East Chinden Boulevard and East McMillan Road. Currently to the north we have the Hacienda Subdivision, which is currently zoned R-8 in the city. To the east we have Saguaro Canyon Subdivision zoned R-4. To the south we have Ventana Subdivision, zoned R-8 in the city and to the west we have Meridian Road and Ada County parcels, zoned RUT, but designated medium density residential in the city's Comprehensive Plan. You can see here in the exhibit to the right that the property is developed with an existing home and several outbuildings that will be removed to make -- those structures will be removed to make way for the new project proposed this evening. The applicant is here this evening proposing a residential subdivision consisting of 93 residential lots, 13 common lots and one other lot. Access to this development is going to be provided from three stub streets which are located -- one is located at the north boundary, the east boundary, and, then, the south boundary here. No access is proposed or approved to Meridian Road. So, luckily the applicant is proposed to create an internal street network and use the existing stub streets that are planned and stubbed to the property. To the south of this boundary is East Producer Drive, which is a collector street that will ultimately allow this development to tie into. The one thing that I did want to bring to your attention and I didn't bring up in the staff report is currently there is a common lot that is platted with Saguaro Canyon Subdivision along the south boundary here, isn't really contiguous, doesn't allow the stub street from Ventana to be contiguous with this property. As part of my review I did have the applicant reach out to the Saguaro Canyon HOA. I have received an a-mail from them agreeing to that connection and staff anticipates with the final plat that hopefully the HOA will deed that right of way over the ACHD and allow that street connection to make it happen. That is one of staff's recommended DA provisions this evening. We are requiring that they provide proof of that dedication to ACHD to allow the street connection. Open space for this site consists of 8.7 percent. We have a central open space here, 35 foot landscape buffer along Meridian Road, since it is an entryway corridor. I would mention to you that this buffer will have decorative wall features within it to emulate the landscape buffer that was developed with Hacienda Subdivision to the north. It is the intention -- it's the same developer and same owner of -- Hacienda Subdivision to the north is also the same developer and owner of this piece. So, it's his plan this evening to basically combine both projects into one development, just being an extension of what's already developed in the north and that's why we are seeing the open space a little bit less than what the UDC requires, because the first phase or the original Hacienda Subdivision to the north platted open space in excess of what current code is now. And so when you balance the two out you will see that there is over ten percent open space between both projects and both amenities do meet the current requirement of the UDC as well. Here is an open space exhibit that Meridian Planning & Zoning September 5, 2013 Page 4 of 38 demonstrated the compliance with our current open space standards. I would mention to you based on staff's calculation of open space we have only calculated qualifying open space. So, what you see represented on this graph there is more open space in this exhibit than what we have reported in the staff report. So, we look at it two ways. We have common open space and we have qualifying open space and right now the two open spaces -- the two projects combined does meet the qualifying open space of ten percent. Those combined together both of them we are saying in excess of 12 percent common open space between the two. One of staffs recommended DA provisions is that both projects be under the same ownership and the same HOA, so that way it's clear that one HOA will maintain the common open space and each development will have the right to use each other's amenities and open space moving forward. The one thing that I did fail to mention to you is that the applicant is proposing their own amenity for this development as well, so there will be a sitting area or gazebo area on the central park and, then, he applicant is also proposing afew -- two ten foot multi-path segments here in the northeast corner and, then, also the southeast corner and what that will allow this -- Hacienda North Subdivision will allow them to come on the street and, then, tie into the multi-use pathway system constructed not only in Ventana Subdivision to the south, but also will allow them to go into the pathway system that was constructed in Paramount Subdivision as well. So, we are starting to see that interconnectivity with our pathway system with this development moving forward. The applicant has presented these elevations for you this evening. There is a mix of building materials, stucco, zoned wainscot, decorative trim and corbels and pop outs on the side and rear elevations and also front and rear covered porches. Staff has required compliance with these elevations and as was mentioned in the past what we are trying to do moving forward is staff is -- and the city is trying to pay more attention to the design details on the rear of the structure that front on arterial streets and collector roadways, so as a recommended provision of this development we are recommending that staff review these elevations along Producer Drive along the south -- a portion of the south boundary and, then, all of the homes that front on Meridian Road to insure that those design features that's presented tonight will be placed -- or constructed on those homes moving forward. Staff has received verbal confirmation from the applicant. They are in agreement with all the conditions of the staff report. I have talked to several of the neighbors on the phone regarding this project. There seemed to be some concerns with marrying the two HOAs between the existing Hacienda South and this project. I think it seems to be more of a neighborhood issue than a Planning and Zoning Commission issue, but Idid -- the applicant -- or the concerned neighbor wasn't able to be here this evening, so I told them I would pass her sentiments along to you this evening to take under advisement. Other than that I have not received any additional information. There are no other outstanding issues for you this evening and I would stand for any questions you have. Yearsley: Thank you. Are there any questions? Okay. Would the applicant like to come forward. Please state your name and address for the record. Leraris: Justin Leraris with J.J. Howard Engineers, 5983 West State Street, Boise, Idaho. Just representing Jayo Investments. I don't have a whole lot to add to Bill's Meridian Planning & Zoning September 5, 2013 Page 5 of 38 summary there. I just -- the subdivision meets all the codes and the Comprehensive Plan. It's going to provide a lot of good vehicular connectivity. It's got the three stub streets there that, you know, it's just -- just kind of a -- sort of an in-fill project that everything was kind of laid out there for us and it sort of more or less laid itself out and we are providing quite a bit of pedestrian connectivity as well with -- with some paths. We are connecting up a ten foot asphalt path on the southeast corner and, then, to the existing Hacienda Subdivision on the north and those will serve as both a pedestrian slash bike path and also provide access for the North Slough Irrigation District to make it easier for them to get to their facilities as well and we talked with them about that and they are -- they are good with the layout and they have some issues with some other existing stuff in the neighborhood, but as far as ours goes it's looking pretty good. So, like I said, I don't have a whole lot to add. We had a pretty productive neighborhood meeting I think. Like Bill said, there was -- most of the concerns were homeowner association related. There was, you know, thoughts about whether or not this would -- would have too many users using the pool and whether or not we needed another pool. The existing Hacienda Subdivision has a pool and clubhouse, like a 4,500 square foot clubhouse and pool and as it stands right now with -- with Jayo that's just kind of a -- it seems like an issue that seems when we have maybe a smaller percentage of people that do want another pool for the new development, because of -- there is, basically, just not a way to do it without raising HOA fees and whatnot like Bill said, this isn't really an issue in terms of the Commission, but something that we can work through -- through the homeowners association and with the -- the members of the homeowners association and we want to do whatever we can to keep them happy and, you know, we -- right now we are proposing a gazebo as the amenity and possibly some -- we talked about maybe some type of shuffle board or sports -- horseshoe pits or something like that to provide a little bit variety and that would be, you know, at a minimum. If we do see that there is enough of a demand for another pool or something, that's definitely something that I think he would consider, but it's not something that he wants to jump out there and say he's going to do, because we right now we haven't seen -- some people do want it, but overall it seems like most do not, so -- and, then, I'm just here to answer any questions that the Commission or the public might have. Yearsley: Thank you. Leraris: Thank you. Yearsley: Are there any questions? Rohm: I have none. Yearsley: Okay. Thank you. Leraris: Thanks. Yearsley: At this time we would open the public hearing. There is a few people that are signed up. A Justin -- that's -- okay. Sorry. I have a Len and Ruby Bowl. Would you Meridian Planning & Zoning September 5, 2013 Page 6 of 38 like to testify? Okay. Peter Verbin. Would you like to testify? Please state your name and address for the record. Herman: Good evening. My name is Peter Herman. 124 East Rio Colinas Drive, Meridian. I'm an owner resident in the existing Hacienda. Just two things I would like to bring up is you mentioned about an additional pool. Some of the residents of the existing area are concerned about the number of people using that pool. This summer was -- now that the thing is almost sold out this summer the pool was unbelievably packed with children and everything. We see an addition doubling the number of homes there -- it might be a problem for that. Now, the clubhouse is very big. That can probably be worked out and I don't see too much of a problem. But the pool -- it's going to be a problem I think with that many people. The second thing is -- I don't know if you heard about -- we have got some easement problems. We are getting -- some of us residents there are getting letters from lawyers with Settler's Irrigation about building on easements and some of those easements -- it did happen -- a lot of the residents like myself -- I didn't know about any easements there, so I did put some things up. But some of the things up there were put up by the developer right onto the easements and none of us were given any knowledge of it and right now we are going back and forth with Settlers trying to get this thing settled up and I see with the number of homes that we will be going in here they are going to have the same problem. So, I'd like to have clarity on if your home is built encroaching on an easement is it -- do you get a variance for that or what happens, you know? Settlers actually sent letters from your sawtooth lawyer saying that -- that if this thing wasn't taken over by the HOA immediately they are going to come and start tearing things down and this and that and that really got people going and, then, we also are on an easement -- what do you think you're talking about, nobody told us any -- so, we feel that this is probably going to happen on the other side, too, about this easement thing and I don't know if it's important or not, you know, but Settlers thinks it is, so I just wanted to throw that out there, too. Thank you. Yearsley: I have a Stephanie Burgess. Okay. Is there anybody else that would like to come up and testify regarding this? If no one else would like to testify, could I get a motion to -- we need to get the -- do you want to respond? Leraris: Sure. Want me to restate my name or -- Yearsley: Please. Leraris: Justin Leraris. J.J. Howard Engineers. 