Loading...
2013 11-21E IDIAN~-- MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING IDAHO COMMISSION MEETING AGENDA City Council Chambers 33 E. Broadway Avenue, Meridian, Idaho Thursday, November 21, 2013 at 6:00 p.m. 1. Roll-call Attendance X_ Macy Miller X Michael Rohm X Scott Freeman X Joe Marshall X Steven Yearsley -Chairman 2. Adoption of the Agenda Approved as Amended 3. Consent AgendaApproved A. Approve Minutes of November 7, 2013 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting 4. Action Items A. Continued Public Hearing from November 7, 2013: 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 DistrictsContinue Public Hearing to December 5, 2013 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting B. Continued Public Hearing from November 7, 2013: 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 Continue Public Hearing to December 5, 2013 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting C. Public Hearing: CUP 13-013 Cole Valley Christian School Auxiliary Field by Cole Valley Christian School Located 1108 NE 2 1/2 Street Request: Conditional Use Permit Approval for the Expansion of a Private Education Institution for an Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Agenda -Thursday, November 21, 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. Auxiliary Field in an R-15 Zoning District Approved -Prepare Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law D. Public Hearing: AZ 13-016 Southern Highlands Subdivision by BHH Investments I, LLC Located South Side of E. Amity Road West of S. Eagle Road and North of E. Taconic Drive Request: Annexation and Zoning of 124.04 Acres of Land with an R-4 Zoning District Recommend Approval to City Council E. Public Hearing: PP 13-033 Southern Highlands Subdivision by BHH Investments I, LLC Located South Side of E. Amity Road West of S. Eagle Road and North of E. Taconic Drive Request: Preliminary Plat Approval Consisting of 162 Residential Building Lots, Twelve (12) Common Lots, One (1) City Park Lot and One (1) Lot for Future Resubdivision on 123.45 Acres of Land in an R-4 Zoning District Recommend Approval to City Council F. Public Hearing: RZ 13-013 Casa Bella Subdivision by Providence Properties, LLC Located 5555 N. Locust Grove Road Request: Rezone of 5.44 Acres of Land from the L-O to the R-8 Zoning District Recommend Approval to City Council G. Public Hearing: PP 13-032 Casa Bella Subdivision by Providence Properties, LLC Located 5555 N. Locust Grove Road Request: Preliminary Plat Approval Consisting of Twenty-One (21) Residential Building Lots, One (1) Church Lot and Four (4) Common/Other Lots on 14.69 Acres of Land in the L-O and Proposed R-8 Zoning Districts Recommend Approval to City Council H. Public Hearing: PP 13-031 Knighthill Center by Mason and Stanfield Inc. Located Southwest Corner of N. Linder Road and W. Chinden Boulevard Request: Preliminary Plat Approval of Five (5) Commercial Lots and One (1) Common Lot on Approximately 9.11 Acres in the C-G Zoning District Recommend Approval to City Council Meeting adjourned at 8:15 p.m. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Agenda -Thursday, November 21, 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 21, 2013 Meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission of November 21, 2013, was called to order at 6:00 p.m. by Chairman Steven Yearsley. Present: Commissioner Steven Yearsley, Commissioner Joe Marshall, Commissioner Michael Rohm, Commissioner Scott Freeman and Commissioner Macy Miller. Others Present: Holly Brinkley, Ted Baird, Justin Lucas, Sonya Wafters, Bill Parsons, and Dean Willis. Item 1: Roll-Call Attendance: Roll-call X Scott Freeman X Macy Miller X Michael Rohm X Joe Marshall X Steven Yearsley -Chairman Yearsley: Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. At this time we would like to call to order the regularly scheduled meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission for November 21st, 2013. 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. We do have a little change. Items A and B, the continued public hearing from November 7th, 2013, of AZ 13-015 and PP 13-030, Timber -- TM Creek, has been requested to continue to December 5th, 2013. With that modification I would entertain a motion to adopt the agenda as amended. Miller: So moved. Marshall: Second. Yearsley: I have a motion and a second to adopt the agenda as amended. All in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 3: Consent Agenda A. Approve Minutes of November 7, 2013 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 21, 2013 Page 2 of 41 Yearsley: Next item on the agenda is the. Consent Agenda. The only item that we have there is the approval of the minutes of the November 7th, 2013, Planning and Zoning Commission meeting. Is there any comments from that or -- with that I would make -- entertain amotion to approve the Consent Agenda. Marshall: So moved. Miller: Second. Yearsley: I have a motion and a second to approve the Consent Agenda. All in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 4: Action Items A. Continued Public Hearing from November 7, 2013: 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 B. Continued Public Hearing from November 7, 2013: 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: For the next two items we were going to open those solely for the sole purpose of continuing them to April -- or not April -- December 5th. So, I'm going to open the continued public hearing from November 7th, 2013, of AZ 13-015 and PP 13- 030, of TM Creek by Brighton Corp -- SCS Brighton, LLC, for the sole purpose of continuing it to December 5th, 2013. Can I get a motion to continue that? Rohm: So moved. Marshall: Second. Yearsley: 1 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: ALL AYES. Yearsley: So, before we start further I'd like to kind of explain how this process is going to go. The next items -- we are going to open up each one of these one by one. We Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 21, 2013 Page 3 of 41 are going to start off with the staff report. The staff is going to describe a project and how it adheres to our Comprehensive Plan, Uniform Development Code, with staff recommendations. After they are done the applicant will have an opportunity to come forward to state their case for approval and respond to any staff comments. The applicant will have up to 15 minutes to do so. After the applicant has had a chance to come forward we will open it to public testimony. There is a sign-up sheet in the back. Anyone wishing to testify can sign up. Any person testifying will come forward and be allowed three minutes to testify. If they are speaking for a larger group, like an HOA, and there is a show of hands to represent that group, they will be given up to ten minutes. After the testimony has been heard the applicant will have an opportunity to respond if they desire for another ten minutes and, then, we will close the public hearing and the Commission will have an opportunity to discuss and deliberate and hopefully make a recommendation to the City Council. C. Public Hearing: CUP 13-013 Cole Valley Christian School Auxiliary Field by Cole Valley Christian School Located 1108 NE 2 1/2 Street Request: Conditional Use Permit Approval for the Expansion of a Private Education Institution for an Auxiliary Field in an R-15 Zoning District Yearsley: So, with that I would like to open the public hearing on CUP 13-013, Cole Valley Christian School Auxiliary Field and let's begin with the staff report. Wafters: Thank you, Chairman Yearsley, Members of the Commission. The first application before you tonight is a request for conditional use permit. This site consists of four and a half acres of land. It's currently zoned R-15 and is located at the northeast corner of Northeast 2 1/2 Street and East Carlton Avenue at 1108 Northeast 2 1/2 Street. Adjacent land use and zoning. To the north are residential properties, zoned R- 15. To the south are also residential properties, zoned R-15 and O-T. To the east are residential properties, zoned R-8. And to the west is a private education institution, Cole Valley Christian School that this site is associated with, zoned L-O and a church zoned R-15. The conditional use permit request is to expand the existing private education institution use to include an auxiliary field and the adjacent property to the east. The existing school property is zoned L-O and the property proposed to be used as an auxiliary field is zoned R-15. A conditional use permit is required to expand the existing use in the R-15 zoning district. The auxiliary field is proposed to provide green space for science, physical education, and general instruction, a community space for advisory classes and meeting space for existing campus population and an athletic field for physical education classes, cardio training, football practices and non-varsity home football games. The proposed use will not increase the existing population of the campus and there will not be any lighting installed on the field, nor bleachers or any structures of any sort. Currently students are shuttled to Settlers Park and Storey Park for PE, football practice, and non-varsity home football games. Approval of the subject request will enable students to remain on school property for these activities. The comprehensive future land use map designation for this property is Old Town. Written testimony was received from the applicant Matt Beglinger in response to the staff report. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 2l, 2013 Page 4 of 41 He is in agreement and staff is recommending approval with conditions. Staff will stand for any questions the Commission may have. Yearsley: Are there any questions? Marshall: Mr. Chair, I do. Yearsley: Commissioner Marshall. Marshall: Sonya, can I ask you -- under -- in the staff report under Public Works is PI required. Is pressure irrigation required hasn't been answered. Wafters: I do not have Public Works here tonight. Let me double-check on that. PI is a standard requirement. However, there is not a lot of development going on on this site, so -- Marshall: But I believe the pressurized irrigation -- the idea is that they are not using the city tap water to irrigate. Wafters: Yeah. The applicant can maybe be able to answer that a little quicker than me, but -- Marshall: Any other questions? With that would the applicant like to come forward. Please state your name and address for the record. Beglinger: My name is Matt Beglinger. I'm the athletic facilities director for Cole Valley Christian, 200 East Carlton, Meridian, and I don't have a lot of comments. We are in agreement with the staff report. As far as the irrigation goes, we are working with the local ditch rider on using that -- the irrigation system. It would be -- it wouldn't be tied into the city, however. But we -- we don't have a lot of comment, other than we appreciate a great relationship with the city and we simply have zero grass on this campus, so when the potential to acquire this property came up we were pretty excited and a question that does come up a lot is what types of events we would host and we would not host anything varsity, anything requiring PA or lights. We would like to host junior high and JV, which is simply what I call lawn chair football games where families will bring something to sit in and we will be done before dark and so would not increase any traffic -- there wouldn't be anymore people at our site than typically come for a varsity basketball game or something like that. Yearsley: All right. Thank you. Is there any questions of the applicant? All right. Thank you. Beglinger: Thank you. Yearsley: We are going to wait a few minutes so we can get the sign-up sheet, so if anyone wants to testify. Thank you. I have a Joshua Everetts. Okay. A John Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 21, 2013 Page 5 of 41 Mascroft. Would you like to come forward or -- please come forward. State your name and address for the record, please. Mascroft: My name is John Mascroft. I am the pastor of the Apostolic Bible Church at 1153 2 1/2 Street, Meridian, right next to Cole Valley. We are actually sandwiched right in between them. The property that the football field would be is straight across the street from our church that we reside at there. Our concern is -- number one is parking. Many -- there will betimes that the gym will be going on, there will also be games going across the street. There is times that during our services that we do not even have adequate parking for our people to park at our regular times or functions that come along. I know that going down -- I believe it's on the north side of -- north side of the property I believe there is signs that allow no parking. Carlton has very limited space on the road for -- even though they did allow for parking, but my concern, basically, is in regards to the parking. The parking needs to be addressed. We do not have -- as we have between ourselves is a verbal agreement. There is nothing written, recorded, at the county recorder. We worked together -- tried to work together, but the more complicated it gets when we don't have the parking for our meeting, would mean, you know, pursue other avenues for just whatever. Okay. Yearsley: Thank you. Rohm: I have a question of you, sir. Mascroft: Yes. Rohm: When is it that you have your services or when is parking an issue for you folks? Mascroft: Normally Tuesdays, Thursdays, Sundays. Rohm: That's pretty broad. Can you narrow that down? Mascroft: On Tuesdays we will come in anywhere from 6:30 to 9:00. Okay? Rohm: In the evening or -- Mascroft: In the evening. Yes. Rohm: Okay. Mascroft: Thursdays the same thing. On Sundays we are there -- people are there pretty well much almost all day, but the biggest part would be in the morning from 9:00 o'clock to 12:00 and, then, back in the evening also from about, oh, 5:00 o'clock until about 8:00, 8:30 that night. Rohm: Thank you. