Loading...
2013 11-07E IDIAN ~- MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING IDAHO COMMISSION MEETING AGENDA City Council Chambers 33 E. Broadway Avenue, Meridian, Idaho Thursday, November 07, 2013 at 6:00 p.m. 1. Roll-call Attendance X Macy Miller _X Michael Rohm O Scott Freeman _X Joe Marshall X Steven Yearsley -Chairman 2. Adoption of the Agenda Approved as Amended 3. Consent Agenda Approved A. Approve Minutes of October 17, 2013 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting B. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: 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 4. Action Items A. Public Hearing: AZ 13-014 Victory South by City of Meridian Located South of W. Victory Road, East of S. Linder Road and West of S. Meridian Road Request: Annexation of 310.20 Acres of Land from RUT, R1, R4 and R6 in Ada County to the R-4 (Medium Low-Density Residential) (221.94 Acres) and R-8 (Medium-Density Residential) (88.14 Acres) Zoning DistrictsRecommend Approval to City Council B. Public Hearing: RZ 13-012 Raising Angels by Engineered Structures, Inc. Located Northwest Corner of E. Pine Avenue and N. Nola Road Request: Rezone of 1.54 Acres of Land from the I-L (Light Industrial) Zoning District to the L-O (Limited Office) Zoning DistrictRecommend Approval to City Council Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Agenda -Thursday, November 07, 2013Page 1 of 2 All materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. Anyone desiring accommodation for disabilities related to documents and/or hearing, please contact the City Clerk's Office at 888-4433 at least 48 hours prior to the public meeting. C. Public Hearing: AZ 13-013 Creekstone Subdivision by Boslau Family Trust Located North Side of W. Pine Avenue; Midway Between N. Black Cat Road and N. Ten Mile Road Request: Annexation of 6.92 Acres from RUT in Ada County to the R-8 (Medium-Density Residential) Zoning District Recommend Approval to City Council D. Public Hearing: PP 13-029 Creekstone Subdivision by Boslau Family Trust Located North Side of W. Pine Avenue; Midway Between N. Black Cat Road and N. Ten Mile Road Request: Preliminary Plat Approval Consisting of Thirty-Two (32) Residential Lots and Six (6) Common Lots on Approximately 6.92 Acres in the Proposed R-8 Zoning District Recommend Approval to City Council E. Public Hearing: AZ 13-015 TM Creek by SCS Brighton, LLC Located Southeast Corner of W. Franklin Road and S. Ten Mile Road Request: Annexation and Zoning of 45.34 Acres of Land with C-G (34.82 acres), R-40 (3.94 Acres) and TN-C (5.58 Acres) Zoning DistrictsContinued Public Hearing to November 21, 2013 F. Public Hearing: PP 13-030 TM Creek by SCS Brighton, LLC Located Southeast Corner of W. Franklin Road and S. Ten Mile Road Request: Preliminary Plat Approval Consisting of Forty- Nine (49) Building Lots and Three (3) Common/Other Lots on 41.03 Acres of Land in the Proposed C-G, R-40 and TN-C Zoning DistrictsContinued Public Hearing to November 21, 2013 G. Public Hearing: PFP 13-001 Twelve Oaks by JLJ, Inc. Located at 1845 W. Franklin Road Request: Preliminary and Final Plat Approval Consisting of Two (2) Building Lots on 9.43 Acres of Land in the TN-R and C-C Zoning DistrictsRecommend Approval to City Council H. Public Hearing: ZOA 13-003 UDC Text Amendment by City of Meridian Planning Division Request: Text Amendment to the Unified Development Code (UDC) in Regard to Fencing Adjacent to Pathways and Open Space; Common Driveways; Irrigation Easements; Off-Street Parking; Home Occupations; Definitions for Vehicles; Vehicle Sales or Rental Landscaping; Public Hearing Notice Signs; and Allowed uses in the Industrial DistrictsRecommend Approval to City Council Meeting adjourned at 8:23 p.m. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Agenda -Thursday, November 07, 2013Page 2 of 2 All materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. Anyone desiring accommodation for disabilities related to documents and/or hearing, please contact the City Clerk's Office at 888-4433 at least 48 hours prior to the public meeting. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission November 7, 2013 Meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission of November 7, 2013, was called to order at 6:00 p.m. by Chairman Steven Yearsley. Present: Commissioner Steven Yearsley, Commissioner Joe Marshall, Commissioner Michael Rohm, and Commissioner Macy Miller. Members Absent: Commissioner Scott Freeman. Others Present: Machelle Hill, Bill Nary, Caleb Hood, Justin Lucas, Sonya Wafters, Bill Parsons, Tom Barry, Warren Stewart 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 I would like to call to order the regularly scheduled meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission for November 7th, 2013, and let's begin with roll call. Item 2: Adoption of the Agenda Yearsley: Thank you. The next item on the agenda is the adoption of the agenda. I do have one change. Action Items D and E will be opened, which is the Creekstone Subdivision -- no. Sorry. Action Items E and F, the TM Creek by Brighton Corporation, will be opened for the sole purpose of being continued to the November 21st meeting. So, with that can I get approval or adoption of the agenda? Marshall: Mr. Chair, I move that we adopt the agenda as amended. Miller: 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 17, 2013 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 7, 2013 Page 2 of 44 B. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: 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: Next item on the agenda is the Consent Agenda and we have two items on the Consent Agenda, the approval of minutes of October 17th, 2013, Planning and Zoning meeting and the Findings of Fact and Conclusion of Law for the approval of CUP 13-012, Fancy Freeze. Can I get a motion to approve the Consent Agenda? Miller: Mr. Chair, I move to approve the Consent Agenda. Marshall: 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. Item 4: Action Items E. Public Hearing: AZ 13-015 TM Creek by SCS Brighton, LLC Located Southeast Corner of W. Franklin Road and S. Ten Mile Road Request: Annexation and Zoning of 45.34 Acres of Land with C-G (34.82 acres), R-40 (3.94 Acres) and TN-C (5.58 Acres) Zoning Districts F. Public Hearing: PP 13-030 TM Creek by SCS Brighton, LLC Located Southeast Corner of W. Franklin Road and S. Ten Mile Road Request: Preliminary Plat Approval Consisting of Forty- Nine (49) Building Lots and Three (3) Common/Other Lots on 41.03 Acres of Land in the Proposed C-G, R-40 and TN-C Zoning Districts Yearsley: So, what we are going to do is we are going to open public hearing AZ 13-015 and PP 13-030, TM Creek by SCS Brighton, LLC., for the sole purpose of continuing that public hearing to November 21st, 2013. Can I get a motion to continue that public hearing? Rohm: So moved. Marshall: Second. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 7, 2013 Page 3 of 44 Yearsley: I have a motion and a second to continue the public hearing of AZ 13-015 and PP 13-030. All in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. Yearsley: All right. Now, let me let explain this process, how we are going to move forward. The rest of the items we are going to open each item one by one. We are going to start off with the staff report to tell us how -- how the project adheres to our Comprehensive Plan and Uniform Development Code with staff recommendations. Then we will have the applicant come forward to present their case for approval of their application and respond to any staff comments. The applicant will have up 15 minutes to do so. After that time we will open it up to the public for public testimony. There is a sign- up sheet in the back. Anyone wishing to testify can sign up there and each person will be given three minutes. If they are speaking for a larger group or if there is a show of hands for who they are speaking for, they will be given up to ten minutes. After all the testimony has been heard the applicant will have an opportunity to come forward and respond to those comments and they will be given up to ten minutes. After that process we will close the public hearing and the Commission will have an opportunity to discuss and deliberate and, hopefully, make recommendations to the City Council. Item 4: Action Items A. Public Hearing: AZ 13-014 Victory South by City of Meridian Located South of W. Victory Road, East of S. Linder Road and West of S. Meridian Road Request: Annexation of 310.20 Acres of Land from RUT, R1, R4 and R6 in Ada County to the R-4 (Medium Low-Density Residential) (221.94 Acres) and R-8 (Medium-Density Residential) (88.14 Acres) Zoning Districts Yearsley: So, with that I would like to open the public hearing of AZ 13-014, Victory South by the City of Meridian. I'm going to start with the staff report. Hood: Thank you, Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission. The city has applied for annexation of approximately 310 acres of land currently zoned RUT, R-1, R-4 and R-6 in Ada County. These properties are generally located south of West Victory Road, east of South Linder Road and west of South Meridian Road. You can see the subject 310 acres in the black highlight on your screen. To the north of the properties is Bear Creek and Strata Bellisima Subdivisions. Those are city approved subdivisions. To the east are future phases of Cavanaugh Subdivision across Meridian Road or State Highway 69. To the south county residence and agricultural lands, zoned RUT in Ada County. Same with to the west, country residences and agricultural land. The city is, as I stated, proposing to annex the 310 acres and these properties are contiguous, adjacent to the existing city limits and within our county approved area of city impact. The proposed annexation is comprised of the -- the lots in the Meridian Heights and Kentucky Ridge Estates Subdivisions. Those are the smaller black areas that Bill is cursoring over right now. It Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 7, 2013 Page 4 of 44 also includes land owned by the Meridian Heights Water and Sewer District and multiple other parcels own by Hansen, Tewalt, and Centers. There again -- thank you, Bill. The proposed zoning designations for these properties are R-4 and R-8. Do we have that map? Okay. And these designations are consistent with the future land use map designations. The proposed zonings are based on our Comprehensive Plan future land use map. The current densities and lot sizes within the existing subdivisions, zoning of other adjacent properties in the area and probably suitable future uses and densities. So, the Meridian Heights lots we are proposing R-8 zoning for those. Those are smaller lots than the Kentucky Ridge Estates lots and that is, essentially, the break and, then, the Centers property would be R-4 as well. So, the Centers property and the Kentucky Ridge Estates properties are proposed for R-4. The Tewalt, the Hansen and the Meridian Heights lots are proposed for R-4 -- or, excuse me, R-8 zoning. No development of land is proposed with the subject annexation application. This is a proposal for annexation and zoning only. So, this is a little bit different project for the city. This is a Category B annexation that the city initiated and we are subject to the state of Idaho's rules and requirements for that Category B. One of them is a requirement to prepare an annexation plan and a summary of that annexation plan, which was distributed to all of the properties subject to this annexation, as well as properties within 300 feet were notified in accordance was state code. In that annexation plan we addressed things like the manner of providing tax supported municipal services, the changes in taxation and other costs. If the properties are annexed, the means of providing fee supported municipal services and an analysis of potential effects of annexation upon other units of local government, providing tax supported or fee supported services. An example being, you know, Republic Services, the school district, those types of other services that the city doesn't provide. And, then, finally, the proposed future land use plan and zoning designation or designations proposed. And so that was all prepared and presented in accordance with state code. That was made available to everyone in the community. At this point I'm going to turn it over to the Public Works Director Tom Barry to give a little bit more insight onto what's gone on in putting this application together and, then, I have just a couple closing remarks. Barry: Good evening, Commissioners. My name is Tom Barry, I'm the director of Public Works. I know we have met before, but for those who don't -- we don't normally frequently these meetings, so I thought I would just introduce myself. As Caleb said -- I appreciate his introduction. Meridian Heights and Kentucky Ridge Subdivisions are two Ada County subdivisions that lie within the City of Meridian's area of impact and they are adjacent to the city limits. They are currently served by a water and sewer utility district and have been for some time. That district was an association up to a few years ago. There is about 287 properties within the Meridian Heights and Kentucky Ridge Subdivisions, which comprise about -- close to a thousand residents. The district, along with several of the neighboring parcels which have been outlined by Caleb, that have undeveloped properties, have petitioned the city to annex their properties and those consents to annex have been filed with the application. Those properties have consented to annex and are willing to receive city and water services, as well as other municipal services that the city would provide via the annexation. Much time and resources have been spent and dedicated to developing this particular result, which is the request at this point in time for Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 7, 2013 Page 5 of 44 annexation of these properties and the connection of the associated municipal services that would be provided and much of this has been formalized into athree-party agreement that you might recall was presented in draft form to the Planning Commission, as well as the City Council back on September 10th of this year, which was also subsequently signed and executed by all of the parties. The three-party agreement when it was developed had two conditions in it. The first condition required that the district ask its patrons if they actually wanted to connect to the City of Meridian's water and sewer system and therefore -- or resultantly dissolve their own water and sewer district and I'm pleased to report the election -- or that question was put on the ballot and the election results, of course, we received last Tuesday, this past Tuesday, 85 percent of the residents agreed with this proposal to, essentially, dissolve their district and hook up to the City of Meridian's water and sewer system and, therefore, receive other services as well. I will also point out that what was pretty astonishing is the -- is the -- the rate of participation of the residents. Sixty-five percent of the residents actually voted in the election. That's three times more than we saw in the City of Meridian's elections. So, overwhelming -- not just super majority in participation, but a far super majority in the number of people that want to see this happen. So, in addition, the second condition that was placed in the three-party agreement conditioned all of this to annexation -- the City of Meridian's decision on annexation. If annexation is not approved by the Planning Commission and resultantly the City Council, then, the three-party agreement is, essentially, nullified and everything kind of goes back the way it is. So, the first hurdles have been crossed and that was what the district residents wanted. The second hurdle is what the city wants. Okay? The developer -- a prominent developer who was the third party to the agreement has already signed and agreed with those conditions as contained in the three-party agreement as well. The three-party agreement further guides the process and timing of utility connections, the transfer and dissolution of district properties and assets, the abandonment of a 40 acre sewage effluent land application site and the decommissioning of about 12 acres of sewer lagoon ponds, all within the city's area of impact. The agreement also settles along-standing dispute between a prominent property owner and the district, as well as a legal proceeding or case. Additionally, as Caleb has mentioned, there has been an annexation plan that's been put together, which is fully in compliance with the state law and details and guides the city's intentions, processes and impacts regarding the proposed annexation. As I mentioned back in September time is of the essence. We do hope that we can move through the hearing process tonight and get a recommendation by the Planning Commission respecting all rights and privileges of everyone involved. The City Council is expecting to hear this on December 3rd, at least at this point in time, and at this point, as I guess spokesperson for the applicant, we do agree with all of the recommendations that the city staff has presented. I will stand for any questions that you might have. Yearsley: Are there any questions at this time? Rohm: I just have a curiosity. The existing sewer and water system that serves this property currently, is it going to be able to be incorporated city services without a significant amount of changes and upgrades and what have you? Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 7, 2013 Page 6 of 44 Barry: That's an -- that's an excellent question and yes and no is the answer. So, the district infrastructure under the proposal of the agreement -- not this annexation. It's not tied in to the annexation. This is a different process. But in the agreement which guides all of this, which is conditioned based upon this annexation proceeding and an affirmative vote by both the Planning Commission and City Council, anticipates that the connections that will be made or be required to connect both subdivisions and adjacent properties in this particular agreement to the City of Meridian are being paid for by the developer. So, the developer is going be making those connections, so, yes, there is an impact and understand the developer is working on those engineering plans and is paying for those plans in addition also paying for the construction and installation of the utility lines. The city after the dissolution of the district will be taking over all assets within the district and so, therefore, we will assume the water infrastructure, the sewer infrastructure, the wells, any -- any properties that have also been identified in the agreement and so on and so forth. So, yes, there is -- there are connections, there is ways to hook this up, the agreement is what governs all of that, and I don't know if I have adequately or fully addressed your question or not. Rohm: No. That's exactly what I was looking for. Thank you. Yearsley: Any other questions? I just have one just for clarification. The lagoons -- the sewer lagoons are not going to be taken over by the city; is that correct? Barry: That is correct. There are two options for decommissioning of the sewer lagoons as agreed to in the three-party agreement I mentioned earlier. The first option is for the district to actually decommission those prior to the dissolution and transfer of assets to the city or, alternatively, to sell that property in advance and have the new property owner decommission those, again, prior to the transfer of district assets to the City of Meridian. Those are conditions inside the agreement. Yearsley: Okay. Thank you. Barry: You bet. Marshall: I'm sorry. Mr. Chair, if I could. So, do you anticipate either one of those? Which one would you anticipate there? Barry: Actually, the city has no say in which one will occur. It's the district board that will determine which course of action in that particular case they would like to choose and I understand that they are discussing, deliberating on that as we have gone through this and I don't know that they have reached a decision on that. However, that is fully within their control to determine. Marshall: Appreciate that. Yearsley: Thank you. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 7, 2013 Page 7 of 44 Barry: I will apologize, if there are no other questions I have an appointment that I need to be to and I will be leaving right after this, so I want to apologize and say is there any other Public Works questions as a result, please, let me know. I will be happy to address them now, otherwise, I will be absent, but we can get you answers later if you should so desire or need. Yearsley: Okay. Thank you. Barry: Thank you for your time. Hood: Mr. Chair, just a couple of things to wrap up. Although a lot of effort has gone into this process up to this point, as Tom pointed out, this is based on that first domino being pushed over, the vote on Tuesday, and we wouldn't be here if we didn't hear from the residents that they think this is a good deal for them to move forward, at least the vast majority of them. That being said, there are a couple of things that came out of, you know, this whole process of engaging with city wide departments and figuring out what the impacts are to the various departments. The one I wanted to call to your attention are some likely uses and structures that may be out on these properties that don't meet current city code. Things like accessory structures, you know, sheds that may not -- that may be larger than we allowed or they may not be placed the way we require it in the city. Unregistered or inoperable vehicles that may be in driveways that aren't registered or in front yards or those types of things that don't meet city code. Same with RVs parked on driveways and fencing that we would require to be -- to be up kept and there are some known violations today of city code. So, what we have -- working with the police department and code enforcement officers we have -- the path forward is any existing structure or activity that is being conducted on properties within the proposed annexation that is legal under Ada County code will be grandfathered, if not outright allowed under city code as an existing nonconforming use or nonconforming structure, provided that there is not alife-safety hazard. The way we are going to get there is upon annexation -- assuming this all goes forward -- we will need to document -- code enforcement officers will need to document, take photographs, whatnot, of what's there today. That way if any other complaints come up in the future we have a baseline to know what existed at the time these properties were annexed into the city. Aside from that, there are no real services or red flags that any other departments or service providers brought up. I do want to just reiterate there is no new development proposed at this time. We are proposing to zone the properties, but any future development will be required to come back to the Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council for approval. So, no subdivisions or conditional use permits and there will be future public hearings. Properties will be posted when developments are proposed on -- if any -- when and if any new development is proposed on any of the subject properties. With that, Mr. Chair, I have one change to the staff report proposed for this meeting this evening and that's on page ten, Section 1.1.1. I failed to include in that provision that the Meridian Heights Water and Sewer District is also subject to that provision in the annexation ordinance. So, anything that occurs on the sewer ponds, the sewer lagoon property, would need to have -- enter into an agreement with the city for that property to develop. So, I would just request you add somewhere in between Hansen, Tewalt, and Centers add Meridian Heights -- or at Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 7, 2013 Page 8 of 44 the end of that. Meridian Heights Water and Sewer District to that sentence, so -- with that, Mr. Chair, I would stand for any questions you may have. Yearsley: Thank you. Are there any questions? If there is no more questions, since there is -- the city is the applicant, I will actually open this up to public testimony. I have a Merilee Hansen. Would you like to testify? Okay. Connie Tewalt. Would you like to testify? Okay. Curtis Hoagland. Would you like to come up and testify? Please come forward. State your name and address for the record, please. Hoagland: Sure. Thank you. Curtis Hoagland. 3483 South Kentucky Way. That's in Meridian. The question that Ihave -- and I understand listening to -- sorry. Caleb? Hood: Caleb. Hoagland: Thank you, Caleb. That there is no proposed development at this time, so we are not -- we are not here to discuss which roads are going to be opened or warehouses are going to be built and any of that information -- good. Then I won't go into that. The question that I do have, unfortunately, is probably for the gentleman who just left, but, hopefully, somebody else can answer that question -- I understand listening to Public Works that part of the annexation process includes a take over of the water that we currently use, which is well funded or from the well source. Will the city be doing anything to improve the quality of the water from that system? Currently that water does stain the sidewalks with red iron. So, we would like to know -- I would like to know will the city be involved in improving the quality. At the last community hearing that we had or the presentation that the community -- at our subdivision -- I believe that the answer to that was no at that time, that we would just be hooking up meters to figure out how many gallons of the well we are using and the quality improvement would be addressed. So, has anything been discussed at this point? Hood: Mr. Chair, I will talk to Natalie a little bit. She was at those meetings. I don't know if Mr. Nary knows the answer to some of that. Can you handle that question, Warren? Stewart: Commission, Warren Stewart. I'm the city engineer. Sorry, we are kind of jumping in here and -- the water system will be connected to the existing city water system and as a result there will be water from our system which is supplied by us. Several different wells in that pressure zone. And that water will feed -- back feed into Meridian Heights and Kentucky Ridge and we believe that the water quality -- there is -- you know, our wells vary in water quality as well, but certainly there will be an opportunity to blend the various water sources and as such the iron staining and manganese staining that you're getting should improve. Does that answer our question? Hoagland: There is the should in there, so I'm hoping that there is more than should. Stewart: I say that, because I'm -- I wasn't -- I didn't quite get all of the question, so wasn't sure whether I answered it all, so -- Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 7, 2013 Page 9 of 44 Hoagland: You answered the question, that is would the water quality be addressed and improved, monitored, or would it just be simply paying the fee to have the city pump the water back to us without any oversight? Stewart: The water quality should improve. The iron and manganese -- you know, everybody's opinion on what water quality -- what quality water is a little bit different, but your iron and manganese issue that stains your sidewalk issues, that issue should improve. Hoagland: Okay. Do I have time for one more question? Yearsley: Sure. Nary: You need to direct it to the chair, sir, as part of the -- Yearsley: Direct it to me. Nary: Direct it to the chair, not to the staff. Hoagland: I thought I did. I apologize. The question that I have at this point would be -- there was a mention of grandfathering in existing fences and structures at that point. Do we have further detail or explanation of what those structures are? Is there some place where we can obtain that to know are we being -- anything in our existing property being grandfathered or is that some of the older established houses and buildings and outsheds. Where can we find more detail on what is being grandfathered? Yearsley: I will let Caleb answer that real quick. Hood: Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission, I know that there has been some surveying done. There is not an exhaustive list of what may or may not need to be on the list of grandfathered or nonconforming status, so that would all be -- once that inventory is done that would certainly be public record and folks can know do I have something that doesn't conform to city standards or not. At this point I don't think that that record exists, that there is not something I can share with you now that says here is all the properties that have a known fence or structure -- shed, something -- setback that doesn't meet our standards. So, that's -- we haven't gone to that effort yet, because we wanted to see if the annexation goes through and once it goes through, then, we will go in and, again, inventory, document what exists at the time of annexation. So, any changes. So, I hope that answers the question. I don't know if it -- Yearsley: I actually had a question with that. Will the affected homeowners be notified that there is a nonconforming use and it was grandfathered in or is that -- how does that go? Hood: Good questions that I don't know the answer to. I can speculate a little bit, because this will be led by our code enforcement team. I can pretty much -- there will be Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 7, 2013 Page 10 of 44 some correspondence if you have something that doesn't conform. So, if you have got -- if there is a life safety issue with a shed, it looks like it's dilapidated and may fall down, you will probably receive a letter saying, hey, you got 60 days or whatever the letter says to remediate this. We can -- we can -- I can explore the -- yes, it looks like it's -- it looks like there is no life safety use, but it doesn't meet city code and send you a letter. That way they have something on file. We can certainly look on -- into that and I think that's something that is -- it's very doable. Yearsley: Okay. Hoagland: I appreciate your time, sir. Yearsley: Thank you. The next one on the list is Steve Fager? All right. Name and address for the record, please. Fager: Name is Steve Fager. 849 West Riodosa Drive in Meridian, Idaho. Mr. Chairman, Curtis kind of took care of one of my questions and the should word scares me, because -- have you been in the neighborhood? You know what the sidewalks look like? Have you been in the neighborhood? Do you know what the -- what the sidewalks look like? Because should -- and I heard this mixing thing before -- is it working? But, anyway, have heard about this mixing thing before a few years ago when they started talking about the annexation and hooking us up to water and all this stuff, so I just wanted to confirm or -- you know, eventually -- I don't like speculation, because I'm having to go out there in the summertime every other week and go out there and -- I got to buy the stuff and I got to go out there and spray the stuff all over my concrete -- and it's a quarter acre of concrete on a corner lot -- okay? And I got to do that every other week. Otherwise, it turns orange. So, I mean it should, you know, doesn't really help me a lot, but I guess, hopefully, we will find out. And I had another question for the Public Works guy that took off, but for the last three years I believe the city -- or the owners of the properties in this development have been paying 500 bucks a month towards their taxes on top of their property taxes just in case they hook us up to the water. That was in case we had to pay for it. So, I'm wondering at this point -- I don't know if you can answer or anybody -- I just want it on record -- I would like to know when we are going to get our money back if this goes through and in a timely manner and how are we going to get it. I don't know if any of you were aware of that situation. Check the tax records. So -- and my other question -- I don't know if it had to do with the development. I don't know if we can go into that. I'm kind of wondering where the roads are going to be. Yearsley: Well, I think at this time no development is planned, no roads are planned at this point and if they do come forward they will have to come forward to the city and Planning and Zoning for future development applications. Hoagland: Okay. Yearsley: So, at this point nothing is being planned to be developed. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 7, 2013 Page 11 of 44 Hoagland: All right. Thank you very much for your time. Yearsley: Thank you. Nary: Mr. Chairman? There are people here from the Meridian Heights Sewer and Water District as well. I'm not aware of anything of what he was talking about in regards to paying some extra amount to some fund. I don't know what that's about. That's not incorporated in this agreement, but they have information regarding that. Yearsley: Okay. Next item is -- or next person is Christy Wright. Okay. Becky McKay, would you like to -- McKay: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Member of the Commission. Becky McKay. Engineering Solutions. 