5183 West State Street. We talked a little bit about the pool issue and, you know, that's -- like I said, we don't think it's going to be a problem, but it's something that we can -- as we move along through the process gauge more of the demand and start going out there and seeing just how busy it is and if there are enough people in the homeowners association that are in favor of a new facility, then, maybe we will go that route, but as it stands right now it doesn't look that way. But as far as the easements go this is kind of a discussion that we had and, he's right, there is some issues that Settlers and North Slough have had and that is that there has been -- they have, you know, ditches piped and access is difficult for them on Meridian Planning & Zoning September 5, 2013 Page 7 of 38 -- this is mainly in projects surrounding this project. But we -- we only have a few lots which are in the northeast corner of the site where we do have -- we are planning to the an existing irrigation ditch that goes across that northeast corner in a 40 RCP and it will have a 40 foot easement and so our building setback will be 40 feet in that northeast corner and so that will be on the plat that this is an easement and that you can't build there, the developer should not build there. Those lots were made extra deep for that purpose. A suggestion has been made to make that a common lot and not part of the lots, to be maintained by the HOA. The issue with that is it's the back of the lots, it's just kind of a no man's land, it's not really an amenity to anyone and so we would prefer to just give the homeowners the extra backyard, even put gates and a fence if we need to, although the irrigation district doesn't really need access to the home with the pipe, it's just going to be buried and he will have access to the boxes which are in the northeast corner and, then, the other one, which off of East Segundo Street. So, it's kind of a lesser of two evils in a sense. It's not ideal. There is, you know, the possibility that a homeowner could put a shed or something back there, but if they pay attention to the plat they are not supposed to be building back there within that easement. We just want it to be an open backyard area. At least they will have the extra backyard instead of it just be a 40 foot strip that just needs to the maintained and isn't much use to anybody, so -- Yearsley: Okay. Thank you. With that can I get a motion to close the public hearing? Miller: I move to close the public hearing. Marshall: Second. Yearsley: I have a motion and a second to close the public hearing. All in favor say aye. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. Yearsley: Any comments? Marshall: A couple if you don't mind. Rohm: No. Go ahead. Marshall: I'd like to address both the easement issue and the pool issue. Again, I don't believe that it's our call to say you have got to build a pool or anything like that. It would be my recommendation to the builder that they really should. I'm aware of -- my subdivision has pools and we have -- they are building out three and I think we are going to have to have a fourth and they get packed in the summer. If you have got kids in there and there are a lot of kids in this neighborhood, that thing will get very very packed and you're going to double the amount of residents there. Now, for the residents that means higher dues. Those pools cost -- I mean the kids make a mess in the water and -- yeah, it's -- they are a headache. They are really nice to have, but they Meridian Planning & Zoning September 5, 2013 Page 8 of 38 are an expensive headache and your homeowners association is going to have to figure that out. As far as the easement goes, when you purchase the house that easement is shown on the plat, your company should provide you with information stating that and anytime you have got an easement you're -- and I can promise you the irrigation districts do not like you building anything -- sheds or anything in that area. If you do they will come by and make you tear it out and that should be perfectly clear through your title company when you purchase the house. I received -- you know, when purchased the house I received information from the title company showing me where the easement's at, where platted property is at and if I have an easement there, yeah, it will tell you that you're not to build in that area. Now, the choice is should we put these -- we can't address easement issues from the Hacienda prior, you know, but this Hacienda we have three lots that have an easement -- a 40 foot easement in the back and the question is should we allow people to buy that property with that easement. I think that's the only thing we could address tonight with this and personally I -- if I'm buying ahouse Idon't -- I would prefer to have the additional land. Now, knowing that, if I buy that -- those lots are going to be a lot bigger, but I'm not going to be able to put any trees or any sheds or anything in them and that should be clear from your title company when you purchase the land. If a builder builds past that the builder has got a problem. The builder's done something wrong. When the builder buys the lot to build on they are clear -- it's -- the documents that are provided makes it clear that you can't build in that area. So, yeah, I'm very disappointed and saddened to hear that there are some easement issues there that haven't been addressed. But as far as -- or that have been causing some issues. I am very sorry to hear that and that's -- but there is nothing we can do to address that tonight. It's my recommendation that those three lots that have the easement in the back that we go forward with that. I -- you know, I would not want a common lot behind me there that somebody else is -- where I lose all that property. It would be nice to have additional grass and that's all you're going to get there. That's all you can put in there. But I have got kids and my kids like to play on the grass and -- yeah, the irrigation district be very very protective of that area. Beyond that I really like the connectivity. I appreciate the fact that there is no access to Meridian, that we are using -- and I really appreciate the homeowners association to the south there working with us and allowing us to -- helping us out with that connectivity. I think that's being a good neighbor and that helps out a lot. Beyond that I'd like to hear from anybody else. Miller: Mr. Chair? Yearsley: Commissioner Miller. Miller: I second almost everything Commissioner Marshall said to the dot. Personally, though, the easements -- it is very unfortunate there is problems with other phases of this, but that's nothing we can address here and I think that this is an extremely friendly solution. You don't want a common space back in the back corner. Nobody uses it then and this is a great layout that has the common space in the center, accessible to everyone very easily. I also appreciate that there is not a tie into Meridian Road right there. That's a bear to get out on. I have personally done that many times. I think it's a Meridian Planning & Zoning September 5, 2013 Page 9 of 38 great development, but the pool issue I feel is something that needs to be analyzed with the homeowners association. There is, you know, fees that go with that and if that's worth it to you guys maybe it's worth pushing, but, again, that's nothing we have any say over. I think it's a great little development personally. Yearsley: Thank you. And I will also second Commission Marshall's comments. I think it looks good. The -- the pool issue is an HOA issue and not ours. I live in a subdivision with a pool and we run into those same issues as well. Typically the builders like to underbuild the pools, because they don't think of how much use they are going to get, so -- but, you know, if you -- if you're really wanting the pool, work with the builder and see if he would be willing to put it in and, you know, we, actually, with our subdivision we are looking to buy a couple of lots that we can put our own pool in for a second pool. So, just options out there, so -- but other than that I think it's agood -- good plan. With that I would entertain a motion. Miller: Mr. Chair? Yearsley: Commissioner Miller. Miller: After considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move to recommend the approval to City Council of file number AZ 13-007 and PP 13-016 as presented in the staff report on the hearing date of September 5th, 2013, with no modifications. Marshall: I will second. Yearsley: I have a motion and a second to approve public hearing of AZ 13-007 and PP 13-006 -- or 016 as presented in the staff report. All in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries. Thank you. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. C. Public Hearing: PP 13-019 Copperleaf Subdivision by Providence Properties, LLC Located at 4405 E. Ustick Road Request: Preliminary Plat Approval Consisting of Sixteen (16) Single Family Residential Building Lots and Four (4) Common / Other Lots on 2.82 Acres of Land in the R-8 Zoning District Yearsley: Next item on the agenda is public hearing of PP 13-019, Copperleaf Subdivision and let's begin with the staff report. Watters: Thank you, Chairman Yearsley, Members of the Commission. The next application before you is a request for a preliminary plat. This site consists of 2.86 acres of land, is currently zoned R-8, and is located at 4405 East Ustick Road on the south side of Ustick approximately three-quarters of a mile east of Eagle Road. Adjacent land use and zoning. To the north is Ustick Road and single family residential properties in Sunningdale Estates Subdivision, zoned R-1-C in Boise City. To the east Meridian Planning & Zoning September 5, 2013 Page 10 of 38 is an elementary school, zoned A-1 in Boise City. To the south are single family residential properties in Red Feather Estates Subdivision, zoned R-4. And to the west are single family residential properties zoned R-4 and RUT in Ada County. This property was annexed in 2008 with a development agreement. The concept plan showing an assisted living was originally approved for this site. In 2012 the development agreement was modified with an updated concept plan for a single family residential subdivision, consisting of 16 building lots, 14 of those detached, two attached for townhomes. The current request is for a preliminary plat consisting of 16 single family residential detached building lots and four common lots on 2.86 acres of land in the R-8 zoning district. The gross density of the proposed subdivision is 5.59 dwelling units per acre, consistent with the future land use map designation of medium density residential for this property. There are two existing homes and associated outbuildings on this site that are proposed to be removed upon development of the site. Those are shown here on the left. Access is proposed at the southern boundary via East Arch Drive, an internal street within Red Feather Subdivision and a stub street is proposed at the west boundary for future extension. Direct lot access via Ustick Road is prohibited. A pedestrian pathway is proposed through the common area to the sidewalk along Ustick Road for connectivity between the subdivision sidewalk and the sidewalk along Ustick. Conceptual building elevations were submitted for future homes within the development that depict