Loading...
2013 10-17Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission October 17, 2013 Meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission of October 17, 2013, was called to order at 6:05 p.m. by Chairman Steven Yearsley. Present: Commissioner Steven Yearsley, Commissioner Joe Marshall, Commissioner Scott Freeman, and Commissioner Macy Miller. Members Absent: Commissioner Michael Rohm. Others Present: Holly Binkley, Ted Baird, Sonya Watters, Bill Parsons and Dean Willis. Item 1: Roll-Call Attendance: Roll-call X Scott Freeman 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 start -- open the public hearing or, excuse me, we would like to call to order the regularly scheduled meeting of our Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission for October 17th, 2013. Sorry we are running a little late. We had a little bit of a computer problem. Let's begin with roll call. Item 2: Adoption of the Agenda Yearsley: Thank you. The next thing on the agenda is the adoption of the agenda. At this time we have no modifications to it. Can I get a motion to adopt the agenda? Freeman: Mr. Chair, I move that we adopt the agenda. Miller: Second. 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 October 3, 2013 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 17, 2013 Page 2 of 56 Yearsley: The next thing on the agenda is the Consent Agenda and all we have on that is the approval of the minutes of the October 3rd, 2013, Planning and Zoning Commission. Is there any comments on those or are we all good? If so, I would entertain a motion to approve the Consent . Marshall: So moved. Miller: Second. Yearsley: I have a motion and a second to approve the Consent Agenda. All in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. Yearsley: Before we go any further I would like to explain kind of the process of how we are going to proceed forward. We are going to open each one of these items one at a time. We will begin with the staff report. The staff will describe the project and, then, how it adheres to our Comprehensive Plan and Uniform Development Code with staff recommendations. After that time the applicant we come forward to present their case for approval. The applicant will have up to 15 minutes to do so. After the applicant we will open it up to the public for testimony. There is a sign-up sheet in the back for anyone wishing to testify. Any persons wishing to come forward will be allowed three minutes. If they are here for a larger group they will be given up to ten. After the testimony has been heard the applicant will have an opportunity to respond to the comments if desired for up to ten minutes. After that we will close the public hearing and the Commission will have an opportunity to discuss and deliberate and hopefully make a recommendation to City Council. Item 4: Action Items A. Continued Public Hearing from September 19, 2013: AZ 13-008 Oaks South Subdivision by Coleman Homes, LLC Located South Side of W. McMillan Road Between N. McDermott Road and N. Black Cat Road Request: Annexation of Approximately 103.04 Acres from the RUT Zoning District in Ada County to the R-4 (Medium-Low Density Residential) and R-8 (Medium Density Residential) Zoning Districts B. Continued Public Hearing from September 19, 2013: RZ 13-008 Oaks North and Oaks South by Coleman Homes, LLC Located South Side of W. McMillan Road Between N. McDermott Road and N. Black Cat Road (Oaks South) and North Side of W. McMillan Road Between N. McDermott Road and N. Black Cat Road (Oaks North) Request: Rezone Approximately 33.08 Acres from the R-8 (Medium Density Residential) and R-15 (Medium-High Density Residential) Zoning Districts to the R-4 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 17, 2013 Page 3 of 56 (Medium-Low Density Residential)(1.77 Acres), R-8 (Medium Density Residential) (7.43 Acres), R-15 (Medium-High Density Residential) (18.34 Acres) and L-O (Limited Office) (5.54 Acres) Zoning Districts for Oaks South Subdivision AND Rezone Approximately 298.33 Acres from R-4, R-8 and R-15 Zoning Districts to the R-4 (160.06 Acres), R-8 (104.56 Acres), R-15 (33.71 Acres) Zoning Districts for Oaks North Subdivision C. Continued Public Hearing from September 19, 2013: PP 13-013 Oaks South Subdivision by Coleman Homes, LLC Located South Side of W. McMillan Road Between N. McDermott Road and N. Black Cat Road Request: Preliminary Plat Approval of 310 Single Family Lots, One (1)Multi-Family Lot, Six (6) Office Lots, One (1) Park Lot, One (1) Other Lot and 33 Common Lots on Approximately 135.93 Acres in a Proposed R-4, R-8, R-15 and L-O Zoning Districts D. Continued Public Hearing from September 19, 2013: PP 13-014 Oaks North Subdivision by Coleman Homes, LLC Located North Side of W. McMillan Road Between N. McDermott Road and N. Black Cat Road Request: Preliminary Plat Approval of 653 Single Family Lots, Three (3) Multi-Family Lots, 40 Common Lots and Two (2) Other Lots on Approximately 252.12 Acres in a Proposed R-4, R-8 and R-15 Zoning Districts `~(earsley: So, with that I would like to open the continued public hearing from September 9, 2013, of AZ 13-008, RZ 13-008, PP 13-003 -- or 013 and PP 13-014, the Oaks North and South Subdivision by Coleman Homes. Can we start with the staff report. Parsons: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. We are up and running again, so hopefully we can get to this presentation tonight and show all those pretty pictures for the folks in the audience here this evening. Certainly this -- as you mentioned earlier, this project has been continued from the September 17th hearing. The primary reason for the continuation was staff was waiting on ACHD's comments from the report. Given the size and the complexity of this project we wanted to make sure before we brought something forth that we had their comments. I would mention to you that we just received their draft comments this afternoon, so I don't have a lot to report, other than they have done their analysis, everything that's before you tonight shouldn't change based on their findings of the traffic study or the road layout that we are proposing this evening as well. Some history on this site. This property -- a portion of this property was annexed into the city in 2008. At that time it was called The Oaks project and it was zoned R-4, R-8 and R-15. The primary reason for the annexation was so that the applicant could develop a 30 acre subdivision here on the southeast -- or the southwest corner of Black Cat and McMillan Road. At the time of annexation they came forth with a concept plan that showed how the remaining acreage would Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 17, 2013 Page 4 of 56 develop. It included a mix of alley loaded products, single family homes, townhomes, multi-family. So, it was geared towards a mixed use residential project. Now that we have specific development planned the applicant is coming before you this evening to talk about what he plans on doing moving forward. Primarily the area is rural in nature. I mean a lot of it is agriculture. We do have several large subdivisions to the east that are zoned and planned to move forward in the future. One of those being Bainbridge, which you acted on in July of this year, and, then, also we have Volterra North to the east and as I mentioned to you, Coleman Homes, the applicant this evening, is currently developing this 30 acre subdivision in the southwest corner of Black Cat and McMillan. The remaining acreage in the vicinity is all RUT in Ada County and the aerial here does depict that. Here is the Comp Plan for the property overall. What I will try to do tonight is give you an overview and, then, breakdown each project specific to their zoning, their acreage, their lot sizes. I will start with The Oaks South first and, then, progress through Oaks North and at that point we will let the applicant get up. So, right now, if you could see here, the Comp Plan, I have designated all the parcels that are before you this evening proposed for platting and annexation and rezone on approximately 380 acres or so, plus or minus. The Comp Plan does designate a majority of it as medium density residential, so we are anticipating densities between three to eight units to the acre. If you see here it's hard to tell with the fire station note on here and the two future park lots, but there is a small office node here at the half mile on McMillan Road that the applicant has requested to shift over in this area. Not move the designation, but allow the zoning to flex over here at the quarter mile to allow for their plat design and I will go into that more in detail once I get to the plat design. As you can see here we do have a parks designation on the south portion and we also have a future parks designation on the north portion. I would point out to Commission that these are meant to flow. I mean they are set on a section within our area of impact and, then, as development comes in they will get the opportunity to work with the developer and coordinate the dedication and have the parks involved. We certainly get the applicant to the table and see where it's most feasible to place these and we will get into that as we get into the North discussion as well. So, moving forward, as I mentioned to you, I will start off with the Oaks South presentation first and, then, again, go up to the Oaks North. So, right now the applicant -- this is the Oaks South preliminary plat. The applicant is proposing 310 single family home lots, one multi-family lot, six office lots and 33 common lots and one other lot on approximately 135 acres of land. As I mentioned to you they are annexing a portion of it. If I can go back here. These two parcels here are currently not annexed into the city and with their request this evening these will come in and adjoin to this parcel here moving forward. And, then, a small portion of it is because this portion is already annexed and zoned into the city, the applicant is rezoning a portion of this property to fit with the development context of the plat here before you this evening. The applicant is proposing nine development phases and they are highlighted here. One of my comments to the applicant was get a lot of that line work off the plat, so that the Commission and the community here can see what's actually proposed out there as far as a phasing plan. So, you can see a majority of the phasing will come in, start at McMillan, go on the east and, then, optimally end up over here along the west boundary along McDermott Road here. Open space for the site consists of approximately 20 acres. Most of it would be a pathway along this way here. Multiple ped connections. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 17, 2013 Page 5 of 56 The applicant is also proposing a pool facility, covered picnic area as well. One thing want to touch on is the road connectivity within the development. The applicant -- or ACHD has a master street map that we will operate from. Per that document the applicant is required to provide anorth-south collector road system. The applicant is doing that consistent with that plan. It just starts at the half mile, comes into the development and, then, terminates at the south boundary for future extension and future connectivity. With the development of the Oak Creek Subdivision there was two stub streets or one's under construction, but one is stubbed to the east that will be extended with this development and, then, the applicant is also proposing basically a bypass collector system here that cuts through the office lots along the multi-family and ultimately terminates to McDermott Road. The primary reason for this collector system is if you're -- some of you are aware, there is Highway 60 -- Highway 16 that's planned in this area and that study has been completed and ITD envisions a future overpass in this area to go over and the existing McDermott Road in the future and so the applicant is dedicating afew -- one of the -- the lot here that you see on the future park site, they are dedicating that to ITD or that staff recommendation they are dedicating that right of way, so that ITD has the right of way for that overpass in the future and the applicant is in agreement with that. I'd also mention to you that the applicant is also proposing to dedicate a well lot to the city, which is situated here on the multi-family and also as part of this development, because the applicant is outside of the city sewer shed area, the master planned area for sewer in this area, they are required to construct an interim lift station or I guess a regional lift station to serve not only this development, but surrounding properties moving forward. They are currently working with our Public Works Department on the requirements and sizing of that facility, so details aren't ironed out yet, but they are in close communication and contact with Public Works Department. Here is the pretty picture for the site. As I mentioned to you there is a park site. It's approximately six acres that will be dedicated toward Western Ada Rec District, not a city park. From the Parks Department standpoint that suffices for'the park designation that I showed you earlier on the Comp Plan for the south portion of the site. One of the office lots will be a future home to a fire station consistent with the designation on the Comp Plan that you saw that showed that and, then, here are the five additional office lots that will basically mirror the collector road system and be on the fringe of this development, not only to provide services for this development, but also -- I think that's a primary purpose is to get some kind of neighborhood services out there when -- when we are talking almost a thousand homes in the area you need to provide something like that. As I mentioned to you, the Comp Plan did designate that in this general location, but as part of our staff analysis we were in favor of having that shift over here to not align a lot into develop this residential portion, but it just makes sense they get it out of the fringe, outside of the -- internal to the neighborhood, even though getting some of that connectivity it makes sense to have that office park up against the amenity of the public park and, then, allow some of those uses to -- a daycare or a doctor's office or some kind of professional service that serves the multi-family. So, in our opinion it makes sense to float it over here in this area. Now, again, as I mentioned there is over 20 acres of open space. The primary amenity I think for this development is the ten foot multi-use pathway along the Five Mile Creek area. The developer is working with our Public Works Department, as he did in 2008 he is proposing to basically reclaim Five Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 17, 2013 Page 6 of 56 Mile area and leave it open and improve it as a pedestrian amenity consistent with our pathways plan. Because of some of the larger block lengths within the subdivision they fall primarily within the 750 foot range and one thousand foot range, the applicant has provided additional ped connections to break up those block lengths as well. The amenity here for -- to be developed with phase one would be a pool, covered picnic area, tot lot. This, again, as I mentioned to you would be installed with phase one of the development and it's conditioned to do so. And, then, here are the stub streets that mentioned. There is the collector street and, then, the two extensions of the roadway into the development. I would also mention to you the applicant is providing the 25 foot landscape buffers along McMillan. They are actually proposing a greater width than 25 feet. We have conditioned to do that. One thing that I mentioned in the staff report was there is an existing residence that is to remain as part of this development and it's located right off the entrance in from McMillan Road here. The applicant has provided their 25 foot common lot in front of that. A condition in the staff report does require that the home take access from the local street here, not McMillan Road moving forward. The developer does -- I believe he owns the home there, so he can control that moving forward. It's not a separate homeowner or land owner, it's involved with the application. And the one other thing that we requested is the concept plan that you see here before you doesn't really depict future access points to the commercial lots, so we'd like the applicant to explain tonight -- try to just clarify whether they intend on having curb cuts for each office lot or is it their intention to have cross-access within the development or at least shared between the office lots. And, then, also the fire station lot -- in the preliminary plat they showed an access to McMillan Road and an access to the collector street, so moving forward the applicant will have to request Council to grant that waiver if the fire department does develop this fire station lot moving forward. But overall generally all lots comport to the UDC. The open space is in excess of what UDC requirements were -- approximately at 15 percent here. So, the applicant does comply with the open space and the site amenity requirements and as I mentioned to you a lot of this will be R-8 and, then, transition to larger lots, which it's zoned for. Overall density with this subdivision is 2.95 acres -- dwelling units to the acre, which is slightly under the medium density residential designation, but if you look at what's surrounding the property, given that it's pretty rural in nature, staff finds that it is consistent, not only with the existing subdivision, but also the surrounding properties. So, if I move north here, again, this is the Oak North. The applicant is, again, requesting no annexation with this plat. It's, basically, a rezone and a preliminary plat. Again, the rezone is only requested so that the zoning can align with the proposed plat before you this evening. This plat consists of 653 residential lots. We are looking at three multi-family lots, one mini storage lot and 40 common lots and one other lot and, really, the one other lot, again, as I mentioned to you on the south is located in this area where McDermott Road overpass will be extended in the future. Again the applicant has set aside ITD right of way or future right of way preservation for that overpass in the future. As I mentioned to you earlier, staff is requiring that they deed it to ITD once it's platted or if they want to do it sooner we are open to that as well, as long as it's understood that that needs preserved for future extension. As I mentioned to you here the applicant is proposing 22 development phases with this portion of the plat. There is a collector street network would start at the half mile and transverse through the development, stubbing to the Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 17, 2013 Page 7 of 56 north. There is also an east-west segment that comes over and stubs to the Ada County property here to the east. In my staff report we have conditioned in working with the developer to the east the applicant has agreed to shift this road to the north per those discussions and one of our recommendations is prior to going to City Council we'd like to see how that road could be shifted and see if it would work with plans to develop perhaps with this portion to the east. All of the lots do comport to the R-8, R-4 and R-15 dimensional standards as I mentioned. Primary open space for this -- again, going back to block length, there are a few blocks in here that need to be corrected in accordance with the staff report. One of those -- one of those recommendations is that the applicant would provide a street connection through here and, then, two additional ped connections to break up the block lengths so that they are consistent with the UDC standards. The applicant has submitted at least conditions, they are in agreement