1029 North Rosario, Meridian. Business address. I'm representing Lee and Diane Centers and we have been working with the city and the Meridian Heights Sewer and Water District for pushing two years to come up with a joint solution and this three-party agreement -- a lot of time and effort went into it from everyone and we are very proud that we have got to this point and we are going to, obviously, extend city services to this area and as you well know we have to be in the city limits in order to extend services. So, this is a key component of that process and we hope that the Planning and Zoning Commission will be supportive of it. Thank you. Yearsley: Thank you. Next person is Gordon Hamilton. Hamilton: Commissioners, my name is Gordon Hamilton. I live at 3496 South Arcaro. am the president of the water district. However, I'm here speaking as just a resident of the neighborhood right now and I just want to express that it was very clear that a motivation for the City of Meridian was that the removal of the treatment ponds and these things would make it possible for an orderly and correct development of this area, so that things were at their best possible condition, rather than having on enclave and going around and I think that that's -- that's a goal of ours. There is a number of people from the neighborhood here and -- and I just want to express how important it is that you do as you always do, which is include the public, listen to us, make sure that we are informed when plans are placed on the table and that we would very much appreciate that. Thank you. Yearsley: Since you're here, can you mind asking -- answering that gentleman's question or do you know about that? Hamilton: There was -- we had a bond election a number of years ago and there is a levy. don't think the amounts are anywhere near that, but the levy was specifically put in place to -- for funds to deal with the -- with sewer issues and I think it amounts to about a half percent of calculated values. So, I don't think it gets close to 500 dollars a month, but it is a significant amount of money and -- and that was given a lot of consideration in crafting the three part agreement in that when the closing occurs that will go away and the -- at that point property taxes will be paid to the city. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 7, 2013 Page 12 of 44 Yearsley: Okay. And the money that's in that fund now, is that going to be -- what's going to happen to that money? Hamilton: That is part of -- the money that's in that fund is part of the assets of the sewer district. Yearsley: Okay. Thank you. I don't have anybody else signed up. Is there anybody else that would like to testify? Please come forward. If you would state your name and address for the record, please. McNish: Alex McNish and I live at 835 West Victory Road. It looks like I'm that point of beginning. Thank you, Chairman and Commissioners. I feel like I'm kind of in a -- I don't know -- a gray zone. I have been lumped in with Meridian Heights Sewer and Water District just as of two years ago when I was levied with the tax for the district and, then, there was an agreement that -- for 2012 taxes and moving forward, that they would refund that levy. So, I have a septic tank and my own well, so I'm concerned of how that's all going to fit in with this annexation and the developers plans, if I would be included with being connected to the services. If the developer would pay my fees, along with Hansen and I can't remember the other name. I'm just west of the Hansen property. Yearsley: Do we want to -- if you would -- Caleb, do you know? Hood: Yeah. I can address this, Mr. Chairman, a little bit. So, in the staff report we address some of the existing wells and septics staying out there if you're not one of the -- Ms. McNish's lot is recorded as part of Kentucky Ridge, but she isn't receiving the services. As she mentioned she's got her own septic and well. There are other homes on the Centers properties, the Hansen, the Tewalt property -- all of those existing septics and wells, individual systems can stay for now and two things will happen. They either -- when they fail, then, we will look at hooking them up to services where available or if they are interested we can certainly do that as part if it. Now, what we can't do is condition the developer to hook somebody else up, because that's not part of this. But certainly if she wants to be hooked up to city sewer and water -- and I guess I would defer a little bit of that to Warren I'm not quite sure where the sewer lines are and I don't know if it's even feasible in the next year, 18 months, as -- as the rest of this gets all hooked up, if -- how much of that's coming down Victory or not. But there is no plan to imminently replace your septic and well with this proposed annexation plan. You're kind of the outlier in a lot of this where you're in the subdivision, but you're not hooked up to the water and sewer like all the other lots are. So, Warren, I don't know if you want to add anything to that? Stewart: I think you covered most of it. It was our understanding in the work that we did that those additional properties wanted to be -- essentially maintain the status quo at this time and so we made sure that in this process or in this proposal that they would be allowed until further development occurred to continue to use their existing septic and wells at which point they either -- the well or the septic system failed, they would be required to come in -- required to use the city services or if the property is further Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 7, 2013 Page 13 of 44 developed, then, they would -- they would need to do that. But right now they are, essentially, grandfather in. Does that answer your question? McNish: It does. Thank you. Yearsley: Thank you. Is there anybody else that would like to come forward? Going once. Twice. Okay. If no one else would like to come forward -- I don't know as there -- is there anything you want to last say before we close the public hearing? Hood: Mr. Chair, not to drag this out too much longer, but do appreciate Mr. Hamilton's comments on the findings and I will call to your attention -- that is one of the things that went into the annexation plan and one of the findings that you need, that, you know, it's essentially in the best interest of the city and this does allow the orderly development of the city. It's not the driving force for this, but it's certainly one of the considerations. So, again, just to call your attention to the findings as necessary on pages 20 and 21. So, the city required findings, as well as state code required findings. So, Mr. Chair, with that don't have anything else to add. Yearsley: All right. Any other questions at this time before we close the public hearing? Marshall: Mr. Chair? Yearsley: Commissioner Marshall. Marshall: I move we close the public hearing on AZ 13-014. Miller: Second. Yearsley: I have a motion and a second to close the public hearing on AZ 13-014. All in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. Yearsley: Commissioner Marshall. Marshall: Mr. Chair, I -- obviously a lot of work and a lot time has gone into this and I'm very pleased to hear that 65 percent of the people voted, 85 percent of those said yes. This seems overwhelming that they want to participate in this as a group. Unfortunately, it's all or none. Don't have a single individual locked out, but I hope it does improve people's water quality and I'd like to see the lagoons gone and I really am very pleased to see how this has come about with the city involved here and the three parties and I am pleased to see it. Yearsley: Okay. Thank you. Any other comments? Rohm: Mr. Chairman? Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 7, 2013 Page 14 of 44 Yearsley: Commissioner Rohm. Rohm: This project I think is something that has been a long time coming and it is good for the city and good for the community as a whole. If I have ever had a soap box to stand on as a commissioner, it has been just this. Bringing properties together and being part of the city, whereas they are already receiving a significant portion of city services and are outside of the city. So, this is -- this particular project is a little bit more cumbersome than that, just inasmuch as the city sewer and wells and the drainage ponds and what have you, but the fact of the matter is is everybody that lives within these communities are already part of the City of Meridian in essence and I'm fully in support of this being brought into the city and I think it's a good move for all and I'm a hundred percent behind it. Yearsley: Thank you. Miller: Mr. Chair? Yearsley: Commissioner Miller. Miller: I just want to second what these gentlemen have said. I think it's pretty clear that you guys have done a good job coming together and working through an agreement and finding some middle ground for everybody. I just -- from my personal opinion 1 have been to the water department, I think that you will see the quality of the water improve tremendously and I kind of live out in that direction, I know how that can be. But, hopefully, this is two headshakes for everybody involved. Yearsley: Thank you. I want to also echo what was said, that this has been a detailed process and I'm glad that they did involve the residents to come together with a vote and I'm glad that you're all here today to -- to be involved with this process and looking at the findings it appears that there will be no additional cost or very minimal cost adjustments, if any, from going from where you are now to the city, so it looks like your property taxes will go down, your water bill should be about the same and so I think it's a good pleasure -- or good opportunity. I know with the water and sewer district that there was a lot of uncertainty of what -- how that was going to move forward and stuff like that and legal trouble, so I think it's -- it's awin-win solution for everybody. So, with that I would entertain a motion. Miller: Mr. Chair? Yearsley: Commissioner Miller. Miller: After considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move to recommend approval up to the City Council of file number AZ 13-014 as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of November 7th, 2013, with the following modification and that would be to add the Meridian Heights Water and Sewer District to the staff report, comment 1.1.1. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 7, 2013 Page 15 of 44 Marshall: I will second that. Yearsley: I have a motion and a second for the approval of AZ 13-014. All in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries. Thank you. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. B. Public Hearing: RZ 13-012 Raising Angels by Engineered Structures, Inc. Located Northwest Corner of E. Pine Avenue and N. Nola Road Request: Rezone of 1.54 Acres of Land from the I-L (Light Industrial) Zoning District to the L-O (Limited Office) Zoning District Yearsley: The next item on the agenda is file number RZ 13-012, Raising Angels and let's begin with the staff report. Parsons: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. Next item on the agenda is the Raising Angels rezone as stated. The property consists of 1.54 acres of land currently zoned I-L in the city and is located at 1771 East Pine Avenue. Back in 2004 the city did approve a combined preliminary-final plat on this property, which created a four lot industrial subdivision, so it included the three lots along Pine and, then, one larger lot to the south of that as part of that development plan. Since that time the property, as you can see in the aerial, has been vacant and the applicant is here tonight to discuss rezoning this from the I-L zoning district to the L-O zoning district in order to move forward on development of a daycare center. Here is the comp plan. Currently is designated I-L or light industrial on our Comprehensive Plan, but as you know in the comp plan a land use designation is not parcel specific as much so as the zoning. If you look at the light industrial designation and you read what that means in the comp plan it does state that retail and service uses are appropriate in that district. However, under the zoning district a daycare center is an accessory use. So, in order to get the use established as presented to you tonight the applicant needs to rezone the parcel from I-L to L-O and what we based our analysis on is if you look at the light brown area to the east it's all designated mixed use and so what that allows us to do is look at the surrounding land uses, look at what's occurring in the area as far as development and we have concluded that allowing the rezone to happen makes sense. It is consistent with both the industrial designation and the adjacent land use designation to the east. The applicant did submit conceptual development plans. I want to make it clear that no use is established with the rezone tonight. The applicant will have to come back and go through certificate of zoning compliance and design review for the site design building elevations and, of course, establishment of the use. What they are proposing here is to use the existing access point that was proposed off of Pine. Back in 2004 when this project came through ACHD did require that access point and they also required that that one access point be shared by all three lots. So, across-access agreement is in place to allow access to this development and, of course, all three lots that front on Pine are owned by the same owner. So, we have everything in place to make sure things happen and we have Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 7, 2013 Page 16 of 44 adequate access and, of course, on this conceptual site plan the applicant is proposing another curb cut to the local street, which is Nola Road. Here is the landscaping. As mentioned in the staff report, all the landscaping exists along Pine and Nola and that will have to remain protected during construction on the site. Staff will do further analysis when they come in with their CZC and design review. One item that I did note in the staff report is the applicant will be responsible to add a planter island in the middle of the parking area along this boundary to break up those 19 rows -- or 19 stalls in a row. And, then, lastly, here are the conceptual building elevations and they generally comply with the city's design guidelines and design standards. Again, further review would happen at the time that they come in with actual development plans. Because this is an L-O zone and a daycare use is principally permitted in an L-O zoning district, staff is not recommending a development agreement with this rezone application. Staff has not received any written testimony on this application and to our knowledge there aren't any outstanding issues before you this evening and staff is recommending approval without a development agreement and I will stand for any questions the Commission may have. Yearsley: Thank you. Are there any questions? With that would the applicant like to come forward? State your name and address for the record, please. Bailey: Chairman and Commissioners, my name is Laren Bailey with LEI Engineers and Surveyors. Excuse me. My address is 3023 East Copperpoint Drive in Meridian, Idaho. appreciate the staff report tonight. We are in agreement with the staffs findings. 1 don't think we have anything really amazing to share with you. I think this is a little more straight forward than the -- than the last project you heard about, so hopefully this is pretty easy. Just want to point out that this -- this daycare currently operates about a quarter mile to the west in an existing -- or in what was a home previously and turned into a daycare. They have grown out of that site. With all of the development happening closer to Eagle Road with the existing Blue Cross facility, with Scentsy and with TKG and some of the other things going in, the need has just gone through the -- skyrocketed for the need for more daycare in the area and so the applicant is -- or the daycare itself is just trying to move to a larger facility so they can more adequately care for the need. So, if there are any other questions you have I would stand for those. Otherwise, I will sit down. Yearsley: Thank you. Are there any other questions? All right. Thank you very much. Bailey: Thanks. Yearsley: I have a couple of people signed up. Alicia Parker. Okay. And, then, Jane Frecky? Okay. Is there anybody else that would like to testify? With that I would stand for a motion to close the public hearing on RZ 13-012. Miller: So moved. Marshall: Second. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 7, 2013 Page 17 of 44 Yearsley: I have a motion and a second to close the public hearing on RZ 13-012. All in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. Yearsley: Any comments? With no comments I would stand for a motion or does -- Marshall: I was just going to say it's -- it's nice to see something like this coming in, because I think the area does need some daycare and that's -- it looks -- if it builds out as it appears it looks like it might be a very -- very nice facility and I'm excited to see it. Yearsley: Thanks. With that I would stand for a motion. Marshall: Mr. Chair. After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony -- I need to get the correct one. I set it aside. I move to recommend approval of file number RZ 13- 012 as presented in the hearing on November 7th, 2013, with no modifications. Miller: Second. Yearsley: I have a motion and a second to approve the public hearing of RZ 13-012. All in favor say aye. Opposed. Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. C. Public Hearing: AZ 13-013 Creekstone Subdivision by Boslau Family Trust Located North Side of W. Pine Avenue; Midway Between N. Black Cat Road and N. Ten Mile Road Request: Annexation of 6.92 Acres from RUT in Ada County to the R-8 (Medium-Density Residential) Zoning District D. Public Hearing: PP 13-029 Creekstone Subdivision by Boslau Family Trust Located North Side of W. Pine Avenue; Midway Between N. Black Cat Road and N. Ten Mile Road Request: Preliminary Plat Approval Consisting of Thirty-Two (32) Residential Lots and Six (6) Common Lots on Approximately 6.92 Acres in the Proposed R-8 Zoning District Yearsley: All right. The next item on the agenda is the -- opening the public hearing of AZ 13-013 and PP 13-029, Creekstone Subdivision and let's start with the staff report. Parsons: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. The next item is the Creekstone Subdivision. The applicant here is -- is here this evening to discuss annexation and preliminary plat for a residential subdivision consisting of 32 buildable lots and six common lots. The property is currently located on the north side of West Pine Avenue midway between North Black Cat Road and North Ten Mile Road. It's currently in Ada County zoned RUT. To the north is Fuller Park, which is currently zoned R-4 in the Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 7, 2013 Page 18 of 44 city. To the east we have a county residence zoned RUT. To the south we have Chesterfield Subdivision zoned R-8 and to the west we have Castlebrook Subdivision and Chesterfield Subdivision -- or Castlebrook Subdivision zoned R-8 as well. Currently the property is developed with a county residence, which will be removed upon development of the subdivision. Here is the Comprehensive Plan currently designated for the property. It is currently designated medium density residential. The applicant is proposing to develop an R-8 zoned subdivision, which is consistent with the medium density residential designation on the property, which anticipates densities between three to eight units to the acre. This particular subdivision has a gross density of 4.62 acres, which falls right in -- in between the range in Comprehensive Plan and is also consistent with the maximum of eight dwelling units to the acre in the R-8 zone. Here is the subdivision that the applicant is proposing. They are required to construct a street network consisting of the extension of Pine Avenue from -- which is currently stubbed at their west boundary, which they will extend and stub to their east boundary and, then, they will be required to construct an internal street network where they will be connecting into an existing stub street that was constructed with Castlebrook Subdivision along the west boundary. As I mentioned to you, there are 32 lots in the subdivision. They are required to comply with the R-8 dimensional standards. In the staff report I did bring to your attention that four of these lots that front along the cul-de-sac do not currently meet the 30 feet of frontage requirements in the UDC. The applicant has been conditioned to comply with that requirement. Per the UDC the applicant is required to provide ten percent open space. This plan before you depicts 1.01 acres of open space, which is above the ten percent required by the UDC. The applicant is proposing to construct a 25 foot landscape buffer along Pine Avenue. As part of their amenity and open space the applicant is also extending an integrated pathway network which will connect to the Pine Street sidewalk, run along the Ten Mile Creek and ultimately connect into the pathway system constructed with the Castlebrook Subdivision to the west. Also what I would mention to you -- the Castlebrook Subdivision did provide a pedestrian connection to Fuller Park. So, this is definitely an enhanced amenity that will not only get folks -- connect the subdivisions, but also allow this subdivision to have access to Fuller Park to the north. Here are the elevations that the applicant is proposing this evening. As you can see there are a mix of materials on the elevations. There is belly banding, decorative shutters, trim around all the windows. In the staff report staff has required the applicant to come back and seek staff approval of the elevations for those home elevations that front on Pine Avenue. We want to make sure that those decorative features are presented on the collector street system as well. So, we want to make sure that we have some decorative elements along that collector, at least Pine moving forward. Staff did receive written testimony from the applicant. They are in agreement with all the conditions in the staff report. The applicant was also gracious enough to send over a draft ACHD staff report. I did read through that. ACHD is supportive of the proposed network -- street network that's before you this evening, so there are no outstanding issues with them and with that staff is recommending approval of both the annexation and the preliminary plat and I will stand for any questions Commission may have. Yearsley: Are there any questions? Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 7, 2013 Page 19 of 44 Marshall: Mr. Chair? Yearsley: Commissioner Marshall. Marshall: Now what's the minimum frontage in an R-8? Parsons: Chairman, Commissioner Marshall, the minimum frontage for a lot on a street is 50 feet. However, on a cul-de-sac or a 90 degree turn it can be reduced down to 30. Marshall: Right. Parsons: And if you have a common driveway then you only -- I failed to mention that, but two lots will take access to a common driveway along the north here. Currently they show it as a common lot. I think later in tonight's presentation you will be hearing a UDC text amendment that addresses common lot versus street frontage for these types of lots, but under the -- currently how the UDC reads the minimum frontage for those lots would have to be 15 feet per lot. Marshall: Allow me to clarify for a second here, Bill. Help me out. So, if -- if they don't have access to a public street they can take 15 foot of frontage to a common lot, but if they front a common public street they have to have a minimum of 30 if they are on a curb or a cul-de-sac and 35 if they are on a straightaway. Parsons: Fifty feet on a straightaway. Marshall: Fifty feet on a straightaway. Parsons: That's correct. Marshall: Okay. Thank you. Yearsley: Any questions? With that would the applicant like to come forward. Yorgason: Good evening, Mr. Chairman and Members of the Commission. My name is Dave Yorgason with Tall Timber Consulting. I'm here representing the Boslau Family Trust. Rod and Nancy Boslau have lived on this site for approximately 20 years and I'm representing them here tonight. My address is 14254 West Battenberg Drive in Boise, Idaho, for the record. I appreciate the presentation staff has given. We spent quite a bit of time with staff both here at the city, as well as with the Ada County Highway District in answering their questions, working through the process. There was a few items that were brought up in the staff report or in staffs presentation. I will just address a couple of them for you. First of all, in the area -- we are surrounded by residential in the area. A developed subdivision to the west and to the south. They are both R-8 zoned. That is what we are requesting tonight is an R-8 zone. We are not requesting any variances to that in our application. It's a straight subdivision. The staff is correct, we made an error. It's more or less a rounding error, but we will make the correction for those lots that front Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 7, 2013 Page 20 of 44 on the cul-de-sac. There is ample room on the adjacent lots. 1 think they are over 50 -- 55 for -- at least over 50 feet of frontage on those additional lots. So, we can make the adjustment quite easily to increase from 29 to 30 for those lots that are just sort of -- on the frontage. With regard to the common lot driveway discussion, we have actually shown both. We have shown initially 15 feet or some reduced amount of frontage with long flag lots. We know that the city is going through the process of changing the UDC to have common driveways, which is what we did in our Settlers Bridge Subdivision many years ago and many other subdivisions we have developed here in the City of Meridian. My personal preference is the common driveway, where it's more defined as a common lot, owned and maintained by the HOA, unless the neighbors fight potentially of restricting access to neighbors behind them. And so we support the staffs direction. Nonetheless, the way the staff report is written meets either condition either way, depending upon how -- how the city changes its code and our layout can accommodate either direction as well. So, we support the staff report as it's written, because it provides the flexibility depending upon how that decision goes over the next few weeks with the city here. As staff has identified, there are streets that we are connecting to. Pine Street on our southwest, we will continue the improvements of Pine all the way to our east boundary. Interestingly, the site -- typically when you have collector road frontage or arterial frontage you own to the center of the road. That is not the case here. This site owns nearly all of the future improvements to Pine. So, this site will be burdened with the cost of improving not only curb, gutter and sidewalk for this site and half the road, but actually almost all the asphalt as well up to the curb, gutter or a foot or two short of the curb line. So, this site has additional burdens, but we are planning on taking on that burden to make that work going forward. That's part of our staff report with the highway district of which we agree to. There was a flood plain study done for this site. Initially working with the staff there was some consideration that a portion of the site might be in the flood plain or the flood way. Analysis was done by Paul Koontz, who has done a lot of studies here within the City of Meridian and he concluded that the flood plain and flood way all remain channelized within the Ten Mile Creek and so that has been concluded and agreed upon by Dave Miles here at the City of Meridian and we have received approval just in the last couple of days from him and have that certificate -- or at least ready to pick up. As staff identified, there is approximately 14 percent open space on the site, which is in excess of the requirement. I believe I have addressed all the items. Again, we are here before you asking for annexation and rezone to an R-8 zone and a preliminary plat and no changes to the staff report. Stand for any questions you may have. Yearsley: Thank you. Are there any questions? Thank you. Yorgason: Thank you. Yearsley: I have several people signed up here today. A Richard Davie? Would you like to come forward? Davie: My name is Rich Davie. I reside at 848 North Oxwich Avenue in Meridian. My property backs up to the proposed development. I am in the last part of the Castlebrook Subdivision No. 5. Our minimum lot size is 6,500 feet and the proposed lot size in the Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 7, 2013 Page 21 of 44 Creekstone Subdivision is an average of 58 with a minimum of 5,000. We were told at an August meeting with Mr. Yorgason that there would be a -- a seamless transition between the two subdivisions. Well, my feeling is that if we have a minimum of 6,500 feet in the fifth part of the Castlebrook Subdivision that a seamless transition does not take you into a minimum of a 5,000 square foot lot. I feel that there are going to be smaller homes on that lot, therefore, less value -- maybe not per square foot, but in selling price and, therefore, I feel that the property values in the Castlebrook -- well, at least in the near Castlebrook Subdivision No. 5 will decrease in value -- and they have already done that over the last few years, just because of -- of the real estate market. So, my concern is that the lot size is very small and, therefore, will contribute to smaller homes and, therefore, will contribute to possible property depreciation in our subdivision. Other concerns that I have are that -- I don't know if there have been any traffic studies done on this, but Pine has a large number of young children that meet a school bus at Black Cat and they do that in the early morning hours when it's dark for a large part of the year and this simply is going to contribute to that movement of kids along that dimly lit street. So, there has to be something done to increase the lighting on Pine in order to make those children more visible as they reach -- or as they move towards the school bus stop. If you talk about the common driveway, it appears to me that the lots in that area -- Lots 1 and 2 of Block 1 and Lots 1 and 2 of Block 2, are very small and are placed sideways on those lots, so that there is only a five foot back set from the neighbors and when people in that area bought those homes they bought those homes with the idea that they were premium lots with rather large homes on them and now they are going to be pushed by the proposed smaller lots that are going to be set in those areas. It would seem that there would be a -- Yearsley: Can you -- your time's up. Can you just wrap it up really quick? Davie: Okay. It would seem that there would be a possibility to -- in some way change the arrangement of those lots to make them larger and, therefore, free up some space for the existing property owners that are in that part of Castlebrook Subdivision. Thank you. Yearsley: Thank you. Rohm: I have a question. Are there any lots within Castlebrook that are 5,000 square feet? Davie: Minimum size is 6,500. That's -- there are none that I'm aware of. Rohm: Within the subdivision period. Davie: In the number -- in the fifth addition of the subdivision, which is what borders this particular development. Rohm: Okay. Thank you. Davie: There are 49 units in -- in the fifth part of that subdivision. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 7, 2013 Page 22 of 44 Rohm: Thank you. Yearsley: Thank you. I have a Lindsay Fulmer. Would you like to come forward? Okay. A Joan Haslett. Okay. Justin Taylor or Christin Taylor. How about Ben Taylor. Taylor: Thank you for your time this evening. My name is Ben Taylor. I'm at 872 North Oxwich, one of the residences adjacent to the proposed subdivision. I'm speaking for Joann Haslett also at 926 North Oxwich, a house also adjacent to that subdivision. Just have a couple points I wanted to bring up. As Richard brought up the size of the lots, we are definitely concerned about that. Understand that -- the difficulty of placing homes in a section of land in that and with this type of a size. We feel that the lots on the corner of Dover and Oxwich there where you have some of that -- the two that run north and south very close together, we feel that we should -- if you can't combine those two lots, do one home to -- at the minimum have the homes on that corner be a single lot -- or a single level home. We feel that the -- the two homes that are now on corner are both two level and they are very worried -- Joann being one -- that the home may be five feet from her fence and that she will not have any type of privacy or -- basically her back yard is going to be kind of unusable for the children at that point with that close of a home and, then, reselling the property would also be very difficult. We are very concerned about the -- the traffic down Pine and Black Cat. There is either three or four streetlights on that half mile currently we are aware of, so it's a very very dark half mile stretch for kids to walk on. understand in the application that there is not a traffic study required because of the size of the development. We understand that's just one development with several more coming in there. You know, one more straw on the bale, so wanted to make sure that you're aware that that road is getting slowly added to more and more and more. I think one of the things that we are very concerned about living on that corner by Oxwich and Dover that the amount of construction activity -- construction people -- and myself being in construction industry, people go the shortest route, the easiest route. We feel that there is going to be a great danger with the different trucks and tractors. Most -- there are -- there is a bus that comes through around 9:00, 9:30. There is another one mid day. And, then, the rest of them come back around 3:30, 4:00. So, we feel there is going to be a lot of construction traffic about the time kids are getting off and on buses, so that a good result -- or a good way to take care of that problem would be to keep the entrance to Dover into the subdivision closed at least through the main part of the construction. There is currently a fence and a road blocking sign there. If we could maintain that through the majority of the construction we feel that the children's safety would be greatly increased. So, appreciate your time. Do you have any questions for me? Yearsley: Any questions? Marshall: Mr. Chair, I do real quick. Being in construction -- Taylor: Yes. Marshall: -- you mentioned that most -- most people take the most direct route. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 7, 2013 Page 23 of 44 Taylor: Correct. Marshall: Do you think most construction traffic will be coming up Pine? Taylor: It really depends on how the construction phases start. I know that he -- Mr. Yorgason talked it might start in the spring. They will probably do the deep utilities -- especially if we keep those bigger vehicles coming off of Pine and that's why I don't know how their process will proceed, but would like to maintain -- if we can keep that block there it will -- it will definitely guide them back onto Pine, which is a much larger, easier road for large vehicles tracking mud out, whatnot, from the construction site, so --does that --does that answer your question? Marshall: Well, yeah, I would think your -- my thought being the construction of the homes will take considerably longer than the street and the utilities. Taylor: Correct. That's usually -- Marshall: And so that of traffic -- I would assume they would want to take the most direct route, which appears to me to be right off of Pine, rather than going through your subdivision back around. Taylor: We hope so. I would feel that at least 30 percent would come back through our subdivision if they are up on that -- that north side, so -- Marshall: Okay. Yearsley: Thank you. Taylor: Any other questions? Yearsley: No. Next on the list is James Miller. J.Miller: Hi. My name is James Miller. I reside at 890 North Oxwich, as Ben was previously pertaining to, and I'm just going to reiterate some of his points and so I will be really quick here. A general neighborhood, you know, consensus when we got together was our concern with the smooth transition. We heard the smooth transition part, but we didn't really feel that going from 7,000 square foot lots to 5,000 square foot lots was -- you know, I personally am concerned about my house on the market if it's done, just because I'm thinking, boy, I don't know if I'm going to go get out from under this thing and did think it was a premium lot and I did know there was going to be expansion, but I didn't realize it was going to be so small. So, we have kind of a -- we have a couple of provisions that we would just like to kind of throw out there. One is is to make those lots as close to the 7,000 square foot, so it is a seamless transition, because right behind that subdivision is a -- you know, we understand what the city plan is, but right behind there is a canal and after that canal would be probably a better transition to go for smaller lots then, but not Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 7, 2013 Page 24 of 44 right behind our subdivision we feel. And the other thing that Ben was alluding to was the safety of the children and I have a couple of kids. Right across the street there are a couple of kids right at that area and as you mentioned, yeah, you would assume that -- as a matter of fact, I would assume all the traffic should go there. I mean there is really no reason for this part of -- I mean there is -- there is just no reason for this part of the subdivision to ever access Castlebrook. There is no reason. There is no functional reason for them to go through that site I don't feel. And so I was kind of thinking, well, is there any way they could block that off and make this like a common area or just a walking space or something like that. I know it's probably unreasonable, but to kind of maintain the separation of the two subdivisions I was kind of thinking along those lines, so -- and that's all I have, because I really don't -- those guys hit our top points, so -- any questions with that? Marshall: Mr. Chair, if I could? Yearsley Absolutely. Marshall: I notice you have got a St. Luke's shirt on. J. Miller: Yes, sir. Is that going to be penalizing at all? Marshall: Oh, no. No, not at all. What I'm looking at is EMS. EMS and fire. J.Miller: Okay. Marshall: It seems like that -- that's why we have connectivity. J.Miller: Oh. Marshall: We have got to have connectivity, because if you have got to have an ambulance in there and they get a call to this street and they come in one side and find it's just on the other side and you have got it all blocked off -- yeah. And for that we want connectivity everywhere and so I just -- J.Miller: Yeah. You couldn't explain it any better. That's good. Yeah. So, I understand that, I guess, so -- I guess my only other concern would be the -- the lot size and that whole transition of course. If the lot size were bigger I would probably take my house off the market, but at this point in time I'm a little concerned with how it might affect the value of all homes and whether I will ever get off mine. I may have to hold onto it for another five years. I don't know. So, anyway. Marshall: Well, thank you. Yearsley: Thank you. J.Miller: Thank you very much. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 7, 2013 Page 25 of 44 Yearsley: I don't have anybody else signed up. Would anybody else like to come forward and testify? With that would the applicant like to come forward. Yorgason: For the record, Dave Yorgason, the applicant's representative. I heard a few things tonight I'd like to address and some of which I'd like to maybe address very specifically. I had representatives at the city -- at the neighborhood meeting. This site is not big enough for transition. I have developed a lot of subdivisions and I have done a lot of transition. Transition is not accommodated over a few hundred feet. Sorry. I have looked at a lot of layouts for this site. This isn't the only layout. It's -- that we did. It's the most efficient layout that we did. Otherwise, if we tried to bend the road around -- because we are required to stub into Dover Road and I think that's what a lot of the folks are concerned about. We don't have a choice. It would safe us money if we didn't tie the street together. I'd put another house in there if I could and save me cost of construction and get another building lot out of it. But we are required to tie into those streets. I'm pretty sure there is a sign at the barricade that says: Notice. This street to extend in the future. And I think what we have here tonight is some folks that are frustrated that the subdivision is coming. The housing market has been frustrating for a lot of us over the last few years. Values have come back substantially the last two years, but in many cases they have not come back enough and so many of us are still upside down in our homes, depending on when we bought them. I recognize that when someone lives on a stub street, whether it's next to an existing subdivision or new subdivision or it's internal anywhere within Castlebrook or Chesterfield or any subdivision of the City of Meridian, often you will find homes that are on corner lots that back up to a home that's a side lot. That's just the way the layouts work oftentimes with corner lots. Unfortunately, in this case there wasn't another phase design so they could anticipate or see how it may lay out. There is no other way to design this. Those first two lots coming off of that Dover Road have to be sited side lots -- side stub -- the side setbacks of those homes. There is no other way to design that. So, I recognize they are concerned. We have looked at it and we have tried to find a solution to that concern and I don't have one. I wish I had a better solution, but we are not interested in just taking a lot out and making them bigger. These lots are -- we could have higher density -- the density is between three and eight units per acre. We are not asking for eight units per acre tonight. If you look at the Chesterfield Subdivision across the street, those lots range, as I understand, between four and six thousand square feet. The average is 5,000 square feet. I'd have to check with staff, but I believe our average is actually larger than the average of Chesterfield. There is a concern about traffic in the area. We always have concern about traffic in the area. ACRD has already studied this area. This site is 32 homes. That is not a large impact and that's why ACHD did not require a traffic study, because it will have such a small impact and I hope you're not suggesting I don't care about kids. I care a lot about kids. have four kids and I have a three year old who occasionally slips out in the street and I understand that concern. I have a teenage boy who is 16 who I care about who has already had one accident and he's probably going to cause another one some day and so I have that sensitivity to children and the impacts in that area. I believe that the traffic -- back up one step. This will be developed in one phase. It's not amulti-phase development. It's not that large. And our heavy truck construction traffic will come down Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 7, 2013 Page 26 of 44 Pine Street. There is need for heavy equipment to go through their neighborhood. Now, does that mean we will never have a pickup truck go through there after the roads are built? They are public streets. They are open streets. They are required to stay open. And so those are my comments to those points there. The comment about several more cars coming -- we are about the last one in if you look at the surrounding area there are maybe a lot more houses coming, but, really, the plats have already been approved for those developments there. So, there are not several more coming as was suggested tonight. School bus for kids. That's something we work about -- we work about with our -- with the lighting and there is new streetlight standards here at the City of Meridian. We will comply with the streetlight standards that the city has upgraded and we will comply with those as well. So, I guess those are my comments tonight. I recognize there is some folks that are concerned. They are frustrated and I'm sorry they are frustrated, but this is planned growth for the area. It's in many ways in-fill and we are not asking for any special variances or any special requests, just ask for the approvals in the staff report as it has been written. So, I will stand for any questions you might have. Yearsley: Are there any questions? Miller: Mr. Chair, I have a question. Yearsley: Commissioner Miller. Miller: These folks over here mentioned the possibility of doing one story houses on those two lots. Do you have a comment toward that? Yorgason: Mr. Chairman and Commissioner Miller, I think they have two story homes, so I don't know why we can't have two story homes. Having said that, for those two lots and only those two lots -- because all the others are rear backyards and so that -- that would not be right to limit the others. So, for those two lots I think I can go along and accept that. That would not be our preference, I don't think that should be required, but I would accept that. Miller: Thank you. Yearsley: Any other comments? Thank you. Yorgason: You're welcome. Thank you. Yearsley: Can I get a motion to close the public hearing on AZ 13-013 and PP 13-029. Miller: So moved. Marshall: Second. Yearsley: I have a motion and a second to close the public hearing on AZ 13-013 and PP 13-029. All in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 7, 2013 Page 27 of 44 MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. Yearsley: Who would like to go first? Commissioner Miller? Miller: Well, I think it's a tricky situation. I mean they are sitting well within the realms of an R-8 district. I appreciate that they are willing to work with the neighbors on the one story houses. That could lead to another problem. I know another person had mentioned the smaller house sizes driving the prices down per square foot, so it's adouble-edge sword there also. Personally, I think it laid out pretty well. I don't think that traffic is going to be much of an issue. If I lived there I would take Pine every day of the week. It just seems like the easy route. The lighting stuff being handled to city requirements I don't think there would be any impact towards that. I'm in support of the development, so long as they can meet the requirements for the 30 foot on the cul-de-sac. That's all I have. Yearsley: Thank you. Marshall: Real quick. I was going to say the 29 foot on there is easy to change and I can see how that's quick and easy to take care of. That does need to be done. The site orientation to the other house, which, obviously, backs up -- very unfortunate, but, he's right, you can't -- and I do -- I have taught land planning. That lot is going to be side facing and I can tell you that before this plat ever came out and that is unfortunate, but it's -- the last developer should have been able to see that and arranged the house at an angle or something on that corner. I don't know what they might have wanted to do, but my one concern with you guys and with the city here is the 15 foot of frontage required by a common lot if we so pass that, I'm for this common lot item here. I think it works well with this and my suggestion is it shouldn't be 15, it should be 30, just like the flag lots where they -- lots on a cul-de-sac or a curve and that could easily be remedied here by just extending this into that last -- the common lot of slightly longer into that lot and the reason I am for that -- and I'm going to argue that as the UDC amendments come up -- is that in my mind I can come up with 30 different ways to shorten my frontage down to 15 foot when I don't have enough area in a cul-de-sac or a curve if we so allow 15 feet frontage on a common lot and I -- I'm going through all the ramifications in my head and I'm worried about that, because I can work around it and I can come up with 15 foot frontage for every lot I have got if I need to and I'm -- I have done that, I have been pressured into doing it for others and I'm not fond of that. So, I could see the common lots and ask for 30 foot and by simply extending this lot another --this common lot another few foot into that last lot we have got our 30 foot and it works well and that's an easy work around. Everything else works. I -- I feel bad about the five foot offset on the side there. Again, that was the design of Castlebury or how -- whoever designed this last house to back up to and be next to a street that's going to go through there, because that -- that lot has to front the street there and it would have to be this way. You're going to end up with a side lot there. It is an R-8 district and they are at four and a half, which is actually just above the R-4. I think you will find that the value of homes is not necessarily -- not necessarily the size of the lot, it's the quality of the house and there are some tiny homes around I have heard are pretty darn nice. So, to be honest -- and I -- I agree traffic is a Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 7, 2013 Page 28 of 44 concern, but I don't believe these 32 lots are actually are going to cause you much of a problem. I think you will see almost all -- almost all of the construction traffic coming in off Pine. Pine is going to be widened through there, they are going to stretch that out. It's actually going to help and with a sidewalk in there with pedestrian traffic and putting in lighting as required by the city, I think it's actually an improvement for the kids and -- considering all the other possibilities of this -- this piece of property could have brought forward, I think this is a pretty good one, to be honest. And, yes, the city does require that to tie in and that is because of fire and EMS. So, those my comments, sir. Yearsley: Thank you. Rohm: My only additional comments to this is I have actually been looking forward to this parcel being developed and to the east as well, so that eventually Pine will go all the way through to Ten Mile and it will be a great improvement to the City of Meridian as far as I'm concerned and Pine all the way from Black Cat to Ten Mile. So, all in all I'm -- I'm in favor of this project and I think that the connectivity to the existing subdivisions -- it's a perfect fit from my perspective. So, that's end of comments. Yearsley: Thank you. I think it's a good subdivision. I think it fits well. I appreciate the developers agreeing to go to the single story on the two lots. I think that's very big, considering that the neighbors next to them are two story, so they will be looking in on them. So -- so, I think with that I think it's a good subdivision. And with that I would entertain a motion. Marshall: I -- first thing I'm going to say is I'm not going to favor forcing them to put one story on there, because I think it actually -- if you're worried about property values and you're worried about the size of houses on lots, you want to have those properties up and you have got a small enough lot there and you want a big enough house to keep the property value up and the fact that you have got two story houses right next to it -- I'm sorry, I'm -- I got about seven foot between me and the house next to me and we are both two stories and we get along fine. Yearsley: I guess with that -- Rohm: I agree with you a hundred percent. With that being said, Mr. Chairman, after considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to recommend approval of file number RZ 13-013 as presented in the staff report for November 7th, 2013, with no modifications. Marshall: Second. Yearsley: What about PP 13-029? Rohm: And 13-029 with no modifications to either -- to either. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 7, 2013 Page 29 of 44 Marshall: And I will second that. Although it is dependent -- that the flag lot will be dependent on whether the UDC passes later, so -- Yearsley: Okay. With that I have a motion and a second to approve the public hearing of AZ 13-013 and PP 13-029. All in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries. Thank you. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. G. 1845 W. Franklin Road Request: Preliminary and Final Plat Approval Consisting of Two (2) Building Lots on 9.43 Acres of Land in the TN-R and C-C Zoning Districts Yearsley: Next item on the agenda is public hearing of PFP 13-001, Twelve Oaks, and let's begin with the staff report. Lucas: Thank you, Mr. President, Members of the Commission. Tonight before you we have the Twelve Oaks Subdivision, which is a preliminary-final plat, a combined subdivision application. The site consists of 9.43 acres of land and is currently zoned TN-R and C-C and is located at 1845 West Franklin Road. The adjacent land uses and zoning in this area are single family residential properties to the south of the site, zoned R-4, rural residential and agricultural properties exist to the east and to the west of the site and some commercial uses exist to the east, zoned C-C, with industrial uses across Franklin Road. This property was annexed in 2005 with a development agreement and a CUP for a mixed use development. A preliminary plat was also approved, but has since expired. Thus the reason to come back for apreliminary-final plat application. The proposed preliminary plat consists of two building lots on 9.43 acres of land in the C-C and TN-R zoning districts. The plat will subdivide one parcel into two lots, which the applicant plans to further subdivide in the future. This plat will divide the majority of the commercial property from the residential property. The applicant's plan, after recordation of the subject's final plat, the applicant intends to submit a short plat application to resubdivide Lot 2 into four lots for commercial pad sites and eventually submit a new preliminary plat to resubdivide Lot 2 for the residential care facility apartment complex and single family residential lots which are previously approved in a concept plan. So, the applicant is just looking to do some line changes for now, but come back with some pretty significant applications in the future. As of this time staff has received no written testimony on this application and staff is recommending approval as stated in the staff report and I will stand for any questions. Yearsley: Thank you. And thank you for the promotion, for calling me Mr. President. Are there any questions? With that would the applicant like to come forward. State your name and address for the record, please. Porter: Good evening. My name is Carl Porter with Sawtooth Land Surveying and I'm here representing JJL, Inc., for this development. We agree with staffs report and I don't have anything further to say. If you have any questions I will stand for them. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 7, 2013 Page 30 of 44 Yearsley: Are there any questions? With that, thank you. I have no one signed up to testify. Would anybody like to testify on this application? With no one wanting to testify, would entertain a motion to close the public hearing on PFP 13-001. Miller: So moved. Marshall: Second. Yearsley: I have a motion and a second to close the public hearing on PFP 13-001. All in favor say aye. Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. Yearsley: Any comments, discussion before we -- with that I would entertain a motion. Miller: Mr. Chair? Yearsley: Commissioner Miller. Miller: After considering all staff and applicant testimony I move to recommend approval of file number PFP 13-001 as presented in the staff report for the hearing date November 7th, 2013, with no modifications. Rohm: Second. Yearsley: I have a motion and a second to approve file number PFP 13-001 of Twelve Oaks. All in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries. Thank you. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. H. Public Hearing: ZOA 13-003 UDC Text Amendment by City of Meridian Planning Division Request: Text Amendment to the Unified Development Code (UDC) in Regard to Fencing Adjacent to Pathways and Open Space; Common Driveways; Irrigation Easements; Off-Street Parking; Home Occupations; Definitions for Vehicles; Vehicle Sales or Rental Landscaping; Public Hearing Notice Signs; and Allowed uses in the Industrial Districts Yearsley: Next item on the agenda is public hearing of ZOA 13-003, the UDC text amendment by the City of Meridian and we will start with the staff report. Lucas: Thank you. Before you tonight is a UDC text amendment presented by the Planning and Zoning staff of the city -- from the City of Meridian. The purpose of this application is to come -- as we do -- have periodically in the past come before you to discuss some potential changes to our Unified Development Code. As you know, Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 7, 2013 Page 31 of 44 changing the code is something we do to try to maintain currency within the code and to make it a document that changes as needs change in the City of Meridian. Currently the planning division is coming before you to look at certain text of certain parts of the code, specifically fencing adjacent to pathways and open space, common driveways, irrigation easements, off street parking, home occupations, definitions for vehicles, vehicle sales and rental, landscaping, public hearing notice signs, allowed uses in the industrial districts and other miscellaneous clean-up items. I'm going to walk through some of these that probably will require a little bit more discussion than others and certainly as I go through this if you have any questions please just jump right in. I'm hoping that we can have somewhat of a discussion tonight between staff and the Commission and, obviously, members of the public that would like to speak to these -- to these changes. These types of applications are a little different where we don't necessarily have the silver bullet, we present options and things we think are good ideas, but sometimes with code changes we really need a big group to look at it and make sure it makes sense and is in the best interest of the city. I should mention that we did receive written testimony from Brad Miller representing the Van Auker Companies and his testimony was primarily related to the changes in the industrial uses and also received written testimony from Mike Wardle from Brighton Corporation and he requested that we actually hold off and don't take action on the proposed changes to irrigation easements that we had proposed in the -- in the staff report. Staff has looked at this. We -- we have tried our best to work with all the different groups. He has requested more time and staff sees no reason why we can't grant them more time, so we are amenable to removing that specific section from discussion tonight and putting it off. We come back to it every six months, so we will have another bite at that apple and it gives us a little more time to work with them and see -- and clarify what their concerns are about. that specific change. Staff is recommending approval with those modifications that I just mentioned and now, if the Commission will allow me, I'd like to just kind of step through some of these standards. You have a big table in your -- in our staff report, you can probably look at it in front of you, and, once again, if you have questions just, please, stop me and we can -- we can go through those as you would like. The first section that's proposed to change is Section 11.3A-7 and this relates to fencing adjacent to a common open space and micro pathways. There was a -- this was prompted by an issue related to double fencing and there is some images we can show you here what a double fence looks like. Here you have a double fence adjacent to a micropath -- Bill, you want to move on one more, we can show them -- that's a different angle, maybe a different -- go down the list here we can -- there is a good example of a double fence adjacent to an open space. Staff has looked at these issues. This has been a recurring issue that's happened in the city. We have worked with our Legal Department and they have found that technically this meets our current code, because they have the required open vision fence as you can see, but right behind that they put a six foot fence. And so, technically, it's meeting the code, but it's not meeting the purpose of the code, nor the esthetic quality that the city is trying to achieve here. So, staffs changes would prohibit this existing -- the situation you see on the picture and what the basic change is if the property owner wants to build a taller fence near an existing open space fence, it has to be set back at least eight feet. That's the basic change. The property owner would have to maintain that eight foot area, just like they would any other part of their yard, but what it does is it just -- it pushes it back -- staff thinks far enough to give some separation, it Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 7, 2013 Page 32 of 44 reduces the weeds that can grow in between the two fences that are hard to get to, because there is no space, and so this is one of those changes that's -- it's a little awkward. Staff tried to find a simple solution and we think that this is a relatively simple solution that we can at least try out and see how it goes and if it turns out to be something that's not working, we can always revisit it like we have done with other sections of the code. So, I pause at this moment. If you have any questions about this specific change or comments I would be glad to hear them. Yearsley: Are there any comments? Rohm: I think it's a good move. Marshall: Positive. Lucas: Let's move on then. The common driveway standards and this is one that it looks like we might have some discussion about tonight, which is good. You can move on, Bill. I think I have a graphic and you can move on past that. I was saving those. Here we go. Here is a -- here is a graphic representing what the common driveway situation could allow if we change it. Currently the code restricts -- you can see the changes I have on the strikes -- strikes through there. The code restricts access to common driveways to four lots. Staff is presenting six as a -- as a potential option. And also the current code requires any lot that uses a common driveway to have a flag or requires it to have some kind of street frontage. As was mentioned in the earlier application, right now for two lots, the way the current code reads, each of those lots have to have a 15 foot flag that touches -- that touches a public street. Now, let me be very clear, that 30 foot area, 15 from one property, 15 from the other, is not all pavement. Basically 20 foot of it is pavement, the other five feet on either side is a separation required by our code to the other lots that would be adjacent to those flags and so you have a 20 foot basic common -- the driveway itself is 20 feet and, then, five feet on either side for those strips of ground that are required by the code to separate a common drive from a lot that does not take access to that common drive. So, staff's -- staffs proposal is to allow for six -- six lots to take access and to allow for that common driveway, rather than to be an easement on top of those flags, to be actually a common lot. So, the common lot itself -- and this -- it plays out basically almost the same. The common lot for that common driveway could be 20 foot wide for two lots, but, then, they would have to have two five foot common lots on either side of that common drive common lot to meet that separation requirement, which is not changing. So, you would still effectively have 30 feet, 20 foot of which would be driveway, five feet on either side, which would be landscaping -- a landscape buffer for that common lot. So, really, the -- the situation isn't really changing, it's just how it's laid out on the plat. So -- and it's the same thing as you go up in number of lots, the amount of street frontage gets lower and you get, basically, the same -- the same situation with regards to the buffering between the 20 foot common drive and those adjacent lots that may not take access. The graphic I'm showing you shows all lots taking access to the common drive, which usually is the preference -- or staff's preference. But these two lots in front do not necessarily have to take access to that common drive, they could take access from a public street as long as there is a five foot separation between them and the common Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 7, 2013 Page 33 of 44 driveway. So, I probably said a lot there and I will pause for questions to see if I can help answer any concerns. Marshall: Okay. I think that's me. Yearsley: Absolutely. Marshall: Okay. All right. So, you're saying that even the common lot, when it fronts the street, has to have a minimum of 30 foot. So, any lot that fronts the street has to have a minimum of 30 foot. Lucas: Mr. Chair, Commissioner Marshall, no, not technically. I think that you could see a layout where the common lot that is -- that has the common driveway is 20 feet wide, but in that situation if those two lots next to it did not take access from that common drive, it kicks in that that requirement for the extra five feet on either side, which gives you the 30. And so that's the -- which is, basically, what our current code says. So, there is no change there to the dimensions. There is no change to the dimensions, it's just a change to how it -- how it's laid out. Marshall: But nothing in here states how much frontage you have to have to the common lot. Lucas: Correct. But our code does not speak to frontage on the common lot or -- that is a common driveway. That is correct. That is correct. But that stated, our code does require a 20-by-20 parking pad between the garage and, basically, the front of the lot. So, most of the time what you see is 20 feet attached to the common driveway, which constitutes that parking pad. Now, could it be less, maybe it goes down to -- I mean don't know how -- it can't go much lower than ten, because, then, you couldn't get a car through it and that person wouldn't have adequate access to their lot, but it could go down maybe lower than the 20 and, then, it would widen out the 20 as it got closer to the house, depending on the configuration. So, that one of the primary reasons we are doing this change is to allow for flexibility in subdivision design and to give the developer a chance to look at different layouts that staff may not be anticipating. We will, through the subdivision process, have the opportunity have the opportunity to comment on things, just like you're mentioning, if you felt like a lot did not have adequate access to the common drive we could call that out in our review and say, no, we need to modify this to -- to make that better. The code doesn't explicitly speak to that, but the code doesn't explicitly speak to a lot of things, so it's kind of up to you to decide how you feel about that. Yearsley: Any other questions? Miller: I have a question for you, Mr. Marshall, actually. Why is that 30 foot frontage important to you? Personally I'd like to minimize the street frontages and get the traffic back to the houses and I see it as a good thing. But why -- why are you -- Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 7, 2013 Page 34 of 44 Marshall: Because I know how to design lots that can go very very narrow way back in and you get these big bulbs out there and they are really back way off the street, have -- you got 15 lots all going back off of one little tiny piece of property and that is very important to me that they have some access to the street, that if I'm going to go buy alot - - and, I'm sorry, but a lot of people that go buy houses are clueless. I'm sorry, I keep saying that about -- but a lot of people are and they will go ahead and sign on the line and they don't realize, geez, you have just got this little tiny piece. What? You're kidding me. How could you have sold me a house that has that. Well, you went through the paperwork. And we are kind of here a little bit to protect them and, yeah, to see these thin band flags way back into the back could be somewhat -- Miller: Problematic. Marshall: -- problematic. Yeah. And I like the fact that it's a minimum 20 foot wide and any lot not adjacent to it requires a five foot buffer and I think that will affect the width of a common lot we saw earlier. I guess. Just by eyeballing it, because I can't read any of the numbers on the -- on the eight and a half by 11. I'm used to a 24 by 36, so -- Hood: Mr. Chair, if I may. Yearsley: Absolutely. Hood: I don't know if this will ease. Mr. Marshall's concerns or not. A couple things, though. One, there is a maximum length of 150 feet on a common driveway and, two, it is a maximum of six lots. So, I don't envision it being too terribly long or too many lots taking access. So, we did -- it is a .slippery slope, we are actually bumping that up two more than we currently allow, but that 150 and a maximum of six, this is -- I don't want to call it a worst case, because this is a fairly good design, if you had side entry garages for these first two lots that currently take access to the street, but it really wouldn't be any longer, probably, than this or more lots adjacent to, so -- we think it's a pretty good solution, so -- Marshall: I'm buying into everything you're saying. I'm just looking at worst case scenarios and how can it be manipulated to serve a different purpose and still -- much like our double fencing issue -- meet code. You know what I mean? And so I'm trying to, in my mind, be able to identify that. I like what you're doing here. I like that it's six lots, I like the common lot idea, serving six lots. I really do. I'm trying to make sure that minimum of 20 foot lot -- that's good. I think that's a good thing. You have got to be able to have a couple cars be able to pass on there, you know. It's going to be pretty tight, but you can do that. You know, the typical parking stall is eight foot, so you could pass two cars on there and you're going to have to be able to. So, I like the 20 foot and I like the five foot setbacks on those that don't take access to it. Got to admit, you may get -- if you have no offset on that and somebody is taking access in the back, they could put ahouse -- two houses right up against that and, then, the guys in the back are driving right in between two houses that are 20 foot apart. Can the house -- can the building be right up against the concrete if they take access in the back of that? Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 7, 2013 Page 35 of 44 Lucas: Mr. Chair, Commissioner Marshall, no, they would still have their required side setback, because the setbacks measure from the property line. So, you could not have a house directly adjacent to the 20 foot common driveway. Marshall: Good. You're right. Hood: Just to address that point a little bit, you would not only need -- it depends on how the house was oriented. You need a front and side, so you could go down to five at certain points, but the garage face -- again, which is going to be on that side, has to be at least 20. So, we have a piece of livable space that comes down to five, but you got to have at least 20 to the garage, because that's the parking pad we require. So, worst case is we are trying to envision you could have some portions of those homes that do come within five feet, but it won't be like you're going down a tunnel, because you have garages that are also taking access. Marshall: Guys, I like the idea, I'm just trying to think of worst case scenarios and I really do like the idea and the thought that's gone into it, so -- Yearsley: I have a couple questions. A common driveway, you're talking about a common lot. I'm assuming that the HOA would be responsible for that lot, so maybe maintenance of that property, is that put back to the HOA or is that -- I'm just trying to -- you know, because if you buy a common lot, you know, and some one who doesn't have a common lot, are we -- are they responsible to fix that driveway if it goes bad or how -- how does that work or do we even get into that realm? Lucas: Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission, typically, yeah, these -- these common lots are actually easier to assign maintenance than the easement agreements that have been mentioned in the past. That's one of the reasons why we are presenting this common lot concept is because with the easements over the private property there has been some confusion in the past about who is responsible to maintain it, is it just those property owners. Ultimately that's the decided through the -- the CC&Rs for that development and maintenance of that common lot can also be called out through the final plat process. I don't think the city wants to necessarily dictate exactly how that happens. Maybe for one plat it's -- those six lots are called out as the maintainers of that lot, maybe for others the HOA wants to take on that -- that maintenance. It's really up to the developer to decide what's the best solution for them in their specific situation. Because you could have a development where all of the lots -- all of the homes take access from the common lots, from a common driveway, where in that situation it might make sense that they all just share the maintenance of those driveways, whereas if you just had a subdivision that laid out with only six houses up in the corner taking access from the common driveway, maybe it just makes sense for those six houses to take care if it. So, that would just be worked through the process depending on the design. Yearsley: Okay. That was my only question, so -- I think with that we can move on. Lucas: Moving on. The next one is ditches, laterals, canals, or drainage courses, Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 7, 2013 Page 36 of 44 11-3A-6. As staff stated, we are comfortable with the request from the -- Mike Wardle of Brighton Corporation also representing members of the BCA to pause and hold off on that specific change now. Certainly it's in the staff report, if you'd like to discuss it I'm willing to do that. If you want to move forward you have that prerogative, but staffs direction at this time would be just to pause. But let me make sure you're comfortable with that -- that direction. Yearsley: Yeah. I think the consensus is we will pull that out. Lucas: Perfect. Moving on, then, we -- we are going to the -- let's see here. Oh, go the parking -- the next several sections talk about parking, which is 11-3C-7, 11-3C-6, 11-3C-6B, 11-3C-6 again, 11-3C-7 again -- there is quite a few changes to the parking code here. I could just highlight a couple of the major changes and, then, pause and, then, you can ask any questions you might have. The first key change, the 11-3C- 6B, number three, where it talks about in traditional neighborhood districts, which includes the Old Town District, basically, reducing the required parking from what was one for every 500 to one for every thousand square feet of building space. So, this is by half less restrictive. It's a pretty significant change, with the goal to make redevelopment within those Old Town and other areas easier when it comes to the parking standards by the primary -- one of the primary goals of that change. So, that's one. The other pretty significant change was a large addition to -- I believe that's Section 11-3C-7 that talks about alternatives available within the Old Town District for parking and staff has added language about a credit, existing square footage, and innovative solutions, once again, with the desire to be more flexible and accommodating when it comes to parking within our Old Town. Parking, as you know, in the downtown is always a challenge. There used to be what was an in-lieu fee that was maintained by our Meridian Development Corporation. That was recently removed as an option and so staff, through this UDC change, is proposing to do solutions as -- as alternates to that in-lieu fee, which was never used, and so it was never used, we thought, you know, it's probably not working very well, let's try these to see if we can't get some -- some different parking solutions in our Old Town District. So, I will pause there. That's kind of the main highlight I wanted to hit. If you have any specific questions Caleb actually authored most of these parking changes, he's here to answer any specifics you might have. Miller: I have a comment. Personally, I think this is great. Like Meridian is pretty flexible on parking anyway, so when you're designing something this helps a lot. I think it's a very positive step. Marshall: And I will make the comment that from time to time it will come back and bite us where somebody will say, geez, you didn't require enough parking, they are overflowing and filling the entire street and you can't -- you can't allow them just that little amount of parking, you got to require more. But I do -- personally I do like it and maybe it even works a little bit towards splitting these goals, you know, in their planned congestion and stuff like that. Get people to take public transit, if we will ever get it. But I do like the flexibility. I do. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 7, 2013 Page 37 of 44 Yearsley: Any other comments? Okay. Let's keep moving forward. Lucas: Moving on. A minor change to our home occupation standards, which, basically, allows for products sold online that are delivered by mail to be allowed through the home occupation. It's something that is happening, it's the reality of where we are in our current technology and code didn't really address it directly before and we think it's necessary to do that. If someone is running a home business and shipping things and selling things, our code is now -- would now allow that by right and so I just wanted to make that clear and any concern or questions you had about that one? Marshall: I guess is there any limitation as to the size of the operation? Lucas: Mr. Chair, Commissioner Marshall, absolutely. It is listed under our home occupation standards, so they still have to meet all of our home occupation standards, which talks about size, percentage of the home that's used for that, all of those things. It's just basically allowing for a business doing that to have a retail online element. Marshall: Excellent. Yearsley: Okay. Lucas: Next is a cleanup of the definition of recreational -- of vehicle, recreational vehicles, recreational items. These changes have been presented us by our legal department and code enforcement department, just to help them enforce our code. If you have any questions Ican -- I can try to answer them, but these are -- as you can see trying to define these things can be a challenge and these have been changed before, this probably won't be the last time they are changed, but that's where we are today. Miller: I have got a question on this, because this particular -- I live in a tiny house, which is technically an RV. Do you guys look at the DMV for -- they have very strict definitions of that classifies as an RV. Nary: Mr. Chair? That's what these -- Members of the Commission, Commissioner Miller, this is where the definitions come from, so -- Miller: Okay. Yearsley: Great. Lucas: The next -- the next change, 11-4-3-38, it's one of our specific use standards related to vehicle sales or rental. We are proposing in D to remove what staff believes a confusing section of the code that talked about adding one tree for every 200 square feet of parking area. It didn't make a lot of sense. Staff was having a struggle understanding what that even meant as we have dealt with a couple dealerships that have come in. So, we propose to remove that and replace it, basically, with what you see as F, which just, basically, calls for as you're designing a vehicle display area, which is, basically, the -- you Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 7, 2013 Page 38 of 44 know, where the cars are parked in an auto lot, just including features, as you can read here, that -- that just define that space a little bit better than maybe it's been defined in the past. This -- this type of language can be difficult to write into code, but we are trying to give -- in specific use standards oftentimes we do give ourselves a little bit more flexibility in its application and that's how this specific section is intended to be worded, just to give staff -- you know, if they come in and we look at the circulation plan and it just doesn't make sense, we can point to this section of code and say if you added some islands here and some walkways here we think it would improve the design of this -- this vehicle display area. So, that's what we are aiming for for that change. Yearsley: I think that's a good change and that would be a lot of trees you have to put on a big -- Lucas: Yeah. That was our struggle was we thought, well, where are they going to park the cars with all those trees on that display area. Next Section 11-5-A-5D, this is actually in response to several members of the public and something we heard, actually, at some outreach meetings that we have had with the public, which is that our hearing notification signs are not legible as you drive by, they don't really tell you the information you actually want or there might -- it might be that you can't read. So, as you can see we are changing that graphic and changing it to basically focus on this is a Meridian public hearing notice, the bait, which is a key item of information that has been harder to see in the past and, then, basically, the other information as required by -- by state code to be displayed there. So, that's just a change that we are proposing on that specific section of code. Yearsley: Okay. I think that's a good change. I have driven by a couple times, you know, what are they doing? You actually have to stop and get out and look to see what's going on, so, yeah, I think that works. Lucas: Well, we are moving right along here. Last one, which is -- maybe not the last one. I think I have got a couple more. This is probably the one that requires the most discussion, though, before we finish, which is allowed uses in the -- in the industrial districts. Now, over the past I would say several years several members of the City Council and city staff have been concerned that we are losing some of our available industrial land and buildings to uses that may not typically fit what you would think of as an industrial use. Some examples of this would be, you know, let's say like a gymnastics facility, some type of indoor sports facility. Maybe a church. A facility like that. And other things that I -- that I outlined in the code there, which you wouldn't necessarily expect in an industrial area. But there is reasons why they go into industrial areas, which is maybe the availability of a large space and relatively cheap rent and things like that. So, staff has certainly kind of struggled with this. We see -- I think there is pros and cons to -- to making some of these changes. Some of the issues that we could probably directly address by this are -- that we have seen are parking, when you get let's say a recreational facility that goes into an industrial area, you have a lot of pick up and drop off by parents, maybe the parking wasn't designed to accommodate that and there could be some conflicts there. One issue that could occur if we -- especially if we remove some of these as conditional uses or principal permitted uses, is you do create a nonconforming situation Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 7, 2013 Page 39 of 44 where we previously approved it as a use within an industrial district and now we are going and saying never mind, it creates that use as nonconforming. It doesn't make them close or change their business in any way, but it could affect their ability to expand. They would have to reapply for a conditional use permit to do that. Let's say by some tragedy the building burned down, they would have to get a conditional use permit to rebuild the building if it was -- if it was a loss. So, those are some issues that could affect financing and other things related to the structures. So -- excuse me. As we have gone through these Ijust -- these are staff's first cut at this and we were hoping if you had any ideas if you could think of these issues and consider them and if you could give direction specifically to us and the City Council it would be much appreciated. So, I will pause for comments here. Yearsley: So, I have a quick question on that. Basically, what we are doing is we are -- a lot of these areas we are striking a conditional use permit, so they are not a permitted use. Does that mean that they are no longer able to go in those areas or how does that process work? Lucas: Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission, that's exactly what it means. Right now -- and you can see on the first page in arts and entertainment and recreation facility indoors, like an indoor basketball facility, if they came to the city and said we want to go into this building and it happened to be zoned industrial, we would say, wait, you can't do that, you got to conditional use permit. If this change happens and they come to us and say we want to go into this building, we will say, no, and they will say if we have any avenue to do so we will say no, except if you want to rezone the entire parcel or structure to, then, give you a zone that would allow you to do that. So, there is an avenue, but it's not as easy as a conditional use permit. Yearsley: Okay. I guess I'm going to go first. You know, I struggle with -- with that, because a lot of -- you know, like you said, a lot of those facilities go there because of the size requirement and most times the buildings don't look that great in a -- in other areas, you know, they are