building materials consisting of architectural shingles, board and batten, and lap siding and cultured stone wainscot. Design review is not required for detached single family residential. However, staff recommends through a development agreement provision that the rear or side of the structure on Lots 10, 13 and 14, Block 1 -- right here -- that face Ustick Road incorporate articulations through changes in materials, colors modulation and architectural elements to break up monotonous wall planes and roof lines. Approval of the plat is contingent upon a modification to the development agreement being approved by City Council to change the number of detached single family residential lots from 14 to 16 with no townhome lots. Written testimony was received from Kevin McCarthy, the applicant's representative, in response to the staff report. The application -- the applicant, excuse me, wanted to clarify that sidewalks already exist in front of the property along Ustick Road and that was done with the improvements to Ustick by ACHD recently. Clarification of condition 1.1.4 to allow reduction in open space and increase in lot sizes at final plat based on the minimum open space and site amenities not being required for properties less than five acres in size. Staff is okay with this minor change. The applicant also requests six foot tall closed vision fencing be allowed at the intersection of the rear plane of the houses adjacent to the pathway. The UDC 11-3A-7A7 does restrict fencing adjacent to pathways to four foot in height if closed vision or six foot in height if open vision. So, staff does not recommend approval of the applicant's requested change. Overall the staff is recommending approval of the proposed preliminary plat. Staff will stand for any questions the Commission may have. Yearsley: Thank you. Miller: Mr. Chair? Meridian Planning & Zoning September 5, 2013 Page 11 of 38 Yearsley: Yes, Commissioner Miller. Miller: I have got a question. Can you show me where those fence lines are on the property? Okay. Watters: Right there and there. Miller: Great. Thank you. Yearsley: So, they were asking for six foot fences along those corridors, then, is what they were asking for? Watters: Along -- I believe it was back from the -- back of the house to the back property line, (believe -- Yearsley: Okay. Watters: -- was the request. It can't be along any of the lot lines that are adjacent to the pathway, though. Yearsley: Okay. That makes sense. Marshall: To clarify, though, the fence in that -- the setback off of Ustick, the fence along Ustick will be allowed to be six foot? Watters: Yes. The street -- the fence along the back edge of the street buffer along Ustick, yes, Commissioner Marshall. Marshall: About four foot against the -- Watters: The common area here where the pathway is located. Marshall: Right. Right. Yearsley: Okay. Any other questions? Would the applicant like to come forward? Please state your name and address for the record. McCarthy: Good evening. My name is Kevin McCarthy with KM Engineering. Address is 9233 West State Street. Yeah. It's a fairly simple in-fill project that we have here. The one item that we were wanting to discuss was the -- was the fencing along the -- along that common area there. Hopefully this will work. Hopefully everybody is understanding what we are trying to do with that condition. So, as you were pointing out, Commissioner Marshall, we have a fix foot fence along the rear that will be required along Ustick and basically all we are trying to accomplish with that is so the backyards are consistent and the backyard would have a six foot fence all the way around it and we couldn't go from a six foot fence along Ustick to a four foot fence along the common Meridian Planning & Zoning September 5, 2013 Page 12 of 38 area. You know, once we -- so the break line we were making was the rear of the home. So, if the rear of the home is, you know, somewhere inside the back that's where it would -- you know, could go from being six foot back to being four foot going towards the front of the home. So, that was what we were trying to accomplish there, just some consistency with the fencing in the backyards. If that makes sense. Other than that, you know, it's a nice little project. Provides some connectivity out to Ustick with that pathway. You know, it was already -- when we started the project it was already zoned, it already had a development agreement, so we didn't have -- there wasn't a lot of things we could do. So, it was pretty much set. The one thing we will be wanting to do, potentially, is change the last -- when we put this plan together we were under the impression we had to have the ten percent open space. It turns out we do not. So, these lots -- the lot numbering -- the number of lots will not change, but the size of the lots will potentially increase. So, that would be about the only change that would need to happen. I don't really have anything further. I would be happy to answer any questions you might have. Marshall: Mr. Chair? Yearsley: Commissioner Marshall. Marshall: I do have questions as in -- on your elevations that you submitted, I believe that's lot -- we have to break it up into blocks here again, so -- I can't read it here. In the southeast corner down here -- southeast corner. McCarthy: Uh-huh. Marshall: Looking at the elevations it appears as a duplex, as those -- your elevation here. McCarthy: Yes. That's an old application you're looking at. That's not ours. Marshall: Okay. Well, it was in the packet, that's why I -- and I noticed that that application was -- that the preliminary plat had changed. So, these will be all single family residential? McCarthy: Correct. The original -- so, as Sonya pointed out, the original project came through and it was some kind of a retirement community. In 2012 it came through and they modified it and they made it so that it was single family residential and there was a townhome product in there. We are not doing any of that, so we have kind of come through with another DA modification to make it all single family residential. So, what you're looking at there isn't -- isn't a part of this project. Marshall: Okay. I appreciate that. That clarifies it very quickly for me. Meridian Planning & Zoning September 5, 2013 Page 13 of 38 Yearsley: Any other questions? I just want one clarification. You're looking to reduce some of the open space, but you're still going to keep the pathway section on the -- up to Ustick. McCarthy: Correct. Yearsley: Okay. Just wanted to clarify that. Thank very much. McCarthy: We are going to have to keep some of those potentially up front, you know, just for storm drainage and things like that, too. We are just -- we may not change it at all. We are just looking for flexibility to do something. But, you're correct, the connectivity to Ustick will not change. That's required. Yearsley: Okay. All right. Thanks. McCarthy: Thank you. Yearsley: I have a couple of people signed up. Aaron Hansen. Would you like to testify? Hansen: Yes. Yearsley: Please come forward. Hansen: Aaron Hansen. I live at 3924 East Granger Drive, Meridian, Idaho. Some of my neighbors asked me to bring some proxy -- I don't know what you call them -- bids in opposition to this subdivision going in. Primary concern that we have is that right now as you see where it ties into Arch there is also a pathway to the school right there, which a lot of our children go and catch the bus at Ustick school and it goes all the way back to -- well, you can't see it here, but our subdivision has 293 homes and many of our -- many of the homes have small children and access the bus right there. It's kind of a blind corner. It looks like accessibility might be okay right there, but in actuality when you go there there is no homes right there and people already speed around that corner drastically and we are having to address that as a -- as a board -- that's part of the board right now. So, a big concern that we have is the safety of our children going to and from bus stops, to and from Ustick school for the children that do go to Ustick school there and we don't feel that it's safe for our children to have more, you know, traffic coming in through there, you know. So, that's basically the main concern that we have, so -- and I do have four other people that have signed opposition to this as well, so do you guys want me to read them or -- Yearsley: If you would just hand them to the clerk and we will put it in the file. Baird: Mr. Chair. Since you're making a decision tonight you might at least want to have the clerk read the names and the addresses and I think this gentleman should also state his name and address for the record. Meridian Planning & Zoning September 5, 2013 Page 14 of 38 Yearsley: He did at the beginning. Baird: I was concentrating on that when he was doing that. Yearsley: At the end I will have her read these in if they are against, so would that be sufficient. Baird: Yes. Yearsley: Okay. Thank you. Hansen: So, Vince is going to speak next. He's the president of our board. I'm the vice-president. So, he will address many of the concerns we have as well, so -- thank you. Yearsley: Thank you. Well, Vince, do you want to come forward? Name and address for the record. Skinner: Vince Skinner. 2776 North Sharon Avenue, Meridian, Idaho. Appreciate your time tonight. So, the -- as Aaron stated, the main concern that we have is primarily around the -- with children and what you can't see from the aerial is the fence -- the six foot fence that runs along that south -- that south block -- exactly. Thank you. Right through there. That is -- and it creates a blind corner right there with any type of car coming out and you have a kid that walks right front of that, I mean it would -- it would be right there and, obviously, with an elementary school right there we already have issues with -- with a lot of traffic and -- and one thing I do want to bring up from my notes I'm making is that if you will notice the subdivision that is being proposed there is also anorthbound -- or I should say a westbound exit from the -- the proposed subdivision going to somewhere and that somewhere, again, is speculation at this point, but it would be to the property that is still -- still right there -- thank you -- in the light that would be sold off and more properties would be placed in there -- I'm going to use the word placed -- it would probably be shoved in there as well -- townhomes to add more traffic and congestion to that. So, again, one of our biggest concerns or even I guess biggest questions with this would be why not have the subdivision exit through Ustick itself, as opposed to through our subdivision. So, again, increase in traffic. That's one of our concerns. It's next to a school, so greater risk to children getting hit on that blind corner that I mentioned, because that is a six foot fence all along that. The blind corner creates -- and the creation of traffic and view issues, so risk to children. The use of the road and those roads that are maintained by the subdivision primarily through the wintertime. So, we are required as a board and as a subdivision to -- at certain times if the snow becomes bad enough that we would be required to pay out of our dues the -- the removal of the snow and so they are going to be utilizing our roadways to get out of their subdivision and onto the main street that is Grenadier going northbound and southbound and that is plowed by ACHD. So, that is a big concern. So, we are paying for their -- for the potential removal of snow for their use of -- of the roadways. Meridian Planning & Zoning September 5, 2013 Page 15 of 38 Assumed use of drainage and flood area that is south of the property. We maintain -- and if you could move your mouse to the bottom right-hand corner of the proposed subdivision, it looks like a brown dot -- brown circle. But that is a drainage area that is maintained by the subdivision. So, again, we are assuming -- no. If you could go up and right. Right -- it's the very corner. Or south corner. Right there. Boom. Right there. Thank you. So, that is maintained. And, again, our funds pay for the maintenance and usage of that drainage area. Again, we have heard that the properties will be high end. Again, this is speculation and most importantly with that how is -- how is that assured that these properties will be high -- of high value and -- when they are created? And, again, as I said earlier, if the western property is sold, this would have more traffic and people to exit that subdivision. And -- and, then, also lastly, the -- in the previous graphs and -- or pictures that were shown do the circles at the front or north end of the proposed subdivision meet the fire codes. That was another question. Yearsley: Thank you. Skinner: So, I don't know if you had any questions for me, but that's it. Marshall: Mr. Chair, I do. Yearsley: Commissioner Marshall. Marshall: The first thing I'd like to address. The six foot fence that you say is creating problems with seeing around that corner, I'm not quite sure how that's creating blockage to see around the corner, but -- Skinner: Good question. Marshall: What if it was torn out? Skinner: It could be. Marshall: Would that help? Skinner: It would. Marshall: I believe there -- just a quick thought is I believe that is to be torn out with this project. Skinner: Okay. Marshall: Drainage facility. I believe it's state law that they must maintain all water that's on the site and they have to provide their own drainage facilities. They can't use yours. Meridian Planning & Zoning September 5, 2013 Page 16 of 38 Skinner: Okay. Marshall: Yours have been calculated to be -- to work for your area and your area only. They have to provide their own. Skinner: Okay. Marshall: As far as traffic, we are only talking 16 houses. Now, I know that does provide more traffic there. It does. But, again, Ustick Road, we, as a city, have really tried to limit the number of accesses to major collectors, because that is where we have the most accidents. Not necessarily in the residential areas, but more on the collectors or the residential areas trying to get onto the collectors or from the collector into the residential area. And so that is -- is one of the guidelines that the city tries to follow is try to minimize the accesses to collectors as far as we can. Try to remove as many as possible and that's why we -- and because of interconnectivity and things like that, as a city we are actually requiring that access to the west, so that hopefully if one day it does develop that they will not take access to Ustick. Again, as small as that property is -- and Idon't know the actual size of it, but I could only venture a guess of four to six lots. Skinner: Okay Marshall: It is significantly smaller. Now, yeah, that does -- that does funnel more people back into your neighborhood. Skinner: Yeah. And I had forgotten one other aspect. The use of the Red Feather parks and the greenways that we maintain also. Marshall: They don't have -- if it's private property they don't have access to it. You would need to tell them, I'm sorry, you're not allowed here. If your homeowners association is maintaining it and they are not part of the homeowners association, they are not going to have access to it. It's not theirs. If your homeowners association was maintaining it and they are not part of the homeowners association, they are not going to have access to it. It's not theirs. Skinner: Yeah. Marshall: Now, the streets -- now, if you choose to plow the snow, that's -- that's your choice. Those are public and usually Ada County Highway District isn't able to get to those oftentimes, agree, but, again, that's your choice. The subdivision I live in we don't plow the streets. I shovel out to the middle oftentimes just to make sure my car doesn't get stuck getting in and out of the driveway, but -- yeah. Again, they are not causing you more harm than causing you to shovel the streets more or causing you to guess. If you choose to do that it's very nice for them. It's also very nice for you. But, again, that's not a requirement of anyone. Those are public streets and maintained by the highway district and local municipalities. And we don't have enough snowfall to really justify the amount of equipment and temporary personnel it would take to just snow Meridian Planning & Zoning September 5, 2013 Page 17 of 38 plow everything. I am concerned -- now, what school are we talking that -- Ustick Elementary? Skinner: Ustick Elementary. Correct. Marshall: Okay. And so -- Skinner: Most of the children exit, if you would, because -- yeah. I mean you could see the walkway right there. And they go north and south. Marshall: Okay. This -- just something to think about. Actually offers another opportunity for access to that, because of connectivity to Ustick they are right there. Right around the corner from the school. Usually requiring that pathway there to connect to the existing pathway and I'm hoping that would help and maybe even some of the students in your neighborhood might access through that. Possibly. Skinner: Cut through into their subdivision and, then, into Ustick? Marshall: It becomes a public pathway. Yeah. The pathway is there for people to travel and gives your subdivision more access to the sidewalks along Ustick, which hopefully will be fully developed eventually and -- does that address some of the issues you had? Skinner: Some of them. A lot of it has to do with the traffic -- the traffic and -- and issues with children. That's really one of the big ones. Miller: I have a comment -- Yearsley: Commissioner Miller Miller: -- on that as well. These type of houses they are presenting look like family homes. I don't see like a lot of teenagers going running around or anything. I'm guessing these people also will have kids and they will be concerned about those issues as well and that there might be an opportunity for a relationship to make that a stronger, you know, safe zone. My two cents on that. Yearsley: Thank you. Marshall: I would ask, you know, other than tearing down that six foot fence and moving things back away, how else could that corner be improved per -- for safety? Skinner: Right turn only. Hansen: Aaron Hansen. 3924 East Granger Drive, Meridian, Idaho. So, basically, if I understand you correctly, you were saying that our children could go ahead and -- sorry, Meridian Planning & Zoning September 5, 2013 Page 18 of 38 I don't know how to use this. To go ahead and use the pathway right at the back right here in the common area to get to Ustick. Marshall: Well, I would assume so. I know that's owned and maintained by the homeowners association, but kids are going to all the time anyway. The street is public street. Now, that is their private property, the homeowners association owns it, but don't think -- as long as there is a good relationship between the two homeowners associations I can't see -- Hansen: How is that beneficial to our subdivision when we already have access directly to the school -- or to the school when I would say probably 80 percent of our children that are elementary age go to Ustick Elementary right now. The other -- Baird: Mr. Chair, I'd like to impose a point of order here and restore the comments to come through the chair. We are sort of turning this into a debate, when, in fact, we are supposed to be collecting testimony upon which you based your decisions. So, I would just advise everyone just to address your comments to the chair. Thank you. Yearsley: Thank you. Go ahead. Hansen: Okay. So, anyway, I question the logic of going through their subdivision to get to Ustick when 80 percent of the children are already going to -- up to Ustick Elementary School. The other 20 percent predominately go to Spaulding Elementary, which is off Cloverdale and my children included catch the bus right there at Ustick. They pick up right there. Why would my kids go down to a main thoroughfare and catch, you know, Ustick Road right there when the access is already available to them in a safe spot where they have, you know, guards there on duty to make sure that my kids, you know, are safe to get the bus. It just -- that doesn't make sense to me. That comment that you made did not make much sense to me. Like I said, this map makes it look as though it's a definite left-hand turn and the efforts of the subdivision would be kind of on a straightaway right there, when, in actuality, it is more of a U than it is -- you know, so the visibility there, if you're coming around, is just not there, either coming -- cars coming, you know, down -- they are going north and, then, heading east there, as well as if they were coming out, you know, and heading either back north -- or back south, it just -- it really is a blind corner there and the fence, in my opinion, is set back far enough that that's not the issue. The issue is actually the corner itself, not where the fence is located and whether that's pulled out. Second issue. You said that the fence was going to be torn out and my question is our subdivision has already paid to put that fence up. That seems kind of ridiculous that we have already put up a six foot fence there that we had paid for as a subdivision and now you're going to take it out. Or the plan is to take it out, which is a common -- Yearsley: Well, I don't believe that that's the plan. If It's your fence it's going to more than likely stay, so -- would be my guess, so -- Meridian Planning & Zoning September 5, 2013 Page 19 of 38 Skinner: Yearsley: And so that -- those are questions that we still need to have answered. Yearsley: And we will answer those. Yeah. We will address those later. Skinner: I did have one question. If we were to bring more proxy votes that would encompass most of our subdivision, would that make a larger impact into the decision making or does it not matter? Yearsley: Well, we are actually going to decide that tonight, the approval of this, so -- Skinner: That's what I -- Yearsley: Okay. So, thank you. Next on the list is Bob Petticoat. Would you like to testify? Okay. A Judy Barney. Barney: Judy Barney at 4008 East Conklin Drive, Meridian, Idaho. I have just one question, because right here he says is our pathway to the school. Lots of parents -- Rohm: You need to speak directly into the microphone. Barney: Lots of people turning right down this street to drop their children off and pick up and try to come down and come down this street on North Sharon and, then, home along that north route right here. What I'm questioning is the drop off, plus just speeding down that street and these are very narrow streets in here, but can this become a right turn only all the time, so that when this is being used as a pick up and drop off, that people coming out of these 16 homes and possibly six more, so we are talking, you know, what 22 and it's aright-hand turn, they are coming straight down here, and into Ustick, or they make aright-hand turn, come down here, up to Ustick this way. And is it possible to make it just aright-hand turn? And we really can't have speed bumps, because it slows down the emergency vehicles. Do we know if that -- they will not take it to a fire or an emergency quick enough. So, that was my question. Just because of the high volume going at this school here and along this shown here, and the drop off, pick up right there, wind up here, can we make it into just aright-hand turn coming out of this subdivision onto that street? That's my question. Yearsley: Thank you. Richard Barney. R.Barney: Richard Barney. 