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 21, 2013 Page 6 of 41 Yearsley: All right. Thank you. Next on the list is Abram Draper. Would you like to come forward? Okay. Christina Pearson. Would you like to come forward? Okay. Then I have Matt Beglinger. Okay. Is there anybody else that would like to come forth and testify? With that would you -- would the applicant like to come forth and respond to the comments? Beglinger: Sure. Do I respond to you or -- Yearsley: Well, you're responding to me, but addressing the -- Beglinger: Like he said, I will admit trying to coordinate everything with the parking can be tough. I think we have had a continual dialogue on how we can do a better job of helping our folks stay out of their parking lot, especially on Tuesday and Thursday night and what's hard for us is we have visitors coming from New Plymouth or where ever and they drive right passed our signs and go park in the spots that are right in front. So, -- you know, my feeling is that's something we need to continue to work together on and if we need to get something in writing we can. I think in regards to the field, typically this time of year is -- you know, most of our JV games are going to start at 4:30, as it starts to get darker earlier. Our junior high starts at 4:15. While our parking problem won't go away with our other events that we need to keep working on, I don't know if the field events are going to add any additional strain that isn't already there, because I think they will be wrapping up by 6:00, 6:30 and I guess that would be my response to that. As far as volume of people it certainly won't come close to a varsity basketball game and things like that and we are also very open in working with the city on -- I know some of the residents mentioned places where our people will park when it gets full, they will go down the street, they will double -- go on both sides of Carlton on the skinny part there by the field. We very much want to work with the city on how can we help enforce that, do we need to put signs, do we need to put some gravel into the -- into the lot where we designate that as parking on the field side, rather than the residential side. You know, we are desperate for basically some -- we are happy to work with who we need to work with to make it work. Yearsley: Are there any questions of the applicant? Thank you. Beglinger: You're welcome. Yearsley: At this time I would entertain a motion to close the public hearing on CUP 13- 013 on Cole Valley Christian School Auxiliary Field. Rohm: So moved. Miller: Second. Yearsley: I have a motion and a second to close the public hearing. All in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 21, 2013 Page 7 of 41 MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Rohm: I have a comment, sir. Yearsley: Commissioner Rohm. Rohm: You know, downtown Meridian has parking issues from one end to the other and this I don't believe is going to add to that parking issue, it's just -- it's just a part of it and the fact that the school wants to enhance their ability to have athletics as part of their regular campus, I think brings value to the city and for the most part most of those activities are going to -- going to be outside of the times that the adjacent facility needs that same parking. So, from my perspective the parking issue is outside of the scope of this application. End of comment. Yearsley: Any other comments? Marshall: You know, I'm not fully in agreement that's outside the scope of the application, I think it's something we do need to consider. But at the same time, yeah, want to see this go through. I really do. And I -- right now we are busing students across town, which I think is significantly more dangerous than crossing 2 1/2 Street. It's also a waste of resources and things like that when they could have this right there. am concerned about parking, though, and I really appreciate the two parties involved here working together. I really appreciate that. It will become more complicated if this goes through and I really appreciate the fact that the school would be willing to even put something in writing, but, you know, I don't know what you could agree to there. It's more help out and make sure that everybody is aware of the fact that you're not to park in their parking lot and even visiting teams or whoever is not to park in their parking lot. can see where that would be quite a concern. At the same time is it a heavy enough concern to outweigh the value here. To be honest, I don't think so. And if your parking is private, yes, you can have people towed and then -- so, I would strongly consider trying to get out some type of identification somehow and work together on this, because to me I'm for it, I think it adds a lot of value, but it does complicate things and it is -- it can be concerning and I am sorry for that, but the value I think far outweighs it. That's my thoughts. Yearsley: Thank you. Any of other comments? Miller: Mr. Chair, I have a couple. Yearsley: Commissioner Miller. Miller: I back up what Commissioner Marshall said for the most part. I think there is a unique opportunity for a symbiotic relationship between the parking of the two areas. It sounds like the times given at least there is some ebb and flow that maybe one is occupied and the other is not and maybe you could share. I also appreciate the willingness of both parties to work together. When you're in a downtown core parking is Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 21, 2013 Page 8 of 41 always an issue. From the sounds of things they meet all the requirements of -- of our city's codes. I'm in favor of the project for the same reasons, I think it's a lot safer to have something right there for the kids than to bus them. I just hope you guys can work together to find a solution. It sounds like both parties are willing to try that. Freeman: Mr. Chair, I don't think I have anything to add to the discussion. Yearsley: Okay. With that I would entertain a motion. Rohm: Mr. Chairman? Yearsley: Commissioner Rohm. Rohm: After considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move to approve file number CUP 13-013 as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of November 21st, 2013, with no modifications. Miller: Second. Yearsley: I have a motion and a second to approve the public hearing of CUP 13-013 of Cole Valley Christian School Auxiliary Field. All in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries. Thank you. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. D. Public Hearing: AZ 13-016 Southern Highlands Subdivision by BHH Investments I, LLC Located South Side of E. Amity Road West of S. Eagle Road and North of E. Taconic Drive Request: Annexation and Zoning of 124.04 Acres of Land with an R-4 Zoning District E. Public Hearing: PP 13-033 Southern Highlands Subdivision by BHH Investments I, LLC Located South Side of E. Amity Road West of S. Eagle Road and North of E. Taconic Drive Request: Preliminary Plat Approval Consisting of 162 Residential Building Lots, Twelve (12) Common Lots, One (1) City Park Lot and One (1) Lot for Future Resubdivision on 123.45 Acres of Land in an R-4 Zoning District Yearsley: Next item on the agenda is the public hearing of AZ 13-016 and PP 13-033, Southern Highland Hills -- or excuse me -- Southern Highland Subdivision by BHH Investments. Can we begin with the staff report. Wafters: Thank you, Chairman Yearsley, Commissioners. The next applications before you are a request for annexation and zoning and preliminary plat. This site consists of 123.45 acres of land. It's currently zoned RUT in Ada County and is located south of Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 21, 2013 Page 9 of 41 East Amity Road on the west side of South Eagle Road and the north side of East Takonic Drive. Adjacent land use and zoning. To the north are rural residential properties, zoned R-4 in the city and R-1 and RUT in Ada County. To the east are rural residential properties, zoned RUT in Ada County and Eagle Road. To the south is vacant undeveloped property, zoned RUT in Ada County and residential properties zoned RUT in Ada County. And to the west are residential properties zoned RUT in Ada County. A little history on this property. In 2006 the property was platted as Lot 16 and 24, Block 1, of Black Rock Subdivision in Ada County. Black Rock Subdivision was developed in 2006 under the Ada County Nonfarm ordinance with half acre minimum lot sizes. The applicant is proposing to annex and zone 126.27 acres of land with an R-4 zoning district. The property is contiguous to land that has been annexed into the city and is within the area of city impact boundary. The preliminary plat is also proposed to resubdivide existing Lot 16 and 24, Block 1, Black Rock Subdivision into 162 single family residential building lots, 12 common area lots, one lot for a city park and one 45 acre lot for future redevelopment -- resubdivision for single family homes on 123.45 acres of land in an R-4 zoning district. As you see here it's broken into two portions. This eastern 45 acre portion is proposed for resubdivision in the future and, then, the 78 -- 79 acre portion of the site is shown here on the west. There are a couple of lots that need to be revised to comply with the minimum street frontage requirements of 60 feet and Block 3, which is a block that runs along the toe of the slope here from Black Rock Subdivision exceeds the maximum block length allowed by the UDC. Staff is recommending that the plat be revised prior to Council to comply with the block length standards. The maxim growth density of the overall development will be 2.23 dwelling units per acre. The gross density of the western 79 acre portion of the site will be 2.05 dwelling units per acre, which is consistent with the future land use map designation of low density residential, which is three units or less per acre for this property. This is the phasing plan showing how the property is proposed to develop. The applicant did submit a conceptual development plan for the eastern 45 acre portion of the site that depicts the easements and right of way for possible future street layout. The applicant is proposing to dedicate a 3.6 acre portion of the eventual seven acre neighborhood park to the city as anticipated on the future land use map for this area prior to issuance of the 120th building permit for this site and that is this lot you see right here. The remainder of the park site is anticipated to develop with the property to the east as shown here on the plat. A total of 12.16 acres or 15.4 percent of qualified open space is proposed, consisting of a 3.6 acre city park, a two acre private park, pathways, other common areas, street buffers and parkways and site amenities consisting of an additional five percent of open space over the required amount. Pathway, swimming pool, clubhouse, playground and picnic shelter is proposed for the western portion of the development in accord with UDC requirements. Access is proposed on the plat from South Eagle Road via East Takonic Street. Stub streets are proposed to the north and east for future extension and interconnectivity. Staff also recommends Graphite Way, which you see here at the north -- excuse me -- the west corner of the site is extended as a stub street to the west. At this time only a single point of access is available to this subdivision. Because there are already 44 lots, approximately 30 of which are built out in Black Rock Subdivision with a single point of access off of Takonic Drive, a secondary emergency access is needed at the point when the combined Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 21, 2013 Page 10 of 41 number of homes in Black Rock Subdivision and Southern Highland Subdivision reached 50 homes. The secondary access may be temporary until such time as a permanent secondary access is available. I know the applicant is working -- I'm not sure if they have an agreement yet, but they are working with the property owner to the north to gain that access through Whitebark. Water and sewer service to this development is contingent upon the developer extending a water main and a temporary sewer main into this development from the future Whitebark Subdivision to the north. I will just flip back here. That is the yellow parcel right here. A minimum 20 foot -- 25 foot wide landscape street buffer is required along Eagle Road, an arterial street. A 30 foot wide buffer already exists along Takonic Drive, a collector street. A ten foot wide pathway is proposed along the east side of the property adjacent to Ten Mile Creek and Eagle Road in accord with the master pathways plan. The UDC requires a five foot wide detached sidewalk to be constructed along Takonic. The applicant is requesting a waiver to this sidewalk requirement due to the mature landscaping that they say would need to be removed to accommodate a sidewalk. Because the UDC does not allow for a waiver or alternative compliance, nor the variance appropriate in this situation, staff is recommending the buffer area be widened an additional five feet to accommodate the sidewalk if necessary. There are several irrigation ditches that traverse this site that are required to be piped with development of the site. The Ten Mile Creek runs along the northeast corner as you see here. That is required to remain open as a natural waterway. A portion of the site lies within the Meridian flood plain overlay district. Prior to any development a flood plain permit is required. The southwest boundary of the site lies at the bottom of a significant slope where the homes above sit on a ridge approximately 20 to 40 feet above the proposed subdivision. The plat depicts a 40 foot wide slop easement on the rear of the lots in this area and you can see that right along here. The slope area is proposed to be owned and maintained by individual homeowners and will be landscaped and maintained in a consistent manner and this will be taken care of through the CC&Rs. Conceptual building elevations have been submitted as shown for future homes within the development. Because future structures on lots that back up to or face South Eagle Road and East Takonic Drive will be highly visible from these major thoroughfares, staff is recommending the rear or sides of structures on these lots incorporate articulation through changes in materials, color, modulation, and architectural elements, horizontal and vertical, to break up monotonous wall plains and roof lines. The Comprehensive Plan future land use map designation for this site is low density residential with a public park site designated. Written testimony has been received from Matt Schultz, the applicant's representative. Their response to the staff report requests the following modifications. You should have a copy of the applicant's response there in your packet. The first request is a modification of Development Agreement Provision 1.1, the first bullet, to be modified to reflect the acreage of the park at 3.6 acres, instead of three point -- or excuse me. Instead of seven as shown on the plat and including in the responsibilities for improvements to the park. Because the terms of the dedication of the park site are still under negotiations staff does not recommend including the terms requested by applicant. However, staff does recommend the provision modified as follows: The developer of the western 79 acre portion of the site shall dedicate a minimum of a 3.60 acre park as shown on the preliminary plat to the city prior to issuance of the 120th Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 21, 2013 Page 11 of 41 building permit for the western portion of the site. Staff also recommends a new condition be added to insure dedication of the remainder of the park site shown on the preliminary plat as follows: The developer of the eastern 45 acre portion of the site shall dedicate a minimum 3.4 acre park to the city prior to signature on the first final plat on the eastern portion of the development by the city engineer. In regard to the request for a deletion of DA provision 1.1.1, third and fourth bullet, they want this deleted because they feel that the applicant -- or, excuse me, the pedestrian easement for the multi-use pathway and the street buffer along Eagle should be completed with development of the eastern 45 acre portion of the site, not with the first phase final plat of the western 79 acre portion. Because the western portion of the site is over 1,600 feet away from Eagle Road, staff is amenable to the applicant's request that they not be required to complete this with the first phase final plat for the western portion of the site, but does recommend that the provisions are modified to require the easement and street buffer to be completed with the first phase of development on the eastern portion of the site. The next request is, again, to DA provision 1.1.1. The DA only applies to -- they only want the DA to apply to the 79 acre portion of the site to be purchased by the applicant, not the eastern portion, which they do not have under contract. Because the eastern portion of the site is proposed to be annexed and platted with the application and there are development provisions that also apply to the eastern portion, staff is not recommending the eastern portion be removed from the DA. And, lastly, the applicant requests a Whitebark temporary sanitary sewer plan, which is included in Exhibit A-6 be modified to include the entire western 79 acres of the site in lieu of the area south of Takonic Drive and that condition number 2.1.1 is clarified that the allocation of 162 sewer permits will be vested to the 79 acre portion for 162 lots upon preliminary plat approval. Public Works is looking into the applicant's request on this and did have a answer for the Commission at this time. Staff is recommending approval of the subject annexation and zoning and preliminary plat request with a development agreement per the provisions in Exhibit B and the revisions agreed upon by staff in response to the applicant's letter as previously stated. Staff will stand for any questions the Commission may have. Yearsley: Are there any questions? Marshall: Mr. Chair? Yearsley: Commissioner Marshall. Marshall: Sonya, I'm sorry, I wish Public Works was here. In lieu of recent events I was really questioning the temporary sewer. What all is that about? Why temporary? Why don't we have something permanent? Wafters: Chairman, Commissioner Marshall, I, too, wish Public Works was here tonight. I know that they don't have the availability to sewer it permanently at this point. That's about all I know. The applicant can probably enlighten you a little further on that. Meridian Planning 8~ Zoning Commission November 21, 2013 Page 12 of 41 Marshall: All right. I appreciate that. There was one other -- you have answered -- you did answer my question on the access. Okay. Thank you. Yearsley: Any other questions? Would the applicant like to come forward? Please state your name and address for the record. Schultz: Good evening, Commissioners. My name is Matt Schultz. 