really big, bulky type buildings. So, I think ultimately I do kind of struggle with -- with not allowing that without a rezone, so I would be curious to your thoughts on that situation is. Rohm: I think that the City of Meridian has always had as a component an industrial section of town and -- and I think that it's been eroded over the last number of years and I don't think that's in the best interest of the city and so from my perspective making it more difficult to take that property out of the industrial component is the right answer. So, support this proposed change by the planning department. Hood: Mr. Chair? Yearsley: Yes. Hood: If I could just add one more thing to Justin's presentation of this piece. It's not just City Council or staff. We have actually heard this from several potential businesses that Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 7, 2013 Page 40 of 44 would like to come to Meridian and they can't find anywhere that's industrial that fits their business model and we just don't have a lot of industrially zoned property. So, that's another piece of that puzzle. That's not the only driving factor, but we have had other -- again, other folks that are looking to -- either locate an industrial -- existing industrial park or even go new ones and we don't have enough property, in their opinion -- enough property planned or existing for industrial purposes. So, this was, again, a way that we heard from others that we should look to at least save the industrial parks we have, if not create some additional -- and just maybe a little bit too -- more information than you need certainly for tonight's purposes, but just so you know, we are taking that to heart in the next months we will probably budget some money to do an industrial land survey, to just make sure what we have got allocated for the long-term health of Meridian is sustainable, so that we -- you know, we don't have a whole bunch of industrial planned. That's primarily along the rail corridor, but we are going to look for some outside consultation to say, you know what, a city of your size, yeah, it looks about right or no and we are not trying to be Nampa or Caldwell or Boise or anyone else, but just to make sure we have got a nice mix of land uses, industrial is certainly a piece of that equation. So, we are going to be doing some more work to this end, this is just one of the things that we can look at changing more immediately to have hopefully a positive impact. Yearsley: Okay. Any other comments? All right. Move forward. Lucas: Thank you. So, just to clarify, I will leave staff's recommended removal -- you know, item to remove there for Council consideration, unless you have changes, which did not hear, so -- Yearsley: No. Lucas: The last one very quickly. It was just changing our definition of type of daycare facility, number of children, and just making it -- this was changed once before to try to make it more consistent with state code. We got halfway there and I think this will be the final change to that, unless the state changes their code one more time, just to clarify exactly what -- how we determine the type of daycare facility versus number of children and whether it includes the kids of the mom or the dad who are running that in-home daycare facility and so that's primarily the issue. We think this helps clarify that and will help us as we tell people the story and point to this section of code, so -- with that that was my -- my last proposed change and I will certainly pause now. Just to remind you, we haven't accepted at this point any public testimony, so there is a lot of us talking, but, obviously, this is a public hearing. Thank you. Yearsley: Absolutely. Any comments before we go to public hearing? Okay. At this time I would like to open the -- open the public hearing. Is there anyone that would like to come forward and testify? Yorgason: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, my name is Dave Yorgason and as I look around the room I guess I'm the public here to stand in front of you tonight. One of my roles -- one of the clients that I represent is the Building Contractors Association. I Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 7, 2013 Page 41 of 44 am their government affairs representative and we appreciate the acknowledgement from staff. As I received the -- the comments on the proposed changes I floated them on to some of our members. We haven't had a lot of time to digest some of the changes, but we have had -- and I have had some conversations with staff -- with Justin, I appreciate some of the clarifications. One of the concerns I had was on fencing, which he clarified for me. As I read it I didn't understand the concern of the double fencing I don't like to pay for two fences side by side. Evidently, somebody wanted to do that. And so I can appreciate maybe why they did, but, nonetheless, as the BCA -- and our membership is not concerned with that item. We do have some concerns with the item regarding the irrigation easements and would appreciate the opportunity for further discussion with staff on that issue. Common driveways -- Commissioner Marshall, I can respect your -- your expertise. I recognize that often planners and designers get pushed into jamming as much density or however you want to call it, but into some things that may not be as desirable and so I respect your concern for -- for property designs. My mind doesn't always think that way, but I recognize some do and so I respect your concerns there. I hadn't thought about that implication and so I'm not sure of the right answer, but I really do appreciate the direction that staff has suggested here to go to common lot. I believe on the ground it will not look any different. You have a 20 -- maybe approximately maybe 24, but generally a 20 foot wide common driveway with five foot landscaping on both sides. A total of 30 feet. And I believe on the ground it will look the same as what you already have today. We appreciate the move toward six lots. We acknowledge that and appreciate that, too. There will be limits on length, as staff suggested, it's 150 feet. I think in a few instances the six lots is the best fit. I know in this proposal I shared with you tonight we had to go to a common lot. We really didn't have a choice to get back in that tight corner and so sometimes that's a nice option to have. I do want to point out that don't think all lots should a minimum of 30 feet of frontage. I know some pathways throughout developments are not accesses per se, but may have connectivity, micropaths and such. So, some common lots not taking access, but we just want to make that point of clarification, I have designed a lot of common lots less than 30 feet and I hope that is not changing here tonight. I respect Brad Miller's comments. He represents Van Auker's companies and they do a lot of industrial work and I appreciate their comments there. The notice to public hearing signs, I would agree with all the head nodding -- I get asked all the time what's going on over here, we all see the white signs, and I -- I often have to call or pull someone off the staff to find out, so I appreciate that change in the notice there. The challenge might be to getting the word out to the sign makers I think will be transition to some of those who -- who may not understand that. Those are my comments and, again, lappreciate -- and I don't intend to be longwinded, I recognize we are the last item on here today. But if you have any questions I will stand here and take any questions you have. Yearsley: Are there any questions? Thank you. Yorgason: Thank you. Yearsley: Since no one else is here, I'm assuming that's all the public testimony and with that I would make -- entertain a motion to close the public hearing of ZAO 13-003. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 7, 2013 Page 42 of 44 Miller: So moved. Marshall: I'll second it. Yearsley: I have a motion and a second to close the public hearing on ZOA 13-003. All in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. Yearsley: Comment? Marshall: I'm for it with the postponement of the irrigation work. I appreciate that on staffs part, as well as BCA and everybody else that worked on it. I appreciate the clarification on the common lots. I had some things going on in my mind and I think you have clarified those for me and I do appreciate that. And I do like the idea -- well, actually, I'm all for all these. I am frustrated over some of those -- those conditional uses and -- and allowed uses in the zoning district now not going to be -- and if they have problems they have to come back and do that again. But I do see the need to protect that industrial area and as Commissioner Rohm pointed out, I have seen it, too. There has been a lot of other things moving in and taking that territory. This will not get developers quicker to develop industrial areas, unless they have -- I mean they are going to be less likely to. They will. But it will protect those areas that we have and as demand goes up hopefully, you know, as the need is there, somebody will develop some more industrial areas and -- and, hopefully, this will protect some of those zones we have, so -- Yearsley: Good. Any other comments? Miller: Mr. Chair? Yearsley: Commissioner Miller. Miller: I second a lot of that. My first reaction to the industrial topic was, well, that's a little harsh, you know, but it makes total sense and, you know, I have heard things -- like Commissioner Rohm has mentioned, too, that areas are being taken over it's critical to protect those areas, so I'm in full favor of that. Also appreciate Commissioner Marshall's comments with the common lot. I think it's a good move and I think let's look at it and see what comes of it and we can reevaluate it down the road if it's not working and people are finding problems or whatever. But I think it's a great direction to move and I'm in favor of it also with that one modification removing the irrigation deal. Yearsley: Okay. With no other comments I would entertain a motion. Marshall: Mr. Chair? Yearsley: Commissioner Marshall. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 7, 2013 Page 43 of 44 Marshall: Looking for my page here. After considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony -- the massive amount of public testimony, I do appreciate the public testimony. really do. It helps. I move to recommend approval to City Council of file number ZOA 13-003 as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of March 19th -- excuse me. Did I misread that, because this is definitely not March, this is November 7th. Yeah. 2013. With the single modification to -- to postpone or remove temporarily Section 11-3A- 6, ditches, laterals, canals, and drainage courses for further review. Rohm: I will second that. Yearsley: I have a motion and a second to approve file number ZOA 13-003. All in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. Yearsley: There is one last item that we need to bring up today. January 2nd is scheduled to be a Planning and Zoning meeting. Given that it's so close to the first, would we like to not have that meeting and cancel that -- that meeting? Rohm: A think we should cancel it, Mr. Chairman. Marshall: I'll second that. Yearsley: Okay. And I think I agree with that. It's hard to come back after the holidays and a lot of people will still be gone and stuff like that, so -- Marshall: Just so everybody is aware, though, we have seen these agendas grow and grow and grow and if we are cancelling one that means the meetings on either side will be significantly longer. Yearsley: Yeah. So -- so, I think with that I think it's settled to cancel the 2nd and if no one has anything else, I have one last motion that we need to make. Rohm: Mr. Chairman, I move we adjourn. Miller: Second. Yearsley: I have a motion and a second to adjourn. All in favor say aye. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. Yearsley: We stand adjourned. MEETING ADJOURNED AT 8:23 P.M. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 7, 2013 Page 44 of 44 (AUDIO RECORDING ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS.) APPROVED STEVEN YEARSL - CHA DATE APPROVED ATTEST: ~c~a~,6vael'9''° ~~~~~J ,~ Yp/ r fie ~~- ~ ms`s ~~ JAYCEE HOLMAN, CITY CLE ~~ --x'\i: ~' ~ ~ ~~, ~a , ~_ ~o b O ' ~=%!1 b t1~dYd~ Meridian Planning Zoning commission Meeting DATE: November 7, 2013 ITEM NUMBER: 3A PROJECT NUMBER: ITEM TITLE: Approve Minutes of October 17, 2013 PZ meeting MEETING NOTES ~p~o~ed ~ ~ Imo, y-D CLERKS OFFICE F/NAL ACTION DATE: E-MAILED TO STAFF SENT TO AGENCY SENT TO APPLICANT NOTES INITIALS Meridian Planning Zoning Commission Meeting DATE: November 7, 2013 ITEM NUMBER: 36 PROJECT NUMBER: CUP 13-012 ITEM TITLE: Fanci Freez FFCL for Approval -CUP for a drive thru establishment in a C-G zoning district w/in 300 feet of an existing drive thru establishment by Bill Martin - 4920 N. Linder Road MEETING NOTES APP vnv~e~ r-~ rY ~ 17w~ y~ CLERKS OFFICE FINAL ACTION DATE: E-MAILED TO STAFF SENT TO AGENCY SENT TO APPLICANT NOTES INITIALS Meridian Planning Zoning Commission Meeting DATE: November 7, 2013 ITEM NUMBER: 4A PROJECT NUMBER: AZ 13-014 ITEM TITLE: Victory South Public Hearing: Annexation of 310.20 acres of land from RUT, Rl, R4 and R6 in Ada County to the R-4 (221.94 acres), and R-8 (88.14) zoning districts by COM - s/o W. Victory Rd, e/o S. Linder Rd and w/o S. Meridian Rd MEETING NOTES I~"Yl 1rYYl) ~~ CLERKS OFFICE FINAL ACTION DATE: E-MAILED TO STAFF SENT TO AGENCY SENT TO APPLICANT NOTES INITIALS Meridian Planning Zoning Commission Meeting DATE: November 7, 2013 ITEM NUMBER: 46 PROJECT NUMBER: RZ 13-012 ITEM TITLE: Raising Angels Public Hearing -Rezone of 1.54 acres from the I-L zoning district to the L-O zoning district by Engineered Structures, Inc. - NWC of E. Pine Ave and N. Nola Rd MEETING NOTES ~ ~ ran ~ ~-E_ ~ CLERKS OFFICE FINAL ACTION DATE: E-MAILED TO STAFF SENT TO AGENCY SENT TO APPLICANT NOTES INITIALS Meridian Planning Zoning Commission Meeting DATE: November 7, 2013 ITEM NUMBER: 4C PROJECT NUMBER: AZ 13-013 ITEM TITLE: Creekstone Subdivision Public Hearing: Annexation of 6.92 acres from RUT in Ada County to the R-8 zoning district by Boslau Family Trust - n/side of W. Pine Avenue; midway between N. Black Cat Road 8~ N. Ten Mile Rd MEETING NOTES ~~ovv~~~ ~P~v`a Q ~ e~C ~ ~ ~I~ la-3~~3 ~~i~ ~-F~D CLERKS OFFICE FINAL ACTION DATE• E-MAILED TO STAFF SENT TO AGENCY SENT TO APPLICANT NOTES INITIALS Meridian Planning Zoning Commission Meeting DATE: November 7, 2013 ITEM NUMBER: 4~ PROJECT NUMBER: PP 13-029 ITEM TITLE: Creekstone Subdivision Public Hearing: Preliminary Plat approvl consisting of 32 residential lots and 6 common lots on approximately 6.92 acres in a proposed R-8 zoning district by Boslau Family Trust - n/side of W. Pine Avenue; midway between N. Black Cat Road 8~ N. Ten Mile Rd MEETING NOTES ~~CD rnn-l,e~ ~'~''v~ 9a ~e ~~~~ °~e'(- ~r ~-I~ 1~- 3 -13 Ll-C~ CLERKS OFFICE FINAL ACTION DATE: E-MAILED TO STAFF SENT TO AGENCY SENT TO APPLICANT NOTES INITIALS Meridian Planning Zoning Commission Meeting DATE: November 7, 2013 ITEM NUMBER: 4E PROJECT NUMBER: AZ 13-015 ITEM TITLE: TM Creek Public Hearing: Annexation and zoing of 45.34 acres of land with C-G (35.82 acres) R-40 (3.94 acres), and TN-C (5.58 acres) zoning districts by SCS Brighton, LLC -SEC of W. Franklin Road and S. Ten Mile Road MEETING NOTES ~n~F, r~, u..eo~ -I-~ I l- a-a -13 r~'t ~ ~ rn t~-~ ~~ CLERKS OFFICE FINAL ACTION DATE• ' E-MAILED TO STAFF SENT TO AGENCY SENT TO APPLICANT NOTES INITIALS Meridian Planning Zoning Commission Meeting DATE: November 7, 2013 ITEM NUMBER: 4F PROJECT NUMBER: PP 13-030 ITEM TITLE: TM Creek Public Hearing: Preliminary Plat approval consisting of 49 building lots and 3 common /other lots on 41.03 acres of land in th proposed C-G, R-40 and TN-C zoning districts by SCS Brighton, LLC -SEC of W. Franklin Road and S. Ten Mile Road MEETING NOTES 1' , ~ ~ / h'11'1'1 ~I -~ CLERKS OFFICE FINAL ACTION DATE: E-MAILED TO STAFF SENT TO AGENCY SENT TO APPLICANT NOTES INITIALS Meridian Planning Zoning Commission Meeting DATE: November 7, 2013 ITEM NUMBER: 4G PROJECT NUMBER: PFP 13-001 ITEM TITLE: Twelve Oaks Public Hearing: Preliminary final plat approval consisting of 2 building lots on 9.43 acres of land in the TN-R and C-C zoning districts by JLJ, Inc. - 1845 W. Franklin Road MEETING NOTES ~e~.c~w~w~e,oi~ fly°pv~vu.e ~ ~-~C ~~~ ~~~ CLERKS OFFICE FINAL ACT10N DATE: E-MAILED TO STAFF SENT TO AGENCY SENT TO APPLICANT NOTES INITIALS Meridian Planning Zoning Commission Meeting DATE: November 7, 2013 ITEM NUMBER: 4H PROJECT NUMBER: ZOA 13-003 ITEM TITLE: UDC Text Amendment Public Hearing: Text amendment to the UDC in regard to fencing adjacent to pathways and open space; common driveways; irrigation easements; off-street parking; home occupations; definitions for vehicles; vehicle sales or rental landscaping; public hearing notice signs; and allowed uses in the Industril districts by COM Planning Division MEETING NOTES ~C°.t~ vin ~~ ~jo ~owvak -Eo c~ C ~-.~,~ ~C ~a-3-I3 CLERKS OFFICE FINAL ACTION DATE: E-MAILED TO STAFF SENT TO AGENCY SENT TO APPLICANT NOTES INITIALS