4008 East Conklin Drive, Meridian. My comments are more questions than anything else. I'm not familiar with your zoning requirements. I'm a short-term resident, so, please, bear with me. One of the things that I am concerned with -- first of all, I -- the obvious approach to me was to have access onto Ustick, because you have an intersection that's exactly across due north from it, you would think that intersection would parallel the one that Red Feather has in that -- in their neighborhood, too. So, to go in and come in the back way seems a little ridiculous, but, again, someone's made a decision on that direction. With that you have now added Meridian Planning & Zoning September 5, 2013 Page 20 of 38 some greenway that is maybe allowed, maybe it's not, but it's shown there. I'm making an assumption that there is an HOA that would be tied to this, so the contract once he sells the last piece of property, doesn't have the responsibility, so there will be an HOA tied to that. I'm also making an assumption that there will be an HOA tied to the next property that someone is believing will be part of this road access. I have been in other areas that easily draw lines on these plans and there is a couple things that are just somewhat left off. For instance, that circle on the north side that's already been stated, normally a cul-de-sac -- and open cul-de-sac would give you enough diameter or radius to turn a fire truck around. I'm assuming at that point that that's going to be available with that access. I'm also going to make the assumption that the small one acre or smaller property will have a cul-de-sac dedicated to it, so you can turn it around in the future on that other land. So, the decisions you're making here today on this property need to be reflecting your future growth of that area, too. The one thing that I don't see stated here is lighting. The subdivision -- Red Feather Subdivision I believe was allowed with minimum lighting. We have minimum lighting allowed through the streets, but we have also turned around and we are expecting our residents to keep on their lights to add and supplement lighting -- Yearsley: Can you, please, wrap it up. R.Barney: And I'm expecting that that type of detail is also included in your decisions tonight. Thank you. Yearsley: Thank you. I have a Gene Linder. Is there anybody else that would like to testify? I guess with that would -- oh, we need to read the names of those who were opposed. Would you mind reading those names? Radford: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have Kevin West and Ariel West opposed. There is no address on these. Melissa Caplin. Jake Caplin. Sherry Hansen. That's it. Thank you. Yearsley: And show that those are all opposed of this subdivision. Radford: Correct. Yearsley: Would the applicant like to come forward and address the comments. McCarthy: Good evening. Kevin McCarthy. KM Engineering again. I guess I will start with the -- the fence issue that we were talking about and this area through here -- is this how this works? Watters: Select a color at the top of the screen and, then, you can use the pen. McCarthy: This area right here. There is the right of way and, then, our property. There is no -- nothing in between. So, if they have a fence there it's always -- and know there is one there -- it's our intention that the fence in that area will come down. It Meridian Planning & Zoning September 5, 2013 Page 21 of 38 has to -- that's either in the right of way or it's on our property. One of the two. And so that fence will come down. Obviously safety is always a concern with anybody. We are, obviously, not trying to bring something in that's unsafe, but, you know, as part of any of a project like this, you know, vision triangles are something that we have to maintain regardless. So, when we submit a plan it will go to the Ada County Highway District, they will make sure that we maintain our vision triangle. On little local roads like this quite frequently stop signs may not be required, but if that's something that would make the neighborhood feel better, we could certainly put a stop sign in. And those are the two things we would mainly do. The other stub street is -- you know, like was mentioned, was required and because that's required it basically allows us to have an alternative turnaround to a cul-de-sac. So, the fire department has approved this turnaround. They are able to pull in here and, then, back out and, then, get out and that's how it's done in lieu of a new cul-de-sac. The neighboring property will have to -- when they develop will have to develop their own plan for a turnaround. That's not really for us to do at this time. And they either put a cul-de-sac in or a hammerhead or something of that nature to take care of that. The storm drain facility that was referenced down here in this corner, we won't be messing with that. It would be nice -- and, unfortunately, most of these folks didn't come to our neighborhood meeting, but we would like to coordinate with them to -- you know, we are going to need to put in a storm drain facility as well. It would be nice if we could come to some type of an agreement where our open space here would also become some kind of a storm drainage facility and they could work together on that. I have already talked to the Ada County Highway District about it. They are not opposed to it. In fact, they would like to see it. But that's just something we can -- we can talk to their HOA and see if that's something we can work out. If not, that's okay, too. We can come and do our own thing. But, regardless, our storm drains -- storm drains will have to be maintained on our site. As far as a right turn only, obviously, that's something we wouldn't be in favor of. It's just a traditional intersection and we are, obviously, adding additional homes, you know, when the traffic warrants that. And, lighting, we will have to come through with a plan that will be approved by the City of Meridian. With our landscape plan we will identify the lighting that will have to be placed and, obviously, that will also follow city code. So, I can't think of anything else. But, like I said, we are more than willing to work with the homeowners that are here from Red Feather and so, hopefully, after this meeting we can talk to them, since they didn't get to attend the neighborhood meeting. Yearsley: One of the questions that was also brought up was the HOA. Will this subdivision have an HOA associated with it to maintain the common areas? McCarthy: Yeah. We will have our own HOA that will have to take care of their own common areas and I guess that, you know, goes back to the pathway up here. I mean that will be something that's ours and would have to be maintained, as well as the landscape buffer that's required along Ustick Road. Yearsley: Okay. Any other questions? Thank you. McCarthy: Thank you. Meridian Planning & Zoning September 5, 2013 Page 22 of 38 Yearsley: With that can we get a motion to close the public hearing for PP 13-019? Miller: So moved. Rohm: Second. Yearsley: I have a motion and a second to close the public hearing for PP 13-019, Copperleaf Subdivision. All in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. Rohm: Mr. Chairman? Yearsley: Commissioner Rohm. Rohm: I do have something to say. On this subdivision it appears as if the two things that are kind of sticking out there are the -- that blind corner and from my perspective that blind corner existed before this development came before us. I mean it was already there. It was part of the development as it existed. That's as I see it. The second thing is -- is the tie in to that roadway with the cross-access to the adjacent property to the west is something that we as a city promote and we would not have granted them a plat had they not included that. So, from my perspective the developers have done everything that they can within the power given the piece of property that they are trying to develop to meet the needs of the community as a whole and I for one -- I think it's a good development and I am in support of it as -- as proposed. Yearsley: Thank you. Miller: Mr. Chairman? Yearsley: Commissioner Miller. Miller: I have got some comments as well. I would almost argue that having a connection street to Ustick would make that corner more hazardous for you guys, because, then, you have those straightaways that's Rand Drive that runs north-south that people from your subdivision could -- no. Sorry. Sharon? I can't read that. But the north-south -- people from your subdivision could shortcut through that subdivision and not stop at all, just going straight through to Ustick, which is one of the reasons that we require fewer curb cuts to main collectors like that. I think it's a nice idea and a nice gesture definitely to put a stop sign right there if that's a concerning corner. I'm not sure if that would solve some of the issues at all. But I'm in favor of the development. I think they have done a good job with how it goes. Something is going to be there eventually. This city is growing, we can't just require that there is no, you know, forward motion and this seems like it meets the -- you know, it's a happy medium. I think the people that are going to be living there are going to be people that have the same concerns that you Meridian Planning & Zoning September 5, 2013 Page 23 of 38 guys do and my feeling is that if they will work together, you know, it's a bigger community at that point. But I'm in favor of the development. Yearsley: Thank you. Commissioner Marshall. Marshall: Mr. Chair. I think I have expressed a lot of my views already a little early. I do think it's agood -- in fact, I think it improves -- well, I think it's a good development. It -- the -- the common area lot on the southwest side will have to be developed per Ada County Highway standards that provide sight and any cars coming to that intersection will have to be visible. I do appreciate the -- the applicant's suggestion that they place a stop sign there. I think the amount of traffic with kids coming from the school is going to be a little burdensome and it is going to be problematic, but I think if everybody works together this can work well and it is by my estimation the better choice to funnel the traffic back through here, as opposed to providing access to Ustick. I mean this city has determined that long ago with considerable insight and a lot of people working on that from a lot of different inputs from EMS and fire -- everybody has had input to that and I am for the project and I do appreciate the fact that, again, the stop sign would be there at the intersection. Yearsley: Thank you. I want to comment on a couple of those concerns. I think the engineers for the developers have done a good job locating this roadway on the corner to enough that, you know, he can look to one side and see the one direction and look forward and actually see the other direction of the cars coming. It appears to me, listening to the testimony today, that the problem isn't with the current traffic -- I mean with the new traffic, it's with the current traffic. They are speeding. A lot of people through that area. If you're concerned about that I'd highly recommend you go to ITD or even the city has a Traffic Safety Commission and bring that up to them. ACRD does have some guidelines if there is enough speeding and there is enough traffic that they will put in -- they will come in and actually put in traffic calming measures, such as speed bumps and that stuff, which is allowed in these areas. So, you know, given that it is a school access it may not -- it may be a better fit to actually put something like that to calm that traffic down. As for the people coming in and out of the subdivision, they are not going to be speeding around that corner, because they are going to have to stop to turn into that -- the street that's already there, so -- or they are going to be coming out of that and going fairly slow. So, they are not going to be causing a lot of speeding through that area, so -- from what I see, because they are not going to have a chance to get up to a whole lot of speed before they have to make their corner. So, I think they have done a good job. We do have to allow the owners of these properties to develop. I think they have done a good job to develop it to try to meet