with those changes and that would -- those changes would be reflected once they got up to City Council. Prior to City Council staff would review that. The one other item that have circled here is in our staff report and per the recommendations of the parks department we have -- they had requested that the applicant dedicate a seven acre neighborhood park and as I showed you earlier, there is an asterisk in this general location and it is meant to float. So, we have the Parks Department here to answer any questions you may have as far as what they are wanting -- what they are expecting to see here moving forward. In our discussions with the applicant and the property owner to the south here they did talk about working together and both co-donating, if you will, working together and partnering with the city and donating some acreage in this general vicinity. Those things still need to be worked out. I will let the applicant kind of explain their position on this as they get up and provide their testimony. Here is the landscape plan that the applicant is proposing. We are looking at approximately 13 percent open space with this plat. Most of it is eight foot parkways along the internal streets. We have -- the 25 foot landscape buffers are actually wider buffers along McMillan Road, as mentioned earlier. Twenty foot landscape buffers are provided along the -- all of the collector streets in accordance with the UDC. Again, a majority of those are wider than the 20 foot minimum. Staff has conditioned the applicant to comply with the width that they have shown and that are before you this evening. The applicant is providing actually a 50 foot wide landscape buffer here along this segment of McDermott Road. We have multiple pathway connections in here. The pathways master plan shows a ten foot pathway along this segment of the collector road and will stub to the north boundary and, then, it will also come in and run along the south boundary of the east-west collector roadway. Ultimately running to this property and connecting up with Volterra to the south -- or to the east. Excuse me. Those pathways are consistent with the city's master pathways plan. Probably the gem of this develop is the central park. It's approximately 5.71 acres. Again, it will have a pool facility. The tot lot, the covered picnic shelters, the restroom facilities to serve the development. One thing that I would bring to your attention is based on staff's calculation we could only find that the plat complied with eight amenities for the development. Per the size of this project the applicant needs to provide 12 amenities in accord with the ordinance. Our recommendation is that they clarify tonight at the public hearing what the four additional amenities will be moving forward. As I mentioned to you we have amulti-family lot here and two multi-family lots located in this general vicinity. Densities are anywhere Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 17, 2013 Page•8 of 56 between 12 and 13 units to the acre. Ultimately they will have to come back and go through a conditional use process to determine the density, but as a recommended provision of the DA we have tied them to a density requirement of between eight and 15 units to the acre and that also applies to The Oaks South project. We want to make sure we get something on that, not just come back in with more single family and more low density development in that area. So, if you're going to propose something let's get a density that's appropriate to the zoning that you're requesting. Here are the home elevations that the applicant is proposing. It's pretty typical to what you're seeing out there as far as the Coleman Homes plans out there. It is consistent with The Oak Creek Subdivision, the 230 acre subdivision that's currently platted and being -- has homes in it. Staff is amenable to these elevations. We have recommended that they -- the future homes within that subdivision comply with those requirements. The applicant did not provide any home -- or any office elevations or multi-family development elevations, but as you're aware they will have to come back, go through a CZC or design review and go through conditional use approval for the multi-family. So, at that point we can address those design concepts and make sure it's consistent with the UDC moving forward. Staff did not receive -- or, actually, late this afternoon I did receive written testimony from Scott Noryuki on this application. He is the applicant's representative for the property to the east. As I mentioned there is approximately 40 or 60 acres here to the east. They want to make sure that their interests are protected tonight and they -- they have agreed to working with Coleman on dedication of a park when they come in with annexation. They want to insure that the road shifts up as previously discussed and as conditioned in the staff report and, then, they want -- they made mention of the lift station and want to make sure that they have the ability to up grade that in the future to serve other properties they own -- not in this area, but in the vicinity of The Oaks South project. Staff has received written testimony from the applicant and, again, they are in general agreement with the conditions of approval. I think you're aware -- you got a memo earlier from Bruce Freckleton from our land development department. He's worked with the applicant on some revised language to upgrade -- updating the staff report. And so I will leave it at that. What he said in the memo is what we will change the conditions to is basically Public Works condition. I would mention to you that we do have to modify one DA provision -- I'm sorry, I'm getting my projects confused. We will get to that later. But we are amenable to those changes. The applicant wants to discuss a couple items with you. One has to do with the mini storage lot. One of our recommended -- we wanted to make it clear to the applicant that mini storage is just not an out right permitted use in the R-15 zone. Under the UDC it's an accessory use. So, it's not meant to run -- or be operated as a commercial storage building or storage facility. The intent behind that is really for it to be an accessory to the residential development that they are proposing this evening. How they set that up is to be determined. We don't know, but we -- if it's their intent to have it operate other than an accessory use to the -- to the multi-family or the residential development, then, they will have to come back with a Comp Plan change and a rezone and if they want to have a stand-alone business there. Right now we have conditioned it through the DA that they limit it to accessory use for the purpose of those residential homes, consistent with the UDC. So, I know they want to discuss that a little bit further with you. The other item that I failed to mention to you is dealing with the block length issue with Oak South. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 17, 2013 Page 9 of 56 One of our recommended conditions was that they provide a mid block connection here to break up the block length in this vicinity. The applicant contends this open space suffices that requirement for adequately breaking up the block length. We respectfully disagree. We think if you measure from this point into this development it still exceeds that requirement in the UDC and we are still standing with our recommendation for a connection there. It seemed to make a nice transition into that development as well. Other than that I think everything is pretty good. As I mentioned to you, ACHD had no issues with the plat layout or the internal street connectivity. I know as the applicant moves through the project and depending on phasing and the number of homes constructed, there will be requirements -- additional road requirements to McMillan, Black Cat, the intersection will default to ACHD on that. So, really, it's up to you guys to determine whether or not you feel comfortable recommending -- making a recommendation onto City Council without having adequate time to review ACHD comments. Again, I will turn it over to the applicant and I will stand for any questions you may have. Yearsley: Are there any questions? With that would the applicant like to come forward? McKay: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. Becky McKay. Engineering Solutions. 1029 North Rosario, Meridian. I'm here representing Coleman Homes on this particular application. I think Bill is loading up the PowerPoint. I will go ahead -- I will go ahead and begin. As Bill indicated, this particular project came through -- or a large portion of it came through in 2008 for annexation and rezone. It had a concept plan on it and, then, we had a small preliminary plat that was about 131 single family residential lots located over in the southwest corner of Black Cat and McMillan. The reason that we broke the project up at that time was the -- everything to the quarter mile west of Black Cat sewered into the Black Cat trunk and, then, everything beyond that quarter mile mark had to go to either a regional lift station at Can-Ada or an interim lift station at McDermott. So, we -- we are in our third phase of Oak Creek. It is under construction now and the plat is moving forward for signature, trying to get recorded as -- before the end of the year. So, obviously, we have to start planning for the facilities that will be required to serve the remainder of this property and get moving on our phase one and two. What's before you right now is an overall plan of the property. Initially when it came through in 2008 there was about 99 acres right in the middle of this that was not apart. Between 2008 and here just about two years ago my client acquired that 99 acres, so that allowed us to have a continuation of this particular project. The next phases of the Oaks development will begin on the south side of McMillan and they will be a logical continuation of the Oak Creek development. Let's see. Hold on. In the project we have approximately 43 plus acres of open space throughout the entire project. We have two miles of ten to 14 foot multi-use pathways and 5.5 miles of five foot pathways and the 5.5 doesn't include the detached sidewalks that are adjacent to the roadways. We will have two private central parks with swimming pool facilities, tot lots, picnic areas. We have, in addition to that, the Western Ada Recreation District, which will be public. The client will be donating 5.69 acres to the district and, then, they will be putting it in their long range planning and their budget. We have done some site planning based on another site that the -- the district owns and Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 17, 2013 Page 10 of 56 so we are working with them as far as a time table for improvements and they are excited about this particular project. We will have park benches throughout the project as you walk along the pathways in the multi-use pathways with fitness trail amenities, bocce ball courts. Bill indicated -- Bill indicated that -- that we are short I believe in the north section approximately four amenities. Obviously, when the final plats come in with their landscape plans that show the specific design in each of our tot lots we will meet the requirements of the ordinance. It was just kind of oversight on the part of the landscape architect. What you're looking at right now is the north portion of the project and the overall project is 388 acres and the north section consists of I think approximately 252 acres. We have been working with ITD and Ada County Highway District for two years. Obviously, we -- we had to wait to find out what that exact alignment of the Highway 16 was going to be, because there were three possible routes that they were looking at. Secondly, how they would treat the existing arterials, because it is going to be a limited access expressway with interchanges every two miles and so some of the section line roads, obviously, as going to have to be on overpasses over the top of Highway 16. So, one of the things that -- that was determined by ITD with their EIS that was approved by the feds, is Highway 16 will run parallel with McDermott to the west. It will be about a 300 foot right of way and that will be an expressway. It is anticipated that McMillan will go over the top, will be an overpass over Highway 16 and the reason being is it's cheaper to take three to five lanes over than to take the future -- what is it, six or eight lanes that they -- they are trying to build out -- think it's an 82 foot section that they are building in the first phase. So, one of the things that we needed to make sure was obviously -- that whatever uses we put would not be adversely impacted when this overpass happens, because it could happen in five years, ten years, 20 years. Obviously, when -- when things change and you have got houses below an overpass you have some very upset people. So, we didn't want to put any dwelling units -- even the multi-family dwelling units adjacent to that overpass. So, the -- one of the things that -- that I came up with was the neighborhood mini storage facility. That would be located right there at the intersection. That would join the north side of that future overpass. We -- when we did Bridgetower Subdivision, in addition to that we did Ten Mile Mini Storage for the same client next to the Meridian sewer wastewater treatment plant there on the west side of Ten Mile. Bridgetower filled up that mini storage facility, because just like Bridgetower, the covenants will not allow recreational vehicles to be parked on the lots in front or in the driveways and so, obviously, those people need places to put their RVs to store, you know, whatever it may be. Bill, are you messing with that? Parsons: I am. McKay: I didn't -- I wasn't sure it was me. So, the mini storage -- it's not going to be owned by the HOA. You know, it -- like at Bridgetower Ten Mile mini storage it stayed in the ownership of the family, put they put it under Ten Mile mini storage, LLC. You know, if there are -- if there are some people in an adjoining subdivision that want to park their RV and pay, I mean it would be, you know, your standard mini storage where, you know, it's enclosed, it's landscaped, it's buffered, you know, they have covered, they have uncovered, they have small units, large units -- I mean it varies. It's small in Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 17, 2013 Page 11 of 56 size, so it will be -- we use the same layout and site plan that I used on Ten Mile mini storage. The other project that -- that we did that had mini storage was Ironwood Subdivision at Cloverdale and I-84. That is the Cloverdale mini storage and that's what you see when you drive down Interstate 84 right there at the Cloverdale overpass, for the very same reason. An overpass and a mini storage was a good buffer for the single family residential. Along the McDermott corridor one of the things that's going to happen is McDermott will terminate with Highway 16 and the overpass, McDermott Road has to have what they call a bypass. So, McDermott Road in our project we created a bypass, so that those residents that live both north and south of McMillan will be able to come through our development on a collector network and bypass around that overpass and what happens is McDermott cul-de-sacs up here, comes down, cul- de-sacs down there. So, it's I think now a section line designated as a future principal arterial, that's going to change when this second phase of Highway 16 extension takes place. The other transitional use that we had next to Highway 16 is amulti-family area. We located that there. That could be attached dwellings, it could be a combination of townhomes, more apartments. We kept it under that R-15 designation, so, obviously, you know, that's -- that's going to be a limitation. But that would create a transition from Highway 16 to the single family. We have an outparcel that's located right here on the Bentley property. I have two local street stubs. I did look at the configuration of their property. What makes the most sense is a street network that comes through and loops out. So, then, that would, one, take them off -- off that McDermott corridor and allow them access to utilities and public streets internally within us. I do have a small loop that would abut the old McDermott Road and Highway 16. We provided a 60 foot corridor there, a landscaped area that we can berm and put a lot of vegetation for buffering. The key challenge on this particular property was the collector system. We ended up with a half mile collector as designated on the master street map and within your Comprehensive Plan, your transportation plan, that's included in there. This collector is what we call a continuous collector. I have -- it goes all the way through the project. It will continue on to the north and connect to Highway 20-26, the State Highway, at the half mile mark, which is anticipated at some point in time to be signalized. There was debate about not having an intersection at the half, but, then, ITD had since changed their mind. They also -- the continuous collector will go eastward to our adjoining boundary. This property that adjoins us is now in the site planning plan stage. We have seen some of their concepts. I believe they are still working on it. The key thing, as Bill indicated, is that that collector goes out to the half mile on Black Cat, because that will be a signalized intersection. When I did Volterra Subdivision, which has not been constructed, but I believe they are moving forward on right now -- there is an elementary school that's located north of that collector that would warrant that signal and, then, Volterra was a fairly large development. So, this will connect to a signal here. We will end up installing the signal at the half mile when we need that warrant. We submitted our traffic study to ACHD back in June. They kind of had quite a heavy workload. They have been behind in trying to review it. They needed more information, just because of the sheer size and complexity of this project and the fact that you have to look at it from two different perspectives. The fact that you have McDermott right now that's utilized as a section line arterial, but eventually at build out we anticipate McDermott basically goes away. So, we have to, you know, assign our Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 17, 2013 Page 12 of 56 trips. At build out this will generate about 13,400 vehicle trips per day. Oops. Got carried away there. Sorry. We did submit a pathway plan. Our multi-use pathways go clear through the project, follow the collectors and you exit. If they continue on I also did multi -- multi-use pathways in Volterra, so they will connect to their collector system, which is a continuous collector and exits over at Ten Mile and connects to McMillan and that will go over the Heroes Park. So, that will complete that chain of pathways. We were -- we were really diligent in making sure that we had good pedestrian connections, so intermittent within the blocks we have ped paths, we have pocket parks, we also have stubbed to adjoining properties. I have a pathway that will run through our primary open space and go this direction. That's a five foot pathway. So, we felt that it was important to link the multi-family developments and to link the single family with the adjoining property. The south portion, our buffer next to McDermott we have a multi- family lot. We have a lift station, a well, and, then, the Western Ada Recreation District parcel. On your comp plan it showed office lots here. It made more sense to shift those to the west. Reason being is we worked with the fire department to establish a future fire station and I wanted that as a buffer. We don't like to put those right next to the single family. This also has a continuous collector that comes out of