8421 South Ten Mile, Meridian, here on behalf of the BHH Investments I, LLC. BHH Investments I is an acquisition arm of Boise Hunter Homes and we are excited to present what we feel is a high end subdivision in a place that demands a high end subdivision anyways and it kind of meets our -- Boise Hunter Homes' market niche that -- that he goes after the second and third time buyer, building those homes, you know, 350 to 600 thousand and build higher than that, too, but that's generally what he builds and he's currently building in the -- we are building in Kingsbridge in south Meridian in the back half of phase three and North Eagle, Henry's Fork, out in Harris Ranch and up in Rolling Hills by Hidden Springs and these are projects that have been done, houses have been built -- the pictures are houses that have been built, not some artist conception of what we might build or -- and they still are -- maybe, because there is lots of different varieties, but that's indicative of -- of the styles and types -- and there is a lot more styles and types, but that's just some of the homes that Boise Hunter Homes has built. We are here on behalf of an annexation request, to start, for 124 acres. Our primary focus is on 79 acres on the west side. That's the parcel that is to be acquired very shortly if all goes well and we can move ahead. Because it is one legal parcel of niche acres we are required to annex the whole thing. It's not our choice. We really don't want to complicate our -- our focus over the next few years with what may happen on the other side. That's why you're hearing a little bit of east and west side distinctions going on. don't think it's a negative, I think it's a positive, and some of the DA provisions will ultimately get worked out at City Council. We would welcome your comments on that, but -- but at the end of the day it's the DA that's moving forward through the City Council process as well when we get there. We do agree with staffs recommendation for approval. As she said, we did have some comments on the staff report that were given to the city clerk earlier in the week. You got a copy tonight. That's our official response to those comments. Before I dive into those I'd like to just kind of give you a quick overview of the project, kind of touch on some of the things Sonya said and go into a little bit more detail if I may and, then, we will address some more comments. Like she said, it's an -- it's an area of town that designated low density residential on your Comprehensive Plan from the impact area, lost density residential, that essentially translates to either an R-4 or an R-2 zone. Those are the two choices for residential zoning in a low density zone. R-4 is a really great designation for -- for a lot of -- what has been known as bare lots in Meridian all over the place. Again, it's low density. On our 79 acre side of things we like a larger size of lot. We like 85 foot wide, 90 foot wide by 150 foot deep lot and that's what we want to do. That happens to be -- if you will notice an R-2 density over here in the 79 acre side of things. That's what we want to do. It happens to be very compatible with the neighbors to the south. We have lots that range in the half acre range right up abutting Black Rock, as a transition, but, then, we go down to a 12,000 square foot minimum. Our average is 16,000, which is -- I don't Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 21, 2013 Page 13 of 41 know of any site of this size that's done something this -- low density with this average lot size in Meridian. There may be something up above Chinden on the rim, maybe. But really and truly I have been doing this for 13 years in Meridian and presenting a lot of applications and this is the lowest density subdivision I have ever presented for annexation in Meridian and what we -- it's asub -- it's the size that we like. It's what we want to do as our market niche and it happens to be well within the low density. It's a two, low density, which means a maximum of three. We are well within that. So, we are willing to enter into a DA even to say, hey, we are okay with -- with 12,000 square foot minimum lots. We are okay with 160 lots or 162 lots on 79 acres. We are okay to lock that in, so it hasn't change and we will move forward. We are okay with that and even okay with a 2,000 square foot home, even though we will probably be doing three's and plus two is a good number, because in an R-4 it's a minimum of 1,400 per code and we are willing to bump that up just to make people feel good in the area that we are not going to devalue everybody's property values up on the rim. We are very aware of that. We had a very good neighborhood meeting with the neighbors showing them here is what we build. We are the best people to maintain your property values. We are going to have a good horizontal, as well as vertical separation. We are here to keep the neighborhood nice and that's what we want to do. So, with that we think we have got a very low density, well fitting subdivision for the area with good transitional lot size and something that's compatible with what's already out there and it's imminently annexable. It's touching -- touching the city already. There is actually a city well lot out here, right by where the park is there is a city lift station lot that staff asked us to include in our annexation. That's two of our 162 lots. You know, we are annexing the city's -- for whatever reason. There is a bit of history to it and that's not my point tonight, but there is a -- they are out there. So, the fact that they are using city services, we are connecting to them, tells us this is about as annexable as you can get in terms of being ready to be annexed and to bring those lots back within the city fold and clean things up from that respect. Our sewer service does come from -- in fact, it addressed Mr. Marshall's question about what's with the deal about temporary sewer. It's temporary. What it is it's a -- what there is -- there is a trunk line that's ultimately supposed to serve this whole south end of the valley. That trunk line is about a quarter mile north of Amity right now. It has to go through at least one, maybe two properties -- who knows when it will get pulled. There is some sewer games going on. We don't want to be a part of it. What we worked out with staff -- and it not only serves ours, but another parcel that's just north of us, including Whitebark and including properties to the west of Whitebark, that they can serve off of the Estoncia sewer line with an eight inch line. There is enough capacity to serve this in perpetuity until which time any other development would be need to bring a trunk line -- and I'm pointing to the -- right through here and that's why we have two roads coming from the north through Whitebark, because one side will have an eight inch line, the other side will have the trunk line and it's proven, it works, staffs bought off on it. We just want to lock in the fact if we go pull a mile sewer to take out this lift station, which we will do with out first stage, that we have a commitment that we can use 162 or ish services. We don't want to get caught not being able to have that commitment. So, that was the point of our clarification was -- and we have said it verbally, we just want it in writing that, yes, you can be invested with this 162. So, we just want to get that on the record. Water service Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 21, 2013 Page 14 of 41 the same thing. Water service will come through Whitebark. We have an easement already negotiated. It's already done. This is not some maybe, this is a done deal, and the sewer, the water and the secondary access for emergency vehicles easement, we have got that handled. We have got that worked out with that owner. So, we feel like we have covered all of our contingencies on the services issue. We have got a well lot. We have got a secondary connection we are going to have to do with our first phase. We are going to have to do a secondary service connection with our first phase on our access condition to handle that. So, we are fully prepared to do that with our first phase, which will be up on Takonic. We feel that that's agood -- was a good entry drive in there. It's beautiful back in there and that's going to be the focus of our first phase. Where the city pump station lot is we are going to take that out and develop those lots. Probably at least some of the lots along the rim -- or below the rim and get all of them with our first phase. I have shown two phases. Those two might go in one. We will see. That's why I said subject to change on the bottom. That's kind of a conceptual phasing plan, so you can kind of see our thinking at least, what we are thinking. As far as parks and open space, we have a -- we have substantial open space on this project. When we first submitted the project we knew we had to have ten percent, which on 80 acres, you know, at least eight acres of open space and we had a central park of about six, seven acres with lots backing up to it, kind of nice, big open space, we are prepared to do that, and, then, we went and met with the city parks department and, no, we need a neighborhood park. Well, a neighborhood park isn't just our neighborhood park, it's a park that's defined as seven acres that serves the whole square mile of this whole section, it's just not -- for the 79 acres -- it's not our neighborhood park it's the city's neighborhood -- what the city defines their neighborhood park to be. That's a designation that they are using, versus a regional park or a community park or whatever other designations they have. So, we broke it up. The parks -- based on experience no lots need to back up to it or want to back up to it, so as you notice there is a road around the perimeter, that's a specific design that's very -- it's very generous in terms of we would rather put lots on our roads that we build, but, hey, we will leave this part open and our private amenity, which will be a pool and a pool house and a playground and a little gazebo and whatever in our area, needs to be separate and distinct. They don't want residents comingling private and public parks, so we have a two acre private park that -- that we are going to do for our -- for our residents with a pool that we are offering to be used to the Black Rock residents that are up there for just a nominal pro rated cost of service for us to maintain it, which I thought was a nice gesture by Boise Hun#er Homes. A nice community pool similar to what we are doing up in Eagle right now and so we want it to be part of the community. Other residents came to our neighborhood meeting and most of them checked the box and said, yes, we would -- we would like that. You know. We would like to participate in that. And we thought that was a nice gesture. So, our open space is up over 15 percent without our half of a -- or our portion or our contribution to the city park we are still over ten percent. You can see the park -- the park strips the interconnected -- there is pathways looping through here. There is ample open space on this, even without the half of the park or our three and a half acre park. So, really, when it comes to the park, where we are at is we have been talking with the city Parks Department and had some very cordial discussions about how is -- how are we going to do this and, essentially, where we are at is where we are at in the Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 2l, 2013 Page 15 of 41 -- the letter that was submitted is we will donate to the city -- here you go, we are not going to even get it in our open space calcs. Here is the park. We will build the road around it. We will build -- we will green it up. We will build it halfway along the edge of it. We will build the trees on the edge of it and the city can come in later and, then, improve it with a restroom or whatever public amenities they -- they build with impact fees. So, this is not a burden on the taxpayers, this is fully funded through either developer contribution or impact fees. Park impact fees that total 1,300 dollars plus a lot. Just our 162 lots alone is over 220,000 dollars in impact fees. If you look at just the area north and south, 175 acres and so there is 600,000 dollars in impact fees are generated by conservative estimates. As you go out to the square mile who knows. So, you get my point. There is plenty of -- and we are donating the land. I mean that's -- and building a half street improvement. So, we feel like it's a good gift and Mr. Siddoway has said, yes, we appreciate it. Thank you. But we'd like seven. Well, we really can't afford seven. We are paying retail values for land. This is not distressed property, this is top -- top market land and to do what we are doing -- anything -- as a gift and he said, yes, you're right, it is and we are moving forward to Council with that and hope we get your support and we will just kind of go from there. So, as far as special features, I don't know if it's important to show a little diagram or not, but if I could -- this little diagram is kind of showing -- you know, illustrating the slope between our -- the existing Black Rock Subdivision and ours. That actual slope isn't there today. It actually varies. The houses on the hill are probably 40 feet above our lowest elevation and we are going to go in and move a whole lot of dirt to actually engineer and tier that little slope down between blocks. It's one of the reasons for our long block length that Sonya pointed out doesn't meet code. We want to work with staff on figuring out a way to either break up the block length and put an island in the middle to break it up or something of that configuration really works or just stepping that -- that slopes down, you know, in a proper way and we are probably looking at about 150,000 yards of dirt to do this. I mean it's significant grading operation and it's not cheap and it's going to look really sharp and it's going to get everybody there the desired elevations differences of views and things like that that they want out there. So, we have done the preliminary engineering. We know what we are. getting into and we are committing to at least -- guess the application was 18 to 25 foot grade differential between -- between Black Rock and our lot elevation there. It's something that we can support and we do have full lots up on the hill. If you can flash back, Sonya, to the overall -- this area right here, there is four lots that are actually -- you can see kind of part of -- they look like they are part of Black Rock. It's an extension of what they had and for whatever reason it wasn't done back in the day and I don't know if it was a lot count thing with the county or something, but -- and those are the same size or larger than what's up in Black Rock, there is a couple acre lots there and a couple half acre lots on the cul-de-sac that we are proposing and Sonya mentioned a stub street out to the west there, so -- so we are integrating with staffs conditions, except what we -- what we presented. We will leave some time for rebuttal if there is needed any from -- after other comments and I noticed I got beeped, so I will wrap up and say that we ask for your recommendation for approval to City Council and we appreciate your support. Thank you. Yearsley: Thank you. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 21, 2013 Page 16 of 41 Wafters: Matt, can I get a copy of that elevation you showed, please? Thank you. Yearsley: I have a couple of people signed up for this. Martin -- is it Fabricius? Would you like to come forward and testify? Please state your name and address for the record. Fabricius: My name is Martin Fabricius and I reside at -- Yearsley: Can you speak into the microphone. Fabricius: -- 1800 Susan Drive, Meridian. I'm an adjoining property owner to this proposed development on the extreme northwestern corner and if you will note on my sign-up sheet, I said I was neutral on this particular development. This is kind of a new thing with me on this particular property, because I have been down this road a number of times on this property. I fought off a gravel pit, an asphalt plant, and a very undesirable subdivision the last go around. I am not so naive to know that when you subdivide next to a rural area -- and I only have five acres there, so it's very minimal, my contact with this. But you do have problems. Again, I have been down this road, because I have lived in and around Meridian for 50 years, I have had other properties of mine subdivided, so I've had some experience with this. I think part of my concern was already answered. I was wondering what was going to happen in a peripheral fence around this property, because, quite frankly, I don't want a small child crawling through my fence to go over and pet my black cow and get tangled up in an electric fence. So, would like a solid fence between my property and this, at least four foot high. Anybody who can jump over that they do so at their own risk I guess, but that was one of my concerns and I think the other concern that I have had have pretty well been answered by the gentleman that presented the plan. But there are a couple things there that I would like to see done and the other concern I have is there is an open irrigation ditch down the western boundary of this proposed subdivision. When it gets to my property line it goes underneath my fence, over onto my side, and, then, when it gets to the northern boundary it goes back through the fence to serve the property north of this subdivision. So, what I would like to see done -- I don't know why it was ever constructed the way it was. I do not use that ditch. It's a pain in the neck. It's always washing out into my pasture and I would like to see that pipe line -- I'm told that that will be placed in a pipe line, that open ditch. I would like to see that placed on the side where the subdivision is, completely removing it from my side of the property there. So, those are some of the issues that I had with this. Like I say, I signed up as being neutral on this subdivision, which is a new thing for me to be neutral on a subdivision in this area. Yearsley: Can you hurry up or maybe just -- your time is expired, so -- Fabricius: Okay. Yearsley: Thank you. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 21, 2013 Page 17 of 41 Fabricius: I'm done. Yearsley: Thank you. Then I have a Tim Foster. Would he like to come forward? Again, please, state your name and address for the record. Foster: My name is Tim Foster. 5805 South Graphite Way. I actually live up in the Black Rock Subdivision. I am here today because the last subdivision, which I know a couple of you were here on, that tried coming in here, a lot of us up there fought it, because it wasn't right for what we needed. I just -- in my aspects of -- I was such a proponent against that one, this subdivision, in my standpoint, is going to do us a lot of good, it's going to help us out and I just wanted to point out that that's how I feel about it. Right now Hunter Homes seems to be working with us very well, that makes us very happy that they want to work with us, so -- and I know that -- t can't speak for everybody up there, because there are some that don't agree with this subdivision, but there is a fair amount of people that I have talked to are happy with what's going on. The main concern that I have heard from our homeowners up there -- actual, it's nothing really so much to do with the subdivision and the way it's going in, their main concern that they are finding is the actual traffic that will be increasing on Eagle Road. In the past Eagle Road has always had some issues, we just want to make sure that somehow the Ada County Highway District is proactive on this area and we are not sure what to do yet and I would imagine at City Council when it makes it to that point we will have a little bit more understanding what's going to happen. But after that I'm in agreement with this subdivision. Thank you. Yearsley: Thank you. I don't have anybody else signed up. Is there anybody else that would like to come forward and testify. Please come forward. Boyle: Hi. My name is Lynn Boyle. I live at 2125 East Amity Road. My concern is that property to the north and the west of the subdivision is horse farm, Arabians West, and was also here for the Whitebark Subdivision meeting and Whitebark actually put into place a six foot vinyl fence to keep kids and dogs out of the horse farm. My concern is that my daughters have been riding there for seven years and I just want to make sure that Arabians West remains a safe place for my children to ride. So, I didn't hear -- and I know -- sir, I'm sorry -- the gentleman he asked about the surrounding fence and would like that addressed, please. Yearsley: Okay. Boyle: Thank you. Yearsley: Thank you. Is there anyone else? Would the applicant like to come forward. Schultz: Thank you. Here to respond to some of the comments that were made, if may. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 21, 2013 Page 18 of 41 Yearsley: Just name and address again, Matt. Schultz: Matt Schultz. 8421 South Ten Mile, Meridian. We heard from Martin -- sorry, can't remember your last name. I believe we talked on the phone a few weeks ago. kind of gave him a heads up on what we were doing and said, well, it's better than the last one. So, I know there is some issues with fencing, you know, that's totally appropriate to address as urban and rural come together, as well as irrigation. Those are the two issues I heard him talk about and we are here to work with them on fencing. I know we have a common lot along there and on our -- at least on our inside we are going to have a fence. On the outside we will work with them on a fence along there -- along his property if -- if that's what is determined to do -- that solution to his problem. I'm putting that on the record to work with him on a fence there. As far as the open irrigation ditch, we the those ditches where they are underground. City has a code that says you must the anything that's going to be under a 36 inch pipe, I believe, or so and this one is definitely under that, it looks to be maybe a 24 or an 18 is our preliminary estimates and so we were going to the it on our side of the property. I do believe it -- it may come back and into our property down further past it, I'm not sure. We haven't walked that line real close. But, again, we want to work with him on what's the best solution for his -- that ditch along there washing out, we want to work with him to fix it and if that means piping it, that's great. If it means lining something we can work with him on that. So, we are here to be good neighbors. I always get to know my neighbors really well before a project is done. I do handle construction management as well and I'm here for the long haul, hopefully to see this thing all the way through. So, that's what we do. Mr. Foster I do appreciate his support as one of the homeowners on the hill and we do have a traffic study done by Thompson Engineers and submitted to ACHD. They were asking as of today to re-run and analysis on the roundabout on Amity. It has no effect on our site. We are going to do a right-hand turn lane on Eagle as it comes into Takonic. That is a requirement along Takonic they are asking us to widen it I think like two or three feet of pavement with a curb and, then, we have the sidewalk -- the sidewalk along there -- issue along there. We are asking for a waiver due to the mature -- very mature landscaping, very beautiful landscaping and if there is an alternate way to get people down and around, there is already an existing ten foot path on the south side of Takonic that's existing all the way out to Eagle and it's -- would it be appropriate for me to show some pictures here while I'm addressing that? Because it's kind of a traffic concern. Or not? I mean I have them, so -- of that berm. How many minutes do have? Yearsley: Ten. Schultz: All right. I think I got time. Go to the overhead. It's not straight. There we go. It's a little out of focus, but that's looking up towards Black Rock. You can kind of see some mature landscaping right in front of me. A borrow ditch. Elevated road. On the other side there is a borrow ditch. Landscaping up to a ten foot pathway and, then, heads up into Black Rock and that's how it looks all the way down out to Eagle. It was landscaped several years ago. The trees were big when they were put in. They have got even bigger and if you look where our back of sidewalk would be, if -- and I went Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 21, 2013 Page 19 of 41 and measured it myself this morning just to make sure, that it would just kind of be a couple feet away from those trees and that would be okay if it was flat out there, you know, hey, we could put the sidewalk in a couple feet away from the trees, but it's a pretty good slope, you go to try to put a flat sidewalk in a slope you're going to have to cut back and maybe take out some roots and some boulders and who knows if the trees are going to live and we would rather -- we are looking for an alternate route if we can get people into our subdivision on our sidewalk and come back out again and use that pathway on the other side. May not get -- it's a big .issue, it would just be a shame to trash a great looking buffer to get the sidewalk in if there is another way to accomplish what we are trying to accomplish, so -- so that's where we are at on -- on that issue. Marshall: Mr. Chair, if I could, just a quick question on that. Yearsley: Absolutely. Marshall: I would ask what was your take on stafFs suggestion of putting the sidewalk behind the landscaping? Schultz: Yes. Thank you. That's definitely a good option. ACRD said, hey, why don't you just put the sidewalk up against the curb and not leave it detached, you know, so pull away. That's another option. We have got a third option of, hey, why even go in and mess with that whole section that works really well for a lot of reasons. But, yes, behind it could work as well. And so we are -- we are still working with staff on what is the best solution and ACRD and our engineer, they have to get to their best solution, but it really looks good out there. We hate to trash it. As far as the lady that talked about the Arabians West parcel, we definitely want to make sure everybody is safe, we want to do our neighborly duty to fence that if that is the best solution along there and commit to that fencing that was discussed, not wood, vinyl -- six foot vinyl along that property is what we would commit to to make that safe along there. That's just what we need to do sometimes. So, that's what we will do. And I think that was it. I'm use to talking for a whole lot longer, so I'm glad I got to -- Freeman: I will give you an opportunity, because Ihave a -- I have one additional question. Schultz: All right. Freeman: Staff reacted in writing to your reaction is writing to their original statement about the park. I wondered what you felt about their suggested compromise as far as the park goes, the 3.6 I think would be on our 79 acres and, then, 3.4 would be on the future 45 acres. Schultz: Yes. Thank you, Commissioner Freeman. The city wants a seven acre park. We -- we are -- that's what they want ultimately and I'm sure they will get it somehow, some way. We are here to give our 3.6 acres and we are here to commit on our side of the 79 acres to do that. We -- we are here to say we are going to do that. Our portion Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 21, 2013 Page 20 of 41 will improve it. We will do whatever makes sense for us in the city and, obviously, everybody wants a seven acre park today if they can get it, but why go get a seven acre park with your first ten percent build out of a whole -- on the whole section. It really is kind of premature to get it all from -- we are not in a position to buy that property all up front. We have some candid discussions with the city attorney and your city parks commissioner about our limitations and they understood those and they are so appreciative of what we are doing on our side of the fence. So, we are going to take that position that we presented in ours to City Council and, hopefully, they will look at us and say, yes, thank you, we will figure out how to get the other 3.4 or plus -- however many to figure out how to get that. So, like I said, it's -- it might be a million dollar park, all seven, before it's all said and done, between the land and the improvement costs, it's -- it's a major deal. Three point five sounds small, but it's -- it's not. Freeman: Thank you. Yearsley: Are there any other questions of the applicant before -- all right. Thank you very much. Schultz: Thanks. Yearsley: I would entertain a motion to close the public hearing on AZ 13-016 and PP 13-033. Freeman: So moved. Miller: Second. Yearsley: I have a motion and a second to close the public hearing. All in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Yearsley: Who would like to go first? I see there is a lot of movement and trying to figure out what comments they want to make. Freeman: Well, I can go first and, then, you can all compliment me with whatever forget to talk about. Yearsley: Commissioner Freeman. Freeman: Overall I -- I like -- I like the subdivision. I like -- I like what you're doing. like the transition to the Black Rock up the hill from you and I do agree that this density that you're proposing, even though it's an R-4 per code, you're not quite -- you're not quite meeting that and Ilike -- I like the low density that you're proposing and the homes that you have shown, of course, they are very nice and I agree they are going to uphold the property values certainly of the property owners around you. It will be a