Loading...
2013 12-19E IDIAN~--r MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING I b,q H p COMMISSION MEETING AGENDA Roll-call Attendance Thursday, December 19, 2013 at 6:00 p.m. 1. _X_ Macy Miller _X Scott Freeman _O 2. 3. 4 City Council Chambers 33 E. Broadway Avenue, Meridian, Idaho _X Michael Rohm _X Joe Marshall Steven Yearsley -Chairman Adoption of the Agenda Approved Consent AgendaApproved A. Approve Minutes of December 5, 2013 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting B. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: CUP 13-014 Westmark Credit Union at Bridgetower Crossing by Westmark Credit Union Located at 3115 W. Quintale Drive (Lot 66, Block 10 of Bridgetower Crossing Subdivision No. 7) Request: Conditional Use Permit Approval for aDrive-Thru Establishment (Bank with Drive-Thru) in a C-N Zoning District Action Items A. Public Hearing: CPAM 13-002 Solterra by Capital Christian Center Inc. Located Northeast Corner of E. Fairview Avenue and N. Hickory Way Request: Amend the Future Land Use Map Contained in the Comprehensive Plan to Change the Land Use Designation on Approximately 22.61 Acres from Office to Mixed Use-Regional Recommend Approval to City Council B. Public Hearing: RZ 13-015 Solterra by Capital Christian Center, Inc. Located Northeast Corner of E. Fairview Avenue and N. Hickory Way Request: Rezone of Approximately 22.61 Acres from the L-O (Limited Ofgce) Zoning District to the C-G (General Retail and Service Commercial) (2.39 acres); L-O (Limited Office) (9.04 acres) and R-15 (Medium High Density Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Agenda -Thursday, December 19, 2013Page 1 of 3 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. Residential) (11.18 Acres) Zoning Districts Recommend Approval to City Council C. Public Hearing: PP 13-037 Solterra by Capital Christian Center Inc. Located Northeast Corner of E. Fairview Avenue and N. Hickory Way Request: Preliminary Plat Approval Consisting of Three (3) Commercial Lots, One (1) Office Lot, Ninety-Three (93) Residential Lots and Eleven (11) Common/Other Lots on Approximately 21.51 Acres in a Proposed C-G, L-O and R-15 Zoning Districts Recommend Approval to City Council D. Public Hearing: PP 13-012 Centre Point Square by Center Point Square LLC Located West of N. Eagle Road and South of E. Ustick Road Request: Preliminary Plat Approval Consisting of Seventeen (17) Multi Family Buildable Lots and Five (5) Common/Other Lots on Approximately 5.28 Acres of Land in an R-15 Zoning District Application Withdrawn by Applicant E. Public Hearing: CUP 13-007 Centre Point Square by Center Point Square LLC Located West of N. Eagle Road and South of E. Ustick Road Request: Conditional Use Permit Approval to Construct a Multi Family Development Consisting of Sixty- Eight (68) Residential Units in an R-15 Zoning District Application Withdrawn by Applicant F. Public Hearing: RZ 13-014 Summertree Subdivision by Summer Woods, LLC Located Southwest Corner of W. Cherry .Land and N. Summertree Way Request: Rezone Approximately 2.64 Acres from the R-4 (Medium-Low Density Residential) Zoning District to the R-15 (Medium-High Density Residential) Zoning District Public Hearing Continued to January 16, 2014 G. Public Hearing: PP 13-035 Summertree Subdivision by Summer Woods, LLC Located Southwest Corner of W. Cherry Lane and N. Summertree Way Request: Preliminary Plat Approval for Sixteen (16) Single Family Residential Lots and One (1) Common Lot on Approximately 2.30 Acres in a Proposed R-15 Zoning District Public Hearing Continued to January 16, 2014 H. Public Hearing: RZ 13-017 Sheryl 4-Plex by JTC Inc. or Assigns Located 3150 W. Sheryl Drive Request: Rezone of 0.54 of an Acre of Land from the L-O to the TN-R Zoning District Recommend Denial to City Council I. Public Hearing: CPAM 13-003 Da Vinci Park by CS2, LLC Located Southwest Corner of N. Locust Grove Road and E. McMillan Road Request: Amend the Future Land Use Map Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Agenda -Thursday, December 19, 2013Page 2 of 3 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. Contained in the Comprehensive Plan to Change the Future Land Use Designation on 7.76 Acres of Land from Low Density Residential to Medium Density Residential (6.36 Acres) and Mixed Use -Neighborhood (1.4 Acres) Recommend Approval to City Council J. Public Hearing: RZ 13-016 Da Vinci Park by CS2, LLC Located Southwest Corner of N. Locust Grove Road and E. McMillan Road Request: Rezone of 2.65 Acres of Land from the R-4 and R-8 Zoning Districts to the C-N Zoning District; and 6.3 Acres of Land from the R-4 Zoning District to the R-8 Zoning District Recommend Approval to City Council K. Public Hearing: PP 13-036 Da Vinci Park by CS2, LLC Located Southwest Corner of N. Locust Grove Road and E. McMillan Road Request: Preliminary Plat Approval Consisting of Thirty- Eight (38) Single Family Residential Attached Building Lots, One (1) Commercial Building Lot and Eight (8) Common/Other Lots on 7.76 Acres of Land in the Proposed R-8 and C-N Zoning Districts Recommend Approval to City Council L. Public Hearing: CUP 13-015 Terror Design Studio by Brian Spangler Located 760 E. King Street Request: Conditional Use Permit Approval to Operate an Indoor Recreation Facility in an I-L Zoning District Approved -Prepare Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval Meeting adjourned at 8:36 p.m. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Agenda -Thursday, December 19, 2013Page 3 of 3 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 December 19, 2013 Meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission of December 19, 2013, was called to order at 6:00 p.m. by Vice-Chairman Joe Marshall. Present: Commissioner Joe Marshall, Commissioner Michael Rohm, Commissioner Macy Miller and Commissioner Scott Freeman. Members Absent: Commissioner Steven Yearsley. Others Present: Holly Binkley, Ted Baird, Justin Lucas, Sonya Watters, Bill Parsons, and Dean Willis. Item 1: Roll-Call Attendance: Roll-call X Scott Freeman X Macy Miller X Michael Rohm X Joe Marshall Steven Yearsley -Chairman Marshall: All right. Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. I'd like to welcome you to the regularly scheduled meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission for December 17th, 2013, and I'd like to begin with roll call, please. Item 2: Adoption of the Agenda Marshall: All right. Well, I'd like to first start with the adoption of the agenda, but there are a couple changes to the agenda for tonight. D and E for Centre Point Square, PP 13-012 and CUP 13-007, we are going to open that simply to acknowledge its withdrawal. Items F and G in the packet, Summertree Subdivision, that's RZ 13-014 and PP 13-035, we will be opening that for the sole purpose of continuing it until January 16th, 2014. With those changes can I get a motion? Freeman: Mr. Chair, I'd move we adopt the agenda as amended. Miller: Second. Marshall: I have a motion and a second. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. Item 3: Consent Agenda Meridian Planning & Zoning December 19, 2013 Page 2 of 45 A. Approve Minutes of December 5, 2013 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting B. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: CUP 13-014 Westmark Credit Union at Bridgetower Crossing by Westmark Credit Union Located at 3115 W. Quintale Drive (Lot 66, Block 10 of Bridgetower Crossing Subdivision No. 7) Request: Conditional Use Permit Approval for aDrive-Thru Establishment (Bank with Drive-Thru) in a C-N Zoning District Marshall: All right. The first item on the agenda is the Consent Agenda. We have two items. We have the approval of the minutes for December 5th, 2013, and the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for CUP 13-014, Westmark Credit Union at Bridgetower. Any comments or anything anyone would like to say before we may have a motion? Rohm: I have none. Marshall: So, could I get a motion? Rohm: So moved. Freeman: Second. Marshall: We have a motion and a second to approve the Consent Agenda. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Ayes have it. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. Marshall: All right. We are now to the Action Items and before we begin I'd like to define a few rules here. First thing we are going to do is I will open each item for hearing and ask for the staffs report and the staff has evaluated each of these projects and will give us their findings as they adhere to the Comprehensive Plan and future land use and their findings. After the staff has given their report I will ask for the applicant to come up and the applicant will have 15 minutes to provide any additional information they may choose to provide. After that I will call for public testimony and there are sign- ups in the back and would appreciate it if you would like to testify -- even if you don't want to testify you can sign up and mark whether you're for or against each of the items and just before opening each of these we will go through that list and call each -- call up each person and you will have three minutes each to testify, to say your peace. If anyone is here to testify on behalf of a large group -- and we will have to have a show of hands showing who they are testifying for -- we will be providing them ten minutes to testify. After all public testimony is complete we will ask the applicant to come back up and address any issues that might have come up during public testimony. At that time, then, the Commission will close public testimony and we will deliberate and, hopefully, Meridian Planning & Zoning December 19, 2013 Page 3 of 45 provide some direction to the City Council or make an approval or recommendation as so called for. Item 4: Action Items A. Public Hearing: CPAM 13-002 Solterra by Capital Christian Center Inc. Located Northeast Corner of E. Fairview Avenue and N. Hickory Way Request: Amend the Future Land Use Map Contained in the Comprehensive Plan to Change the Land Use Designation on Approximately 22.61 Acres from Ofgce to Mixed Use-Regional B. Public Hearing: RZ 13-015 Solterra by Capital Christian Center, Inc. Located Northeast Corner of E. Fairview Avenue and N. Hickory Way Request: Rezone of Approximately 22.61 Acres from the L-O (Limited Office) Zoning District to the C-G (General Retail and Service Commercial) (2.39 acres); L-O (Limited Office) (9.04 acres) and R-15 (Medium High Density Residential) (11.18 Acres) Zoning Districts C. Public Hearing: PP 13-037 Solterra by Capital Christian Center Inc. Located Northeast Corner of E. Fairview Avenue and N. Hickory Way Request: Preliminary Plat Approval Consisting of Three (3) Commercial Lots, One (1) Office Lot, Ninety-Three (93) Residential Lots and Eleven (11) Common/Other Lots on Approximately 21.51 Acres in a Proposed C-G, L-O and R-15 Zoning Districts Marshall: So, that being said, I would like to open the public hearing for CPAM 13-002 RZ 13-015, and PP 13-037, for Solterra and ask for the staff report. Parsons: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. The first item before you this evening is the Solterra project. The subject property is located on the south -- northeast corner of East Fairview Avenue and North Hickory Way. It currently consists of 21.55 acres of land and is zoned L-O within the city limits. Adjacent to this property we have residential development to the north, zoned R-4. To the east we have commercial property, zoned C-G, with a development agreement. To the south we have developed commercial property zoned I-L. And to the west we have residential development, vacant commercial, undeveloped -- and developed commercial property, zoned C-G, L-O, and R-8. Here is the aerial of the property. You can see here the large commercial piece to the east of the site. Currently this site is developed with a 40,000 square foot church on the property. The church is here tonight to, basically, discuss selling off a surplus portion of their property. The north half is proposed for residential and the frontage along Fairview Avenue is planned for acommercial -- proposed for commercial. This property was annexed in 1992. At that time there was a larger parcel that the church owned and through the years they have sold off remnant Meridian Planning & Zoning December 19, 2013 Page 4 of 45 pieces and that's why we have the adjacent residential to the east, to the north, and also the commercial that's located along their west boundary as well. The applicant is here to discuss the Comprehensive Plan map future land use map change with you. Currently the comp plan designates this property as office, which is the graphic to the north and currently purple. They are here to discuss that change from office to a mixed use regional. You can see in the surrounding areas much of the property to the east, that large commercial piece that's currently zoned in the city, is designated mixed use residential -- or residential -- yeah. Excuse me. Mixed used