our signal at the half mile and goes south. One of the things that I think is unique with our project is we took our local streets and as you can see we took some of these local streets down to Five Mile Creek. So, you will have more multi-use pathway. It will be visible, open, safe illuminated and, then, this will also provide parking on street on the south side of the roadway, so we don't have people calling in saying, hey, you know, people are parking and walking and they are parked in my driveway. So, we like that design and we felt that -- that it was superior to everything else. We will be building our main pool facility with tot lot, picnic area, with the first phase. We will be connecting stub streets. I believe we have a total of ten stub streets within the project. Do you have any questions? Yearsley: Are there any questions of the applicant? Freeman: Not at this time. Marshall: Mr. Chair? Yearsley: Commissioner Marshall. Marshall: Just real quick. When you say the other four amenities are going to be essentially tot lots or -- McKay: We have -- Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Marshall, we have bocce ball courts, we have tot lots, we have park benches, we have trail signs, we have pathways, pools, gazebos, picnic shelters, so, you know, it will be a combination of multiple amenities. This is a ten year project. The demand of the market as far as amenities may change between phase one and phase eight. So, we may -- you know, something -- you know, maybe tennis courts come back in, you know. We will definitely meet all the standards for the required amenities and with the amount of open space we exceed the ten Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 17, 2013 Page 13 of 56 percent and we feel that -- that we are supplying plenty of amenities to support a development of this magnitude. Thank you. Marshall: Thank you. Yearsley: Any other questions? Miller: Mr. Chairman? Yearsley: Commissioner Miller. Or I mean -- yeah. Sorry. Miller: I just have a question on the storage lot. It sounds like it is kind of a separate commercial sort of indices; is that true? McKay: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Miller, if -- it won't be owned by the homeowners association. You see some multi-family -- or storage facilities that are -- that are under the HOA. You can see one that's like at Emerald, it's just kind of an open lot. They have townhomes and they have RVs in there. This would be more along the line as far as design like a more standard commercial type mini storage, but we believe it is accessory to this use, because it's going to supply a need, since the covenants will not allow that you park -- you know, allow you to park your motor home, your boat, your jet skies, snowmobiles -- that will be convenient, it will be available. And, typically, you know, it's -- it is under a different entity and it's operated -- I guess it operates commercially. They -- they do have to pay to have a unit or to park their RV there. Miller: Okay. McKay: And we will go through design review standards and landscape standards and make sure that it is neighborhood compatible, that it is not -- you know, obviously, we are spending a lot of money making this look awesome with all the open space and we sure don't want something that's a detriment to the marketability of the overall project. Miller: Okay. Yearsley: Any other questions? Thank you. McKay: Thank you. Yearsley: I have two people that are signed up. A Terri Bentley. Would you like to come forward? Okay. And, then, Dale Bentley. All right. Is there anybody else that would like to come forward? With that,. before we close the public hearing, are there any final questions of the applicant before we close the public hearing? Freeman: None for the applicant. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 17, 2013 Page 14 of 56 Yearsley: Okay. With that I would entertain a motion to close the public hearing for AZ 13-008, RZ 13-008, PP 13-013 and PP 13-014. Miller: So moved. Marshall: Second. Yearsley: I have a motion and a second to close the public hearing. All in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. Yearsley: Anybody have questions before we -- Freeman: Mr. Chair, I do. Yearsley: Commissioner Freeman. Freeman: Question for staff. And it's on the topic of this mini storage. You -- you had mentioned in your report that if the mini storage was of one type we are good to go, if it's of the other type there are going to have to be some additional measures that we tackle at a later date or now? I'd just like you to clarify, since it does seem like it's going to be of the commercial type not restricted to the subdivision. Could you explain to us again what we are going to have to do to allow this -- at this time or in the future? Parsons: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Freeman, the applicant has always indicated it would be an accessory use to the development and so as far our definition in the UDC, accessory use is subordinate to the primary use, which in this case is the residential development. Our communication to them would be -- it's to serve the development. If you want it to serve that development, then, it's an accessory. If you want folks from Bainbridge or cross two miles down the road to come and rent a storage unit, well, that's a stand alone commercial business. That's not accessory to this development. And, then, that would require, as I stated earlier, a Comp Plan change to a commercial designation or industrial designation and a rezone and at that point they could -- either way I think it would work for them, stand alone or -- but the integrity of this is -- the intent -- at least even the DA provision is meant that it's to serve this development, not from a family home two miles away. Freeman: Yeah. I understand that. And my -- my dilemma in making the decision is -- you know, overall I like this development. It's well planned, very well thought out, it looks like it's going to be a quality development. It's a large development, so we want to do it right, and I don't want this particular little hiccup here, which I consider it to be the linchpin, having to say, hey, come back to the drawing table. So, I'm wondering if at this point -- maybe we have to ask legal -- since it's clear the way that the applicant intends to use this is not what you're describing, how do -- can we separate this out? How can we do this to get the project moving forward with -- with that part still having some Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 17, 2013 Page 15 of 56 issues? And in saying that -- don't forget my question, but in saying that I realize there is no guarantee that we can get this thing rezoned as the storage that's intended to be used here. We just -- so, I'm kind of stuck on what we do about that, because I -- I don't want to cross the UDC and I won't. So -- I don't know if that's a question for you or for legal, if we can separate out this portion somehow in a motion -- that's my question. And we don't have to sit on that right now, we can come back to it, but those are my -- those are my thoughts right now and my concern. Parsons: Mr. Chair, Commissioner Freeman, I think there is -- certainly an important aspect of this facility is the timing of it. Right now we have a condition in the development agreement it's an accessory use for this development. This is phase 22, which is the last phase of the development. We still don't have a lot of answers as to what was going to happen when Highway 16 gets built and what other uses will develop along that road segment. The city may come back in ten years and do different land use adjacent to that roadway. The applicant's representative said he's happy to stand with the recommendation condition in the DA for this point to move it along and, then, if -- if they want to do something different certainly they can amend the DA -- Freeman: Which they may have to do, but -- Parsons: They would have to come back and amend the DA and go through the process. Freeman: Okay. No, that's a great answer. I like that answer. Thank you. Somebody else can take the floor. Yearsley: Any other questions? Comments? I guess I'm going to go next, I guess, with this. With Scott Noryuki's comments about the access on that collector off onto -- to the east there, I don't know if -- I think we may want to -- my thinking is maybe to continue this to allow these two to work together to come up with a solution prior to Council, because I think it's our decision and our job to make sure that these items are -- are thoroughly looked at prior to putting that decision onto the Council. Given that this is such a big development and there is enough developments wanting to come around, we need to make sure that it's done correctly and, then, there is also the issue of the park issue as well and what are we going to do about the park. So, in my opinion I would almost recommend a continuance to allow them to work together for that purpose. Marshall: Mr. Chair, I would like a little clarification as to how far north are we talking moving that collector. I mean how far off are we. I mean -- Yearsley: You can -- you can actually see on the drawing where that entrance is at. Marshall: Moving it clear up to the north there. You have lost me now. Parsons: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, Commissioner Marshall, you can -- this tells a story. I mean right now this is where the collector aligns from Volterra, Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 17, 2013 Page 16 of 56 which gives us -- here is the property that we are talking about to the east. Currently, the applicant's collector road is in this general vicinity where my cursor is. We are talking about a one lot shift to the north. So, we are talking 60 feet, maybe 70 -- 50 to 80 feet in that range. I don't know exactly the lot dimension there, but that way we would get that in general alignment. That would give this owner to the east ample opportunity to shift the road up along here and dive back into the applicant's development. Marshall: And everybody would be happy with that and I don't see a significant issue there, to be honest, to move that up. They can do that. One lot up. I do agree, though, that there is an issue with the park, as well as -- well, I like the work around on the -- on the storage facility, because as it is -- and I am absolutely in keeping with that as an accessory use to the subdivision and that's all -- that's -- it's not a commercial use. It has to be zoned as such the minute you open it up to anyone outside of the subdivision. would look for a little help and anybody's thoughts on -- on the park issue. This was -- there was designated a -- we have identified -- the parks commission has identified this area to try to have a city park in this area and I think the developer is trying to say, well, look, we are sending it over to Western Ada -- Ada County, because they are going to put in a swim facility and that's great. Are we -- are we arguing over parks space -- mean is that taken into account when we say we want a city park? I -- Freeman: Is the issue what kind of park it's going to be or -- Yearsley: I believe -- it's my understanding if you look at the Comp Plan that there was supposed to be two parks. Freeman: Yes. Yearsley: The Western Ada Recreation District satisfies the one. The city wants a second park, I believe, is my understanding. Marshall: And that was a part of the original development agreement, wasn't it? No, that was not. And we are coming in after the fact asking for it. And they are willing to put in a private park and take care of it themselves, but nobody else outside of the subdivision can use it. Okay. Freeman: I guess I'm not as clear on what the park issue is as you and I hear Commissioner Yearsley's concern about the connection through the property to the east. I'm torn on that. You know, as long as the two property owners can work together with staff to -- or the developers can work together with staff to come up with that connection point, that's great, but there is no guarantee that that's going to happen as cleanly as we hope that it will. Yearsley: Right. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 17, 2013 Page 17 of 56 Freeman: So, do we need to make sure we have that answered before we were to move this forward to City Council? I'm torn on that. I see your concern. I hate to send something on that's half baked and not thoroughly thought through on our behalf. Yearsley: And that was kind of my thought, as well as making sure that we do our due diligence before we send it onto City Council. Miller: Mr. Chair? Yearsley: Commissioner Miller. Miller: I have got a question for staff, actually. In your staff report you had mentioned that the development to the south of that access point was talking about donating some land to that park. Is that in the plan already? Parsons: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Miller, during pre-apps -- during discussions with this applicant and that landowner -- or future landowner, yes, we talked about them partnering together and the applicant even spoke with our Parks Department on -- on what they were looking for. As I said, I don't disagree with the applicant, they do have an abundance amount of open space with the subdivision. It's laid out very nice. The pedestrian connectivity is there. The amenities are nice. But if you have to look at the whole area -- I mean when we are talking a city park, we are looking at probably two to three thousand lots out there. We have Bainbridge with 500 and some odd lots. We have this, which is close to 1,000 lots. Bainbridge did give up a seven acre park to the city, has donated to the city. We have Volterra, which is 500 lots and we are looking at quite a few number of lots here that folks out there could benefit from another neighborhood park out there. We have a Comp Plan, yes, it can designate. Do we have other properties out there that we could ask developers to donate that property? Certainly we do. It's pretty undeveloped at this point. But if we have two willing parties -- at least a portion. If this applicant is willing to dedicate a portion and we have someone to the south that's willing to work with us, staff feels it appropriate to see if -- if they are willing to come to the table and offer something up to the city. Freeman: And this project has already providing one park. Yearsley: Oh, absolutely. Freeman: I know that it's absolutely this project's responsibility to provide the second, although it's probably one of the larger ones that we are aware of now. Maybe that's appropriate. Personally, I'm happy with the fact that they are providing at least the one park and that to me is not one of my major concerns. Marshall: It looks like they have got the Ada County park and, then, the private park. So, I'm counting the two. Freeman: Okay. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 17, 2013 Page 18 of 56 Marshall: I mean one's private, but the other one is a public. Freeman: Yeah. Okay. True. They have the amenities. They have the open space. It works well. I'm still thinking about the connector issue. I'm not ready to make a decision on that quite yet. I do have a question of staff, Mr. Chair. Yearsley: Commissioner Freeman. Freeman: Well, maybe two questions. First of all, Bill, regarding this connector, I mean you're aware that there is still some alignment that needs to go on there. You're aware of that in your staff report. Did you provide a condition in here covering that particular -- could you point out to me what that is? Because maybe that will satisfy me. Parsons: Mr. Chairman, Commission Freeman, the way the condition is written is that they'd shift that street to the north in general alignment with the Volterra collector street prior to City Council. We will -- Freeman: Prior to City Council. So, you have a condition that they shift it to the north. So, we actually have a solution in our hands, as long as the applicant agrees with the staff report, which I heard that they do as far as this goes. Parsons: And let me -- excuse me. Let me elaborate a little bit further. We actually want multiple changes to the plat before City Council. We want the road network. We want the additional pathway connections. We want this road to shift. And we also recommend that they depict a portion of that public park in the northeast quadrant. So, there is a lot of -- it's more than just modifying the plat to shift the road. We have multiple conditions requiring the plat change prior to City Council. So, the park is an issue. It's something you need to -- Freeman: Which are fine, as long as the applicant is amenable to those conditions, which I'm hearing that they are, except for perhaps the mini storage lot. Parsons: And the park. Freeman: And the park. Yearsley: Are they not also wanting the -- to strike commission -- or strike condition 1.3.1A requiring that condition through Block 4? Parsons: Mr. Chairman, yes, that would be for Oak South, though. This is -- Yearsley: Okay. Parsons: -- primarily for Oaks North at this point. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 17, 2013 Page 19 of 56 Freeman: Was that the DA -- you mentioned also -- I'm sorry, Mr. Chair. Bill, you mentioned the DA modification also that needed to be made. Have we already talked about that? Parsons The DA provision refers to the park. Freeman: Thank you. The pieces are coming together slowly. Parsons: And we also have that plat condition that references the park. Freeman: Okay. Parsons: And when that change is to occur. Freeman: Okay. Mr. Chair? Yearsley: Commissioner Freeman. Freeman: I'm actually -- I'm comfortable at this point recommending approval per staffs recommendation per the staff report. That will give the applicant time to work out the issues with the proposed storage facility and Iguess I -- I am in agreement with staff on the -- on the park as well and maybe some of the other commissioners disagree with me on that, but I would be comfortable making a motion to recommend approval according to staff's recommendations. Yearsley: Okay. Freeman: I think it covers the collector street as well. Yearsley: Any other comment? Miller: Mr. Chair? Freeman: I'm sure Commissioner Marshall has one, but -- Yearsley: Commissioner Miller. Miller: You know, I tend to agree with Commissioner Freeman. I like the layout a lot. It works really well. I tend to agree on the park issue, just because this is such a big development they should at least start that piece. I'm not sure how to do that, but guess I am not a designer at this point on this project, but -- but I do feel like that should be started in this project at least and maybe work through more with the adjacent properties. But I'm also comfortable recommending compliance with the staff report. Yearsley: Thank you. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 17, 2013 Page 20 of 56 Freeman: Commissioner Marshall, I'd love to hear from you before we make a motion. Marshall: I'm really trying to put it all together in my mind. I like the project. Be honest. It's a nice project. Becky did a nice job with it here and it looks pretty good. I -- I do -- I would like them to be able to -- to have thrown in a little for the park, especially if you have got somebody there just to the east willing to put in a bunch for the park and I'd like to see something about it before I go tell City Council, yeah, this is it. I don't want to see -- you know, I don't think they have to go overboard on that, because I think they have a lot of amenities. I think they have a lot of park space and a lot of open space. They do have a private park and a Western Ada County park, which is going to be a swim facility it appears in the future and I think it would be fairly -- I could overlook the fact that, yeah, they can get in the street connection there, as well -- to break up the block length, as well as the pedestrian pathways. I'm sorry, I am for those in breaking up those -- those pathways, as well as on the south plat. I know you're suggesting that you got a park there on the end and that makes it across -- but to me the letter of the ordinance says you got a block this long, you put a pathway in it, you got to break it up somehow and -- because if we go, well, geez, a park on the very end makes that a shorter block, you know, what's next? I think the block length is a block length and it needs to be broken up. So, I'm sticking with the staff report on the pathways and the extra road and they have approved all those. There is -- I have to -- the move north on that collector is only 60 foot, but the more I look at it I think it could be fairly quickly done, to be honest. A few adjustments, you pull -- and, actually, I don't know how long -- that block length is not even close to it. You could bring this up down below -- the block down below it. As you run this -- take this collector towards the north here you're going to have to -- , Freeman: Make some adjustments. Marshall: -- make some adjustments in here. Yes. Freeman: Yeah. Marshall: You can see what I'm pointing at, but -- but -- and that's not going to be too difficult. Freeman: You have the floor. Commissioner Marshall, I have a question for you. It sounds like you're in agreement with what Commission Miller and I have said regarding the park, that we -- we like the conclusion per the staff report, but were you implying that you would go beyond that and continue this, so that we can see exactly how they would intend to comply with that requirement? Is that what you were implying? Marshall: I'm torn on that and that's why I'm sitting on the fence and trying to convince myself one way or the other. Freeman: One of us has got to get off the fence tonight. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 17, 2013 Page 21 of 56 Marshall: Yeah. Well, you have already got two of you I think in agreement, aren't you? Freeman: Largely. Marshall: So -- and that leaves me -- since there is four of us to make adecision -- a lot of issues here, but -- Freeman: Mr. Chair, may I ask another question of staff? Yearsley: Yes. Freeman: Commissioner -- go ahead, Commissioner Marshall. Marshall: One thing we never addressed was fencing. Fencing. No fencing was shown on the submitted plans. The applicant should clarify at the public hearing if permanent perimeter fencing is proposed. Freeman: We didn't ask that question. I remember that as well. Marshall: Go back through everything on my notes. Freeman: It wasn't addressed. Marshall: And to do that we would have to reopen the public hearing. Yearsley: Absolutely. Baird: Mr. Chair? Marshall: And maybe that allows us to get the applicant's opinion on some of these changes on how quickly and readily they can do it and how they propose to do that. Freeman: Mr. Chair, I think staff was going to say something regarding the fence. No? Okay. So, do you want to open the public hearing, so we can talk -- well, you may want to limit what we want to talk about for the specific purpose of talking about the fence, so we don't open a whole can of worms. Yearsley: Okay. I think so. So, are we just going to open the public hearing for a fence or are we going to ask about this road to the south and the park? Freeman: Yes. Yearsley: At this time I would like to reopen the public hearing for RZ 13-008, AZ 13- 008, PP 13-013 and PP 13-014 for the sole purpose to talk about fencing, the park, and moving that collector road to the east. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 17, 2013 Page 22 of 56 McKay: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will keep my comments to the two items at hand. Yearsley: Name and address for the record, please. McKay: Becky McKay. 1029 North Rosario. Engineering Solutions. Representing the applicant. As far as fencing, it is our intent to provide perimeter fencing with the project. We -- Mr. Coleman typically does like a vinyl six foot fencing around the perimeter. Obviously, adjoining the open spaces we have the choice of doing nonsight obscuring fencing or if he does sight obscuring four foot maximum height. So, we will comply with the ordinance, but he always does fencing in his particular projects. So, we will comply. Concerning the roadway, Ada County Highway District and the City of Meridian had told the adjoining developer to get with us when they were aware that we were -- we were nearing completion of our project and submittal to the city and coordinate that collector location and they -- they kept asking me have they called you. No, they haven't. They finally called me and I set up a meeting time. They canceled it. And, then, we did meet with the staff and the adjoining developer. They said, well, we are still working on our plan. We got a concept, but it's still in flux and they have not submitted and they said depending on what we come up with are you willing to move your roadway a little bit to the north. We said yes. So, we have already made that commitment to them. I don't know where they want the road, so if you defer me for the road -- I mean then -- I mean they could drag me out for six months. Who knows. We have agreed -- we have a condition that states we will move the road. We will move the road. And what I did is I have an interim road that goes to Black Cat that's in that L leg in the event that we needed access to Black Cat prior to their development. So, I kind of have like a plan B and we intentionally left that just as two big lots, because -- for the very reason there is discussion about the park, they would also not commit, the adjoining developer, on where their component piece would go. But I don't feel with this layout we are slamming the door on anything, since it's just two big lots. Yearsley: Okay. Any questions of the applicant at this time? Freeman: No further question. Thank you. Marshall: I appreciate that. Thank you. McKay: Thank you. Yearsley: At this time is there anybody in the audience that would like to come up and testify only on those three items? If not, I would entertain a motion to close the public hearing. Marshall: Mr. Chair, I move we close the public hearing on AZ 13-008, RZ 13-008, PP 13-013 and PP 13-014. Miller: Second. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 17, 2013 Page 23 of 56 Yearsley: I have a motion and a second to close the public hearing. All in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. Yearsley: All right. With those answers are we ready to make a decision? Freeman: I think so. I will just -- I -- while Ms. McKay was answering our questions also located the specific condition regarding that park, which says the applicant shall provide a city neighborhood park in the northeast quadrant, dedicating a minimum of seven acres within the applicant's development or reach an agreement and this is to be done prior to City Council hearing. I'm comfortable with that. So, if I'm going to make the motion -- yes, Commissioner Marshall. Marshall: Well, if they are to dedicate the seven acres, are we talking about -- is that enough property up here or are we talking they are going to have to take out lots? Freeman: They may have to adjust lots depending on whether that's enough there. Marshall: And they are asking to strike that condition. Freeman: They are asking to strike it. You're -- Marshall: I would require that. Freeman: -- moving to leave it in. Yes. Miller: It's to dedicate seven acres or reach an agreement; correct? Yearsley: Correct. Freeman: Correct. So, they are given flexibility. We know the region. Yes, there will be some changes likely before City Council sees this, but 95 percent of this development is solid. I like it and I think I'm comfortable giving them the flexibility to make these minor adjustments before they go see City Council and I think Staff has done a good job of outlining those requirements, so that we aren't shirking our duty, at least in my mind, in forwarding something to City Council that's solidly put together and clearly stated on what the applicant still needs to do, so -- Marshall: Well, I'm just being clear on this, so -- or reach an agreement meaning their agreement would require them to have an additional seven acre park, the way I read that. Freeman: Seven acres. Marshall: In addition to the private park and the West Ada County park. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 17, 2013 Page 24 of 56 Freeman: Correct. Marshall: Period. Miller: Can't the agreement be with adjacent parties, so -- that's going to donate some or is talking about that -- has been talking about it? It just has to amount to seven acres. Marshall: Seven acres total. Yes. Okay. Freeman: Yes. Mr. Chair? Yearsley: Commissioner Freeman. Freeman: After considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move to recommend approval to City Council of file number AZ 13-008, RZ 13-008, PP 13-013, PP 13-014, and I don't think I include MDA 13-015. As presented in the staff report for the hearing date of October 17th, 2013, with no modifications. - Marshall: I thought we did one. Freeman: Do I still need to -- am I missing one, Commissioner Marshall? Marshall: Bruce Freckleton's comments. Are these in? Are we just -- just saying that this memorandum is to be included or not? Sorry, I couldn't pronounce the yellow -- Freeman: Oh, thank you. So, I would like to amend my motion to include the changes to Section 2.1.3 as presented by Bruce Freckleton, development services manager. And I won't read the whole thing. Yearsley: I appreciate that. Miller: I second. Yearsley: I have a motion and a second to approve file number AZ 13-008, RZ 13-008, PP 13-013 and PP 13-014. All in favor say aye. Opposed? Nay. Motion passes. Thank you. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE NAY. ONE ABSENT. E. Continued Public Hearing from October 3, 2013: AZ 13-009 Spurwing Orchard East Subdivision by Brighton Investments, LLC Located North Side of Chinden Boulevard and West of N. Ten Mile Road Request: Annexation of 26.53 Acres from RUT Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 17, 2013 Page 25 of 56 in Ada County to the R-4 (Medium-Low Density Residential) Zoning District Recommend Approval to City Council F. Continued Public Hearing from October 3, 2013: PP 13-021 Spurwing Orchard East Subdivision by Brighton Investments, LLC Located North fide of Chinden Boulevard, West of N. Ten Mile Road Request: Preliminary Plat Approval Consisting of Sixty-Three (63)Single Family Residential Lots and Four (4) Common Lots on Approximately 25.85 Acres in the Proposed R-4 Zoning District Yearsley: Next item on the agenda is the continued public hearing from October 3rd, 2013, of AZ 13-009 and PP 13-012, Spurwing East -- or Spurwing Orchard East Subdivision. Let's begin with the staff report. Parsons: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. The next item on the agenda is the Spurwing Orchard East Subdivision. It's located on the north side of Chinden Boulevard just west of North Ten Mile Road. It consists 26.53 acres of land. It's currently zoned RUT in Ada County. Surrounding this property we have city residential development to the west and to the north zoned R-8 and R-2. To the east we have a county subdivision, West Wing Estates, zoned RUT in the county. To the north we -- or, excuse me, to the south we have Chinden Boulevard and Ada County parcels currently being farmed and that's zoned RUT as well. If you look at the aerial here you can see primarily the southern portion is undeveloped, but we do have -- much of the area is rapidly transitioning with urban development, as I mentioned, to the north and to the east. The Comp Plan for this property is designated low density residential, which is -- the anticipated density for that land use designation is three units or less to the acre. The applicant is proposing to annex and plat a 63 lot residential subdivision. It has four common lots. As I mentioned to you the proposed zoning is R-4, with a density of 2.44 units to the acre, which is consistent with the LDR designation of the property. All of the lots -- or a majority of the lots do comport with the R-4 zoning district. There are afew -- one lot that needs to be adjusted in accordance with the ordinance and it's primarily this lot here. Since it's on a 90 degree angle it needs to have 30 feet of frontage and I believe it's 28, 26, something in that range. So, the applicant will agree to correct with the final plat. The applicant is proposing basically 19.2 percent open space, which consists of 50 by 100 -- or open space in excess of 50 by 100 square feet central in between the buildable lots. All of the streets -- local streets will have eight foot parkways with trees consistent with the ordinance. Two stub streets are located along the west and one to the north that would be brought in for future connectivity. The one thing I did fail to mention to you is the applicant will be providing a stub street to the east. At this point in time it will not connect to the road that's developed within the West Wing Estates Subdivision and there is two reasons for that. One, it's a private road. It's not a public street. And, two, they still have access to Chinden. And so until ITD closes off that access and mitigates that concern, both ACHD and staff don't feel it appropriate to connect the road and funnel traffic through a public street -- or a private street. ACHD is amenable to that. The applicant will have to Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 17, 2013 Page 26 of 56 go back and modify. I would mention there is an easement in place already through the common lot. They will have to go back to ACHD and modify that easement, but future connectivity will happen when ACHD and ITD deem it appropriate. Here are the home elevations that the applicant is proposing this evening. Again, you have a mix of materials. It is pretty consistent to what's developed to the north and to the east. The primary purpose of this development is an extension of that development. So, the applicant's running out of lots out there, they have purchased this property, and they are looking to extend it. Because this is a low density development staff is not recommending a DA with the annexation of the property. They will be pretty much tied to the conditions of approval of the preliminary plat and future final plats. Staff did receive written testimony from Mike Wardle in agreement with the conditions in the staff report and to staffs knowledge there aren't any outstanding issues before you this evening and I'd stand for any questions you have. Yearsley: Are there any questions? Marshall: My only question was Mr. Wardle's response, you're in agreement with all the technical issues? Do we need to make a modification to the staff report to reflect these technical changes? Parsons: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, I have read through his response and, no, there are no changes. He just wants to go on record for clarification. I think as we go to -- I will change the wording. I said depict a ten foot pathway I think is how the condition read and it should have said construct. So, some minor words -- we have got to wordsmith it a little bit, but, yes, they are pretty much in agreement, just further clarification before we get to Council. Marshall: Thank you. Yearsley: Any other questions? Would the applicant like to come forward. Wardle: Mr. Chairman, Commission Members, Mike Wardle, Brighton Corporation. 12601 West Explorer Drive in Boise. Just to quickly note that even the conditions of approval with the technical changes, those will be addressed at final plat, so there is really nothing that needs to be changed. Just wanted to be sure that some of the technical items were noted. Interesting that this piece of ground is almost an in-fill now, with -- well, it's been some years ago that the original Jayker Subdivision was approved for the properties to the west and to the north. Obviously, this is the one parcel that was part of a -- one of the old nonfarm projects and now with all of the facilities and services in place it is appropriate to go ahead with the annexation and the zoning and development. Bill, how do I just forward on through these? What's the magic -- okay. Just -- and this is more for informational purposes, but all of the area to the -- surrounding this project is now developed or is in the process of developing. There is one phase that's under development right now -- excuse me, I have -- there we go. Immediately to the west the under name of Spurwing Orchard Two. All of the other project elements have been completed within the Spurwing Greens, which was Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 17, 2013 Page 27 of 56 approved in 2010 as an update of the original Jayker development. So, there is really nothing particular. I would just note that the stub street to the west, Bay Oak, and, then, the street to the north, were both anticipated in the previous approvals and so those are -- well, the one to the west, Bay Oak, will be completed shortly. The one to the north was completed with the Spurwing Greens No. 2 Subdivision in the estates area previously. Next slide, Bill. As Bill noted that we actually are providing a substantially greater amount of open space and so we have the amenity aspects in two forms, one additional opens space more than was required, as well as the ten_ foot multi-use pathway along the southern boundary on the extension of that that was developed with the original Jayker One Subdivision and that will extend to Double Eagle Lane on the east. Next slide, Bill. Again, I would just restate that the -- ACHD did secure from the prior landowners an easement that made the connection from Spurwing Greens Subdivision No. 2 to the north over to Double Eagle purely for the event that may happen in the future when improvements are made to Chinden and that road is cut off, but that's not a decision that we will make, it's nothing that we will provoke, it's simply that we are making provision and we will modify the precise location of that easement with, first of all, the public street and, then, a connection on over to Double Eagle, so that in future when ITD and ACHD mandate that, that they can take that action and that would be up to them. I would just note that when we had our neighborhood meeting that the -- the two families that came from the West Wing Estates simply requested is it possible that the street could connect in the future? Yes, it is possible. And, then, secondly, could they go through the common area to get to the internal street pathway and sidewalk system of Spurwing Greens and certainly there would be no limitation to that. So, those were two items that simply came up that we anticipated accommodating regardless. I think the next slide is simply a -- if you look kind of orienting yourself north to the left, Chinden, of course, on the south is to the right. It shows the orientation of those existing homes and along that private street there is a ten foot landscaped buffer currently. We are adding a 25 foot buffer to that at the back of the lots that we will build adjacent to that. So, there would end up being a 35 foot landscaped buffer between the street and the back of those lots. And all of the lots that back up to Double Eagle, while they are not certainly of the estate character, they are one-third acre -- they are 13,000 to 19,000 square foot lots. So, they are not small, but they give kind of a transition in a development that is the low to medium density under the Comp Plan. So, Mr. Chairman, Commission Members, I have nothing more to add. Would simply answer your questions if you have them. Yearsley: Are there any questions? No? Thank you very much. Wardle: Thank you. Yearsley: I have two people signed up. Howard Shoemaker. Would you like to come up and testify? Please state your name and address for the record, please. Shoemaker: I'm Howard Shoemaker. I'm at 6568 North Double Eagle Lane. So, never done this before, so I appreciate being here. I appreciate all the work you guys do. have had no zoning and planning experience. But we were just for the first time -- you Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 17, 2013 Page 28 of 56 know, my -- our concerns, obviously, the separation and maintaining our property values. Yearsley: Could you, please, speak into the microphone. Shoemaker: Sure. So, you know, my concern was the buffering between Double Eagle Lane and the backs of these new houses and that we currently have pretty much a wide open view and we don't want to -- you know, have those houses backing right up to Double Eagle Lane, so we were pleased to hear 35 feet. I didn't know that and none of us were sure about that. The only question I would have about that would be the height of it, as opposed to, you know, just a flat space that something that -- you know, the height that would give us some sort of a -- you know, block the view to the houses across there. And the other comment I wanted to make is currently Double Eagle Lane is a gated community, so if and when Chinden gets closed off and we access on the north end, we want to be able to maintain that gated status, so those are my two comments. Yearsley: All right. Thank you. I have another person, just -- is it Harry? Would you like to getup and testify as well? Hessing: Sorry. Jeff Hessing. Yearsley: Oh, Hessing. Would you like to testify? Please come forward. Hessing: My name is Jeff Hessing and live at 6748 North Double Eagle Lane. I wonder if we could go to six again. This is for -- let's go back to five. I just -- I'm -- my property is the very last -- the northern piece of -- on Double Eagle Lane here. The cul-de-sac is basically in my front yard or -- and I just wanted -- and I talked to the Brighton folks and my question -- my concern is this little piece here that's L-4 on the diagram. There is a little triangular piece there that, .indeed, if you look my driveway actually connects into that cul-de-sac and it's really -- the way it's been for -- ever since the home was built over ten years ago that is really part of Lot 1 in this new subdivision and I have talked to Brighton about my driveway connection and Iwould -- they have agreed to modify this so that I can continue to get my driveway into the rest of the -- as it is and not have to cross lawn or something. So, I would just like to express my support of this as long as I'm able to maintain that driveway connection as I have and they have indicated that I would. Yearsley: All right. Thank you. Hessing: Thank you. Yearsley: I don't have anybody else signed up. Would anybody else like to come up and testify? With that, would the applicant like to come and respond to those comments? Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 17, 2013 Page 29 of 56 Wardle: Mr. Chairman, Mike Wardle, Brighton Corporation. Let me just deal with Mr. Hessing first as -- his comment. I have actually looked at the assessor's maps with the parcel overlays and I don't think he actually is on that property, but I have assured him that when we get to the final plat that if there is any encroachment at all we will not require him to move his driveway, we will simply accommodate that either by deed or by easement. So, we have no problems with that. It certainly would be a very minor involvement if at all. With regard to Mr. Shoemaker's question about the height of the berm, there is just a very little -- a subtle little bump there right now and our anticipation -- and, obviously, we will work with those folks, but we want to pick up where that is, whatever the height is and continue to build on that. Now, within a total of 35 feet part of that which we wouldn't be touching on -- you know, immediately adjacent to the street, you can't get a great deal of elevation, but it's possible to get, you know, maybe up to four feet. We will go as high as the landscape consultants would encourage us, which could be as steep as a three to one -- typically they tend to go four to one, but we will get as much elevation as we physically can within that and what we have also done on some of the projects -- and will actually be done along Chinden Boulevard, there will be some sloping in the back yard of the lots along Chinden, which are a little bit deeper because of the influence of that street, but there could be even a little bit of that tapering into those lots, so that we will get as much height as we possibly can and we will certainly work with them as we can, so that we don't disrupt what they have done and build on what they have. Yearsley: Okay. Thank you. Are there any other questions? Freeman: There was one item that came up and I don't know if you're able to address this, but Mr. Shoemaker I believe mentioned their gate. Did you have any thoughts on that? Is that something that's been discussed at all prior to this evening? Wardle: Well, Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Freeman, the gate that they are talking about is just beyond as you come up off Chinden, that little cul-de-sac area, it's just right to the north of that and we won't have -- we don't have any involvement with that street, so we won't be changing or doing anything. Now, we have to put the caveat on it, in the future when ITD expands that roadway and may limit access, it necessitates the connection to our street system, I can't guarantee what will happen. But that's not our decision to make. But we have no intent to do anything that would change their current access or their gate. We will not be taking access to that street. Freeman: Thank you. I suspected that was the answer and, I agree, that's probably something we can't tell for certain in the future what's going to happen with that. Yearsley: Thank you. Wardle: Thank you. Marshall: Mr. Chair? Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 17, 2013 Page 30 of 56 Yearsley: Commissioner -- Marshall: I move that we close the public hearing on AZ 13-009 and PP 13-021. Miller: Second. Yearsley: I have a motion and a second to close the public hearing on AZ 13-009 and PP 13-021. All in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. Yearsley: Any comments? Commissioner Marshall. Marshall: Yes, sir. I see this as a continuation of what I see as a very fine subdivision. It's really nice, I wish I could afford something like that, but -- and I think it's an appropriate -- Brighton has shown that they are -- they are more than willing to work with the neighbors and I have always appreciated that. They did a nice job again making the buffer significantly more where theirs might not have. So, I really appreciate it and it makes things easy on me. Also, my thought is that since it's a private street those owners actually own that gate and if ITD closes that off, then, you just take the gate and move it down to the other end. So, those are my thoughts. Freeman: Good thought. I have nothing to add, Mr. Chair. Miller: Me either. Yearsley: All right. At that point I would entertain a motion. Miller: Mr. Chair? Yearsley: Commissioner Miller. Miller: After considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony I move to recommend approval to the City Council for file AZ 13-009 and PP 13-021 as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of October 17th, 2013, with no modifications. The technical stuff. Freeman: Second. Yearsley: I have a motion and a second to approve the public hearing AZ 13-009 and PP 13-021. All in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. G. Public Hearing: RZ 13-011 Crimson Maple by Crimson Maple Townhomes, LLC Located on the East Side of NW 4th Street, Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 17, 2013 Page 31 of 56 North of W. Maple Avenue Request: Rezone 1.59 Acres from the R-8 (Medium-Density Residential) Zoning District to the R- 15Zoning District (Medium High-Density Residential). H. Public Hearing: CUP 13-011 Crimson Maple by Crimson Maple Townhomes, LLC Located on the East Side of NW 4th Street, North of W. Maple Avenue Request: Conditional Use Permit to Construct aMulti-Family Development Consisting of 12 Residential Units in a Proposed R-15 Zoning District Yearsley: Next item on the agenda is public hearing RZ 13-011 and CUP 13-011, Crimson Maple and let's start with the staff report. Parsons: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. Next item before you this evening is the Crimson Maple development. It's located on the east side of Northwest 1st -- or North 4th Street -- Northwest 4th Street, excuse me, just north of West Maple Avenue. It's currently zoned R-8 within the city. It's currently surrounded by single family residential development to the east, south, west and to the north we have a LDS stake center, zoned R-4 as well. The applicant is here this evening to discuss rezoning the property, approximately 1.59 acres, from the R-8 zone to the R-15 zone to develop a 12 unit multi-family development. One thing that I would mention to you in 2007 this property was approved with a preliminary plat for six residential lots -- single family lots. That approval has since expired. With that rezone at that time the city did not require a development agreement, so all we have now in place is the R-8 zone in which the applicant's requesting to change. If you look at the layout that the applicant is proposing it is similar to a single family development and similar to what is existing in the area. I would mention that the residential subdivision to the south -- along the south boundary is actually designated high density residential on the Comp Plan, but developed and zoned R-4, which is interesting. So, I don't know why that's -- that's the case, but at one time there must have been a different vision for that and, then, they came in and subdivided it as an R-4 subdivision. This property is designated medium density residential on our Comprehensive Plan. Under our Comprehensive Plan the applicant is allowed to request a step up to the R-15 zone. I would mention with the number of units that the applicant is proposing this evening the density on this site is at 7.55 dwelling units to the acre, which is consistent with that three to eight unit range of the medium density residential. So, even though they are asking for the step up in R-15, the density is consistent with the underlying land use of MDR. So, here is a close end view and the only reason why I bring this up is because I want to at least show the Commission that the applicant's trying to make every effort to blend in with the surrounding area. So, basically, they will have one main entrance off of Northwest 4th Street and, then, there will be some guest parking for visitors to the site. One thing would mention -- the only reason why this is defined as multi-family is because we have numerous units on a single parcel. We don't dictate how the units look -- well, we do within a sense, but -- and when we get to the elevations you can see they emulate single family homes. So, all intents and purposes it's designed as a single family development, but it meets the definition of the UDC for multi-family and that's why we Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 17, 2013 Page 32 of 56 are rezoning and going through the conditional use process. So, the applicant did have their neighborhood meeting. During those discussions some of the neighbors were concerned with the height of the units and limiting some of those as part of the site plan and I think the applicant has demonstrated that they are trying to meet that intent and work with the surrounding property owners. So, you can see here along the north boundary there is a couple two story units and, then, the transition to a single story unit and we have a property management office. It's not a requirement, but the applicant is proposing that to go along with this development and, then, again, another two story unit -- couple two story units along the east boundary and, then, along the south boundary are single story units. Because the applicant is going through a rezone process staff is recommending a development agreement and part of our recommended DA provisions limits this site to the densities proposed this evening, the layout proposed this evening and also the height -- the height and bulk of the buildings -- the structures on the site plan. So, what you see here is what we are going to be reviewing with future development applications. It will be restricted to single story and two stories in this configuration and I'm presenting to you this evening. The open space is required for the multi-family development standards. The applicant is proposing roughly 600 and 700 square foot enclosed yards behind each of the units that will be fenced off. Each unit will have its own private backyard, which is consistent with the UDC requirement. There is a 4,600 square foot open space lot or area in front of the development as you come off of 4th Street that will be developed with a picnic area, barbecue pit, and, then, also the applicant hasn't depicted it on this plan, but they have communicated with staff that they intend on incorporating a community garden within the development. So, they are meeting the open space requirements and the amenity requirements for amulti-family development. One thing that staff wasn't clear on -- and we didn't have ACHD's comments until this afternoon on this project, but we wanted to make sure that Northwest 4th Street was actually designated a collector on the map -- street map. We did receive confirmation from ACHD on that. So, the applicant will have provide a detached sidewalk or even attached sidewalk. I think we can work with them on that given what's happening in the area. It's predominately attached sidewalk in the area, but they will have to dedicate 30 feet of additional right of way, construct a 20 foot land -- 20 foot wide landscape buffer, which will more than likely cause them to lose a stall, which is fine, because they are actually providing two car garages for each unit, plus a two car parking pad. So, they are actually exceeding the parking requirements of the UDC for multi-family development. So, there certainly won't be an impact to the surrounding development for cars overflowing into the neighborhood for parking. I think the applicant thought of all those provisions making sure that, again, this is a single family development trying to blend in with the surrounding community. Here are the elevations. We have a board and batten siding, shutters, covered entryways, dormers. As a provision in the DA we are requiring that all units constructed on the site comply with these submitted elevations. So, as I mentioned to you you can see they do emulate single family homes and that's the intent. So, as I mentioned to you earlier, the two -- two story units will be in this design in the lower right-hand corner and, then, the two story single units would be in this configuration and, then, of course, the two single units would be -- would look like this. The applicant did dot provide any elevations for the management office, but staff has provided -- recommended a condition in the DA Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 17, 2013 Page 33 of 56 that the management office has to compliment the design of these structures before you this evening. Staff received written testimony -- or spoke with the applicant. They are in agreement with the conditions in the staff report. I would mention to you that Wayne Stephans -- or Stevens, excuse me, submitted written testimony in opposition to the application. That should be in your packet this evening. Again, staff is -- finds that it is consistent with the Comp Plan with the surrounding properties and we have recommended approval of this rezone and conditional use permit application. I'd stand for any questions you have. Yearsley: Are there any questions of staff? Marshall: Mr. Chair, if I could. Yearsley: Commissioner Marshall. Marshall: Bill, help me out. For some reason I missed something here. You said the density is 7.95? Parsons: 7.55. Yearsley: 7.55. And why we are rezoning to R-15? Parsons: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Marshall, under the UDC our multi-family developments aren't allowed in the R-8 zone. So, in order to process the way the applicant's proposed it has to be up zoned or ask for the higher -- Marshall: Just clarifying. Thank you. Appreciate that. Yearsley: Any other questions? 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. And I'm representing the applicant. Yearsley: Thank you. Leraris: Good evening, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. Bill, does such a good job I -- he's pretty much taken most of the things that I needed to say, but I will try not to reiterate too much. But, as he said, it's -- we are R-8. We are seeking R-15 for the sole purpose of -- we don't need to divide this up into lots. The developer is going to maintain ownership of the property and is going to maintain the property under a sole homeowners association and they will take care of all the landscaping and everything like that and these homes are going to be rented, which is consistent with a lot of the surrounding uses. We have over -- if you can -- I wish we had another site plan that shows -- there we go. Back to that -- there we go. So, I think most of these homes in here are rented and these are duplexes here to the east. So, it is pretty consistent with Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 17, 2013 Page 34 of 56 the way things are there currently. And, like he said, it's really -- it's considered multi- family, because we are not putting in the lot lines, we are not -- basically the only difference from the subdivision is we are not going to be driving pins for lot lines. So, we -- there was just no reason to do that and -- but we need to ask for the R-15 to allow for that, but we are not increasing the density, so -- and that's exactly -- you know, it's going to actually -- it's exceeding the building elevations that it is going to look like -- like a subdivision with 3,000 square foot homes, so -- let's see. And like Bill said, we just got the ACHD staff report today and from what looked through there, I don't think we actually do have to dedicate 30 feet. That is what we originally proposed, but we are going to work through that, because we have -- they are asking for a seven foot attached sidewalk, since it is a collector, so we may shift that a little bit here or there, along with the 20 foot buffer, so we don't lose too many of the additional parking spaces. That's all something that we can work through. Something also I'd like to mention is that the -- the applicant would like to extend the sidewalk from the southwest corner of the site all the way down to the corner of North 4th Street and Maple to just provide -- because that is a -- currently a gap in pedestrian traffic right now. It certainly isn't required and is something that we may not be able to do. It will depend if we have enough right of way there and what that homeowner is allowed to give as an easement, but if we can, you know, we figured it would be just worthwhile to go ahead and build that and we don't know if ACHD will help with the funding of that or not, but that's something that we definitely want to do. Vinyl fencing all around the perimeter of the site. Six foot vinyl fencing. Between each -- also the -- as you said, the backyards will be fenced and gated for access to those for maintenance. The common area, as he said, will be a barbecue area and a community garden, which I thought was just an excellent idea. There is a lot of different ways that you can run those and he will kind of leave those up, I think, to the -- to the homeowners or the residents as to how they want to -- to run that, whether