nice Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 21, 2013 Page 21 of 41 neighborhood. I think from what I have heard in the testimony that the concerns regarding fences and ditches, adjacent properties, have been adequately answered. My take on the -- the hot topics here, which are these things that the applicant is suggesting should be modified in staff 's report, I tend to -- I like what staff did in response. I like the compromises that you made, yet holding a line that I think needs to be held. We do need to include this. In my opinion -- I know it's not our say -- we do need to include the other 45 in the development agreement. I think the sidewalk is needed and I think there are options available to you that will enable you not to destroy that landscaping. I agree it should be left in place and, of course, if a contractor runs over a tree he gets to replace the tree, too, but hopefully we can -- we can minimize that. So, if I were to vote on this or make a motion, what I would do is recommend approval. I like the subdivision. I would also go with staff's -- stafFs modified conditions of approval, as opposed to yours and you will have your chance to talk to City Council about the things that you really want to push for there. I think that's the end of my comments. And, like I said, you guys can fill in where I left holes. Yearsley: All right. Commissioner Marshall. Marshall: I'd like to start by saying Idid -- I want to recognize on the record here that did thoroughly read the letter by Allen and Barbara Burlock, as well as listen to the other public testimony. I, too, think this is a very good subdivision. I like the plan. Yes, the block lengths on that back needs to be broken up and I have seen some ideas from staff in the past that really look like they might be able to work in this location and I have seen -- because I had some concerns about that and had discussed them with them. I'm against very long block lengths. They know. But -- and the fact that the easement is going to come -- become a setback, because there is no one to have an easement written to. But I think, yes, I really appreciate the applicant for working with everybody around them. It appears they are trying to be a very good neighbor and I really appreciate that and I like to see that. We have had a number of applicants more and more these days really working hard to work with all the neighbors and I really appreciate that when I see that. I think that's very important. Again, you're not going to please everybody, but in my estimation this is going to be a really nice development. It is very low density, just over two houses -- it's less than three. They are going to be big lots. It's going to -- some nice homes from -- based on what Hunter Homes has built in the past. It's -- I like what I see. Idid see on the --Idid read the Ada County traffic survey report and they talked on the five year work plan that Eagle is to be widened, although that is north of here, it will help move some of the traffic going north where it gets even denser and I saw where the right-in, right-out was -- or the right-in lane was required and, then, it didn't appear, too, the traffic -- the additional traffic does not diminish the rating of any of the local intersections there. Typically the biggest concern is the intersection and I think Ada County is very aware that those intersections are in dire need of improvement and they are looking at those. That is also Eagle Road is being widened coming out there. That area will fill in over time, it's just -- it's inevitable. You look at where we were 15 years ago and where we are going to be in 15 years. This area is going to fill in, it's just -- it's a blessing and a curse all at the same time. mean we all want to maintain exactly what we have, but at the same time it's that growth Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 21, 2013 Page 22 of 41 that helps fuel our economy and everything else. So, I am for this and I do appreciate staffs response that's the middle road there, trying to meet them and I like the way everybody has tried to work together. That's -- Yearsley: Thank you. Miller: Mr. Chair? Yearsley: Commissioner Miller. Miller: I'm not sure I have a whole lot of unique comments to -- but I back up what both these gentlemen have said. I want to call attention as well to the written testimony we have from Allen and Barbara, which I realize not everyone has seen, but this -- this is not as much in favor of the development and so I want to address just a couple of their concerns. One is that they want it to be an R-2 instead of an R-4, but if you look at the density that they are suggesting it's just barely above that. I think that this is a very unique development because of that and I think it fits the area well. There were several questions asked which -- which make me ask the question of them what are their suggestions to meet these. I think that this developer has done an excellent job in opening up possibilities and preserving the history of Meridian. One of their concerns is there is no assurances that the development of the remaining 45 acres will, you know, not go up high density, I think in hearing the developer talk that's not what they want to do. That's not where their market's at. So, I think that kind of mitigates that concern. am in favor of the development. I think they have done a great job working with the neighbors. I'm really appreciative of the -- the neighbors coming in and talking in favor of it. That's important. We don't always see that. Yes, I'm in favor and I can't see enough reason to go against staffs recommendations either. So, that's all I have. Rohm: I have no additional comments. Yearsley: I will just echo what has been said. I think it's a good development and I do agree that it is a good location for where it's at, so with that I will stand for a motion. Freeman: Mr. Chair? Yearsley: Commissioner Freeman. Freeman: After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to recommend approval to City Council of file numbers AZ 13-016 and PP 13-033 as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of November 21st, 2013, with the following modifications: That the requirements in 1.1 and 1.1.1 be amended per the written revisions proposed by staff during this meeting. Marshall: I will second that. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 21, 2013 Page 23 of 41 Yearsley: I have a motion and a second for the approval of AZ 13-016 and PP 13-033. All in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries. Thank you. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Yearsley: Next on the agenda is the public hearing for RZ 13-013 and PP 13-032, Casa Bella Subdivision. Let's begin with the staff report. Rohm: Mr. Chairman? Yearsley: Yes. Rohm: Could we take a short break? Yearsley: Absolutely. Let's take a five minute break. (Recess: 7:16 p.m. to 7:20 p.m.) F. Public Hearing: RZ 13-013 Casa Bella Subdivision by Providence Properties, LLC Located 5555 N. Locust Grove Road Request: Rezone of 5.44 Acres of Land from the L-O to the R-8 Zoning District G. Public Hearing: PP 13-032 Casa Bella Subdivision by Providence Properties, LLC Located 5555 N. Locust Grove Road Request: Preliminary Plat Approval Consisting of Twenty-One (21) Residential Building Lots, One (1) Church Lot and Four (4) Common/Other Lots on 14.69 Acres of Land in the L-O and Proposed R-8 Zoning Districts Yearsley: It looks like everyone is back, so we will start again. Okay. We are going to reopen the public hearing for RZ 13-013 and PP 13-032, Casa Bella Subdivision. Let's begin with the staff report. Parsons: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. The next application before you this evening is the Casa Bella Subdivision. It's located on the west side of North Locust Grove midway between Chinden Boulevard and west -- or East McMillan Road. In 2008 this property did annex into the city with the L-O zoning district. It's currently developed with an LDS stake center. The applicant is here tonight to discuss basically breaking off a surplus piece of the property and developing a 21 lot residential subdivision. As you can see in the aerial here and also the zoning map before you this church property is primarily surrounded by residential development, zoned R-4 in the city. At the time that these subdivisions came through I don't think the city had a vision that his church property would redevelop, so, therefore, there is no street connectivity provided to this property. The applicant is proposing a 21 residential lot subdivision and one church lot on approximately 14.69 acres of land. This is in-fill in nature. One Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 21, 2013 Page 24 of 41 thing that I had recommended in the staff report was that the applicant provide a concept plan that showed how the back portion of the church lot could redevelop in the future. As I mentioned previously, there is no other street connectivity, so if the church has any ideas of selling off another surplus piece in the future we want to make sure that this is, one, a viable stub street. Also if ACHD ever closes off any access points to the existing church site, the church would have another -- ample opportunity to take access to that local street as well. So, there is a value to that stub street, but we certainly wanted to get something before you to show, hey, this could be extended, there could be additional lots carved out in the future. It won't be a dead end street. As you can see here on the exhibit, the applicant has provided an emergency access through the church's parking lot if and when this ever goes through residential or redevelops in the future. Per the UDC the applicant is required to provide a 25 foot landscape buffer along Locust Grove. The submitted plan does depict that and the City of Meridian's master pathways also shows a ten foot pathway along Locust Grove Road that extends along the entire frontage of this site. I did want to bring your attention down to the southeast corner of the property here. We have worked with the Parks Department -- if you can see to the south we have a subdivision that currently has a five foot wide detached sidewalk that's stubbed to the property. I spoke with the parks director and he's in agreement to allow that -- just that small segment of the pathway to be five foot wide -- so, basically, a sidewalk, so that you have a smooth transition with that sidewalk there. There really isn't enough frontage there to get a ten foot pathway to transition effectively there. The other reason is ACHD in their comments to staff and meeting with the applicant they required that the proposed stub street or the proposed street network align with the existing street across the east side of Locust Grove and that's why you have this entry point into the subdivision. If I could step back here. As mentioned, the existing church was developed in the county. It currently does have existing access points to Locust Grove. ACHD has provided comments to staff and they are recommending that they leave those existing access points in place. Staff is supportive of both access points remaining until such time as ACRD deems it needs to do something different out there and we are also supportive of the proposed street network as well. The residential portion of the subdivision does consist of 0.52 acres of land -- open space I should say. So, we have 50 percent of that is the street buffers along Locust Grove. You have a -- basically a decorative entry into the subdivision, landscape entry into the subdivision, eight foot parkways along local streets and, then, some street buffers here. As I mentioned to you that is consistent with the UCC. The only amenity that's being proposed and required by the UDC is the ten foot pathway along Locust Grove. That will serve as their amenity. One of staff's concerns -- and I called that out in the staff report -- was if you look at the exhibits that are before you this evening we weren't sure if this was going to develop in one phase, two phases, or multiple phases and so one of our recommended conditions in the staff report was that the applicant bring in the church lot with the first phase of development to insure that we did get that pathway or that pedestrian connectivity along the west side of Locust Grove. The applicant did provide written comments to the staff report and they have confirmed that this will be -- this subdivision will be done in the first -- in a single phase. So, we can anticipate seeing that pathway and that pedestrian connection appearing. Here are the proposed elevations that the applicant has before you this evening. As you can see Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 21, 2013 Page 25 of 41 here it's pretty similar to some other applications you acted on here in the recent months. It's the same developer that's doing the Copperleaf Subdivision and Golden Estates off of Ustick Road. So, as per their usual, they have apallet -- a plethora of elevations. Staff is recommending that these three lots that butt up against Locust Grove have some of those details and decorative features along the rear facades or sides of those homes, that they are compatible or at least dress up the street edge if you will and the entry into the subdivision. Staff is recommending approval of -- one thing I wanted to step back on, this property is currently zoned medium density residential on the comp plan. This proposed subdivision this evening is roughly four units to the acre, so it is consistent to the surrounding developments. One thing I would note is that those lot sizes are larger than what you see in your R-8 zoning district. They are roughly about 6,000 square feet, average around seven. So, they do -- they are compatible with the adjacent residential subdivision. The density is consistent with both the zoning -- requested zoning district and the comp plan, therefore, staff is recommending approval of the subdivision and the rezone this evening. I'd stand for any questions you have. Yearsley: Are there any questions of staff? With that would the applicant like to come forward. Please state your name and address for the record. McCarthy: Good evening. My name is Kevin McCarthy. 