regional. When that property came through there was a development plan that showed a mix of retail, commercial, office uses on that site, so staff -- or the city anticipates a large amount of commercial development adjacent to this property and so in speaking with the applicant and the church, we felt -- the city's recommended the applicant to come forth with a mixed use designation and plan a residential component and more commercial along the Fairview corridor. That was in more alignment with the mixed designation. Under our Comprehensive Plan we envision a mix of residential, office, retail and even industrial uses in our mixed use designations and that's in order to get their plan as presented to you this evening we need to have that land use in place to align their -- their plans with their proposal this evening. Here is their preliminary plat and the rezone, so if you would allow me to go through it very quickly. The residential portion, which is approximately the northern half of their development, is proposed to be zoned R-15 -- from L-O to R-15. The central portion of the project, which is the church property, will remain L-O, which is consistent with the current land use on the property and as I mentioned to you, a small strip of commercial along the Fairview corridor the applicant is proposing C-G zoning to emulate what already exists to the east. And, then, the whole access to all this development will be provided by a collector street, which is Hickory Road. The plat -- the residential portion of the plat does consist of '94 residential lots and 11 common lots and, then, the C-G portion -- the church lot is a single lot and will be retained by the church and, then, the C-G zoned portion consists of three lots. At this time development is not proposed for the church property. However, one end user or one party is interested in developing the residential portion and, then, there is another party interested in developing the commercial portion and so in order to sell off the surplus property the church has to subdivide in order to convey ownership to the two parties. One of the items with the residential portion -- currently I should say the existing church site has three access points to Hickory Road that were developed with the church property in '92. The central access here that I have highlighted with my cursor will remain in place and serve as main access into the west side of the parking lot. The northern -- northern curb cut will be converted to a public street with this subdivision improvement, the residential portion, and ultimately there will be a stub street to the east property to provide future public street connectivity to the C-G portion of that large C-G tract to the east. The residential portion is to be a mix of residential development, so along the north boundary we envision single family detached. The central portion of development may also be single family detached homes and along the shared boundary with the church lot the applicant is proposing single family attached homes and I will get into the elevations a little bit further in my presentation. Along the south -- south boundary where the commercial portion is the applicant is only proposing to develop one of those commercial lots at this time. If you recall on my staff report I did Meridian Planning & Zoning December 19, 2013 Page 5 of 45 bring to your attention that some of these lots will encumber some of the church's parking lot and there are some concerns moving forward with the development of that, but, again, I will touch on that as I get into that. With the commercial portion of the lot the applicant is proposing across-access drive and that's what this exhibit to the right is to portray, so that would take access from that -- again, that existing curb cut here, go through the commercial lots with the shared boundary between the office lots and the commercial lots, head north and, then, ultimately, go to the east and stub to that property -- again, that commercial property to the east for future connectivity. Because the applicant is proposing a rezone with this application, staff is recommending a development and as part of that development agreement we are requiring one -- two -- two access points of that property to the east, one in form of the public street and one in form of the cross-access agreement that's shown here. The residential portion of the development is required to provide ten percent open space, as required by the UDC. The primary open space proposed is, again, the central park located along the west boundary. There are some parkways -- eight foot parkways located along the internal streets here and there is also a micropath lot that connects into the church property here. This is meant to serve as two functions. One, it will serve as a pedestrian connection to the church as envisioned in our mixed use standards. We like to have both vehicular and pedestrian connectivity with our mixed use developments and it also serve as an emergency access for the fire department if -- in case the roadway off of Hickory gets blocked and the fire department has another way to get folks out of that portion of the development. The amenities for the site will consist of a large tot lot here within the central open space. In my staff report I did provide a detail of the tot lot, but the applicant's also proposing a detail on the swing set and there is a condition that they show me that detail with their final plat and, then, the micropath connection here does also count as an amenity. Along the commercial portion of the development and along Hickory the UDC requires a 20 foot landscape buffer. Those landscape buffers currently exist and were installed with development of the -- the church lot. However, along Fairview there are -- there is no pedestrian connectivity along that portion of the corridor and a sidewalk was now required with the development of the church property. But with this application tonight the UDC requires a ten foot pathway along the frontage of Fairview Avenue. The plan here shown before you does depict a ten foot pathway and so we will get that connectivity to the east as well, so we will be getting both cross- access and additional pedestrian connectivity along Fairview Avenue as well. Here is the proposed commercial elevation for you. Again, you can see it's -- contemporary in design. It is a mix of metal, stucco, glass door fronts. It's pretty consistent with the design standards in the UDC. A recommended provision of the DA requires compliance with this elevation. And as I mentioned to you earlier, there is a mix of residential -- homes proposed for the residential portion. Here is the detached products proposed. You can see there is a mix of siding, covered porches, modulations to roof forms and, then, also on the proposed single family attached product these are single story, they will be -- have some of the same similar design features and they will, again, be along the south boundary or the north boundary of the church lot going forward. One thing failed to mention to you -- if I can step back to my plat -- is the minimum lot size proposed for the residential portion of the subdivision is 3,200 square feet and the average lot size is approximately 3,600 square feet. With the R-15 zone the ordinance Meridian Planning & Zoning December 19, 2013 Page 6 of 45 requires a minimum lot size of 2,400 square feet. So, what the applicant is proposing this evening is in excess of what the code requires, so all of these lots that are presented for the residential portion of the subdivision, they do comply with the R-15 standards moving forward and the single family attached homes will have to come through CZC and design review to insure compliance with their submitted elevations as well. Gross density for the proposed subdivision is about 8.43 units -- dwelling units to the acre. In the mixed use regional designation we anticipate densities between six and 40 to the acre. So, this -- this project is on the low side, even though they are requesting R-15 it still falls below the density requirements of the requested zone and on the low end of the mixed use regional standards as well. If I can go back to the elevations. I did -- in closing on my presentation I did want to touch on some of the written testimony that staff did receive on the application. We received written testimony from Patrick Kenwild from -- he, actually, represents the church. He is a pastor there and he's in support -- asks for your support on the application? And, then, in your packet this evening you should have had quite a few letters written in opposition of the project from the adjacent neighbors from the Dove Meadows Subdivision and also Packard Estates Subdivision. Their primary concerns with the application has to do with the density -- the two story elevations up against the existing Packard Estates Subdivision. The impact on the existing transportation in the area, meaning Hickory Way and how that additional traffic would impact that roadway. And, then, fencing adjacent to the common open space per the residential portion. There is two adjacent residences there that have four foot solid fencing and they are coordinating with the applicant on how to handle that fencing issue. If the applicant could elaborate on that for you this evening it would appreciated. The one thing that I wanted to mention to you is we did -- late yesterday afternoon I did receive draft comments from ACRD on this -- on this application. I did have a chance to read through the conditions of approval and their findings. In their draft comments they did provide -- they did support the connectivity through cross-access and the local street connections. They did support the road layouts proposed in the subdivision for you this evening. They have committed to the neighbors that they will do an updated traffic count on Hickory Way to see how this development will -- or what the current traffic counts there are on those roadways, so that they can reflect that in their staff report before they finalize their staff report and they could present those findings to their commission, so for you this evening there are draft comments. As I pointed out, there is nothing to really be concerned as far as the subdivision layout, but I want to at least put that all on the table, that they at least got something before you to read this evening. We did get agreements from the applicant. They are in agreement with all the provisions in the staff report and the conditions of approval. This would conclude my presentation. I will stand for any questions you may have. Marshall: Thank you, Bill. Are there any questions of staff? Miller: I have got a question, actually. Marshall: Commissioner Miller. Meridian Planning & Zoning December 19, 2013 Page 7 of 45 Miller: I just want to clarify. If I heard you right, you said the north and south boundary of the residential area was single story, but, then, the concern was two story. Parsons: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Miller, no, the north boundary will be two -- as presented they will be two story, single level -- or single family detached homes. Miller: Okay. Parsons: And, then, the south boundary would be the single level attached product. Miller: Okay. Great. Thank you. Marshall: All right. I'd like to ask the applicant to come forward. And I'm going to have to ask for your name and address for the record, please. Conger: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, Jim Conger, 6072 South Orchard Street in Boise. First off, I'd like to really thank Bill and the rest of your city staff. We have been working on this project borderline of ten months from planning. We have had numerous meetings with your planning department as you can tell, your Public Works for service in this -- this medium density, as well as your fire department. It's -- it's been quite a pleasure working through this process on this project. Also kudos should go out to the neighbors. We have had several meetings with the neighbors and -- and, then, I have had other personal meetings with them. They have -- it's been a very productive process as we typically find as we go through this process. We are in full agreement of stafFs conditions of approval and for the sake of time I'm not going to run through my presentation, because Bill did a fantastic job on it, but I would stand for questions. I would also note I have got the builder, as well as the -- the ultimate buyer of the commercial up front as well, so we could stand for any questions. Marshall: Commissioners, any questions? Freeman: Not at this time. Conger: Thank you. Marshall: We will reserve that. Thank you. All right. At this time I would like to ask Theresa Wingfield to, please -- would you like to testify? She has marked down that she is neutral and I'm going to ask for your name and address for the record, please. Wingfield: Theresa Wingfield. 