what's already there versus what they are proposing and I think it's very -- it looks to me like it's congruent or complimentary to each other. So, for that I believe I'm for it as well. So, with that Iwill -- Commissioner Miller. Miller: I actually have some comments, too, to get back to the applicant's statement, like the fence. Meridian Planning & Zoning September 5, 2013 Page 24 of 38 Yearsley: Okay. Miller: I would understand why you would want to limit the -- that back fencing, but do we have the ability to change that? That's a city code at this point. I know there is -- there is several subdivisions that have tall -- you know, six foot tall vision fences. They are nice. They can be complimentary towards -- you know, they can be a selling point for that particular lot to make it feel more open if you wanted to maintain the six foot or same idea goes with lowering it to the four foot. I just don't know that we have the ability to change that code. It is a city code. I would understand it, but I think that there is also options for sticking with those rules and regulations. Yearsley: I guess can we -- Sonya, do you have -- can we make that change or do we have that ability to make that change? Watters: Chairman Yearsley, Commissioners, if the Commission and Council direct staff to make a change to our city code we could. Yearsley: Okay. So, without making changes to code we are not allowed to allow that waiver? Watters: That's correct. It's there for CPTED, Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design. It's so that more eyes are on the pathways. Yearsley: And I will agree, I personally have -- my house fronts a pathway and we have a four foot fence, which can be kind of cumbersome, but we have learned to deal with it and a six foot open fence works just as well. So, if you're concerned about safety the six foot open fence is a way to go. If not I agree with the four foot fence, so -- Marshall: Mr. Chair, I also have a lot of experience with -- the subdivision I'm familiar with has lot of open six foot fences and they work exceptionally well. Yearsley: Okay. And I guess the only thing that we have to decide on is the 1.1.4 for the removal of the open space; is that correct? Watters: It's just more of a clarification. Staff misspoke in our original pre-application meeting and told them they were required to provide a minute of ten percent open space and one site amenity, but because their site is under five acres in size there are not minimum requirements. Yearsley: So, we don't need to make that motion -- part of the motion to remove that, is that correct, or do we need to make that as part of the motion? Watters: You can make it as part of a motion for staff to clarify 1.1.4 to allow a reduction in open space and increase in lot sizes. Yearsley: Okay. Thank you. So, with that I would entertain a motion Meridian Planning & Zoning September 5, 2013 Page 25 of 38 Rohm: Can we just strike that one, 1.1.4? Can we just strike it? Baird: Mr. Chair and Members of the Commission, I think it's a better paper trail to do it the way as was proposed by Sonya. Marshall: If you don't mind, I will take a stab at it, Mr. Chair. Yearsley: Commissioner Marshall. Marshall: After considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move to recommend approval to City Council of file number PP 13-019 as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of September 5th, 2013, with the following modifications: That 1.1.4, asking staff to allow a reduction in the amount of open space to increase lot size, but to maintain the pathways and the sight triangles. And that is the only modification I have. Miller: I second that. Yearsley: I have a motion and a second for the approval of PP 13-019, Copperleaf Subdivision. All in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. D. Public Hearing: PP 13-020 Golden Valley Subdivision by Providence Properties, LLC Located 4515 S. Locust Grove Road Request: Preliminary Plat Approval Consisting of Twenty-Two (22) Single Family Residential Building Lots and Four (4) Common/Other Lots on 7.56 Acres of Land in the R-4 Zoning District Yearsley: All right. Next one on the list is PP -- open the public hearing for PP 13-020, Golden Valley Subdivision. Let's start with the staff report. Watters: Thank you, Chairman Yearsley, Members of the Commission. The next application before you is a request for a preliminary plat. The site consists of 7.56 acres of land. It's currently zoned R-4 and is located at 4515 South Locust Grove Road. Adjacent land use and zoning. To the north are single family residential properties in the development process in Reflection Ridge Subdivision zoned R-8. To the east is South Locust Grove Road and single family residential properties in Estancia Subdivision, zoned R-4 and R-8. To the south and west are rural residential properties in East Slope Subdivision zoned RUT in Ada County. The site was annexed in 2006 with a development agreement and a preliminary plat. The preliminary plat has since expired. A preliminary plat is now proposed -- this consists of 22 single family residential building lots and four common lots on 7.5 acres of land in the R-4 zoning district. The gross density in the proposed subdivision is 2.91 dwelling units per acre Meridian Planning & Zoning September 5, 2013 Page 26 of 38 consistent with the low density residential future land use map designation for this site. There is an existing home and shop on Lot 15, Block 1, at the southeast corner of this proposed subdivision that is proposed to remain. Access for this subdivision is depicted on the plat at the north boundary via East Wainwright Drive in Reflection Ridge Subdivision. The two existing driveways for the existing home via Locust Grove are proposed to be removed and access provided internally from within the subdivision. Direct lot access via Locust Grove is prohibited. A minimum of ten percent qualified open space and one site amenity is required and proposed to be provided with this development. The applicant proposes .76 of an acre of qualified open space and a small picnic area as an amenity. Six foot tall solid vinyl fencing is proposed around the perimeter boundary of the subdivision. Conceptual building elevations were submitted for future homes in this development that depict building materials consisting of architectural shingles, board and batten, and lap siding and cultured stone wainscot. Design review is not required for detached single family residential. However, staff does recommend as a condition of approval that the rear or side of structures on Lots 10, 13 and 14, Block 1, that face Ustick Road incorporate articulations through changes in material, color modulation and architectural elements to break up monotonous wall planes and roof lines. And that would apply to these lots right here. Through the existing development agreement Lots 10 through 13, Block 1, the lots noted with the star here are restricted to single story in height and Lots 11 through 13, from here to here, are required to have a minimum 20 foot wide rear -- or excuse me -- 20 foot rear building setback. Written testimony has been received from Jim and Patricia Certis. They own the property here directly to the south. They request larger lot sizes and single level dwellings along the southern boundary adjacent to their property. Kevin McCarthy submitted written testimony. He is the applicant's representative, in response to the staff report. They regard to Condition 1.1.2. The open space area needs to be corrected to read .76 of an acre to reflect the qualified open space versus just the total amount of open space for the subdivision. And that is still at 10.1 percent. Condition 1.1.5A, they are requesting a reduced street buffer width along East Wrightwood Drive. City code requires -- requests for alternative compliance for reduced street buffer width. That does need to be submitted and approved by the director. Commission, however, is allowed to make any recommendations on that if they wish. Condition 1.16, change Ustick to Locust Grove Road. It's a typo. 2.4, applicant states that no public water or sewer mains are proposed outside of the right of way. Staff is okay with deleting this condition as it is not really applicable to this development. Staff is recommending approval of the proposed preliminary plat with the conditions in the staff report and staff will stand for any questions the Commission may have. Yearsley: Are there any questions? Miller: Mr. Chair? Yearsley: Commissioner Miller. Meridian Planning & Zoning September 5, 2013 Page 27 of 38 Miller: I'm sorry, I always have questions, the show me how questions. Can you show me the -- along East Wainwright Drive where they are talking about. PerFect. Thank you. Yearsley: Thank you. Any other questions? Would the applicant like to come forward? McCarthy: Kevin McCarthy, KM Engineering, 9233 West State Street. Here to talk to you about Golden Valley. Again this one's similar to the last one we had in that it was a previously approved project. The preliminary plat had gone through and been approved and, then, it expired. This plan closely follows what was previously approved. It has one less lot and that was to accommodate the additional open space and is currently required by code. Can I ask a question of staff? Is that allowed while I'm doing this? Baird: Mr. Chair, the proper way to go would be to request through the chair that staff at some appropriate time respond to the question. McCarthy: Okay. Chair, when I get done if you will, please, ask staff if -- I believe there is a development agreement in place on this project that's been carried through and so these lots that have the star on them I believe are still required to be a single family residential down there, but I need to get that clarified. Yearsley: Okay. McCarthy: So, if that's the case, then, I think that alleviates that problem in that letter. The -- the one concern we did have -- and we will be submitting application for alternative forms of compliance, is for that 20 foot buffer along there. That wasn't -- when the project was previously approved that wasn't brought up as also something new. That does -- we did do a little bit in working with the neighboring developer in that we created this -- we created this little area right here, which is a little open space through here to create a little bit of a buffer. As you can see they are relative detached back here and, then, it comes around. So, we did come through and create a little bit of an open space there and provide a buffer as it becomes directly adjacent to our property, but it doesn't, you know, encompass the full 20 feet, so that will be our application and alternative form of compliance and we think that's a fairly reasonable request in this situation. So, with that I don't have anything further and I would be happy to answer any questions you may have. Yearsley: Is there any questions? Miller: Mr. Chair? Yearsley: Commissioner Miller. Miller: How wide is that buffer right now shown, do you know? McCarthy: I believe it's about ten feet and, then, it angles down from there. Meridian Planning & Zoning September 5, 2013 Page 28 of 38 Miller: Okay. Thank you. Yearsley: Thank you. Any other questions? Thank you. McCarthy: Thank you. Yearsley: I have a couple of people signed up. Mr. and Mrs. Jim Sturgis. Would one or both of you like to come and testify? Matt Schultz? Schultz: Good evening, Commissioners. My name is Matt Schultz. 