9233 West State Street. We don't -- I don't have a lot to add to what Bill already said. We agree with the staff report. We plan on complying with all the conditions that were listed within the staff report. Just to expand on what he already said, we feel this project blends in with the neighboring properties. We have worked with him to work out the stub street that we are showing to that vacant lot that's showing that that will work in the event of a cul-de-sac and the church is able to provide a secondary access in the event that it does develop. Right now they don't have any plans for that, but you never know. We do feel this is a pretty nice project with the detached sidewalks and will have some nice landscaping to the streetscape as you go in and just to reiterate we are planning to do this all in a single phase and the ten foot pathway will be constructed -- constructed all along Locust Grove there, so -- it will also provide some connectivity as far as the sidewalks go there along Locust Grove. With that I will stand for any questions you may have. Yearsley: Thank you. Are there any questions of the applicant? No. Thank you very much. McCarthy: Thank you. Yearsley: Thank you. I do have one person signed up. Kathrine Terrick. Would you like to come forward. Please. Name and address for the record, please. Terrick: Good evening. My name is Kathrine Terrick. My address is 5374 North Sun Shimmer Avenue, Meridian. Our home backs to the proposed development. Our current backyard view is of a well maintained grassy area. We can see the trees on Locust Grove and see all the way to the mountains. My husband and I are sad that we Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 21, 2013 Page 26 of 41 will be losing this view, which we so enjoy. However, we are not here to try to stop this development. We are pragmatic people and we understand that development is what brings us the shops and restaurants that we enjoy frequenting. We are here because we have many questions and concerns and we didn't know any other way to express them. We were not notified of the neighborhood meeting on September 26th. We believe the notification went to the previous homeowner as his name is listed on pages 22 through 24 of the development application. The purchase of our house was recorded on June 28. We would ask the Commissioners to urge developers to insure they have updated property owner records, so that current owners will not be left out of important community developments as we were. Had we been notified of the neighborhood meeting we would have attended. These are our questions: Number one. We would like to know what the covenants will be for this subdivision, including square footage minimum, as well as other covenants for the homeowners. Number two. We would like to know if the existing chain link fence on our backyard will be removed and, if so, what will the developer replace it with. Would we be required to share the cost of a new fence? Number three. Will there be any change in elevation to accommodate the new road and asphalt. If so how will the developer insure that there will not be any negative drainage issues for our existing homes. Number four. Conceptual building elevations on page 30 of the application show a rear view of a home with many windows in the back. Could the developer take into account privacy in the design of rear windows for the privacy of both the existing and the new homeowner. Number five. The conceptuals show only two story houses. Will there be any one story homes available? Will the buyer be allowed to choose a particular lot -- particular lot and a particular model or will the developer decide which model is placed on each lot? The reason we ask this question is because we would be interested in purchasing the lot that butts to ours for my elderly parents, but it would be practical for us to do so only if we could purchase a one story home. The lot in question is lot ten on page 31 of the submitted application, but it is Lot 9 on another rendering we received from the developer. Number six. What is the timing of when construction will begin, how long will it last and what hours will crews be working. Thank you. Yearsley: Thank you. Rohm: Mr. Chairman? Yearsley: Yes. Rohm: That was a pretty nice list of questions, but it might better served if the developer had a copy of those questions so he could respond to them accurately. So, if you wanted to share that with him I think the response might be more in line with the questions. Yearsley: So, what he is asking is if you would give a copy of your letter to the applicant. Rohm: There you go. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 21, 2013 Page 27 of 41 Yearsley: All right. I don't have anybody else signed up for this public hearing. Is there anybody else that would like to come forward and testify? If not would the applicant like to come forward and address these comments. Clarno: My name is Randy Clarno. I'm the managing member of Providence Properties, the applicant. And I did speak with the Terricks not long after our neighborhood meeting. We didn't have anybody attend the neighborhood meeting, to our surprise. But I understand that we notified over 90 people within the distance that we were supposed to notify. I will try to answer these the best I can. Concerning covenants, there will be covenants in this project. It will be under a single homeowner association and they will be comparable to the projects that are -- that adjoin it. The fencing -- it's our desire to fence that south line more of a privacy fence, so we do intend to fence the entire south side and we are working with the church right now on, you know, replacing that existing fence or taking out the existing fence. The buildings that are going to -- the housing that will go in there -- I do build homes, but I also sell lots to other home builders and they have design standards and covenants that they have to comply with. There will likely -- more than likely be the opportunity for single level homes in there and we will, you know, pay attention to privacy issues, with windows and so forth. But as you know those homes are not that far apart and it's impossible to get complete privacy with that. The timing would be -- our hope, our desire is to build sometime this summer the public infrastructure and home construction to start shortly thereafter. And I think that's -- I think those are most of the main ones that she had. Rohm: Part of the fence question was regarding the cost of the fence. McCarthy: Yeah. We will absorb the cost of the new fence and the cost of the removal of the existing fence. But we will take the time to make -- contact all those homeowners when we are ready to get close to do that, so -- Freeman: And I think her last question had to do with were there any elevation changes, plans, that might cause some drainage to fall onto the adjoining property. Clarno: No. Our plan would be to drain all the lots out to the street, so we will grade it accordingly. Freeman: Thank you for addressing those. Clarno: You bet. Yearsley: And 1 think there was one last question about is there a square foot minimum for the house sizes. Clarno: I don't know that we have decided that at this point, but there will be -- my guess is I think it will probably be somewhere in the 14 to 15 hundred square foot range, would imagine. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 21, 2013 Page 28 of 41 Yearsley: Okay. I think that -- you know, from my -- what I wrote down -- I think you have addressed most of the comments, so -- Clarno: Okay. Yearsley: Are there any other comments, questions for the applicant? Freeman: No. Yearsley: All right. Thank you. Clarno: You bet. Freeman: But I do have a question for staff before we close the public hearing, just in case. Yearsley: Absolutely. Freeman: Bill -- sorry, I was looking for the specific condition of approval. It's 1.1.2 and it has to do with the applicant needing to bring in a concept plan showing how that property west of the church might develop. The -- was the cul-de-sac shown on property, did that meet the criteria that you were looking for? Is that sufficient to convince you that that can work? Parsons: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, Commissioner Freeman, I -- no. my condition was a little more specific. I was hoping for a lot layout, showing it could be residential in the future, but I -- given the -- looking at the exhibit they provided it definitely shows that it would be residential if you were to extend the cul-de-sac in there. think it meets the intent. So, if you're okay with that, the bare bones with just a road in there and secondary access, I think I'm fine with it tonight. I can live with it. Freeman: Yeah. In my opinion it shows that something could work there certainly. would be a little bit concerned about the depth of the properties would be located on the east side of that street, but if the developer is going to be happy with the resultant properties there, it works, I just don't know that it's ideally located to equalize the depth of properties on the east side and the west side of that stub street. That's my only comment. That was my question. Yearsley: Any other questions before we -- then I would entertain a motion to close the public hearing for RZ 13-013 and PP 13-032. Miller: So moved. Marshall: Second. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 21, 2013 Page 29 of 41 Yearsley: I have a motion and a second to close the public hearing. All in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Yearsley: Anyone like to go first? Freeman: Nobody ever likes to go first, but I will go first. Not that I like it. Rohm: Oh, I wanted to go first. Freeman: Go ahead, Commissioner Rohm. I would be happy to hear you speak first. Rohm: I just was being ornery. Mr. Chairman? Yearsley: Commissioner Rohm. Rohm: You know, quite honestly, this is pretty much an in-fill within the city and it is -- appears to be very similar to adjacent development and I think that that's what you want within this type of a development. So, it looks like the developer has done a good job of surveying the neighborhood and it's unfortunate that the neighborhood meeting didn't include the folks in our audience tonight, because they appear to have a lot of good input and so that's great that they were able to attend tonight and their comments were heard and addressed in an open meeting. End of comment. Yearsley: Thank you. Anybody else? Freeman: I agree with Commissioner Rohm. I think this project is appropriate for the in-fill problem that the site imposes and I don't mean the word problem negatively. It's a narrow, very restricted site and this seems to work and use the property well and even gives us an opportunity to do something reasonably well behind the church. So, I'm in favor of the project. I do think that the questions brought up by Mrs. Terrick were addressed well by the applicant. I hope that you two can continue to work together with questions offline, if there are more specific questions or follow-up that's needed. Yearsley: Thank you. Miller: Mr. Chair? Yearsley: Commissioner Miller. Miller: I don't have a whole lot to add. I just kind of want to send my sympathies to Mrs. Terrick. I have often been baffled at how much work goes into putting those addresses together. It's a pretty rigorous process and that's the first one I have heard of it being missed and that's really unfortunate in this case. But, hopefully, the developer was able Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 21, 2013 Page 30 of 41 to address your questions reasonably. It sounds to me like they are very reasonable about things. I think it's a great development. It's a good in-fill project. I'm in favor. Yearsley: Thank you. Marshall: I was just going to say, I, personally, in seeing this, I'm hoping -- I pray that as I get older I -- I become a little more knowledgeable and maybe -- just maybe a touch wiser and Ihope -- and Ithink -- I like to believe that the city is as well in that it's these projects that today we would like to say we really should have a stub street to a property like this, because some day it may develop and we have got to have cross-access and that would have made life a lot easier for everybody I think if there had been a stub street there to be able to attach to from the other subdivision and it's unfortunate it wasn't. Given the situation I think it's appropriate. I'm really hoping Mrs. Terrick and her husband are able to work out a deal and maybe her mom can move in right behind her. had that as a kid with my grandparents right next door and it was awesome. So, I'm hoping maybe that will work out for you. And I do appreciate the developer is willing to address those issues and thank you and I'm for the project. Yearsley: Thank you. I agree. 1 think it looks good and there is not much else I can say, so at this point I would entertain a motion. Miller: Mr. Chair? Yearsley: Commissioner Miller. Miller: After considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move to recommend approval to the City Council of file numbers RZ 13-013 and PP 13-032 as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of November 21st, 2013, with no modifications. Rohm: Second. Yearsley: I have a motion and a second to approve file number RZ 13-013 and PP 13- 023. All in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries. Thank you. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. H. Public Hearing: PP 13-031 Knighthill Center by Mason and Stanfield Inc. Located Southwest Corner of N. Linder Road and W. Chinden Boulevard Request: Preliminary Plat Approval of Five (S) Commercial Lots and One (1) Common Lot on Approximately 9.11 Acres in the C-G Zoning District Yearsley: Next on the agenda is PP 13-031, Knighthill Center by Mason Stanfield and let's begin with the staff report. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 21, 2013 Page 31 of 41 Parsons: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. The next application before you is the Knighthill Center Subdivision. It's located on the southwest corner of Chinden Boulevard. It currently consists of 9.11 acres of land and it's zoned C-G within the city limits. In 2006 this property was annexed and is called -- it was the same name, Knighthill. At that time it annexed with the concept plan that had almost 150,000 square feet of retail on the site. Since that time the applicant has -- is under new ownership and the applicant has purchased the property. In 2008 he came forward with a new preliminary plan and new concept plan. Under that plan there was approximately 74,000 square feet of office, retail on the site and now those approvals have lapsed, because the applicant elected not to move forward and sign the development agreement or request a time frame within the UDC time limit. So, he's back again. He's re-seeking the -- basically the same approval he had back in 2008. Probably the biggest -- the significant difference in the site plans you saw in the past and the one this evening is the access to Chinden Boulevard and that was granted by City Council a few months ago through a variance process and ITD has also approved that access point. So, he does have a permit to construct that right-in, right-out onto ITD or onto Chinden Boulevard. So, as I mentioned to you it is a commercial subdivision. It consists of five commercial lots, four along -- three along Chinden and one along Locust Grove and one internal to the site. The applicant has also submitted a concurrent development agreement modification, so that he can amend the original concept plan and is proposing this concept plan before you this evening. Square footages of the building are anywhere from 4,800 square feet up to a mid box store which is depicted at 30,400 square feet over here up against the adjacent residential subdivision. These three structures here along Chinden and along Linder are labeled as multi-tenant buildings and they range between 10,000 square feet and 15,000 square feet respectively. Access to this development, as I mentioned earlier, you do have a -- there will be a right-in, right-out to Chinden. There will be a full access going to Linder Road. Along the south boundary of the Lochsa Falls Subdivision is an existing street, North Gertie Place, that will be opened up and, then, attached to the commercial drive aisle proposed with this development and along the west boundary is West Everest Lane, which is a private street that was constructed with the Lochsa Falls development. The original development agreement required the applicant to provide proof of cross-access with this private lane along the west boundary. In 2008 the applicant or the developer did provide staff a copy of that cross-access agreement. He has the right to use that private lane and he's required to pay money towards the maintenance of that road. So, things are in place to allow that to happen. As you can see here some of these lots do not front on a street, so, therefore, staff is recommending that he grant cross-access to all the lots within this proposed development as well, so that they can use the proposed access points before you this evening. What I have done here is I have combined the preliminary