2643 East Apricot Court. Marshall: Thank you. Wingfield: My husband and I are homeowners with that -- sorry, I'm out of -- short of breath. My husband and I are homeowners with a house bordering the proposed development site. We bought our home in appreciation of the open recreation area and Meridian Planning & Zoning December 19, 2013 Page 8 of 45 view of the foothills and we did not perceive a day when the church would sell their land for development. Now that this has changed we have some concerns we would like to address. We are concerned with the potential for reductions in our property value. Negative impacts to our homes, increases in traffic and personal expense directly related to the development. The proposed development creates a considerable concern for our property value. I have talked to several real estate professionals who believe this may reduce our property value by as much as ten percent through the loss of the developed recreational area that our land borders upon. This type of creational area is considered a premium, according to them. An active construction site also means that our property will likely not realize its true value during the development of Solterra and even then it would be reduced from what it could have been if the land remained the same. The design includes a road that will bring noise and lights, as all cars going out of the subdivision their headlights are going to shine directly into our home through our living room, kitchen, and bedroom windows. We are one of the homeowners with a four foot fence and so we see this as a very large negative impact to us at this time. We have been discussing the construction of the fence and a shared expense with the developer. However, we do feel strongly that the developer should include the full cost of a new six foot fence in his project, rather than imposing that burden upon us. Our fence is in good enough condition that we wouldn't have to replace or maintain it for ten years. We have to maintain it, but not replace it. And so we ask that that cost be shared. Or not be shared, be -- be taken by the developer. We are also concerned about the potential increase in rental and investment properties with a large percentage of attached housing. We ask for recommendation to limit the percentage of homes that are attached. We want to maintain our neighborhoods as family locations and our belief is that when owners occupy their homes they have more care and regard for the neighborhood. Traffic is another concern. The intersection of East Apricot Court where we live and Hickory Lane is on an inside curve and as a result there is a blind corner in both directions. We and our neighbors all had a close call turning onto Hickory Lane as existing traffic travels too fast. Additionally, there is no marked crossing there, making a pedestrian crossing dangerous. Along with measures to reduce the speed that vehicles can travel on Hickory and increase marked crossings. We ask that the developer, Planning and Zoning and the city work together to help with the congestion at the Fairview and Hickory light, such as more priority turn lanes onto and off of Fairview. While we do not directly oppose the development and rezoning, we are very interested in maintaining the property value and peace we currently have -- is my time up? Marshall: If you could just wrap up here. Wingfield: I'm just at a -- we have in our neighborhoods making Hickory Lane safer and reducing the personal expense we are currently facing. We choose to live in Meridian, because we like the big town -- the small town in a big city feel and we hope that we can maintain that. Thank you. Meridian Planning & Zoning December 19, 2013 Page 9 of 45 Marshall: Thank you. Any questions, Commissioners? No. Thank you very much. All right. Susan Kassee. And, again, if you could state your name and address for the record, please. Kassee: My name is Susan Kassee. My address is 3626 East Mogue, Meridian, Idaho. And I don't live directly next to the properties, but I am against this proposal -- only the residential and only the part of the .residential, because it's such condensed housing. I'm not as well prepared as the lady before me, but trying to measure the map of the development -- Dove Meadows, I believe, is the one to the west and, then, Packard Estates is to the north. When I tried to measure how many houses our two subdivisions has compared to what this has, we in Packard had probably about 33 and Dove Meadows had about 38 to 40 on the same -- I guess they are different. I don't have my exact measurements, you're talking alittle -- they said 94 one time -- I thought they said 96 in the meeting I had and the one thing I saw in here said 92. Anyway, you're talking at least double the amount of houses and this is tucked away, it's not amain -- we realized -- they said, well, you're getting closer to Eagle and Fairview and you are, but it doesn't go any -- the subdivision will not go any further east than our subdivision Packard Estates and does not go any farther south than Fairview. So, to me this little subdivision, which I would love to have a subdivision in there that fit the church needs to sell their property, that to me would be ideal. The 90 some odd homes in here is just too condensed. These lots are 32 to 30 feet they said. If you're putting a two story on that you have three to five feet with no open space in between there, it's just going to be too compact. I -- that's my argument. And, of course, my concerns also would be the -- the driving and the traffic, people are going to be driving their kids back and forth to school. River Valley -- I live on a corner on Mogue Street there and the traffic is just already a lot of cars coming through in the morning and school time for other subdivisions, you have not -- potential, you know, 90 some odd homes that -- with some more of them will be bringing their kids, because, because people drive there kids, there is -- not going to get a bus. Going out of the subdivision -- when my daughter takes the bus in the morning she said her school bus has -- sometimes has stopped to the light all the way to where the proposed road is already from the traffic. So, then, you're going to have that many more homes leaving approximately morning and rush hours are going to be the worst and, of course, Sundays when the church gets out the traffic can be -- so, I am not against putting residential property in there, I just think -- and I asked them if there was any way they could make it smaller and they said no, so -- thank you. Marshall: Commissioners, any questions? Miller: I have got a few. Marshall: Commissioner Miller. Miller: The school that you're referencing, where is it located? Are they going out to Fairview or -- Kassee: River -- no. River Valley -- they would -- they would come into the subdivision. Meridian Planning & Zoning December 19, 2013 Page 10 of 45 Miller: Thank you. Kassee: -- and depending which way you can go you can turn right on Hickory or Justin -- Hickory turns to the left and right to Justin and, then, Lincoln turns right on Mogue, that's where I live and, then, left and, then, you have got to wind your way around the back way -- most likely no one -- even if the subdivision goes out the main road I doubt they would go over to Eagle Road -- Miller: Right. Yes. Kassee: -- and go back and turn left into River Valley. The people are going to drive back this way to the school. Miller: Thank you. Marshall: All right. Thank you. Kassee: Thank you. Marshall: All right. I don't have anyone else signed up. Would anyone like to testify to this project? No? Not seeing anyone, I would ask the applicant if they would like to address any of the concerns. And, once again, I'm going to ask for your name and address for the record. Conger: You bet. Again, Jim Conger. 6072 South Orchard, Boise. Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, I would quickly touch base. You know, these are items we have addressed in -- we have had two different neighborhood meetings and some individual meetings with the neighbors. The -- any light or -- from the traffic as far as headlights we have already made a commitment to work with -- with these homeowners and, really, that's field work and run the field portion, as well as other projects and we will be able to strategically place evergreen landscaping -- typically it's better than deciduous, it's year around protection and we have already made that commitment and we will hold to that commitment and we do that in all of our neighborhoods. That is a common occurrence and occurs as growth -- growth moves on. So, there is no issue and we find that having merit. You know, as far as the traffic, again, that's kind of more of an ACHD issue. We understand and are sympathetic to the traffic. We have already given our offer to work with -- and I have already had a couple meetings with ACHD, you know, really, with the existing street. The main road up front in Hickory is a collector. ACHD is a little sensitive to -- trying to put speed bumps or other items in collectors, so that will be a challenge. That road is there and it's signalized roadway and it is meant to flow traffic and, again, we hold -- hold with my original commitment to the neighbors to sit down with ACHD and work these out. That will take a function of time. And traffic -- our traffic going back, yes, we will have some folks go back to the school in the rear of the subdivision of -- of the other neighborhoods, but 80 percent of our traffic would be going out to Fairview. It would only be our school traffic going the Meridian Planning & Zoning December 19, 2013 Page 11 of 45 other way. So, really, at the end of the day the existing neighbors will be traveling more through the front of our neighborhood than we will be going the other way and, again, not -- we are still sympathetic to it, but we feel our traffic -- most of it's going out to Fairview. And with that I stand for any further questions that you may have. Freeman: Mr. Chair, I have a question. Marshall: Yes. Freeman: I'm looking at the properties on the north end and I was reading some of the testimony from the neighbors and I'm curious -- I understand they are going to be two stories, single family detached, but how close will those get to the north property line? Conger: Yes. Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Freeman, they will be no closer than 15 foot rear setback, which is identical to the setback of the homes that are there. We -- if you look at a plat from a dimensional standpoint, those lots are a little deeper than the rest of the lots in our neighborhood. We have -- we have added a couple feet to them, but right now it's 15. We -- we feel we would respect the same setback that's directly across the street and most of those homes, because of the lots they are on, they are those pie-shaped cul-de-sac lots, their lots -- several of them. One is 93 feet deep. think all of ours are 102 to 106 on this boundary. Their lots are 93 feet deep to a hundred feet deep. So, they are -- they are pushed back to their minimum as well. And, again, a majority of those are two stories. Freeman: Well, you referred to the -- the lots on the other side of the street. Did you mean the lots on the other side of the property line? Conger: Other side of the fence. Freeman: Okay. All right. Conger: Thank you, Commissioner Freeman. Yes. Freeman: All right. Thank you. Marshall: Mr. Conger, I would ask you to address the fence issue that came up. Could you enlighten us as to what's going on with that? Conger: Yes, Mr. Chairman. The two homes that -- that do have a four foot fence, both back up -- Bill is helping us. They both back up to our park area. So, they weren't necessarily a concern for us. Typically speaking if I'm going to adhere with your ordinance when I put a fence on a common area in my park I'm required to do a four foot or a six foot open. So, if -- if it were my fence I wouldn't be able to do a six foot solid. You would not allow me to. I have worked with both of these neighbors and we are in the -- I went forward with a cost sharing and thought that was generous, because we don't really need to change the fence and we would actually be changing it to a Meridian Planning & Zoning December 19, 2013 Page 12 of 45 fence that's not allowed per your code, but it's on the other side of our application, so it wouldn't -- wouldn't hold. But I'm working with them. I have continued to work with them. We have some verbal agreements, but we are still not quite happy with that. Marshall: Thank you. Miller: I have got one question. There was a concern that got brought up about an active construction site. Just curious. Do you have a schedule of how long this would be an active construction site for -- just for the record? Conger: Sure. Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Miller, construction -- and, you know, from a land development standpoint we typically see the neighbors not enjoying that as much, because of dust and things of that nature. You know, we plan on doing this in two phases. Hopefully it doesn't take three. So, each phase typically takes four months to do a land development project and as far as building out goes, I'm really hesitant to say. Yeah, if the market's good it goes a little faster, if the market is not good it goes a little slower. Miller: Thank you. Marshall: Any other questions? Freeman: I have one more question. When you were planning the site and checking feasibility, I'm just curious if you investigated any opportunities to increase the depth of those properties on the north and what -- how that may have impacted this development. Physically I can see opportunities to do that, I'm just curious if you looked at that and what you found. Conger: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Freeman, I'm going to apologize, I'm going to have to ask you to restate that question. I'm not sure I follow you. Freeman: I apologize. I probably didn't state it very clearly. One of the things I'm looking at is on that north property boundary again, it would seem that to alleviate one of the neighbor's concerns, the -- the lots could be increased in depth, so that there was more separation between the neighbors to the north and the structures to the south. was just curious if you had looked at that in some of your alternative layouts and what those impacts might have been if you did. Is that clear? Conger: Yeah. It's pretty clear. Freeman: Okay. Conger: Yeah. Very clear. Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Freeman, we -- when we get around projects like this and try to live up to the Comprehensive Plan and start getting a few more -- a few more future homeowners in these projects, we are down to a game of inches. If you look at our lot depths. On the south lots, we don't have an inch to give. Meridian Planning & Zoning December 19, 2013 Page 13 of 45 We, actually, had less buffer than what city conditions came out between the church and we are going to have to pull -- pull several feet from there. But, ironically enough, we are down to a game of inches. There is those common areas that are bookends, you know, those are down to nine feet, which are all you need and what we try to achieve to -- to buffer the side of the homes, but it would have to come out of those and we just -- we are -- we gave it an extra six feet on those lots as it is for the six feet. But there wouldn't be any other room. I know that seems odd to say on 11 acres that you're out of inches, but we -- Freeman: Yeah, I -- well, I understand given the number of lots you desire to get on this -- on this site and I -- I understand that if you were to deepen those lots you would lose probably at least 12 of those lots that are oriented northeast in the middle of the development in order to stretch that down and I move that road down. Okay. I'm satisfied with your -- with your answer and what you were looking at. Thank you. Marshall: I do have one more question, then, regarding something similar then. What your response to staff's request that you are requesting from City Council the ability to have a six foot setback and staff's recommending a seven foot setback from the parking lot based on the UDC requirements for the parking lot, which would be considerably less than what the UDC requires typically on an L-O. Conger: Yeah. Mr. Chairman, great question. We have had lots of discussions on this. The first is, you know, six foot is the adequate buffer for getting the trees and the -- and really at the end of the day it's the vegetation that -- that's the buffer. We are somewhat unique where we are bringing the homes in after the L-O. Typically you're bringing the office in after the residential, so we are trying to utilize the existing resources out there and we are bringing the. homes in and the residents in after the commercial. So, you know, we -- we would prefer the six, but we are fine with the seven. Marshall: Okay. I think I'm aware that the UDC requires -- you could have down to five, but you would have to install parking bumpers to move the traffic back. Conger: Mr. Chairman? Yeah. That is correct. In a typical environment, you know, where you have six spots or some lighter commercial where you have eight spots it's easier to maintain those parking bumpers. We would be given the church, you know, probably 70 parking bumpers. They would break. There are maintenance issues in our discussions with the church it was just -- we would be given them kind of maintenance patches, so for us to give up to the foot -- Freeman: And that's why you have the seven foot requirement, so you only have five foot for vegetation and that's why the two foot car overhang past the curb, which only allows for five foot for vegetation. Marshall: Correct. Which -- which, again, we were after the sixth, so we wanted more than the five and -- Meridian Planning & Zoning December 19, 2013 Page 14 of 45 Marshall: No. I mean as in a seven foot area. Conger: Yes. Marshall: Not requiring the bumpers allows cars to pull clear up to the curb, which allows for -- then we calculated two overhang -- which only -- after that two foot overhang only leaves five foot for vegetation and that's with the seven foot setback. Conger: Mr. Chairman, yes, I -- I'm with you. Marshall: Okay. Conger: I don't know. In working through with staff we felt the seven foot was going to still be protected with the depth of those parking spaces and would be full vegetation of the seven foot. We do not anticipate being less that that or the cars damaging that. Marshall: I think we are on the same page there. Conger: I hope so. Marshall: Thank you. Conger: Thank you. Marshall: No other questions? Freeman: No. Marshall: Thank you, sir. Conger: Thanks for your time. Marshall: Any questions for staff or anything else? Or could I get a motion to close the public hearing? Freeman: Mr. Chair, I would move to close the public hearing on CPAM 13-002, RZ 13- 014, PP 13-037. Miller: I second that. Marshall: I have a motion and a second to close the public hearing. All those in favor say aye. Those opposed? Ayes have it. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. Marshall: All right. So, deliberation time. I would call for opinions or thoughts. Meridian Planning & Zoning December 19, 2013 Page 15 of 45 Rohm: Mr. Chairman? Marshall: Commissioner Rohm. Rohm: If we would have put this proposal together ourselves as a commission, this is probably exactly how we would have laid it out, with the single family dwellings adjacent to the existing single family dwellings, the more compact lots closer to the church, with the commercial upfront. From my perspective it looks like the developer, along with the input from the public at large, has done a pretty good job of adhering to the UDC and the Comprehensive Plan and, for all intents and purposes, this looks like a pretty good project to me. End. Freeman: I needed more time. Miller: I can go if you want. Freeman: Go ahead. Marshall: Commissioner Miller. Miller: I tend to agree also. I hear the concerns and I completely appreciate the concerns. I want to talk just a little bit about my opinion of some of them. The traffic issue Ican -- I can understand it, that these people would have to come back around to drop their kids off, but this is also opening an opportunity -- that whole property to the east is going to be developed eventually. That's going happen. This is opening an opportunity for them to bypass that and get to that school, which is something that we tend to try to do. The home values I -- I think there is a lot of things here that can increase the value of the home properties as this site develops out and this offers a further buffer from any other commercial something that would go there that could potentially be an amenity to the house. I hope that the issue between the lights can get addressed between the developer. It sounds like there was some conversations happening there and that's something that's fairly easily addressed and it sounds like he is -- he is working towards that. One comment about requiring owner occupied and that being better. I don't think we can require that from a Commission standpoint, but with the economy how it is there is a lot of -- there is a lot of good people that are renters, too, and there is a lot of good families and I think that's kind of a trend that's going away that used to be, you know, common and real, but I think that's going away and somebody that would want to come live here I think you're not going to find bad renters necessarily out here. But maybe just a personal opinion on my standpoint, but -- let's see. The compact issue on the residential side, I feel like it could be laid out a little more creatively, but that's, again, just. a personal opinion on -- it meets the requirements of the UDC as far as the compact area. The setbacks are all there. It's equal to what you guys are having. It would be unfair for us to require something different. You know, it does meet the requirements, so I'm not sure I'm opposing that particular issue and think that that is all that I noted up. Meridian Planning 8~ Zoning December 19, 2013 Page 16 of 45 Marshall: Commissioner Freeman. Freeman: Okay. Mr. Chair. I'm going to go after this in a haphazard order probably. First of all, I just want to say that I -- I read all of the letters that we received from the neighbors and enumerate all of the concerns and I have just an overall comment before I get into some of those specifics. It's not uncommon that neighborhoods once had open space adjacent to them, once a development is proposed adjacent to them people are concerned about their views and the loss of their open space. While I understand that, development does happen and development in any city is a natural phenomenon and it's actually a healthy phenomenon and what we try to do in Planning and Zoning as a Commission is make sure that it happens in an orderly and healthy way by developing plans and requiring that everything adhere to the plan. A second note, kind of along those same lines is -- I don't know if you're aware of it or not, but you guys live right next to the center of the valley's population pretty much. That -- that is one of the more significant commercial developments going on in this valley at -- at that major intersection and because of that development is going to happen there. As you probably heard tonight, if you weren't aware of it, there is going to be a significant commercial development happening to the east of you eventually and that development is going to be when it's residential it's going to be fairly dense because of the nature of -- of where it's located. There were comments about the density of the project and because of what I have just stated I -- I don't see that the density as an R-15 zone at this location is in any way incompatible with the surrounding uses, R-4 and the R-8 zones around it. Traffic safety, again, I do hope that you will voice your concerns if this project does move forward with ACHD to see what it is they can do. We don't have jurisdiction over the street systems, but they do and perhaps there are measures if enough people voice their opinions and their concerns perhaps there are measures they can take to improve the safety. I would say, again, that whenever a development happens one of the primary -- well, two of the primary things that we hear every time are traffic and it doesn't matter whether it's four new trips in a day or whether it's 300 trips in a day, we hear traffic concerns that's going to decrease our safety. Well, yeah, more traffic tends to do that, but, again, more traffic -- unless there is some particular reason that the development would put an undue safety hazard in place or carry one with it, traffic has to -- traffic concerns are -- are ACHD's jurisdiction and on a development like this I don't see that we are unduly increasing safety hazards by going ahead and doing this in-fill project. Home heights. This is another one that comes up all the time. Home heights. Frankly, if you have a residential property in the city I'm not aware of anything that would deny you the ability to build two stories versus one story. I'm not aware of any requirement that says you must build a single story home on this particular lot. Homeowners on other properties just like you folks have the right to build two stories if they want to build two stories. And the lot size on these lots is -- it's consistent with an R-15 zone. However, I do have one concern and I'm going to -- I'm going to throw this out there. Frankly, in looking at this plan I was very concerned with the fact that we have got homes that are within 15 feet of that north boundary, because I can see that if it were designed a little differently and at the sacrifice of a few lots like -- like I mentioned earlier, that distance could be increased and it could alleviate some of the Meridian Planning & Zoning December 19, 2013 Page 17 of 45 felt pressure of the