it be all maintained by the association or individual gardens in one spot, but that way they will be able to use their backyard for what they want and, then, they can go and have a vegetable garden in the common area. And Ijust -- just want to reiterate that this is I think just a really great fit for this lot. It's an unusual lot. It's -- it only has 80 foot frontage and so, you know, if you went the subdivision route you're eating up a lot of your land with right of way and so, you know, the private road idea and, you know, keeping all on one area really frees things up to make it a nice development. It just -- it wouldn't work very well I don't think with dedicating right of way back through there, you would just -- you would lose a lot of land to road that isn't necessary. It's unfortunate that we don't have a little more connectivity I guess with the road, with the hammerhead, but I mean that is what it is. You really can't do anything with that there. The fire department has approved that hammerhead and we are providing, you know, 20 feet and the appropriate lengths to turn a big fire truck around, so -- and we are going to extend water services under there and we will have a fire hydrant and everything and that will all be taken care of. Let's see. More on the technical side of it, we did -- the sewer runs along 4th Street and it was fairly shallow, only about five and a half feet.. So, we were a little worried about sewering those projects, but we ran through the numbers and we got a little bit of an elevation climb going to the east, so it doesn't look like we are going to need that much fill and we probably -- actually because of the large home size and excavating crawl spaces, we Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 17, 2013 Page 35 of 56 will probably be a net cut on the side, as opposed to having to import fill. So, that actually turned out to not be a problem at all. And irrigation will be provided by a private well. This property does have a surface water right in a ditch that runs through the site, but delivery is very inconsistent and unreliable. It's -- there is a gate upstream and several users downstream of it and you never know if you're going to get water or not and so what we have decided to do is just pipe it through the site, punch our own hole and go from there and just a submersible pump and that will be a much more reliable way to go. The phasing of it is -- we are going to be required to build all of the site improvements and that's what we want to do. The entire private road and everything will be constructed all at once. However, I spoke with Bill about this. We don't necessarily want to build all of the buildings at one time and those will need to be phased out over time, as -- just as you would see with a subdivision and he said there is an allowance for that I believe with the certificate of zoning that we can do -- break up the certificate of zoning compliance to allow for building these building units over time, as opposed to all at once, which would require -- you know, there may not even be a demand for it, so -- let's see. There is not very many trees on site. Just a few small ones. I think there is only one maybe over four inch, so mitigation for that is not going to be an issue at all. We are putting in a lot more than what is being taken out. There are some large nice trees around the perimeter of the site. There is one on the northeast corner that the neighbor talked to us about and was a little concerned about that and we agreed to, you know, do whatever -- you know, we are not going to be encroaching on that tree and we will have to -- there is a drainage ditch back there that we will have to -- to work around when we pipe that through, because we do want to get that covered up, but we are going to be working in the root zone we don't know if it will just be shovel digging or if we will have to do a directional bore or something like that, but that's something that we have been working with to -- to make sure that we are not killing that tree. There may be some trimming, because it does hang over our property quite a bit, but I don't think that will decrease the screening much at all. Plus we will have the six foot vinyl fence, so -- yeah, I just want to, you know, give my support of this project, because it just seems like it makes a lot of sense. This developer has gone above and beyond to make sure that the neighbors are happy and that -- like Bill said, he's put the one stories along the south side to avoid any privacy issues and the two stories are along the church on the east side where they already have the duplexes on a little bit of a buffer there and the trees, so -- I think he's just covered all his bases and done a good job with this. So, if there is any questions you have I would be happy to answer them. Yearsley: Thank you. Are there any questions? No? Thank you very much. Leraris: Thank you. Yearsley: I have a Wayne Stevens. Would he like to come up and testify? Okay. And, then, Todd Campbell? Okay. Is there anybody else that would like to testify? With that I would entertain a motion to close the public hearing on RZ 13-011 and CUP 13-011. Miller: So moved. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 17, 2013 Page 36 of 56 Marshall: Second. Yearsley: I have a motion and a second to close the public hearing. All in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. Yearsley: Anyone like to go first? Comments? Freeman: Sure, Mr. Chair. Yearsley: Commissioner Freeman. Freeman: It's just -- it's interesting sitting up here and seeing huge projects, like our first one that's hundreds of acres, and, then, a project like this, both housing and both I think very suitable to their context. I -- I agree this project -- it fits very well into its immediate context. I think the design of the site. I like the design of the buildings. I like the ideas that the applicant came forward with. I did read Mr. Stevens' testimony and I would like to address a couple of things there. You know, when developers come in and do new projects there is, of course, always concern about reduction of property values and, you know, if you get a really bad project or a project that is inappropriate for its context, then, we -- I guess we would all acknowledge that that is a possibility. However, projects like this that do fit their context and are quality projects, I don't see them as being a threat to property values. You know, this area is all zoned residential. It is going to develop and the worst thing that we could do is put an incompatible use up against these existing homes or -- or a residential project that is just out of scale to the rest of these homes and the Planning and Zoning Commission has no interest in doing that. I think this project is actually avery -- an excellent fit for -- for this area and you shouldn't see any reduction in property values because of it, because it brings newness to the neighborhood you might even actually see an increase as this continues to develop. Increased traffic was another concern that's been expressed here. There is no traffic that's going to flow through other neighborhoods. This has a completely independent traffic pattern and, yeah, you're going to have a few extra trips on Maple -- Maple Avenue and the other main streets in the area, but they are not going to be significant. Again, this entire block is going to develop in the future and there are going to be traffic impacts as it develops, but nothing, again, out of the ordinary that would -- that would cause traffic issues or safety issues. I don't see that happening with this project. And noise levels -- you know, I built a home years ago in Meridian and was moved in to a new neighborhood and there were people building a home right next door to me for months and, yeah, it was a bit of an annoyance in the morning when the hammers were banging up against my bedroom window, but that's some of the temporary inconvenience we suffer together as a community as we are a growing community, it's going to happen for a little while. I don't see any ongoing noise resulting from the project. It's residential, like all the adjoining properties. So, I do appreciate you writing with your concerns and we did read them, we did consider them. I just wanted to address those and let you know what our thinking was on those things. In my opinion Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 17, 2013 Page 37 of 56 for what you could be facing here if we were bad planners -- and we are not -- this is an excellent project for -- for this area, as this area will continue to develop. So, I'm in favor of it. I like it. I think it's been sensitive to the neighbors, sensitive to its context and will be a good addition or some multi-family, even though with single family residences. That was longwinded, but I'm done, I wanted to cover all of the concerns. Yearsley: Commissioner Marshall. Marshall: Mr. Chair, if I could. Thank you. I would like to second everything Commissioner Freeman said and in addition I would simply suggest that as far as traffic goes this is actually what we are looking for to decrease traffic in the long haul. We want little higher densities and we want them closer into town so people -- these people are moving here whether they live here or they live in Timbuktu and drive here, they are going to -- they are moving here and the closer we can get them into the employment centers and closer nucleus that -- that the few people we are going to have driving cars miles and miles on the roads and this actually helps overall in general for the city decrease traffic I believe and, yeah, it really -- I think it really fits in quite well and I have seen a log of different projects and this seems to be a very good one in my opinion and I'm all for it. Yearsley: Thank you. Commissioner Miller. Miller: My two cents. I agree with everything both of these gentlemen said. I think it's a great development. I think it would be a fun place to live. I really like the community garden. That's off topic, but that would be a great draw I think. I'm in favor. Yearsley: Thank you. With that I would entertain a motion. Marshall: Mr. Chair? Yearsley: Commissioner Marshall. Marshall: After considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move to recommend approval of file numbers RZ 13-001 and CUP 13-011 as presented in the staff report for the hearing date October 17th, 2013. Miller: Second. Yearsley: I have a motion and a second for the approval of RZ 13-001 and CUP 13-001 -- 011, sorry, Crimson Maple. All in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. Yearsley: It's 8:00 o'clock. Does anyone want to take a break or -- for five minutes or do we want to continue to move on? Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 17, 2013 Page 38 of 56 Freeman: It may be appropriate, Mr. Chair, to take a quick break, since we have been at it for two hours. Yearsley: That's what I was thinking. We will take a break. (Recess: 8:05 p.m. to 8:11 p.m.) I. Public Hearing: AZ 13-012 Sagewood Subdivision by Sagewood Overland„ LLC Located on the South Side of W. Overland Road Approximately 650 Feet West of S. Stoddard Road. Request: Annexation of Approximately 16.34 Acres from R1 and RUT in Ada County to the L-O (Limited Office)(5.02 acres) and R-8 (Medium-Density Residential)(11.32 acres) Zoning Districts. J. Public Hearing: PP 13-026 Sagewood Subdivision by Sagewood Overland„ LLC Located on the South Side of W. Overland Road Approximately 650 Feet West of S. Stoddard Road. Request: Preliminary Plat consisting of two(2) office lots, forty-five (45) residential lots, and Eight (8) Common Lots on Approximately 15.62 Acres in the Proposed L-O and R-8 Zoning Districts. Yearsley: Let's go ahead and get started again. At this time we would like to open the public hearing for AZ 13-012 and PP 13-026, Sagewood Subdivision. I will start with the staff report. Parsons: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. The next item on the agenda is the Sagewood Subdivision. It's located on the south side of Overland Road. It approximately 650 feet west of South Stoddard Street -- or Stoddard Road. Excuse me. Surrounding the property. To the north we have commercial -- undeveloped commercial properties zoned C-G. To the east we have C-G zoned property developed with aself-storage facility and a commercial building. To the south we have Ada County property. Some RUT, which is owned by the school district for a future school and, then, also to the west we have Ada County property zoned RUT and, then, a small sliver, which isn't shown here, but this little triangular piece here is zoned R-2 in the city and that was annexed in 2007. You can see here the property is -- has a couple of residents and outbuildings on the property. One home is proposed to stay and one is -- the other home and outbuildings are proposed to be removed and I will get into that a little bit further as I get into the presentation. Our Comp Plan for this property is designated medium density residential. The applicant is proposing an office park at the north part of the subdivision as you can see here with the conceptual development plan. So, we have two office lots here and, then, the residential portion consists of 45 residential lots for a gross density of 3.97 dwelling units to the acre. The property to the east that is currently zoned commercial has a mixed use designation on it. So, when we were evaluating the applicant's proposal for an office designation or L-O zoning, we Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 17, 2013 Page 39 of 56 took that land use designation and we would say how does it relate to this property. As you know, zoning is parcel specific. However, land uses aren't. They are meant to move and float with -- with conditions and circumstances. So, in our analysis we found that having that office component adjacent to C-G zoned property, which can develop with more intense commercial uses, made some sense to provide a transition not only for the residential development, but also Overland Road with the amount of traffic we anticipate on that roadway. The applicant's concept plan shows six office buildings. Four of them are oriented towards Overland Road. We have two along the entryway at the main corridor, basically, the boulevard into the subdivision and, then, all the parking -- internal parking is screened by the buildings, which is pretty consistent to what we like to see in accordance with our design guidelines. The building should front the street and shape the development, not the parking lots. The applicant is also proposing cross- access to the property to the west. For future connectivity and also the one thing that we were lacking when the property to the east came through, we did not have connectivity to that C-G zoned parcel. The applicant has worked with that property owner and he's agreed to allow that cross-access to happen. So, moving forward we anticipate that commercial development to tie into this, therefore, restricting further need for additional access points onto Overland Road. The one little item I would mention is the property to the west is currently zoned R-2. That is developed with a single family home. Given the location and proximity to Overland Road, there is a good chance it could come in and change with a different land use -- go through a Comp Plan and rezone in the future when actual development plans are proposed. The only reason why it annexed into the city was back in 2007 ACRD was widening the road and wiped out probably their well or septic system, so they had to hook up to city services. So, that's probably the main reason why it annexed in. The other interesting piece is that's where sewer has to run across to serve this development. So, that applicant's been working with the property owner. She will be responsible to secure an easement to run along the Hardin Drain there to provide sewer to this development -- the office development and also the residential portion of the development. Here is the proposed landscape plan. As far as my analysis of the staff report in accordance with the UDC, basically I took the residential portion, added up all the open space that the applicant proposed and I believe the main qualifying open space is approximately 1.61 acres or 14.2 percent of the site. The office development doesn't factor into the open space requirement for the zone, but they do depict a 25 foot wide landscape buffer along -- excuse me -- along Overland Road as required. They do provide 20 foot wide landscape buffers adjacent to the residential use required by our ordinance. The one item I did want to bring up with Commission tonight is the requirement fora 20 foot wide landscape buffer along the west boundary here. As I mentioned to you, this property is zoned R-2. Currently the UDC requires a 20 foot landscape buffer where you have office zoning next to residential zoning. But under the UDC the applicant does have the option to ask Council to ask for a waiver to reduce that buffer through the public hearing process. So, in their narrative to us -- to me or in their written statement testimony to me they have asked that they have elected to proceed to Council with asking for the waiver. So, basically, the building that you see here will be set 15 feet from the property edge and, basically, the landscape buffer will be ten feet in width. Given the fact that that could redevelop in the future I think staff is leaning towards supporting the Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 17, 2013 Page 40 of 56 applicant's request. Certainly it makes sense -- they have done a nice job of laying out this office development. Would hate to have to shift a few buildings and lose a few more parking stalls out there just to accommodate a 20 foot buffer. I think it will be a low impact use adjacent to that residence, so moving forward the hours of operation will be restricted on the site from 6:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. in our L-O zone. Usually they develop with Monday through Friday 8:00 to 5:00 type uses with an office zoning designation. So, we don't see that being much of a detriment or impact on that adjacent property. The applicant has submitted sample elevations. Again, pretty consistent to what we see in Bear Creek West, even Fall Creek, which is a little farther to the south being developed by Coleman Homes. The applicant will have a mix of siding materials, variation in roof lines. Again, they are proposing to -- or required to comply with those elevations through the development agreement. One thing that I did want to mention to you is the applicant is providing some future access to the properties to the west, so there is two stub streets proposed and as I mentioned to you the school district does own that 20 or 40 -- excuse me -- that 40 acres to the south of this. Rather than getting a pedestrian -- or a vehicular connection, we are just requiring the pedestrian connection as proposed by the applicant. So, we are -- we are making some concessions and given the fact that we have a Freedom Storage -- sub storage facility on the east and an Idaho transfer station on the east boundary that won't allow connectivity, we have nothing moving forward. Nothing stubbed to the east. Again, I did receive written testimony from the applicant in agreement with the conditions in the staff report, except for one clarification and, then, you also received that memo from Bruce Freckleton detailing the requirements for modification. I won't get into the specifics of that. The applicant has been given a chance to respond to that. They are in agreement with that change that Bruce proposed in his memo to you. The one item that the applicant wants to discuss with you, if you look at the plat here and the office lots, as I mentioned there is two office lots here along Overland Road. The applicant this evening owns the majority of the property. However, this portion of the property is owned by Dexter King, which has given consent to the annexation and the platting of this property. However, this property is -- it's a single family residence and he wants some flexibility to leave the home in place until such time as the property redevelops, whether it's a certificate of zoning compliance -- way of condition in the staff report, staff has required that the homes be scraped with the final platting of the property. We don't specifically want to allow nonconforming uses on commercial. What happens if we put zoning -- if we allow the single family homes to stay on an L-O we have created a nonconforming use on the property and so in this instance certainly Council has the authority to act on that moving forward. I don't know if that's within your purview. Certainly you can make -- just weigh in on it and let Council know how you feel about keeping a nonconforming home on an L-O zoned piece of property, but staffs recommendation this evening is to scrape the home as stated in the staff report. Other than that issue -- and, like I said, the applicant's in agreement. Staff has not received any comments or complaints or issues regarding the project and I would be happy to stand for any questions you have. Yearsley: Are there any questions of staff? Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 17, 2013 Page 41 of 56 Freeman: No. Yearsley: Would the applicant like to come forward. McKay: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. Becky McKay. Engineering Solutions. Business address 1029 -North -- Meridian. I am here representing Mr. Markham and Mr. Hunemiller on this particular project. This is not as complex as their last one, so it won't take nearly as long. This is a smaller project. It's only about 15.62 acres. As Bill indicated, being -- the fact that we are on the Overland Road corridor, which is five lanes, we -- we have Kennedy Commercial Center, which is C-G that is just directly north of us. To the east of us we have office commercial, an existing mini storage facility and, then, an Idaho Power sub station and so it's C-G on our eastern boundary. On the western boundary is Denny Johnson and he's located here and, then, this neighbor I met with him. He has a home on there, but his intent at some point in time to develop as office, so he was supportive of our application and in coming up with a design I looked at where the line was as far as between the office and the mini storage. We matched that line on our plat and we came up with this particular design here. We have four -- four buildings. We don't want to create a wall effect on Overland. We have no access to Overland, other than the boulevard, which will have landscape islands, landscaping on both sides. We talked to the gentleman to the west. He agreed that he would like cross-access. I met with the owner of the office parcel. He said I would love cross-access. So, we will put that on the plat. So, we will have some interconnectivity and possibly capture some of those trips within the projects as it develops on westward and keep the -- the traffic off of Overland. The property has the Hardin Drain, which comes through it like this diagonally. We show that we are piping the Hardin Drain. We have a corridor where we will pipe that. I have talked to Nampa- Meridian Irrigation District, they have indicated that they will allow us to pipe that facility. In the landscape plan the property was kind of an odd shape, so it made the most sense to create linear open space. I like that where it kind of -- we could transition. We have two different types of lot sizes. Those lot sizes -- I think they range from 6,000 square feet -- 5,280 up to 9,680. So, we have two different types of product. We have an interconnecting pathway that runs through that linear open space and connects to this micropath. The Meridian School District -- that will be a middle school. They believe that will be in their bond election next year. We are also kitty-corner to Fall Creek that came through the Commission here a few months ago that's currently under construction now. We feel that, obviously, the two particular uses -- yeah, the split between the L-O and the R-8 makes sense. I don't want to put the single family dwellings up on that five lane highway with commercial surrounding it. The staff was extremely supportive of it. They said, you know, that's a great idea and Ithink we -- we were pretty much in agreement on everything. We meet the ten percent open space and we meet the amenity requirements. Under the site specific conditions I received an e-mail from Bruce Freckleton that allowed us to -- on the number of lots, the rule is you can have 25 lots on one source of water and, then, you need a redundant source, not just a looped .source. So, obviously, we are going to explore our options of either coming down the Hardin Drain where we are taking the sewer and bringing -- you know, possibly making a secondary connection to water or seeing what options are available Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 17, 2013 Page 42 of 56 in that existing office lot to possibly loop the water there. So, we will work, obviously, with Public Works on that. And I think the -- the one item that -- that we are asking the Commission to alter is 1.2.1 and that is prior to the city engineer's signature at both the existing homes that are located on the office lots will be removed and existing septics and wells abandoned prior to signature on the final plat. When we started the plat -- when we first looked at these properties -- as you can see there are three parcels. My client only owns the easterly two parcels. When we met with the staff they said, you know, that's really tough and it really -- it's too narrow and not conducive to a very good design and we agreed. They said we would really love it if you go to the adjoining property and you see if you can do a combination type development and make for a better development. So, that's what my client did. So, we got Dexter King to join in on our project. So, my clients are purchasing from Mr. King all of the single family residential area and what Mr. King did is he is keeping this office lot and where the existing home is. It is a rental home. He does not live there and he has a mortgage on it. Now, in order to sell the southern portion he worked with his lender to basically reduce his mortgage to just that office lot and so it was his desire that the home remain and, then, he's selling it as an office and, then, it will be completely scraped. But until that -- that mortgage -- I mean we can't -- he can't commit to tear the house down when there is a mortgage on it. My client on the left lot, he's already started removal of all structures and getting everything out of there. So, I don't -- I suggested that prior to signature on the final plat, like the westerly office lot will be cleared off and prior to any certificate of zoning that an office use on the westerly lot, that that would have to be scraped. We are going to be installing all the improvements and everything. So, it will just, you know, be a lot with a house on in the interim. He may sell it once we get approval. I don't know. Obviously, values are going up. But we need a little bit of flexibility and so I asked for a little bit of relief on that. As far as the landscape buffering, the gentleman to the -- to the west he likes what we are doing. He agrees that the highest and best use for him is office and he said that's his long-term plan. He is glad that we are establishing an L-O corridor there and extending what's happening to our -- or what's existing to the east and he intends to do the same if he can sell his property. So, I would hate to do a 20 foot buffer that's -- that's really -- that residential use is an interim use. So, I do ask -- and I know that's a Council decision, but I just want it on the record. And, then, I think we just included Bruce Freckleton's comments on 2.1.2 and, then, on 2.1.3 and 2.1.4, because the property has elevation Bruce placed a condition that we provide an overall grading plan and establish the -- the lot corners of all the lots and that's because they don't want one lot draining onto another and they want to be assured that the lots drain away from the home. Now, we had the same condition on Fall Creek and, then, I worked with Bruce and he said -- you know, we said we don't want to establish the elevation of each individual house, but we want to do a master grading plan and if we have to we will do yard drains in the rear yards and slope them and just like Fall Creek where that was Coleman Homes building all the homes, this will be Mr. Markham, the developer, building all the homes. So, I kind of altered that and took out that each floor east elevation will be set for each building lot, because that's kind of hard. It's better to do a master grading plan and Bruce allowed us to do that on Fall Creek and we submitted that with our construction plans for his review and making sure that it met his standards and -- and the intent of that condition. So, that's -- that's Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 17, 2013 Page 43 of 56 the reasoning between 2.1.3 and 2.1.4. If the Commission would like us to address those at Council and go ahead and stick with the condition, since we don't have a representative from Public Works I'm comfortable with that. Parsons: Mr. Chair? Yearsley: Yes. Parsons: Sorry to interrupt. I did speak with Mr. Freckleton on those proposed changes by the applicant for 2.1.3 and 2.1.4 and he's in agreement with that language. McKay: Okay. Great. Yearsley: Any questions of the applicant? Freeman: Mr. Chair, I may. Just give me a moment here. Yearsley: Absolutely. Freeman: Mrs. McKay, when you -- you were speaking to require 2.1.1 -- no, it wasn't. It was 2.2.1 having to do with -- you were specifically talking about bullet point number three prior to the city engineer's signature on the final plat all existing structures. McKay: Yes, sir. And I provided alternative language. Freeman: Will you -- what was the alternative language? McKay: The alternative language is in my -- in my comment sheet prior to the city engineer's signature on the final plat the existing structures on Lot 1, Block 2, the easterly office lot -- Yearsley Turn the pages. Freeman: Okay. McKay: Shall be removed and the existing well and septic abandoned .prior to issuance of certificate of zoning compliance on lot 1, Block 1, the westerly office lots, the existing structure shall be removed and the existing well and septic systems abandoned. Freeman: Five times as long now. Thank you for clarifying. McKay: Thank you. Sorry. Yearsley: Thank you. Another other questions? Thank you. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 17, 2013 Page 44 of 56 Yearsley: I do not have anybody signed up for this testimony. Is there anybody that would like to come up and testify? So, if there is no further questions, I would entertain a motion to close the public hearing on AZ 13-012 and PP 13-026. Marshall: So moved. Miller: Second. Yearsley: I have a motion and a second to close the public hearing. All in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. Freeman: Mr. Chair? Yearsley: Commissioner Freeman. Freeman: I see eyeballs looking at me, so I will start. Again, restricted site. I think this was thoughtfully designed with consideration for what was going on around it and I appreciate that. I think you have resolved some potential issues, clashes with residential up against the street. I like the project. I -- I'm sorry I didn't have all of your revised -- proposed revised language, but thank you for clarifying. It seems like I had one more -- no. You also answered my question regarding the sewer lines going to the west, that connection, so I guess I don't have any other questions or concerns. I think this is a good fit and I think it was well thought out. There were some challenges for this site that have been dealt with adequately I think. Yearsley: Thank you. Anybody else? Commissioner Marshall. Marshall: To be honest, I'm very comfortable with the applicant's request here and the wording and the change to 1.2.1 and I appreciate the update that Mr. Freckleton was good with 2.1.3 and 2.1.4 rewording there. That makes it fairly easy for me. You know, I'm willing go to with those modifications. Miller: Yeah. I agree with what these gentlemen said once again. I think the situation with the existing house there makes sense as part of the process and we don't get to make that decision, but I don't see any reason why not to recommend that to City Council. I think it's a cool project. Yearsley: All right. Thank you. With that I would entertain a motion. Freeman: Mr. Marshall would love to give you one. Marshall: Okay. After considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony I move to recommend approval to the City Council of file numbers AZ 13-012 and PP 13-026 as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of October 17th, 2013, with the Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 17, 2013 Page 45 of 56 following modifications: As discussed in Becky McKay's letter in response, the rewording for 1.2.1, 2.1.3 and 2.1.4, to be revised as per the applicant's request. Freeman: We also have Bruce Freckleton's amendments to 2.1.2 to add to that. Marshall: And add in Mr. Freckleton's change to 2.1.2. Thank you. Freeman: That's why I left it to you and I will second that. Marshall: Thank you. Freeman: You're welcome. Yearsley: I have a motion and a second for the approval of AZ 13-012 and PP 13-026, Sagewood Subdivision. All in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries. Thank you. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. K. Public Hearing: CUP 13-012 Fanci Freez by Bill Martin Located 4920 N. Linder Road Request: Conditional Use Permit Approval for aDrive-Thru Establishment in a C-G Zoning District Within 300 Feet of an Existing Drive-Thru Establishment. Yearsley: We are getting closer. At this point we would like to open the public hearing for CUP 13-002, Fancy Freeze and start with the staff report. Watters: Thank you, Chairman Yearsley, Members of the Commission. Give me just a moment here. My presentation isn't quite working. All right. The next application before is a conditional use permit. This site consists of .79 of an acre. It's currently zoned C-G and is located at 4920 North Linder Road on the east side of North Linder, north of West McMillan Road. Adjacent land use and zoning. To the north and east is vacant commercial property, zoned C-G. Apartments have been approved on the C-G property adjacent to the east boundary of this site. To the south is a vacant lot and Walgreens pharmacy zoned C-G and to the west is North Linder Road and single family residential property zoned R-8. The applicant requests a conditional use permit for a drive-thru for the Fancy Freeze restaurant in a C-G zoning district. A restaurant is a principal permitted use in the C-G district, however, because the proposed drive-thru is located within 300 feet of an existing drive-thru establishment, Walgreens pharmacy, a conditional use permit is required per the UDC. A site plan showing how the site is proposed to develop was submitted by the applicant as shown. Access is proposed via a driveway. Access to Linder Road along the north boundary of the site and an internal driveway along the east boundary of the site. Across-access and cross-parking agreement exists between all the lots in the subdivision. A sidewalk and landscape street buffer exists along Linder Road and is required to be protected during construction. Internal parking lot landscaping is required in accord with UDC standards. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 17, 2013 Page 46 of 56 A trash enclosure is shown on the site plan at the southeast corner of the sight here where you see the little red and the red arrow. It is proposed to be relocated further to the south in an area where Republic Services can service the trash dumpster without blocking the drive-thru here. The proposed hours of operation are from 8:00 a.m. to 12:00 a.m., seven days a week. The proposed drive-thru does not currently abut a residential use or district and as I have previously mentioned a 96 unit apartment complex, Linder Springs, was recently approved to develop on the lot directly to the east. For this reason staff is recommending the hours of operation be restricted to that proposed with this application. Building elevations were submitted for the future structure. Building materials consists primarily of stucco siding with checkerboard pattern tiles, corrugated metal siding, stone veneer, and glazing as accent materials. Development is required to comply with the specific use standards for drive-thru establishments listed in the UDC. Written testimony has been received from Dalin Baird, the. applicant's representative, in agreement with the staff report. Staff is recommending approval with the conditions in Exhibit B of the staff report. Staff will stand for any questions the Commission may have. Yearsley: Are there any questions? Freeman: Mr. Chair, I have one. Yearsley: Commissioner Freeman. Freeman: Sonya, you mentioned that trash dumpster. Is that moving off the property to an adjacent property? Watters: It is moving to the adjacent lot to the south. I'm under the understanding that the same property owner owns both lots. Freeman: Okay. That was all. Yearsley: Commissioner Marshall. Marshall: Mr. Chair, if I could. Sonya, how many lots are between this and the Walgreens? Watters: One. Marshall: Just one lot? All right. Thank you. Yearsley: Any other questions? Oh. Marshall: Because those two align, then, with the drive-thrus. Yearsley: Okay. If there is no more questions, would the applicant like to come forward. Please state your name and address for the record. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 17, 2013 Page 47 of 56 Martin: Members of the Commission and staff, my name is Bill Martin and I'm here representing myself as the applicant for the conditional use permit. We are in agreement with the staff report and be happy to answer any questions you might have. Yearsley: Any questions? Freeman: I don't have any. Marshall: I don't either. Yearsley: No. Thank you then. Martin: Okay. Yearsley: I do have someone signed up. A Dick Carter. Would you -- okay. With that don't have anybody else. Is there anybody else that would like to come forward? If that's the case, that no one else would like to testify -- Marshall: Mr. Chair? Yearsley: Commissioner Marshall. Marshall: I move we close the public hearing on CUP 13-012. Miller: Second. Yearsley: I have a motion and a second to close the public hearing on CUP 13-012. All in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries. Thank you. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. Yearsley: Anybody have comments? Marshall: Mr. Chair, I do. I have to admit, I -- the one thing that was a little worrisome -- and I'm glad there is a lot in between and that lot in between -- this is going to make it so that that cannot have adrive-thru, because this drive-thru will align up with the Walgreens drive-thru and I don't know if anybody was out in the area this weekend, but, oh, my gosh, that -- the Dutch Brothers backed up all the way to McMillan. Oh, my gosh. I have never seen anything like it. I guess free coffee brings it out. It had to have been a three hour wait. There is, obviously, a pent up demand and I hope you do well, sir. That's all I have to say. I think -- I think it's a great place for it, because I think there is -- a lot of people will probably use it. Yearsley: Thank you. Any other comments? Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 17, 2013 Page 48 of 56 Freeman: Mr. Chair, just -- this is a very easy drive-thru proposal to approve -- or to recommend approval for. It's not right up against adjacent residential properties, it's got adequate distance. It's -- it's fine. The design looks good and is appropriate for this context. Yearsley: Thank you. Marshall: Now, we did approve the apartments just back behind this, but -- Freeman: We did. But it seems to me we have adequate space here. These tend to be less of an issue with multi-family residential apartment-type uses than with single family uses and -- Marshall: I think it is an appropriate location. I do. Miller: Mr. Chair? Yearsley: Commissioner Miller. Miller: I agree. It's an appropriate use in an appropriate spot. I love Fancy Freeze, so yeah. I apologize that you had to wait so long for such a simple application. But thank you. Yearsley: Well, I'm going to actually have one objection. I wish you would have put it on the south side of the interstate so I could actually utilize it a little bit more. Working downtown I have frequented the Fancy Freeze a lot and it's a very good restaurant, so -- but, yes, I think it's a very good usage. So, with that I would entertain a motion. Freeman: Mr. Chair, after considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move to approve file number CUP 13-012 as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of October 17th, 2013, with no modifications. Miller: Second. Yearsley: I have a motion and a second to approve CUP 13-012, Fancy Freeze. All in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. L. Public Hearing: PP 13-028 Whitebark Subdivision by Cindy K. Lewis Trust and T & M Holdings, LLC Located 2135 E. Amity Road Request: Preliminary Plat Approval Consisting of Fifty- Five (55) Single Family Residential Building Lots and Seven (7) Common/Other Lots on Nineteen (19) Acres of Land in an R-4 Zoning District Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 17, 2013 Page 49 of 56 Yearsley: All right. Last but not least -- glad you guys were staying here for the time. We'd like to open the public hearing on PP 13-028, White Bark Subdivision, and let's start with the staff report. Wafters: Thank you, Chairman Yearsley. My presentation is giving me fits once again, so give me just a minute. All right. Sorry about that. The next two applications before you, the final ones, are for a development agreement modification and a preliminary plat. This site consists of 19 acres of land. It's currently zoned R-4 and is located at 2135 East Amity Road on the south side of East Amity midway between South Locust Grove and South Eagle Road. Adjacent land use and zoning. This site is surrounded by rural residential agricultural property, zoned R-1 and RUT in Ada County. In 2006 this property was annexed with a development agreement and a preliminary plat, but the plat has since expired. The current development agreement restricts development of this site to 48 single family residential building lots and eight common or other lots consistent with the previously approve preliminary plat. The applicant is proposing an amendment to the development to change the number of building lots to 48 consistent with the proposed preliminary and other clean-up items related to current conditions and ownership of the property. The proposed preliminary plat consists of 55 single family residential building lots and seven common or other lots on 19 acres of land. The gross density of the proposed subdivision is 2.89 dwelling units per acre consistent with the low density residential future land use map designation for this site. The plat is proposed to develop in two phases with the western half developing first, which will include the entry and approximately half of the central common area. All development is required to comply with the dimensional standards of the R-4 zoning district. The main access to the subdivision is proposed at the north boundary via East Amity Road. Two stub streets are depicted on the plat to the south and one stub street is proposed to the west and east for a future extension and interconnectivity. The fire department does require any stub streets over 150 feet to provide an approved turn around. Common driveways are proposed to the lots in the northwest and northeast corners of the development and shall comply with the standards in effect at the time of final plat submittal. A 25 foot wide landscape street buffer and five foot wide detached sidewalk is required along East Amity Road as proposed. Parkways with detached sidewalks are proposed along internal streets within the development. Because this site is over five acres in size, a minimum of ten percent qualified open space and one site amenity is required to be provided. The applicant is proposing 2.08 acres or 11.3 percent of the site in qualified open space and a tot lot with play equipment and pathways through the common area as site amenities. A six foot tall solid vinyl fence is proposed along the perimeter boundary of the subdivision and a four foot tall vinyl fence is proposed at the rear and side boundaries of the lots adjacent to the interior common area. There are ditches that exist along the property boundaries of this site that are required to be piped with the development per requirement of the UDC. Conceptual building elevations were submitted for future homes within this development consisting of a mix of one and two stories with three car garages. The homes are proposed to be earth tone colors with stone accents and other details to enhance the front elevations. Staff recommends a provision be added to the amended development agreement for future homes on the site to be generally consistent with the conceptual building elevations proposed by the Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 17, 2013 Page 50 of 56 applicant as shown and structures Lots 4 and 6, Block 1, and Lot 4, Block 4, that back up to East Amity Road incorporate articulation on the rear or side elevations that face Amity to break up monotonous wall plains and roof lines. Written testimony has been received from John and Helen Huffman, the property owners directly to the west of this property. They are asking that the developer provide a nonclimbable fence along the west boundary. The ditch along the south boundary be piped with access to the irrigation water not being restricted or changed and covenants that prevent feeding, teasing, abusing, or taunting their livestock and/or students and address motorized radio controlled airplanes. And just to note again the applicant is proposing a six foot tall vinyl fence along that west boundary. Written testimony was also received from Bruce Freckleton, Development Services, a memo that -- asking for the Commission to modify condition number 2.1.1 and 2.1.2. You should have a copy of that memo hopefully in your packet. Dave Yorgason, the applicant, has responded in agreement with staff's memo containing the revised conditions in the staff report. The Boise Project Board of Control also submitted comments. The Bureau of Reclamation has an easement for the Beasley Lateral. They would like wording on the preliminary and final recorded plat to state that any proposed and/or future usage of the Boise Project Board of Control facilities are subject to Idaho statutes Title 42-1909. And also that fencing must be constructed just off the lateral easement. Staff is recommending approval with the conditions in Exhibit B of the staff report in accord with the changes to conditions 2.1.1 and 2.1.2 contained in the memo from Bruce Freckleton dated October 17th, 2013. Staff will stand for any questions commission may have. Yearsley: Are there any questions of staff? Marshall: Mr. Chair, real quick. Sonya, does Bruce's -- that doesn't address the BLM request. That's a separate issue, isn't it? Wafters: Yes. Marshall: Okay. Thank you. Yearsley: Any other questions? With that would the applicant like to come forward? Yorgason: Good evening, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. My name is Dave Yorgason with Tall Timber Consulting, representing the applicant here tonight for White Bark Subdivision and it's been a long night, we are at the end, and we will be fairly brief for you as well tonight. As was mentioned -- restating the history of this plat, this site has already been annexed by the city. Has already been zoned R-4 zoning. The plat has expired and which is cause for us to come back for a renewal of this preliminary plat to get it back in shape so we can start construction again. A couple points just to clarify. First, the development agreement -- I think I heard staff say that we are requesting a change to 48 -- I think that's the current -- we are requesting change to 55 lots in the development agreement and that is actually -- the changes in the development agreement are consistent with what you see in the staff report, first of all, and also is consistent with what our plat shows which we are presenting for you Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 17, 2013 Page 51 of 56 tonight for your approval. Some of the few changes -- and, Sonya, if you could maybe change to the colored plan of the site. Thank you. The -- some of the changes we made from the previous design, we show a little more linear open space where you have some lots to get back up to have a little more open space feel. We have a one acre park in the middle of the site, which was not part of the concept before, a little more spread out. We think this is a little more usable, more functional in our design and more efficient. We have some additional pathways that will help incorporate. The sidewalks are also separated sidewalks in this plat, which I believe they were not separated previously. So, all these things are improvements to neighborhood quality of life, which we think will be positive for this neighborhood in the area. Since the ACHD report did come in a little bit late and we received it and we agree with all the conditions of the staff report and as far as the changes from Mr. Bruce Freckleton in his memo dated today, October 17th, we agree with all their changes as well in the conditions 2.1.1 and 2.1.2. He also included a couple of exhibits. One is an exhibit, the other is a table, of which are city changes in the staff report and we agree with those changes that he's provided as well. Aside from that we agree with the staff report as submitted with the -- some of the changes from Bruce Freckleton and stand for any questions you may have. Yearsley: Are there any questions? Freeman: No. Thanks. Yearsley: Commissioner Marshall. Marshall: Mr. Chair, if I could. Yes. Thank you. I would simply ask about the BLM request and you're okay with all that and no problems there? Yorgason: Mr. Chairman and Commissioner Marshall, it's the first we have heard of it, actually. But it's a pretty standard request to have some protection to the pipes and easements and fences off the pipes and so that's -- Marshall: Correct. Yorgason: Actually, my interpretation is it's already in the staff report, just not clearly identified with this reference. Marshall: Thank you. Yorgason: Thank you. Yearsley: Any other questions? Miller: Mr. Chair? Yearsley: Commissioner Miller. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 17, 2013 Page 52 of 56 Miller: Actually, I just want to address John and Helen's comments also. I know you have the nonclimbable fence. Is there any intention to pipe ditches or incorporate nonteasing actions or something? Yorgason: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Marshall -- Miller, excuse me. The -- the two points there -- one is the ditches and the other is the CC&Rs. Yes, the small ditch that believe is on the south boundary of the site, we are not going to restrict the water, we will just the it as normal through the site and so we will not be restricting their access or impeding their water as is currently designed. Regarding CC&Rs and encouraging children to not fly aerial planes or not tease their livestock, that's a little hard to enforce. Certainly there is a lot of things that are concerning with regard to neighborhoods next to agricultural use and we believe that the solid fence will be a great help. If their animals come to our property I'm not sure how we could stop the kids from saying hi to the nice horses. If there is some direction you have for us we are open to that, but typically we -- we are not sure how to enforce that. Miller: Yeah. Yearsley: Thank you. Any other final questions? All right. Thank you. Yorgason: Thank you. Yearsley: I have one person signed up to testify. Ed Young. Would you like to come forward or -- okay. Was there anybody else that would like to come forward? Please come forward. State your name and address for the record, please. Boyle: All right. Gwen Boyle. I live at 2125 East Amity Road. Right next door. And my only concern with the noise, the radio controlled aircraft and the teasing is reflected in the fact that my daughters have been riding out there for seven years and so we are a long time client of Arabians West and we just want to make sure that it continues to be a place where the children feel safe on the horses and they are not harassed by neighborhood dogs, children, or radio controlled aircraft. Freeman: Question. Have you actually had incidents with radio controlled aircraft? Boyle: We have before. There were people that live up on the hill behind them that had radio controlled aircraft and it took the police -- police's involvement in order to get it stopped, because they do have pregnant mares and cows and it is a concern with them. Freeman: I typically see that out in parks or, you know, open spaces, not in subdivisions, residential neighborhoods, because you will lose track of your plane, guess. Boyle: You have to understand the lots out there are still very large. Freeman: Yeah. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 17, 2013 Page 53 of 56 Boyle: So, the agriculture -- Freeman: These are actually smaller. I would -- I would have a hard time seeing that being an issue. Not that it's impossible, but probably that's not going to be a main activity of interest for the kids in this neighborhood I wouldn't think. But appreciate those concerns being voiced. Boyle: Okay. Thank you very much. Freeman: Thank you. Yearsley: Thank you. Is there anybody else that would like to testify? So, would the applicant have anything else to say? You want to come up and -- Yorgason: For the record, my name is Dave Yorgason with Tall Timber Consulting, representing the applicant. We are fine with adding something that encourages the neighbors to -- to be a good neighbor. Specifically restricting the flight of the remote controlled aircraft and being kind to or not harassing the surrounding agricultural animals. If we can put that kind of encouraging language into the CC&Rs if the Commission would like us to do that. Freeman: Thank you. I might address that and just for clarity, too, we really -- we don't have any jurisdiction over CC&Rs. I would encourage you to continue talking with the neighbors and maybe you can come up with some language. I'm glad to hear your amenable to it. That satisfies them. I do agree it's going to be very difficult to enforce, but perhaps that six foot fence I think is going to be your best friend to combat all those potential issues. Miller: And the nice little park area in the middle. Freeman: The park area in the middle without a landing strip. Yorgason: For football and -- Freeman: Don't put one in. Yorgason: -- little place for soccer. Freeman: Okay. Thank you. Yorgason: Thank you. Yearsley: If no other testimonies, could I get a motion to close to public hearing on PP 13-028. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 17, 2013 Page 54 of 56 Miller: So moved. Marshall: Second. Yearsley: I have a motion and a second to close the public hearing on PP 13-028, White Bark Subdivision. All in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. Marshall: Am I first? Freeman: Sure. Yearsley: Commissioner Marshall. Marshall: My first comment is that I feel for the next door neighbors and I -- that their animals are being harassed and planes being flown over them and I'm sorry the police had to get involved. I hate to hear that. I really appreciate -- as Commissioner Freeman pointed out, we really don't have any jurisdiction over the CC&Rs or anything like that and I really appreciate the fact that the applicant here was suggesting that they would be willing to work with them and try to provide some kind of language. But how enforceable it is -- some of the growing pains we have and we are going to experience that throughout the entire valley and I hope and pray that you do not experience very much of that. But we see probably a little more of that than we used to as things grow and fill in and I think it's part of some of our growing pains and it's an unfortunate side of it, but that's what brings jobs and keeps us employed and brings growth to the valley. Other than that I appreciate the fact that the applicant is amenable to all of the staff report recommendations and everything else that was suggested there, so I'm pretty happy to move forward. Miller: I don't really have anything more to add to that. I'm in support of the project. Yearsley: Thank you. Freeman: Mr. Chair? Yearsley: Commissioner Freeman. Freeman: Again, I'm in favor of the development. I think it was well worked out. appreciate the applicant's willingness to work with the neighbors, because we do have to -- we do have to get along and we have -- we have a use there that's not exactly a typical neighborhood use that -- that should continue and I would encourage it to continue unharassed. I think the six foot solid fence is really, probably, as I have stated before, our best protection against issues between the kids in this neighborhood and the animals across the way. It's -- the solidness of it is going to screen them, for one thing. would clarify that a six foot solid fence when you're talking about kids, is not Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 17, 2013 Page 55 of 56 unclimbable. I'm not sure if a 30 foot fence with razor wire electrified is unclimbable by a teenager, but I do think this will be enough to screen and discourage an unwanted interactions between your students and these kids. And we don't have any public open space up against your property. These are individual backyards, which, furthermore, should -- should help alleviate that. I think the concerns have been adequately address again with that fence, with the possibility of further talks about CC&Rs and Iwould -- would recommend approval for this project. Yearsley: Thank you. With that I would stand for a motion. Miller: Mr. Chair? Yearsley: Commissioner Miller. Miller: After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to recommend approval to the City Council of file number PP 13-028 as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of October 17th, 2013, with the following modifications -- and that would be including the memo from Bruce Freckleton modifying condition 1.2.1 and 2.1.2. I think that's it. Freeman: The requested language. Miller: Oh. And the requested language by the BLM. Freeman: I think that covers it. Marshall: I will second that. Yearsley: I have a motion and a second for the approval of PP 13-028, the White Bark Subdivision. All in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. Yearsley: With no other business -- Commissioner Marshall. Marshall: I'd like to move that we adjourn. Miller: Second. Freeman: Second. Yearsley: I have a motion and a second to adjourn. All in favor say aye. Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 17, 2013 Page 56 of 56 MEETING ADJOURNED AT 9:05 P.M. (AUDIO RECORDING ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS.) APPROVED STEVEN YE RSL - C N DATE APPROVED ATTEST: `aG~gyORATgD9~C G`r~ JAYCEE HOLMAN, CITY CLERK ~C"`I~ c~,°f IDI A S~,O,h~~ s __+++444 of 'allRFAS9&EVp~`~i