plat and the landscape plan into one exhibit and per the UDC the applicant is required to provide a 35 foot landscape buffer along Linder Road and Chinden Boulevard. A ten foot multi-use pathway is also required along Chinden for connectivity. I would mention to the Commission that the Lochsa Falls development did develop prior to the UDC and, therefore, only have a five foot attached -- or detached sidewalk along Chinden, but we do still have pedestrian connectivity. So, we are starting to get almost a half mile of connection through there going all the way down to Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 21, 2013 Page 32 of 41 Long Lake, which is the half mile intersection there and helps people get down to the school site as well and also give pedestrians to this site as well. The applicant is showing a ten foot pathway along Linder Road. That is not required by the UDC. He only has -- is required to provide a five foot detached sidewalk and that's all that staff has conditioned to provide is the five foot sidewalk -- detached sidewalk. He is extending the sidewalk from North Gertie Place into the site and providing some pedestrian connectivity from the adjacent subdivision. The concept plan also shows a plaza area consisting with the mixed use community standards on the site, which is -- has that amenity as well. As you can see here, because the C-G zoned property is up against residential zoned property, the UDC does require a 25 foot landscape buffer, between that -- those two zoning districts. The applicant this evening is proposing a 20 foot wide landscape buffer along the entire portion of the west boundary and all of the south boundary. In my staff report staff was amenable to allowing the 20 foot landscaping buffer along this portion of the site, because the building was separated from the residential development quite a ways with the drive aisle and, of course, the parking area. One thing that's different from the previous approval to this approval was originally there was a single family home on -- to the south of this multi-tenant building. That's since been replaced with an ACHD retention pond, so there was a provision in the DA that required a curb cut to that property and cross-access. Now that it's just a detention pond staff is recommending that that DA provision be omitted, it's no longer relevant and can move forward with the development of this site. The applicant has also deeded the necessary right of way to ITD along Chinden Boulevard, so that it can be expanded in the future. One thing I would mention to you, if you had any safety concerns regarding the access onto Chinden, when we were at that hearing discussing the variance with Council, ITD there was explaining that there will be a center median needed within that roadway and the applicant will be required to build a decel lane into the site, so that there isn't that conflict as you decel into the commercial development. Here are the proposed elevations. This is really meant to serve as a collage to show you the variations that could occur on the site. The lower left-hand corner here is an example of what an office or bank building could look like on the site and, then, the other renderings just show a typical multi-tenant building. We haven't really -- we generally tie the applicant to these -- these elevations. We want to be able to give them that flexibility and let it kind of morph into what he envisions with the site, but these are more -- more of a collage to show you what the construction materials will be moving forward. Staff did receive written testimony from the applicant. They are asking that the Commission stay with their proposal of 20 feet along the south boundary and a portion of that west boundary. They have met with the adjacent neighbors. They want the conifers -- a dense buffer of conifers along the back. In the application the applicant did provide athree-to-one berm along that back portion of the site as well and we have conditioned them to provide a berm. Under the UDC we like to see a mix of materials -- planting materials. In fact, they are not all conifers. It becomes a safety concern if we have too many conifers growing together. The police department can't really see back behind there, so I'm hoping the applicant can go back to the homeowners and work with them and commit to a dense buffer, but also include a mix of plantings in there. We don't want a sterile look in the back there. It's meant to -- to beautify the site, as well as buffer the site. One other recommended DA provision that we are carrying forward -- Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 21, 2013 Page 33 of 41 and the applicant wants to discuss with you is the requirement -- if I can go back to the concept plan here. You can see there is a --amid box building. It's 30,000 square feet up against residential. And that's why staff is staying with this original recommendation of requiring a 25 foot dense landscape buffer and having it bermed. The other thing that I would point out to the Commission is that the loading area is also along the back side of that building. Under the UDC there are requirements that that must be enclosed and it must operate between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 10:00 only when it's that close to a residential district. The applicant has no plans for a user here, so it's just -- at this point it is a concept, but I did bring that to your tension in the staff report, because we want to make sure that this is compatible with the adjacent residential uses. We have C-G zoning, which is our most intense commercial zoning up against a residential district, so we have to make -- insure that that compatibility happens. So, what I have tried to do in a DA provision is limit the mid box store to the square footage shown on the concept plan. I have limited the multi-tenant buildings on the site to the 15,600 square foot building footprint and the other item that I added was that no building -- commercial building on the site could exceed 35 feet in height and the reason why I did that is because that's the typical height requirement we have in our residential district. Other than those two items the owner, developer, and the applicant are in agreement with the conditions in the staff report. To my knowledge there aren't any other outstanding issues before you. Staff is recommending approval of the plat and the DA mod and I stand for any questions Commission may have. Yearsley: Thank you. Are there any questions? Miller: Mr. Chair, I have a question, actually. Yearsley: Commissioner Miller. Miller: So, next to the retention pond -- or did you say you're allowing a 20 foot because of the other separation there, just in that portion, but the other half will be 25? Parsons: Mr. Chair. Staff -- it's ultimately aCommission -- a City Council decision. Through the public hearing process they can allow the reduced buffer. Staffs stance is, yes, we do support 20 feet there, it's just giving the separation between the building and the drive aisle, 20 feet makes sense. If the applicant were to plat a short segment of -- of the public road there and brought Gertie Place in and terminated at Linder Road, he would only be required to do a ten foot buffer. He's elected to go with a commercial drive aisle, so, therefore, we had asked to throw 25 at them or 20, whichever Council does, but we do support his request for 20 feet in that location. We have only required 20 feet along Lot 2, Block 1, here, which is up against the mid block store. Miller: Okay. Thank you. Yearsley: Thank you. Would the applicant like to come forward? Please state your name and address for the record. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 21, 2013 Page 34 of 41 Stanfield: Scott Stanfield. Mason Stanfield Engineering and Land Surveying in Nampa, Idaho, and it's good to be last, because there is only two people behind me, so I like this. Here representing Renny Wylie, the owner in this project and, first, thank you, Bill, and his efforts over the last several weeks on helping us move the project forward. As usual it's good to work with him. I will cut right to the two points that we agree to disagree on, Bill and I, and that is the two that he referenced towards the tail end of his presentation. We really would prefer to do a 20 foot buffer on a -- on a berm with landscaping on top of the berm and on the side. Yes, regardless of the berm -- or regardless of the landscape buffer size we will go work with the neighbors regarding the foliage. To my understanding they threw out the idea of a dense row of conifers back there, because they didn't want to be burdened with the typical drip associated with the deciduous trees and the leaves that can fall down on their side. So, we will continue to work with those folks and get something amenable ironed out on top of that berm. The second item is the square footage. We understand Bill's thought process, but we feel that the square footage is really controlled in other ways. It is zoned C-G and we have certain uses we can have and we have certain parking ratios we have to maintain and we have certain landscaping requirements we have to maintain and all these things together will impact the square footage of the building. So, we would rather not be tied to that as a maximum, rather let the site work, let the zoning work and let the UDC code define our building size and with that I will stand for any questions. Freeman: I have one. What are the negative impacts, in your opinion, to the 25 buffer requirement behind your larger building? Stanfield: If we went 25 -- is the question if we went 25 feet what would that -- Freeman: How does it negatively impact you, yes. Stanfield: It would make it smaller. Freeman: The building you mean? Stanfield: Yeah. With the way we have the drive aisle in back and, then, the building just north of there. Freeman: Are you -- are you over your minimum parking count? I don't recall from the report, but -- Stanfield: I don't recall either, to be honest with you. Freeman: Okay. I just wonder if an alternative to -- if you end up with a 25 foot setback, if you have an alternative, instead of reducing the square footage of your building to actually maybe reduce a few of those parking stalls in front of the building and just move the building, which would also help mitigate against negative impacts to the neighbors. I was just curious why the 25 foot was such an issue for you if -- if there are ways that you could keep that building the same size. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 21, 2013 Page 35 of 41 Stanfield: Yeah. I could certainly entertain that and look at that prior to Council. The 20 foot -- it's my understanding was a result of the original application, which the original approvals permitted 20 feet and we just propagated that and I think may have added the drive aisles on top of that 20 feet, plus the berm. Freeman: Yeah. I know there are some pretty strong opinions on this side of the wall here regarding large C-G buildings up against residential. So, I'm just thinking the 25 foot is probably what I would support, too, and just be thinking -- well, you're going to be able to take that to City Council, but be thinking about ways that you can deal with that in the meantime. Stanfield: We will do it. Thank you. Freeman: Thanks. Yearsley: Are there any other questions? Miller: Mr. Chair? Yearsley: Commissioner Miller. Miller: I have got a question more towards the square footage requirements and it -- I mean there is a possibility somebody can want to come in and develop all -- these lots at once, right, and put a bigger building and maybe that would increase the size of that, maybe why you -- you want to get rid of that minimum square foot requirement. Stanfield: Correct. Correct. Miller: Do you have any concerns about being able -- like say -- usually the bigger stores have later hours operational earlier and do you have any concerns of meeting that requirement and the loading dock not be operated between 7:00 and 10:00? Stanfield: No, Commissioners, Chairman, I don't at this time, because we don't have a user. I'm sure when it sells that user may have to take that issue up, but from our position we don't -- the code is the code and elected to show it there, so we will have to deal with that -- the end user will, so -- Miller: Okay. Stanfield: -- no disagreements there. Yearsley: Any other questions? Marshall: Mr. Chair, I do. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 21, 2013 Page 36 of 41 Yearsley: Commissioner Marshall. Marshall: Why did you put the 30,000 square foot building in the back? Why not the smaller, less intense -- because the last project -- and I'm recalling 2008 when this came through -- this was a little contentious and there was a lot of discussion about it and it was offices -- low intensity offices up against the residences and it -- I believe there was a convenience store out on the corner, which was fine, because it was buffered -- you know, that's a high intensity use, but it was buffered against the residences with low intensity offices and it appears to me that you got a mid box store that is going to be a high intensity -- relatively high intensity. It's not a big regional thing, but it's going to draw a lot. A 30,000 square foot store is pretty good size. That means you're going to have a lot of traffic, that's why you have got a lot of parking here and why are you putting that up against residences? Stanfield: Chairman, Commissioner Marshall, I can speculate and I will have my client answer that. He was running the show with the layout, but I will add that he met with the neighbors numerous times and it's my understanding that it started out with maybe 40, 50 people in this room, now there is one that could be against or for it, I'm not sure, we will let the time tell, but I think that is indicative of the work that Mr. Renny Wylie went through in working with the neighbors and making them not embrace, but, you know, not necessarily object by the numbers to this project and Ican -- I can speculate why the building is back there, but I -- you know, I would just be speculating, but I think as a result you don't see a lot of people here tonight. Marshall: Thank you. Yearsley: Thank you. If we don't have any other questions, we will I guess let the owner come forward if he wanted to. I don't have anybody else signed up. Wylie: Good evening. Renny Wylie. 