development right in the -- in the backyard of those homes to the north. It is worth noting, though, that some of those homes to the north also are within 15 feet of the property line, which is the requirement. The park to the west actually, think, offers a pretty good buffer to those properties along the west boundary. So, I -- debated after reading the testimony and I'm kind of still debating as I hear the testimony here given verbally, whether or not I would prefer to see those lots to the north move away from that property line to the -- to the north a bit more, even if it does reduce the number of lots and take it from perhaps 94 lots to 74 or 70 lots and that could even entail making part of this site perhaps R-8 zone versus R-15, but that wouldn't necessarily have to be the case. In my opinion, that would be perhaps a better solution to make this development fit within this context, but at the same time, even as it is, I don't think that it's unduly incompatible with the surrounding developments in this area. Overall I think it's a good in-fill project. It seems to work pretty well. So, those are my thoughts. I told you it wasn't going to be in any particular order. Those are my thoughts and I am at the moment still debating whether or not I'd like to see this come back with some more consideration given for reducing the density and the impact on those -- along that north boundary. I guess I will figure that out as we deliberate further and vote. Thank you, Mr. Chair. That's all I have. Marshall: All right. I guess I could add my thoughts here. Okay. First off, I, too, read all of the written testimony and I do appreciate -- it gives me more time to digest before I come in and I can have those things in mind as I -- I listen and talk to everyone -- listen to everyone and ask questions and I do appreciate that. Density. First off, as a plan for the city, I can see -- and this is typically a concern. When I got a little lower density, no matter how -- what the density is, if we have got some -- some real R-2 -- if R-4 goes next door everybody is upset, because it's so much smaller than what I have got. I want everybody to be just like me. But, unfortunately, densities -- we are trying to get higher densities near employment centers, near traffic corridors, things like that. That way people aren't driving as far to work. It actually decreases traffic overall as a city and we are trying to decide what is best for the city overall, not just this one specific location, although we must take that into account specifically right here, but also as a city does this fit our needs and there have been dozens of committees and commissions over the years and they are -- constantly there is a lot of tempering of them, there is a lot of permanent ones, they are constantly working on these on the Comprehensive Plan and the future land use map and those things identify where you want higher densities, where we want lower densities and this is both near large employment centers, as well as major traffic corridors. It is an area that the city points out and identifies we need higher density residential here. Now, this is considerably less than what we see across the street next to the -- on the north side there is some apartments across Eagle. There is some R-40 and that's considerably more dense than this, but those are the densities we are wanting to see up towards Eagle Road and these employment centers and things where people can live close by and walk to work or it's a quick jaunt across to the grocery store or the store, shopping, as well as a place of employment. I have to agree, -- you know, first time I ever heard of was years ago heard of as small as 2,400 square foot lots, it really concerned me and -- but I have seen some nice projects with that and, namely, I go out to Harris Ranch and I -- I have seen some very small lots there, but, Meridian Planning & Zoning December 19, 2013 Page 18 of 45 actually, some very high quality housing, very high quality, very nice residences with -- and Ihave seen a lot of, you know, it's that high quality where people don't have to spend a lot of time doing yard work. They may work a lot or whatever -- I don't know what it is they choose to do, but, obviously, they are not wanting to spend most of their time in the yard I would guess and I think that has a place. I think people need to have that. So, where do we place it in the city? What's appropriate? And, again, I come back to areas of closer to major traffic corridors, as well as near employment centers and we have got Blue Cross up the road, a number of -- you know, we have also got the Scentsy area, all the medical just up -- just up the road there and if -- and if they are living this close to those locations as opposed to far outside Meridian, that takes a lot of load off of all the roads coming into this area. The 15 foot in back. I would disagree. think you could actually increase that by removing six lots, so I think that's possible. But how important is that? I'm kind of torn in that, too, because that meets code and by doing that you're lowering the density and we are to 8.4, essentially, per acre in an R- 15. We are -- there is, actually, considerably less than -- and I think, you know, looking at the project and seeing some of the product that the identified builder has put together in the past, I have been pretty impressed with the quality of the stuff. In fact, I live in one of their homes, but -- Freeman: Mr. Chair, if I may respond? Marshall: Please. Freeman: You know, one thing that is in my mind -- and I didn't say this out loud -- is that had this already been zoned R-15 I would be thinking differently about it. I would be fine with this as it is if it was already zoned R-15. Given the quantity of neighbors that are concerned with this proximity and the density, we don't necessarily have to zone this R-15 is my thought, you know, in my thinking. We could -- we could designate that as a lower density area through a DA, I'm guessing, or -- or R-8 to provide kind of a buffer between the existing development to the north and the higher density that will be in the middle and the south of this property. We could offer kind of a buffer between the two by going with lesser density and getting those homes further away from the property. So, like I said, if -- if it were already R-15 I would not have any issues with this, because it complies with R-15. What's going through my mind is should we allow R-15 right there up against those neighbors and I'm -- I would be tempted to actually move that we -- we have the applicant come back with another plan, if I were making that motion. Marshall: I would ask staff really quick, if I could. What, again, was the zoning just north of this -- immediately to the north? Parsons: Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission. It's R-4. R-4. That is correct. Marshall: All right. Thank you. Rohm: Mr. Chairman? Meridian Planning & Zoning December 19, 2013 Page 19 of 45 Marshall: Yes, Commissioner Rohm. Rohm: You know, there has been a lot of good discussion here and -- and for the most part I support everything that's been said. But the thing that sticks in my mind is if the properties to the north are currently 15 feet or potentially 15 feet from their property line and, then, requiring this development to be further to provide a separation that wasn't there from the property to the north coming this way, it doesn't seem to be in good keeping and so from my perspective if you're 15 feet to the north, you got to be 15 feet to the south and don't care if you're R-15 or R-200, makes no difference to me from that perspective, it's -- it's what is on one side of the fence is fair to the other side of the fence and so from my perspective, even though this is an R-15 up abutting an R-4, the setback from the property line is the same and so from that perspective I'm in full support of the project as proposed and at this time I would be prepared to make the motion. Marshall: I would like one last comment, though, before you do and I was going to echo Commissioner Freeman's sentiment about the traffic, in that I am concerned about the traffic, especially the traffic will travel back through if -- if people are going to take kids to that school, people will travel back through that subdivision. They are not going to go out around and that's why, number one, there is connectivity to the east, so that within a few years when this property to the east develops that connectivity, the easier access will be to go to the east through that property down to the school and that's why that stub street is there. In the meantime I will go through the subdivision and that's a bit of a concern to me, especially with school kids lining up to get in the bus and the like. Again, that's off site, though. Hickory Way and Apricot is down the road and that's not -- and where I think that should be addressed is the City of Meridian has a Transportation Commission that meets every month and if somebody would like to bring that up there I'm sure they could address traffic calming at that location and that might be an appropriate venue, as well as with ACHD, but you might get a more sympathetic ear at the Transportation Commission here at the city and I think someone -- if that is a sincere concern, then, it does need to be brought up there and would appreciate that. Other than that, Commissioner Rohm, I'm going to give the floor to you, sir. Rohm: Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And, seriously, it's -- it's always our honor to be able to sit up here and take testimony and listen to arguments on both sides or multiple sides of the issue and it's -- it's just our honor to be able to be part of this process and with that being said I propose to make a motion. After considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move to recommend approval to City Council of file number CPAM 13-002, RZ 13-015, and PP 13-037 as presented in the staff report dated December 19th, 2013, with no modifications. Miller: I will second that. Meridian Planning & Zoning December 19, 2013 Page 20 of 45 Marshall: I have a motion and a second to approve CPAM 13-002, RZ 13-015 and PP 13-037 and recommend approval to City Council. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? Ayes have it. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. D. Public Hearing: PP 13-012 Centre Point Square by Center Point Square LLC Located West of N. Eagle Road and South of E. Ustick Road Request: Preliminary Plat Approval Consisting of Seventeen (17) Multi Family Buildable Lots and Five (5) Common/Other Lots on Approximately 5.28 Acres of Land in an R-15 Zoning District Application E. Public Hearing: CUP 13-007 Centre Point Square by Center Point Square LLC Located West of N. Eagle Road and South of E. Ustick Road Request: Conditional Use Permit Approval to Construct a Multi Family Development Consisting of Sixty- Eight (68) Residential Units in an R-15 Zoning District Marshall: All right. At this time I would like to open the hearing for -- I'll grab that here. I'd like to open the hearing for PP 13-012 and CUP 13-007, Centre Point Square, for the sole purpose of acknowledging the withdraw of the application. So, could I get a motion to acknowledge that withdrawal? Rohm: So moved. Miller: Second. Marshall: I have a motion and a second to acknowledge the withdrawal. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? Ayes have it. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. F. Public Hearing: RZ 13-014 Summertree Subdivision by Summer Woods, LLC Located Southwest Corner of W. Cherry Land and N. Summertree Way Request: Rezone Approximately 2.64 Acres from the R-4 (Medium-Low Density Residential) Zoning District to the R-15 (Medium-High Density Residential) Zoning District Public Hearing Continued to January 16, 2014 G. Public Hearing: PP 13-035 Summertree Subdivision by Summer Woods, LLC Located Southwest Corner of W. Cherry Lane and N. Summertree Way Request: Preliminary Plat Approval for Sixteen (16) Single Family Residential Lots and One (1) Common Lot on Approximately 2.30 Acres in a Proposed R-15 Zoning District Meridian Planning & Zoning December 19, 2013 Page 21 of 45 Marshall: All right. Now, I'd like to open the public hearing for RZ 13-014 and PP 13- 035 for Summertree Subdivision for the sole purpose of continuing it until January 16th, 2014. Can I get a motion? Miller: So moved. Freeman: Second. Marshall: I have a motion and a second to continue RZ 13-014 and PP 13-035, Summertree Subdivision to January 16th, 2014. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? The ayes I have it. That motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. H. Public Hearing: RZ 13-017 Sheryl 4-Plex by JTC Inc. or Assigns Located 3150 W. Sheryl Drive Request: Rezone of 0.54 of an Acre of Land from the L-O to the TN-R Zoning District Marshall: All right. Public hearing RZ 13-017. I would like to open that and ask for the staff report, please. Wafters: Thank you, Chairman Marshall, Members of the Commission. The next application before you is a request for a rezone. This site consists of .31 of an acre of land. It's currently zoned L-O, limited office, and it's located at the northeast corner of North Ten Mile Road and West Sheryl Drive at 3150 West Sheryl Drive. Adjacent land use and zoning. To the north is a church, zoned R-4. To the east are single family residential properties, zoned R-4 and R-8. To the south is a church and an office that's under construction, zoned L-O. And to the west is North Ten Mile Road and a grocery store, Albertson's, zoned C-N. A little history. This site was rezoned to L-O in 2004 and at that time it was included in the development agreement and the plat for Tiburon Meadows Subdivision. The Comprehensive Plan future land use map designation for this site is mixed use community. The applicant is proposing to rezone .54 of an acre, including the adjacent right of way of -- of land from the L-O to the TN-R district consistent with the mixed use community future land use map designation. A concept plan was submitted as shown here. It shows how the site is proposed to develop with one multi-family four-plex structure, parking, enclosed bike parking and a play area. Six foot tall fencing is shown along the north and east property boundaries. There is an existing 25 foot wide landscape street buffer easement on the site adjacent to Ten Mile Road. A driveway is proposed for access via West Sheryl Drive. Direct lot access via Ten Mile is prohibited. The proposed multi-family residential use is principally permitted in the proposed TN-R district. Staff finds the proposed use contributes to the variety of uses desired in mixed use community designated areas such as this and should be compatible with existing surrounding church, office, single family residential and retail uses. The applicant did submit a conceptual building elevation of the proposed four- Meridian Planning & Zoning December 19, 2013 Page 22 of 45 plex structure as shown. Written testimony has been received from Tyler Johnson, the applicant, in agreement with the staff report. Several letters of opposition have been filed with the city on this application from the following -- apologies if I mispronounce your name. Phillip Zaluska. Cindy Green. Judith Strike. Judith Titus. Two letters from Ronald and Brenda Arnt. Don and Pat Baumback. Edward and Patricia Brown. Terry Vice. One unsigned letter from a Tiburon Meadows residents. And a petition signed by the residents of Tiburon Meadows Subdivision. All in opposition of the proposed rezone. Staff is recommending approval, as it does comply with the UDC standards and the Comprehensive Plan. Staff is requesting a new development agreement per the provisions in the staff report, which restricts development of the site to one four-plex structure consistent with the proposed concept plans. Staff will stand for any questions Commission may have. Marshall: Commissioners, any questions for staff? Not at this time. All right. I would like to ask the applicant to, please, come forward. And I'd ask for your name and address for the record, please. Gibson: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Board, my name is James Gibson and my address is P.O. Box 219 in Eagle. I am the project architect representing the project before you. We have reviewed, of course, the staff report and find it favorable and have no objection to the -- any of the proposed conditions or the staff report. Find it appropriate. We recognize that there is a concern regarding the project and we appreciate that. That is we appreciate knowing the concerns and figuring out a way that we could appropriately respond to any valid concerns. It will, of course, be up to the Commission to decide whether just not wanting the project is a valid other concern or if there are actual reasons that this project may not comply with both the letter and the intent of all of the applicable provisions of the ordinance. We believe that it is totally in compliance with the intent of the ordinance and the letter of the ordinance with -- we are not asking for anything other than what we believe is absolutely intended for this sort of a spot, to provide a variety of residential options in the area. I don't want to make a lengthy presentation, but simply to say that we agree with the staffs analysis and we will be here for any questions and would ask for the opportunity to respond to any concerns that may be expressed. And thank you. Marshall: Commissioners? Rohm: Mr. Chairman? Marshall: Commissioner Rohm. Rohm: Did you have a neighborhood meeting? Gibson: Yes. Yes, sir. There was a neighborhood meeting. Meridian Planning & Zoning December 19, 2013 Page 23 of 45 Rohm: With the number of concerns received by the Commission it doesn't sound like a lot of the issues from these letters were resolved in the neighborhood meeting. Can -- would you like to expand on that? Gibson: I was not involved in the neighborhood meeting myself. That was handled by the owners of the -- of the project and so I am less prepared to address that. However, any concerns that were expressed we interpreted, basically, as just not wanting the project and thinking that the project would increase the traffic. That was the major concern that I detected from evaluating the communications. Of course, any development there will generate some vehicular traffic. That's simply the nature of development. We would remind the Commission that the project could, without a rezone, be developed at a much higher intense use than the residential four-plex, which is proposed with this application, which would generate considerably more traffic. We have looked at the Ada County Highway District evaluation of the number of vehicular trips proposed and the highest, most intense commercial use, which would be easily permitted, would generate much more traffic, about two and a half times as much traffic as this application would. So, we think that was the major concern that seemed to be possible to address. Rohm: Thank you. Marshall: A couple other concerns and I'd like a little clarification. This lot, as was the existing home to the east here, those are both part of the Tiburon Meadows Subdivision --original subdivision; correct? Gibson: That is correct. Marshall: Can you clarify -- and I have heard -- are these excluded from the homeowners association period -- from any of the CC&Rs? Gibson: I have no specific knowledge of that, but I believe that that is correct. Marshall: And I think one of the concerns, then, is the recreational amenities within Tiburon are owned and maintained by those homeowners there, while these people in this -- while I assume that -- that this four-plex will have -- if you're going to put residences here, any kids or anyone here is going to feel like they have access to that recreational facility, when in case -- when, in fact, they do not. Is that correct as well then? Gibson: Well, of course, it would be possible for someone to perceive that. However, if they do not have access to that, the -- any residents could be informed that and the -- proposal before you -- it's a very small project, just four units, and we are proposing on- site amenities, such as a playground and so on. So, I think it rather unlikely that there would be a significant issue of residents here assuming that they could use a neighborhood area that they are, obviously, not a part of and certainly that could be the responsibility of the management of -- of this property to inform these residents. Meridian Planning & Zoning December 19, 2013 Page 24 of 45 Marshall: Management. So, these are going to be rentals is what you're saying? Gibson: I believe so. Yes. Marshall: All right. Thank you. Appreciate that. Any other questions? No? All right. Thank you, sir. Gibson: Thank you. Marshall: All right. I have got a bunch of receive a letter in the packet that stated Mr for a number of people. Is that accurate? number of hands that he is testifying for? Zaluska, I'd like to give you ten minutes, sir, and address for the record, please. people signed up for this one. Now, I did Zaluska is it? Might possibly be testifying If I could have the number of hands -- the Okay. We have got a bunch of you. Mr. And if you could, please, state your name Zaluska: My name is Phil Zaluska. I'm a resident at 1281 North Victor Way. It's part of Tiburon Meadows, Meridian, Idaho. Okay. I will follow a format, basically, that was included in a letter that was -- that I submitted to the Planning Commission about two weeks ago or so, just because it addresses the points in the narrative letter submitted by the architect and I'm assuming you have that in your possession and use that and this would make it a little bit easier to go over the concerns of the residents of Tiburon Meadows. Okay. First, presently, undeveloped and not likely to develop with single family residents, that's a totally speculative assumption, as far as I can tell. I mean originally there were three separate lots there, which were -- or could have been easily developed as single family residents and just to make that statement is completely arbitrary and perhaps capricious and certainly I don't see how you can make that claim and substantiate it. The property is too small and there may be a discrepancy here. The -- in the agenda it stated .54 acres, while in the application it states .309 acres. I'm not sure which is exactly correct. So, if it's .309, that's certainly a little bit -- it's almost half the size of the .54. So, that should probably be clarified somewhere along the line. Also that statement is saying misleading. Many small enterpri consulting enterprise, somethinc business interest on that locati~ provide an adequate buffer. Th what an adequate buffer means exactly sure how that applies approved pending a rezoning of dispute the ACHD impact study that the developed use of the F impact and there is no way that make that claim. So, I'm not s~ point should actually carry. And and cost residences in the area it's too small for most commercial uses. I Hat's yes, such as an insurance company, accounting firm, a like this, could easily build a structure suitable to their m. They are saying that the proposed four-plex will is their point number three. I don't really understand in this context, so that seems to be vague and I'm not to their argument as to why this project should be that parcel. And they talk about the traffic and I can't that they cited, but it seems -- they seem to presume roperty would be at the actual highest potential traffic anyone has a crystal ball that they could, essentially, re where they are -- how much weight that particular they say there is a substantial need for moderate size and I'm not sure what substantial need means and I'm Meridian Planning & Zoning December 19, 2013 Page 25 of 45 certainly not convinced that a single four-plex is going to have any reasonable impact on addressing a substantial need, especially given the fact that south of there on Ten Mile Road there area number of multi-family residential units which were just completed, there are some that have been there going down Pine about two city blocks worth and, then, there is additional development pending, I'm not sure when the construction is going to start, behind the Fast Eddy's there. So, there is -- there seems to be quite a bit in the immediate vicinity of high density, multi-family residential structures in existence or potentially to be built in the near future. Okay. Okay. They say that the rental units are compatible -- this is their point six -- with the existing neighborhood where there are a number of not owner occupied. That's actually quite incorrect. The -- there is about five units, which are in rental status right now. Three of those are -- the owners actual are in -- they live out of state or certainly out of the region and fully intend to actually move in there upon retirement or upon when circumstances permit them to do that and they have been, you know, paying the homeowners dues themselves, not passing it onto the renters, and -- and we know that for a fact, because we live there and we communicate with these people on a regular basis. I was a former board member and I kind of understand what's going -- of the homeowners association and I kind of understand what's going on there. The other two properties you can't tell what's going to happen, but given the -- the purchase time in history when they were bought, the people put them into a rental, because they actually felt that they would lose their value -- the initial investment value trying to sell them. You know, but given the economic situation they bought like -- they were built five or six years ago, property values crashed substantially, have not fully recovered and it's their decision to try and maintain the value of their investment or, essentially, recover the value of their investment by perhaps pulling