8421 South Ten Mile in Meridian. I'm here on behalf of the owner of the property to the north. Mission Coast Properties. I'm their agent, construction manager, project manager. They are an out-of-state company that acquired the 80 percent finished Reflection Ridge project. I don't know if you have driven by there over the years, but it has been sitting almost finished. I have lived in South Meridian for ten years now and I have done a lot of development down there as well and so I have seen it and somehow, some way, I've now been retained to manage that project for them and finish it, which is good. It just went through for a final plat and they are spending a lot of money to improve the subdivision for 74 lots right within the main entrance off Locust Grove. It was built and it's not moving. There is already sidewalk, curb and gutter there. And for whatever reason there is kind of an atypical buffer along there and that -- actually, Randal Clarno, the developer, for this subdivision contacted me to come and look at it today. So, we looked at it to see what we could do and I commend him for reaching out and working with us to see what we could do, because I'm actually under construction out there right now along with some fencing and landscaping and we are -- we are going to get it all paved here by Halloween or I don't get paid. So, we are going to get it done. And so we are in process right now, so it's good timing to work out these issues. And so what's out there right now -- if you look at this corner right there, there is about 20 feet to the back of sidewalk -- a detached sidewalk and I didn't measure that, it's probably seven feet wide detached from the back of curb. So, the way your code reads, I believe it's 20 foot was detached from the back of curb. I'm not sure. I believe that's the code. It's attached 20 feet from back of sidewalk. So, it's all good until you get down to that circle area that was drawn on there where it attaches and that way they can meet the 20 feet. I think they have got eight feet or so and that eight works where it's detached, because if you think about it you have a seven foot detached, five foot, eight would be the 20 from back of curb. So, you transition, then, to zero where that -- it gets kind of weird in how you measure that. So, we met out there today and whatever works, whatever the city would like, you know, the bigger the better. They are spending a lot of money out here. Across the street it's all a big park. They are going to have a beautiful entry to their subdivision provided by our owner and that's fine, it's just the way the ball bounced on this one and they did plan out to eliminate the access to Locust Grove, which is good planning, consolidate them with this one main entrance, which makes sense. We just want to make sure that the landscaping is done appropriately. Mr. Clarno has reached out and said if you build some of the fencing in, let us come in -- we got to do it over the winter -- and we will build the rest of it. And we made bonds with the city for that for us Meridian Planning & Zoning September 5, 2013 Page 29 of 38 and we will let him finish and work that out and I thought that was a nice gesture to cost share on there and work through that. One thing that staff mentioned that I was a little concerned with is that these four lots here are the main entrance to a 225 foot -- 225 lot subdivision, that they are spending millions of dollars on the first phase alone, clubhouse, pool, ample open space. We really like that articulated architecture condition applied to those four lots as well and not just Locust Grove. Even though it isn't a collector road I think it should apply to those four and I know my owner fully supports that. In fact, I think he probably thought that would be a condition. I noticed it wasn't read in that way when staff was going through it. We'd like that if possible. don't think they are going to push back on that if they do something, because that will be the entrance to this subdivision right there and we would like something -- something their inside the -- you know, something that looks really stark at our entrance and I don't think that's an unreasonable request. I support development. It's my industry. I think it's good things are happening again. We didn't do much for several years, now we are getting going again. So, it's all good and they have done a good job of reaching out coordinating. We'd just like as much as possible within code for a landscape buffer and whatever works and we are working together on some grading there as well to make more sense, so -- so I'm here in support of it and not against it. Thank you. Yearsley: So, can I ask you just a quick question, just so I can clarify. Your -- you would like the -- those four lots to have the articulation to be as well. The buffer, you would want -- you didn't state what you would like to see, you said bigger is better, but -- Schultz: My owner would like them eight foot. Yearsley: Okay. Schultz: They have alternate compliance. I'm here to work with whatever comes out to make sure it all looks good. If it's eight foot we will address that, put in lots of trees and grass. If it's 15 feet we will do the same. So, my owner would like it to meet code -- Yearsley: Okay. Schultz: -- is what he would like. Yearsley: And that's just what I wanted clear direction. Schultz: No problem. Yearsley: Thank you. Schultz: Thanks. Yearsley: Next one is Scott Stewart. Meridian Planning & Zoning September 5, 2013 Page 30 of 38 Stewart: My name is Scott Stewart. I live at 1360 East Pitkin Avenue in Meridian. My home sits to the southeast corner of this development. It is against the -- two of the lots that have -- that have been designated for single story. The Sturgises are the next home over. They are sitting behind me here. We had aconcern -- I know -- I heard as the representative of the developer spoke about the vinyl fence and Iwasn't -- to clarify, I didn't know if that was just along Locust Grove or if that would exceed the Sturgis' and my property also. There is an existing vinyl fence that is against the subdivision and runs parallel -- or between the Sturgis' lot and mine and for uniformity and look I hope that that -- this development also includes vinyl for the entire perimeter, including those parts that are up against our property. Yearsley: Okay. Thank you. Stewart: That's all. Thank you. Yearsley: I don't have anybody else signed up. Would anybody else like to come and testify? With that, would the applicant like to -- oh. Marshall: Mr. Chair, I was just going to ask -- before we have the applicant back up, could we get staff to answer the one question that -- Yearsley: On the development agreement? Marshall: Yes. Watters: Yes, Chairman Yearsley and Commissioner Marshall. The development agreement does currently restrict these lots with the star to single family. This -- this last lot here that's next to the adjacent -- existing home it -- it backs up to about 20 feet, approximately, of the Sturgis' property. That one is not restricted to single story. So, it's -- for the Commission's information on that. Yearsley: Thank you. Waters: And to answer the last gentleman's question, six foot tall solid vinyl fencing is proposed around the perimeter. Yearsley: Okay. Thank you. Would the applicant like to come forward? McCarthy: I'm Kevin McCarthy with KM Engineering. Just to answer a couple of questions a little bit. Sonya already did this. The fenced perimeter of the project, we will fence the perimeter of the project, so that's a -- that answers that question. And, then, along with that -- for those lots along Wrightwood that were highlighted here, those four, you know, we have the same architectural guidelines that were -- made the restriction on Locust Grove that we do there, we are not opposed to that. So, that's -- that's fine. So, I don't have any -- if you have any further questions I would be happy to answer them. Meridian Planning & Zoning September 5, 2013 Page 31 of 38 Yearsley: I guess, you know, with Sonya's comment there is that other lot that kind of fronts a portion of the Sturgis property, is that one to be a single story as well or what's the condition on that one? McCarthy: It wasn't planned for it, but if it's -- we are not opposed to it either. So, if that's a condition that we want to place upon it to make it a single story, we are also okay with that. Yearsley: Okay. Any questions? Miller: Mr. Chair? Yearsley: Commissioner Miller. Miller: I'd like to hear your response to the other development's request to maintain city code on that buffer area. Does that -- I mean is that a significant hardship for you to step those lots back to accommodate that or -- McCarthy: Yeah, there is significant hardship in that those lots then become -- if you come in 20 feet they become -- we looked at it, they become unbuildable in their current configuration. We would have to go through a redesign on that and it would -- it would impact the rest of -- the rest of our project. So, our preference is, obviously, to go through the alternative form of compliance and then -- which is what we already have shown and have that be sufficient, so that's what we -- and we will be submitting that application. Yearsley: Any other questions? Rohm: Just a comment. What is your alternative compliance? I mean do you have something that you have come up with or -- or is it a -- still in the works? McCarthy: Well, I guess that's -- what I'm saying is that's what we have shown here already. You know, those lots used to go all the way to the back along right where there wasn't any common space back there. So, what we have done is provided some common space back there, but not the full 20 feet. Rohm: I see. And what are you going to have in that common space? McCarthy: It will be landscaped. It's going to be landscaped and match what they are trying to do in Reflection Ridge. So, it's going to very -- it's really to help with their landscaping through there. Rohm: Okay. Thank you. McCarthy: You're welcome. Meridian Planning & Zoning September 5, 2013 Page 32 of 38 Yearsley: Thank you. McCarthy: You're welcome. Yearsley: Could I get a motion to close the public hearing for PP 13-020? Miller: So moved. Marshall: Second. Yearsley: He's already spoke. Baird: Mr. Chair, it's in your discretion, but testimony has been taken, the applicant's responded, you would have to allow the applicant to again respond to any further testimony. Yearsley: Sure. Come on up Stewart: Scott Stewart. 1560 East Pitkin Avenue. Looking at those four lots and concerning the fifth for single family, it would be my desire to have the one north of mine one step further north I guess that we could -- yeah, that one right there. If that is -- you know, if that would also be considered for single story that would help my problems with the development. Marshall: I would ask -- Yearsley: Absolutely Marshall: Where is your property ending there? I see the property Stewart: Does this work? Marshall: It does -- push acolor -- Watters: Push a color. Marshall: But I would prefer the other piece of -- the other drawing, so I can see where that lot interacts with this piece of property, because it appears there is a property line within ten foot of that lot line. Stewart: Right. So -- I don't know exactly, because Idon't -- my lot is -- this border here is about 110 feet of my property. So, my property is somewhere in this vicinity and goes around over to here or maybe not quite that far, but somewhere in that vicinity. Yearsley: Thank you. Would the applicant like to come up and address that? Meridian Planning & Zoning September 5, 2013 Page 33 of 38 McCarthy: Kevin McCarthy again. Yeah. We have provided for five single -- single story homes on the south. We do not have a desire to start running it up along the west property line. So, no, we prefer to have that lot not have that restriction. Yearsley: Okay. Thank you. McCarthy: You're welcome. Watters: Chairman Yearsley, if I may just clarify. Mr. Stewart's property line is right here. His northern most property line where the arrow is. Yearsley: So, it's pretty close to where that existing property is already. Watters: Yes. Yearsley: Okay. Thank you hearing now. Miller: So moved. Rohm: Second. So, with that can I get a motion to close the public Yearsley: I have a motion and a second to close the public hearing on PP 13-020, Golden Valley. All in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. Yearsley: So, anybody have comments? Rohm: Yes, Mr. Chairman, my only comment would be is that it appears as if this developer has tried to meet with all the adjacent property owners and has acquiesced some of their building to accommodate the wishes of others and have gone a long way to be a good neighbor and I applaud them for that and I -- and I think that ultimately the development that occurs here is going to fit in very well with the adjacent development and it is -- from my perspective will maybe help both sides of the equation and there will be more and additional development in the other subdivision as well. So, I think that I'm in support of this wholeheartedly. Yearsley: Thank you. Miller: Mr. Chair? Yearsley: Commissioner Miller. Meridian Planning & Zoning September 5, 2013 Page 34 of 38 Miller: I second a lot of that. The only question I have is this recommendation for a variance on the buffer zone. I'm not sure I see enough indication to recommend that myself. I see arguments both ways. I'm not -- I'm not sure if one of those lots maybe can come over and they capitalize on that open space in the adjacent space subdivision. Maybe that open space gets reworked a little bit to make it still a profitable project. I definitely see wanting to go for that and how it's right at the entryway of that subdivision, that seems like it's -- I know in my head at least less of a concern, I just don't know that there is enough there for me to recommend to Council to deviate from that code. Yearsley: Okay. Miller: My two cents on that issue. But it's a good development and I think it will be an asset for sure. The relationships that have been maintained with the adjacent properties -- I mean it's excellent, we don't always see that working together. So, that's nice to see. I'm in favor of the build out. Definitely. Yearsley: Commissioner Marshall. Marshall: Mr. Chair. I would very much like to second the Commissioners that have both gone before me. I like everything that was stated and I'm absolutely in agreement with Commissioner Miller's point on the setback there. I'm not sure I can recommend that as well. Yeah. This subdivision could be reconfigured and the UDC requirement has been there long before this got started again. I do appreciate -- I think the City Council does have to take into account, though, that this developer has worked pretty hard with everybody around them and so that does need to be taken into consideration. I do appreciate that they have limited the four lots that are for single family. That is a bit limiting and -- but they do -- they do come up against the two lots there and I appreciate their doing that and I do like the fact that they are trying to work with Reflections Ridge with the fencing and, then, things like that. And I do appreciate the fact that they stated that the four northerly lots -- they were willing to also restrict those to the same -- our articulation requirements and we are requiring up against Locust Grove. So, with that said I am absolutely for the project. Yearsley: Thank you. And I agree, I like the fact that they are willing to have those four northerly lots put into the articulation as with Locust Grove. I think that does provide a better look for everybody around there and not alone, just the other development, I think if people look down that street they will get a better look or articulation. With regard to the last gentleman talking about -- adding that extra lot, if you look at the aerial photo that is a -- it looks like a lot of pasture in that back area, so he's got a lot of buffer for that second lot to not be there, so I think it's -- you know, it makes -- I would support the applicant to not make that a single lot -- or single story home. So, that does make sense. On the -- the variance for the open space, I -- they are showing eight feet, believe, what they are saying now. I would actually like to see that a little bit larger. think we maybe could reduce that, but I would like to see it a little bit larger. I think there is room to maneuver to make that a little bit larger to kind of try to meet what's already, Meridian Planning & Zoning September 5, 2013 Page 35 of 38 you know, beyond on both sides. I think there is some wiggle room on both sides that we can work that out, but I would let Council and staff to make that recommendation, so -- and with that I'm in favor of the proposal as well. So, with that could I -- I'd entertain a motion. Marshall: Okay. I will give it a shot. Mr. Chair? Yearsley: Commissioner Marshall. Marshall: After considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move to recommend approval to City Council of file number PP 13-020 as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of September 5th, 2013, with the following modifications: 1.12 should -- should be restated to address .76 acres of qualified open space. 1.1.5A -- well, would allow the alternative compliance to address that. 1.1.6, please change Ustick Road to Locust Grove Road and delete 2.4. And I'm not sure which point -- the number this is, but the condition requiring the articulation on the lots along Ustick Street to be modified to also address the houses along Wainwright. So moved. Watters: Chairman Yearsley, may I clarify Mr. Marshall's motion? Yearsley: Please. The applicant also volunteered to restrict 14 I believe it was. Yeah. Lot 14 to the single story his one right here. Did the Commission wish to include that as a provision or no? Marshall: I did not include that in my motion and I chose not to. Watters: Okay. Thank you. Marshall: And I don't know if I will get a second. Miller: I will second that. Yearsley: I have a motion and a second to approve file number PP 13-023. All in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries. Thank you. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. E. Public Hearing: CPAT 13-001 Comprehensive Plan Text Amendment by City of Meridian Planning Division Request: Amend Certain Action Items Contained in the Comprehensive Plan Yearsley: Next item on the agenda is opening the public hearing for CPAT 13-001, the Comprehensive Plan Text Amendment and we'd start off with the staff report. Meridian Planning & Zoning September 5, 2013 Page 36 of 38 Hood: Thank you, Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission. I will be presenting the Comprehensive Plan Text Amendment. This is the second annual application of this type. If you will recall back in 2011 the city went through a pretty substantial revamp and eventual adoption of the Comprehensive Plan and the visioning document, the guide for the city that a lot of our codes and other policies are based on and so annually the planning division compiles the list, the adopted document, and asks all of the departments that are responsible for carrying out those policy statements to touch on them, to read them, how are we doing, how are we progressing. Is this still a priority? It should still be a priority for our city for the various departments. So, we have gone through that exercise over the past several months looking at those and we have gotten all the comments back from, again, the parties that are noted as leading the action items in the plan and now that there is -- what this application tonight entails is updates to the action items in the tables and the end of each chapter, just stated after the goals and objectives. So, again, these are the things that -- at a higher level a visioning document these are the things that we are working as a city to make our -- our community the best it can be. So, I wasn't planning tonight on going through all the changes. Most of them are fairly minor in nature. There are some -- some substantive ones in there, but nothing I don't think that's really noteworthy per se, so, hopefully, you have had a chance to read the -- Exhibit A-1 particularly, that is the -- the strike through and underlined version, it shows what's on the books now and what we are proposing to -- to change that to and, then, the far right column shows -- explains why. That won't show up in the plan -- the why, the additional comments, but it's just there for the narrative, so you can kind of see the train of thought there. So, with that, Mr. Chair, I will stand for any questions you may have on this application. Yearsley: Thank you. Are there any questions? Marshall: I have a comment. Caleb. It's nice to see this coming through and done annually and -- thank you. Yearsley: Well -- Hood: Just one more point on that, Mr. Chair, if I may. Yearsley: Absolutely. Hood: This is a living document and we want to make it so and I really do appreciate all of the other departments. They aren't here, obviously, tonight, except for legal's representative and the clerk's office, and do appreciate their participation in this process and -- and Brian McClure in my office did a lot of heavy lifting and Bill Parsons actually helped with the staff report, too. So -- but I appreciate your guys' efforts to, again, make this come to life. It is something we use regularly and the more we can touch it and use it the more it will actually be used and we can hopefully make some of these things happen in our community. So, thank you. Meridian Planning & Zoning September 5, 2013 Page 37 of 38 Yearsley: Thank you. I don't have anybody signed up. Is -- anybody would like to testify on this action? With that I would get a motion to close the public hearing. Miller: I move we close the public hearing. Marshall: Second. Yearsley: I have a motion and a second to close the public hearing for CPAT 13-001. All in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. Yearsley: t think I will start first on this. I do appreciate the staff updating this. In the field that I work at I see a lot of comprehensive plans and most of them are done -- updated every five to seven years and it -- you know, without -- with making these small updates every year I think it makes it more of a living document, instead of something that just gets put on the shelf after it's done. So, I do appreciate staff's work on this and all of the city staff to make those changes, so -- any other comments? Miller: I have a couple comments, Mr. Chair. Yearsley: Absolutely, Commissioner Miller. Miller: I agree entirely with that. I think it's pretty phenomenal that we as a city have this happening. A lot of jurisdictions don't at all and it's nice to revaluate. Just in personal opinions on things, because where my background lies, A couple things I got to strike down or lowered on the priority list, like energy consumption of buildings and stuff, that to me is a priority. Understand the situations that have occurred in the city in recent years and why that would be so. I hope things like that don't go away. But I think this is phenomenal and I think it's a lot of good work. Yearsley: Thank you. Any other comments? With that I would entertain a motion. Miller: Mr. Chair? Yearsley: Commissioner Miller. Miller: After considering staffs testimony, I move to recommend approval to the City Council of file number CPAT 13-001 as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of September 5th, 2013, with no comments. Marshall: Second. Rohm: Second. Meridian Planning & Zoning September 5, 2013 Page 38 of 38 Yearsley: I have a motion and a second for the approval of CPAT 13-001, the Comprehensive Plan Text Amendment. All in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. Yearsley: I guess with that we have one last motion to make. Rohm: Move we adjourn. Marshall: Second. Yearsley: I have a motion and a second to adjourn. All in favor say aye. Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. Yearsley: We stand adjourned. MEETING ADJOURNED AT 7:56 P.M. (AUDIO RECORDING ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS.) APPROVED _ ~-' -- STEVEN YEARSLEY =CHAT I I ~~3 RMAN DATE APPROVED ATTEST: ^ ~.~ ~ ¢~~~DPUGUSTI r9o3 /~Il~/~, ~ n QO 4 JAYCEE HOLMAN, CI Y CLERK z c~~°4 ZP~~ ~V P S~ a +'9 F, J~ ~C~Nr£8 of tEc 'c 4EFy