1676 Clarendon, Eagle, Idaho, and as has been stated, I'm the owner of the property. One of the constraints that we have -- you had asked about moving the building. One, this is all conceptual. We don't have a tenant. We don't have any users at this point. Part of our problem with -- it's a benefit and it's a problem with this site -- is the amount of accesses, so we are constrained with Gertie and we are constrained with Everest, along with the access off of Chinden and the access off of Linder. So, we are trying to figure out what can fit into that little corner. Originally our thought was the offices that we had come with before, it turned out we didn't have any market for them. So, if we don't have any market for them we are not going to build them. So, that's what -- that's why we went a different direction. My thought was creating -- generate a larger parcel in the back. If we have a larger parcel in the back where do we put it? If we move it towards the -- further away towards what would be the northeast corner of that parcel, well, then, you're constrained by Everest running into it and -- and you have a problem with the drive aisle coming off of Gertie. So, kind of the only way we could figure out to lay it out was similar location as to what it is. Will we actually have a mid box there? I'm not sure. If you look at a Staples, for instance, of similar size, you actually have less traffic than you would in amulti-tenant Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 21, 2013 Page 37 of 41 retail building. The multi-tenant retail buildings oftentimes generate a lot more traffic happening at a quicker rate. A lot higher turnover. So, again, I must emphasize everything we are doing at this point is conceptual, so stand for any questions. Yearsley: Are there any questions? Freeman: No more. Yearsley: All right. Thank you. Wylie: Thank you. Yearsley: Is there anybody else that would like to come forward and testify? With that I would entertain a motion to close the public hearing. Rohm: So moved. Marshall: Second. Yearsley: I have a motion and a second to close the public hearing on PP 13-031. All in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Rohm: Mr. Chairman? Yearsley: Commissioner Rohm. Rohm: I drive by that lot every day and part of this whole deal is a vision of the city that will have commercial developments in certain designated areas throughout the city and this being one of them and I think the reason why it hasn't developed in the past is because they haven't been able to come up with the right niche and, quite honestly, applaud the applicant for coming up with a concept that may actually see this property developed and -- and take it out of -- or put it into an active role in the community. So, from my perspective I think it's great that they have been able to move forward with something that will put this on the tax rolls in a positive manner and have some additional development within the city. So, I'm in full support of it as presented by the applicant. Yearsley: Thank you. Marshall: Mr. Chair, I'm going to take the other side of that. Yearsley: Commissioner Marshall. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 21, 2013 Page 38 of 41 Marshall: To be honest, I do want to see this built out. I do want it on the tax rolls. like everything but that big box store backing up to residences. I'm against that in this preliminary plat. Yes, it is conceptual, but we are trying to identify where the lot lines are going to be and once we set those lot lines we are talking about -- it's going to be the big store back there and I don't like that, but, in fact, this should not have ever been zoned C-G up against residential. The front half C-G. That's fine. The front half of this. But the back half should have been L-O or something else. C-C. Something -- not C-G. And I have been arguing against that ever since I have been on here and will continue to do so. That was before my time. And Istill -- I am -- I don't like back lot and I don't think a 25 foot buffer is enough, to be honest. A berm with a couple trees on it is not a buffer. A buffer is lower intensity uses. And I'm going to argue against C-G up against residential every day of the week. I know this was zoned C-G, but lower intensity uses should be between the residences and the commercial out there and I don't think it's appropriate to put that up against residential. Miller: Mr. Chair? Yearsley: Commissioner Miller. Miller: I'm going to walk the middle. I -- I understand what Commissioner Marshall is saying. I also have taken into consideration what Renny said up here that, you know, the market isn't supporting offices, which generally are a buffer. Honestly, in this area to me I wouldn't want to move an office space out there, but I can see a nice little shopping area out there with a Staples size building, if the neighbors are all okay with it, you know, and the buffer and the -- the trees and the mound. I think that's appropriate. I am not in support of getting rid of these different building sizes and, instead, getting one building, because I would worry that, you know, A Walmart would come in and say want the whole site, you know. Not that they would, but I want to preserve the plan as it -- as it's shown and I think that the square foot maximums are appropriate. I also don't see enough evidence to support lowering that -- the berm size from 25 to 20. It's. not a set plan, it's not -- somebody is going to go in there -- I think there. is some flexibilities built into that. I just don't see enough evidence to move that. But I'm in support of the project. I think it could be a cool little shopping area with various stores -- retail stores -- picture more so than offices. But that's just me. I'm in support of the project as the staff is recommending. Yearsley: Thank you. Freeman: Mr. Chair? Yearsley: Commissioner Freeman. Freeman: If this site does end up with a 30,000 square foot building, I thought you gave very good answer for why you located it where you located it. Actually, I was kind of anticipating that answer, looking at the restrictions here and I understand my colleague Mr. Marshall's concerns, because every time we have a situation like this he's very Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 21, 2013 Page 39 of 41 vocal about these large C-G zoned buildings up against residential and I can't say that I disagree. However, given what the other Commissioners have stated, I tend agree on the positive side that this is a site that we would like to see developed. It appears that retail is the appropriate use. We do have some restrictions here. I would also add -- even though I'm going to support staffs recommendation fora 25 foot buffer -- and you can take it up with City Council to see if you can get that reduced, but I think that's the least we need to do to mitigate against what is a valid issue that Commissioner Marshal has voiced. We at least need to get on the maximum buffer per code, if you will. And give me a second here. I would also point out that -- something that you had mentioned in your testimony -- in the applicant's testimony, there is not a single neighbor here opposing this. I have no written testimony saying we can't stand this thing in our back yard and had four or five of these neighbors -- any of them shown up saying this is ridiculous, we can't handle this, then, I may have been swayed another direction. But think that is testimony to the fact that you have worked with these neighbors and shown them what you're doing, I'm assuming, and that they are happy with what you're proposing. So, I'm in support of the project, not without concerns, but I think that we did need to -- we do need to insist on the 25 foot buffer back there as recommended by staff. That's all. Marshall: If I can -- just one last opportunity. Yearsley: Absolutely. Marshall: Again, I'd like to see this developed. It looks like a pretty decent development and -- but my problem is a 30,000 square foot store in a C-G that can be open 24 hours a day right next to residences and that's going to be one of your biggest complaints over and over and it's not going to be the homeowner that lives there now, it's the one that buys later and, then, starts complaining about the noise. You know, you bought the house. You already knew it was there. But it's our job to kind of protect against that a little bit and I'm going to point out for future reference this is why I'm against C-G up against residential and I like the whole outside of this project. I really want to see it developed, but, again, I'm --and even if it goes forward with this as it is, I do want to see it develop, but out of principle I'm going to say no on this one. Freeman: One more comment, if I may. You know, seeing that this is -- this is conceptual. There is a DA agreement attached to it and I agree we need to put specific numbers to the square footages in the DA agreement, because that's one of the reasons we have DA agreement. I also anticipate there are going to be some future modifications to that and I think this 30,000 square foot building is perhaps in your perspective a worse case scenario of what might happen here, which is marginally acceptable to me. It may improve, it may end up that as actual tenants start filling this in -- this is not exactly what happens and we have seen something more favorable to your sensitivities and mine as well. That's my last comment. Parsons: Mr. Chairman? Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 21, 2013 Page 40 of 41 Yearsley: Commissioner -- or sorry. Bill. Yes. Parsons: If I may elaborate. I'm hearing some of your concerns and certainly as you move for recommendation onto City Council you have the ability to recommend a DA provision that limits hours of operation on the site. I mean in the UDC, since Renny has come through, the site -- we anticipate where C-G zoning is up against residential development, hours of operation is limited through the UDC from 6:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m. So, we have that, but they have to go through a conditional use process. If you feel that's appropriate or if you want the zoning to control, that's certainly an option, but you have the ability to say -- limiting the hours of operation on the site -- or at least make a recommendation to Council. Marshall: Can we do that on one lot only? As opposed to -- as opposed to the entire site? Twenty-four hours operation is appropriate on the rest of the site, but the stuff right up against the houses there is not. Freeman: I don't see why not. Does legal counsel see why not? Baird: I'm confused here. You have got a preliminary plat on property that's already zoned, where does the -- where does the DA come into play? Is that what we are -- Lucas: Yeah. Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission, just to clarify what the code actually says, per the C-G zone properties that abut residential are already limited by their hours of operation. So, it only applies to those lots that abut the residential. So, seemingly -- seemingly it didn't seem like you need to make any additions to the DA due to the fact that the code already covers C-G lots adjacent to residential, limited to -- I believe Bill said 6:00 to 11:00. So, that would be enforced through and, then, the building comes in, they apply for a certificate of zoning compliance. We would, then, put that on the property based on the code and so that's already in place. Rohm: That's the answer I wanted. Freeman: Mr. Chair, I'm ready to make a motion if -- Yearsley: I would be -- I would be willing to entertain a motion. Freeman: Let me do this slowly. Yearsley: All right. Freeman: Mr. Chair, after considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move to recommend approval to City Council of file number PP 13-031 as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of November 21st, 2013, with no modifications. I think staff did a good job with their recommendations and I fully support those. Rohm: Second. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 21, 2013 Page 41 of 41 Miller: Isn't the MDA -- Freeman: I don't believe so, because the modifications are something that City Council actually has authority over, not us. That's why I omitted it. Rohm: Good job. Yearsley: I have a motion and a second to approve file number PP 13-031. All in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Yearsley: Just for future reference, Scott, when you sign up you might want to check that you're for the project, not against the project. Now that's on public record. Rohm: Mr. Chairman? Yearsley: Commissioner Rohm? Rohm: I move we adjourn. Freeman: Second. Yearsley: I have a motion and a second to adjourn. All in favor say aye. Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Yearsley: We stand adjourned. MEETING ADJOURNED AT 8:15 P.M. (AUDIO RECORDING ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS.) APPROVED ~~ o~ , ~s i~~~ STEVEN YEARSLEY - IRMAN DATE APPROVED ATTEST: ~ O~~Rp,TEDgLCVST- JAYCEE HOLMAN, CITY CLE K ~p ^G~of j~~ ~~ ~ ~04Hp n ~~r ~11~ Fyr~f o`jde tRFASU~6~~~~~~ Meridian Planning Zoning Commission Meeting DATE: November 21, 2013 ITEM NUMBER: 3A PROJECT NUMBER: ITEM TITLE: Approve Minutes of November 7, 2013 PZ Meeting minutes MEETING NOTES APp,~c~ ~ v~ ~m vin CLERKS OFFICE FINAL ACTION DATE: E-MAILED TO STAFF SENT TO AGENCY .SENT TO APPLICANT NOTES INRIAL8 Meridian Planning Zoning Commission Meeting DATE: November 21, 2013 ITEM NUMBER: 4A PROJECT NUMBER: AZ 13-015 ITEM TITLE: TM Creek Continued Public Hearing from 11 /7/13: 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 ,~ ~O ~l ~C `~ ~2-E~~~ MR~Jm rw~f,r~r ~{ 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 21, 2013 ITEM NUMBER: 4g PROJECT NUMBER: PP 13-030 ITEM TITLE: TM Creek Continued Public Hearing from 11 /7/13: 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 c~~+ ~4 ~( -o CLERKS OFFICE FINAL ACTION DATE: E•MAILED TO STAFF SENT TO AGENCY SENT TO APPLICANT NOTES INITIALS Meridian Planning Zoning Commission Meeting DATE: November 21, 2013 ITEM NUMBER: 4C PROJECT NUMBER: CUP 13-013 ITEM TITLE: Cole Valley Christian School Auxiliary Field Public Hearing: CUP approval for the expansion of a private education institution for an auxiliary field in an R-15 zoning district by Cole Valley Christian School - 1108 NE 2 1 /2 Street MEETING NOTES UJo ~o~S, ~n~~~~ ~I -o ~~ct ~t-~ ~z~5~~3 CLERKS OFFICE FINAL ACTION DATE: E-MAILED TO STAFF SENT TO AGENCY SENT TO APPLICANT NOTES INITIALS Meridian Planning Zoning Commission Meeting DATE: November 21, 2013 ITEM NUMBER: 4~ PROJECT NUMBER: AZ 13-016 ITEM TITLE: Southern Highlands Subdivision Public Haring: Annexation and zoning of 124.04 acres of land with an R-4 zoning district by BHH I Investments, LLC - southside of E. Amity Road, west of S. Eagle Road and north of E. Taconic Drive MEETING NOTES ~~cX e ~ ov" ~~J ~" ~r au~5 Ca C~ `~~ ~~ S n ~~ ~- -~ ~ e f c i z-17--~ 3 CLERKS OFFICE F/NAL ACTION DATE: E-MAILED TO STAFF SENT TO AGENCY SENT TO APPLICANT NOTE3 INITIALS Meridian Planning Zoning Commission Meeting DATE: November 21, 2013 ITEM NUMBER: 4E PROJECT NUMBER: PP 13-033 ITEM TITLE: Southern Highlands Subdivision Public Haring: Preliminary plat approval consisting of 162 residential building lots, 12 common lots, 1 citypark lot and 1 lot forfuture re-subdivision on 123.45 acres of land in an R-4 zoning district by BHH I Investments, LLC - southside of E. Amity Road, west of S. Eagle Road and north of E. Taconic Drive MEETING NOTES ~ o~~~ \ c ~~ws ~ ~~e~~°-G ~ ~o~~ ~M CLERKS OFFICE FINAL ACTION DATE: E-MAILED TO STAFF SENT TO AGENCY SENT TO APPLICANT NOTES INITIALS Meridian Planning Zoning Commission Meeting DATE: November 21, 2013 ITEM NUMBER: 4F PROJECT NUMBER: RZ 13-013 ITEM TITLE: Casa Bella Sub Public Hearing: Rezone of 5.16 acres of land from the L-O to the R-8 zoning district by Providence Properties, LLC - 5555 N. Locust Grove Road MEETING NOTES ~.~o~~~~ ~P-~~~~.~ ~-v C C- ~A IM~,c~s, unw..~ nn R- ~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 21, 2013 ITEM NUMBER: 4G PROJECT NUMBER: PP 13-032 ITEM TITLE: Casa Bella Sub Public Hearing: Preliminary Plat approval consisting of 21 building lots and 4 common/other lots on 14.69 acres of land in the L-O and proposed R$ zoning districts by Providence Properties, LLC - 5555 N. Locust Grove Road MEETING NOTES ~t14.,.c~(~ OVal..l ~ ~~ ~~ ~~~ ~-~ ~~ ~-~ 5~-i- ~,~ ~~~ ~Z-ice-i3 CLERKS OFFJCE FINAL ACTION DATE: E-MAILED TO STAFF SENT TO AGENCY SENT TO APPLICANT NOTES INITIALS Meridian Planning Zoning Commission Meeting DATE: November 21, 2013 ITEM NUMBER: 4H PROJECT NUMBER: PP 13-031 ITEM TITLE: Knighthill Center Public Hearing: Preliminary plat approval consisting of 5 commercial lots and 1 common lot on approximately 9.11 acres in a C-G zoning district by Mason and Stanfiel, Inc. - SWC of N. Linder Rd and W. Chinden Blvd. MEETING NOTES ~o ~~~~~~ ,~-D 5~~-- -~~ c~c, IZ_17-13 CLERKS OFFICE FINAL ACTION DATE: E-MAILED TO STAFF SENT TO AGENCY SENT TO APPLICANT NOTES INITIALS