it into rental status until they can actually sell it to at least break even or whatever their economic motives might be. Okay. So, that really doesn't, you know, make -- there are -- point six is pretty incorrect. Point seven -- presumably they are in compliance with your plan or it wouldn't have probably gotten to this hearing stage if it were not. And point eight, claims it would be an attractive addition. The word attractive is a matter of opinion and they talk about the additional tax base for the city and I'm not disputing that the city could probably use all the tax revenue that they could get. But, on the other hand, it implies that there would be no higher value on a tax basis for this lot, other than an empty lot and that's inconceivable, because it is a decent location for something other than the rezone project, four-plex, this is proposed. Okay. Exterior amenities. Point nine. The small playground. If you look at the concept drawing, which was submitted to you folks, that playground area is so miniscule in size as to be, you know, almost unusable. I mean most -- you know there are rooms in people's homes which are larger than that allotted area for playground. Okay. Point ten. They talk about landscaping in an attractive manner. I can't dispute the attractiveness, but it says providing desire for screening and adequate open space. Given the size of that lot and footprint of the structure and the parking area, there really isn't hardly anything left and I don't see how you can possibly achieve reasonable screening with landscaping when you only have five to six feet of space, which is shown on the conceptual drawing. I really don't know what type of landscaping would actually get in there to give you any meaningful screening from anything. Okay. And, then, the vehicular traffic presumably it will -- and any -- anything is going to actually increase Meridian Planning & Zoning December 19, 2013 Page 26 of 45 traffic, so I really can't argue that this is going to be something worse than say an accounting office or dental office or something like that. I don't have the ACHD numbers at hand to back that up. But it is a concern and depending on the -- if it were to be developed as a four-plex I don't understand how you can exactly predict with perhaps two working members in the family, so that would be eight people working, coming and going, you know, that -- it's certainly more than if it were to be developed as a single family residents. It's going to be at least four times as much, perhaps as much as eight times as much traffic as a single family residence. Exterior lighting. The city has a code on this and I know lighting has to be directed down, you can't infringe on adjacent properties. That's probably not going to be an issue assuming the project were to be executed in compliance with the existing codes and, then, they talk about the -- the last point, number 13, the exterior would be in harmony with the neighborhood in scale, composition, building mass and colors. The neighborhood from a residential standpoint is, essentially, all single family homes, including the adjacent property and this is neither in harmony with the existing Tiburon Meadows dwellings, because it's a four-plex, it's not even in harmony with the nonresidential part of the neighborhood, which is a church -- two churches, actually, a supermarket, and Colemans as being built design center, which was part of the whole church property. So, it's really not in harmony with anything existing there. It's a unique structure project on it's own two feet and that, if anything, is -- creates additional disharmony, if there is such a word. That's all the comments I have regarding standing for the homeowners association. I actually have another comment on my own, which is -- I don't want to represent speaking for the homeowners association, so I don't know how you want to handle that while I'm here at the podium or continue on. Marshall: At this point did anyone have any questions? Freeman: I do have a question, but I'm not opposed to Mr. Zaluska expressing the last -- Marshall: I would agree and I thought maybe we could ask the question and, then, he could address that and, then, we can handle that separately. Freeman: That would be fine. Marshall: All right. Freeman: My question -- I did notice that most of the letters that came to us also followed the order of the applicant's letter and while you articulated well why you and the neighbors you represent disagree with many of the statements in that letter, what I still am not clear on is why do you oppose the project? Zaluska: Actually, it's really -- for the reasons that we stated. It's incongruous with the existing residential structures in the immediate vicinity. It's -- there are no multi-family structures in the immediate vicinity. It's going to require rezoning to actually achieve that. What's wrong with leaving it zoned as it is and let the chips fall where they may? Meridian Planning & Zoning December 19, 2013 Page 27 of 45 And if -- you're actually leading to the point where -- of my own personal comment, which was the final paragraph in my letter to the Council. So, I don't know if -- Rohm: Additional question on your existing testimony. When was Tiburon developed initially? Was that built ten years ago or -- Zaluska:. I think it was started -- we moved in a little over seven years ago. Our -- we built and we moved in this past summer -- it was seven years this past summer. I don't know exactly when the project was initiated -- when it first -- when dirt was moved. We were out of state. Rohm: Okay. Seven to ten years ago the development began. Were these three lots part of that initial development? They were, were they not? Zaluska: The single family residences immediately east of the -- the plot in question here certainly appears to have been in existence prior to that. It's a quite an old structure. It's being rehabilitated by the current owner right now. He's doing a major renovation of that structure. But it is -- it was part of Tiburon Meadows, but it was excluded from the homeowners association. This goes back to a point which was raised when the architect was providing his testimony and as a former board member I'm intimately familiar with the CC&Rs for a number of reasons and the church property, which is one of the lots, and those three lots which were previously owned by Mr. -- a Mr. Hewett I believe, they were excluded from the homeowners association portion of Tiburon Meadows as an umbrella name. Rohm: I -- you know, I have lived in Meridian for quite a little while and I drive down Ten Mile quite frequently and I have seen that piece of property just sitting there for all these years and I'm not ready to make a decision as far as how I feel about this particular project, but the one thing that I do know is nothing has happened with that property for all these years and at least this is a proposal to take that property and put it to a productive use and -- and I'm not saying that I'm in support of it, but -- but what I can tell you is that land has just sat there and -- and if a dental office or something was the appropriate answer, it would have probably already been there. But that's just from my perspective. Zaluska: May I respond? Rohm: Absolutely. Zaluska: Okay. I understand your perspective and I appreciate it and it's right on. On the other hand, there are other perspectives, one of which I hold is that given the economy over the last, you know, eight to ten years -- and that wasn't the only piece of land out there that -- you know, things have moved -- have developed westerly towards Nampa from, you know, Main Street in Meridian in time, so, you know, whatever reason, just from a standpoint of a perspective developer of that property, having been on the board I -- I don't have any specific information, but it's anecdotal, but it's certainly Meridian Planning & Zoning December 19, 2013 Page 28 of 45 accurate enough from the issues which we have had as a homeowners association with the previous owner Mr. Hewett -- the pricing -- if you look at the pricing and history of that property, the asking price history of that property, it was way way up there when we moved in and it has come down and down and down and down, but I suspect that perhaps the -- his economic interests were incongruous with -- you know, from a seller's standpoint with those of perspective developers or buyers of that property. He was just holding out for more than what other people see the value of that property to be. Marshall: So, I'm going to -- to address that personal comment when you get to that real quick. Zaluska: Okay. Great. When this was initially proposed I was one of the folks that received a letter notifying residents in the immediate vicinity of the meeting sponsored by the proponents of the project, because I was actually going to be on the wrong coast of the United States during that meeting, I called the number given on the notice and I spoke with one of the partners and I don't recall -- this was, you know, like six months ago, five months ago, whenever it was, and I can't recall which individual I spoke to, but he basically asserted that it would be a high end, really nice, you know, development. It was -- wasn't going to be affordable housing and I says, well, gee, that seems like kind of an odd location for something which is really the end, you know, for residential. You're going through this rezoning process for something high end and it seems like, well, how are you going to -- you know, I'm thinking in my mind how are you going to sell this as a high end property in a particular location and -- but the assertion was it was going to be developed, it was going to be really really nice, it's going to be high end and the reality of the fact, as far as I can discern certainly doesn't meet my personal definition of a high end property, because they are actually talking about affordable -- they are making an argument that it's going to be affordable housing of some sort, which is exactly contrary to what I was led to believe over the telephone, speaking with the proponents of the project -- unfortunately, I couldn't be at the meeting, because was 3,000 miles away, so I didn't get a chance to pursue it any further. That's it. Marshall: All right. Any other questions? Zaluska: Thank you. Marshall: Thank you very much. All right. So, if Mr. Zaluska spoke for you, please, indicate here in a second. I'm going to do the best I can with some of these names. I'm not necessarily the best at pronouncing names, but I'm going to give -- try the best here in reading some of the handwriting. Actually, I'm struggling with the first one. McKay? Someone McKay? He's spoken for you? Mr. Zaluska? Okay. And she has marked down that she was against. I'm guessing this was Donald J. Titan? I'm sorry. Whitner. Would you like to speak, sir? From the audience Mr. Whitner indicates that he has been spoken for. Thank you, sir. And he also marked against. Marie Thrupp. And, Marie, did Mr. Zaluska speak for you as well? And she indicates from the audience that Mr. Zaluska represented her interest as well. All right. And Joan Zaluska. Did Mr. Zaluska -- all right. And she indicates that she's against and Mr. Zaluska spoke for her Meridian Planning & Zoning December 19, 2013 Page 29 of 45 as well. Katherine Green. Kathleen Green. And would you like to speak or has Mr. Zaluska represented you? All right. Thank you very much. Also marked against and agrees with Mr. Zaluska. Larsen Tenny. And Mr. Zaluska represented you as well? All right. Thank you. Ronald Arno. Is it Arno? Arnt. Mr. Zaluska represents you as well? You would like to make a statement. Please come on up, sir. And I can give you three minutes, sir. Arnt: Ronald Arnt. 3058 West Santa Clara Street, Meridian, Idaho. Mr. Chairman and Members, I'm a resident of Tiburon Meadows and my wife and I are both opposed to the construction of Lot 4. Prior to my retirement I spent over 35 years in lending. During that time I was responsible for the construction and loan financing of over 3,000 homes, duplex, four-plexes and commercial dwellings. Across from Sheryl Street is Calvary Chapel and we have all gone through this with the other buildings around there. Bill did a very good job. This is currently L-O or light commercial building. According to my calculations from the plat map, I have found and I agree with the architect that the size of the lot is .309 acres. However, when you knock off the 25 feet -- allows for the right of way, it drops it down to under a quarter of an acre. In my opinion, this makes the lot entirely too small for afour-plex to add adequate parking for afour-plex. Therefore, I do not believe that it should be built there. Also that very intersection, because Tiburon Meadows is a circle drive, there is only one entrance connected to the intersection. We currently have a do not block sign out in front there. I wish I would have taken a picture on my cell phone to bring it in, because when we went there -- we come here tonight at 5:30 we were blocked. You are blocked primarily every day, every night in rush hour traffic. You can turn right. Probability of turning left is bend over and pray, because that's all you have. Also I agree with Bill, the architect said they were going to have an upscale apartment complex. To me upscale means the outside, the exterior is brick or stucco. The inside is upgraded carpet, perhaps Corian counter tops and up scale carpet, fixtures of that nature. The exterior in an up scale would have parking inside garages, not carports. You would have an adequate play area. According to what read in the letter from the architect, it's supposed to be for moderate family. You can't have both. That's really all 1 have to say. Marshall: Any questions for Mr. Arnt? No? Thank you, sir. Arnt: Thank you. Marshall: And I'm guessing this is a relation. Glenda W. Arnt. And both gentlemen have spoken for you. From the audience. All right. Thank you. And P. Braumback. And the gentlemen previously have spoken for you, Mr. -- all right. All right. Thank you. From the audience. And she's also marked against. P. Vice. And from the audience the gentlemen prior have spoken for you; is that correct? All right. Thank you. Andre Green. I'm sorry. Cindy Green. I apologize. I'm terrible at this. Cindy, thank you. From the audience she is saying that the gentlemen prior have spoken for you and she's also marked against. Thank you. Terry Vice. All right. And I'm confused. We have got a mark in both for and against column. Okay. I'm sorry. This is Terry and -- okay. This is marked against. And the gentlemen prior have spoken for you; is that Meridian Planning & Zoning December 19, 2013 Page 30 of 45 correct? All right. Thank you. Okay. And, then, I have got -- is Jared Conden? Jake Conden? Congren. All right. And you have marked for. Would you like to testify, sir? If you're going to say anything I'm going to have to ask you to come to the mike and state your name and address, because nothing can go into the record unless you're at the mike. Thank you, sir. Conklin: Jake Conklin. 11347 West Dallen Court in Boise, Idaho. 83713. Marshall: All right. Conklin: Mr. Chair, Members, I support the project. Thank you. Marshall: All right. Thank you, sir. And I have Greg Mantra? Monta? Greg. No? Okay. I don't have any hands there. Maybe it's Jerry. I can't -- is it Jannae Montana? Jannae, you know, actually, I bet that's you. Jannae, thank you. Have the gentlemen previously. Okay. And you are against and I appreciate that. From the audience she acknowledges the gentlemen previously have spoken for her and she is against. And, then, Jared Montana. Is it Jared? Oh, I got that one right. Finally. After the whole list. All right. And the gentlemen previously have spoken for you and you also are against? All right. Thank you. Now, I don't have any other names here. Is there anyone else who would like to testify? I see no hands. So, at this time I would like to call the applicant back and, again, I'm going to ask for your name and address as well for the record. Gibson: Yes, Mr. Chairman. My name is still James Gibson. P.O. Box 219 in Eagle. First, we want to express appreciation for the valid comments of the neighbors. We don't -- while we may see things differently, we don't mean to demonize these people or minimize their concerns. We appreciate that and I can assure that you and everyone here that I have appeared at many such meetings on different sides of the issue to address the concerns as we have understood and expressed here. Yes, there is a reason why the property has not been developed. The reason, of course, cannot be stated with absolute certainty, because there are many variables. The economy. The size of the property. The location, to da, to da. But for whatever reason this property has not been developed and this is an opportunity to see the property developed. Without this change in zone it's not likely, but, then, we get into the area of the conjecture as to what might happen in the future that we have no control of. But one thing we do have control of is allowing a rezone and a development agreement would allow the property to develop. The question was raised about the area and there are two different areas associated with the property. That's because the original stated area includes a street which has been dedicated and the size of the property is the smaller of the two areas. Apologize for any confusion. That simply is the nature of it, but it was originally a larger property. We interpret the intent of the ordinance to provide a variety of uses in this area and that's the reason that we -- the major reason why we think that a residential four-plex is a very compatible use with that intent of the ordinance. No, it is not -- it's not shall we say the same as the adjacent churches, it's not the same as the adjacent commercial, it's not the same as the adjacent single family residence and Meridian Planning & Zoning December 19, 2013 Page 31 of 45 that's, shall we say, on purpose. That's the intent of the ordinance, to have a variety. By definition variety implies some difference, not all the same. Now, we -- we must apologize if there was any misunderstanding about the nature of this project being high end or low end. It's intended -- and I think the illustrations would easily be interpreted as moderate residential. No, it is -- it's not luxury housing, but neither is it -- shall we say lower end subsidized housing. It, again, provides a variety. It's very much in response to the intent of the ordinance. A variety of housing. And as the parent of quite a number of young adult children Iknow -- and I'm sure that you realize that moderate or affordable housing is very important to a number of people. Not everyone is in a position to pay a very high price for a luxury home. This is not intended to be high end luxury construction and we apologize if there was any misunderstanding, but we do not believe it was really represented as such. The question about the owner or rental occupied is probably irrelevant. But where we got the information is simply looking up the addresses and finding that a number of the addresses of the owners did not correspond to the residents, so we had to conclude that somebody other than the owner lived there and that's -- we didn't mean to generate any misconception. That's where the information came from and we simply provided that information. Whether this illustration is attractive or not I would simply have to say that would be a matter of opinion. It I don't believe is just a box or a barracks style building. We see some of those constructed here and there. But admittedly it is -- it's not a very high end, expensive construction. It -- we think with the lower one story portions at the end of the building it's as attractive as a building is likely to be on that site. Now, whether the site is large enough or not for the use, again, is a matter of interpretation and opinion. It meets the ordinance. The ordinance was written for some reason and this use meets the density requirements. The playground is, of course, small, because this is a very small development. It seems unlikely that with just four units there there are going to be dozens of young children playing there. We think it's sized appropriately for the size of the unit. The question about the landscaping and an effective border between the parking area and the neighbor adjacent, the proposal is to use an American arborvitae hedge there and if -- you may be able to envision that, it forms a very dense hedge that is -- as it's established it -- you can't see through it and it does provide some acoustical separation and we think that's the most appropriate thing to do at that location. I wish I could read my writing here. I think that, basically, summarizes our response. If you have any questions that you feel we have not addressed, please, let me know and we will do the best we can to -- to respond. Basically we think, yes, this -- this proposed use is different than other uses in the area and it's that way on purpose in response to the intent of the ordinance and we think that this is a response to the reason why this property has not been developed. And thank you for your consideration. Marshall: Commissioners, any questions? I do have one question. If you didn't run the neighborhood meeting I would ask is the person who ran it here? Gibson: Yes, I believe so. Marshall: Maybe we could get him up here. Him or her. Meridian Planning & Zoning December 19, 2013 Page 32 of 45 Gibson: I think it's likely that we can. Marshall: I would appreciate that if we could. I'm going to have to ask for your name and address for the record, please. Johnson: Tyler Johnson. 1099 South Wells, Meridian, Idaho. 83642. Marshall: All right. So, I have a question for you. Johnson: Okay. Marshall: You had the neighborhood meeting. Johnson: Yes. Marshall: And how many people showed? Johnson: We had -- I'd have to look at my sign-in, but I want to say eight. Marshall: Eight people showed up. And I'm wondering how that progresses and how it transpired -- what all transpired during that? Marshall: They asked us some questions about the project. Voiced their concerns. Most of the concerns that night were traffic and that it was going to bring down their property value. I didn't feel many other concerns that were voiced at that point. They felt our project was unattractive. And I didn't find any factual reasons against it. So, did you ask them if you don't find it attractive what would you like to see -- what -- how could we change this to make it attractive, as opposed to here is what we are doing, thank you very much. I'm really -- I'm sensing a lot of hostility over here from the neighbors. I mean it doesn't sound like anybody tried to appease them at all with this. It sounds like it was just here is our project, thank you very much, just thank you for coming. And it kind of comes across that way listening to them. Just guessing. And so I'm wondering how we went about the neighborhood meeting here, because -- because, really, those neighborhood -- and I'm speaking to everybody here -- from what I understand those neighborhood -- the intent of those neighborhood meetings is to get some input from the neighbors and say what is it that you want. Here is what we concede, but we really want to work with you and be able to put out a project that we all can be proud of and for some reason somehow we didn't get any of these people on our side over here. Johnson: Yes, that's true. I guess I didn't feel the opportunity to ask them what they would want us to do with it. They opposed it so strongly being afour-plex, that without changing it from afour-plex I didn't know what we could have done to make them happy. It kind of came up later that one of them just mentioned that it was ugly. They didn't really ask us much about that. I guess we didn't either. They just voiced that as a Meridian Planning & Zoning December 19, 2013 Page 33 of 45 comment, but they were so opposed to the project, not the specifics of it, that we didn't know what to ask to change. Marshall: And maybe that's what I'm throwing back at you, is that maybe in the future maybe we can ask them questions as to, okay, if this isn't what you like, then, what is it that you foresee? How -- how can this meet the needs of the neighborhood and sometimes throw it back in their lap and let them explain that, because, to be honest, haven't heard that tonight. I have had a difficult time hearing it expressed from these people as well and it's just -- I just hear a lot of hostility. Johnson: Yes. They didn't give us any ideas of what it could be. The letters later on they said that it should remain limited office that it currently is. Marshall: All right. Johnson: But they didn't have a better suggestion for us. Marshall: Well, thank you. I appreciate your honesty there and that's all I have. Anybody else? No. All right. Thank you. Johnson: Thank you. Marshall: Would you like to come back up? Did you have anything else you'd like to add here? Asking the applicant back up, for the record. Gibson: James Gibson. P.O. Box 219 in Eagle. Thank you. Yes. The concerns that have been expressed are -- basically, the only way we could respond to it is not do the project. We haven't heard specific things that we could tweak this or tweak that or make it more palatable, it's just they state their reasons they don't like the project. There are some reasons. Those reasons we submit are largely interpretation of -- and could be seen either way. But, no, we haven't seen anything -- any suggestion that we could respond to. Thank you. Marshall: Thank you. All right. Thank you. I'm sorry, we are done taking testimony and I can no longer do that. The applicant has already responded and -- at this point in time. Rohm: Mr. Chairman? Marshall: Yes, Commissioner Rohm. Rohm: I move we close the public hearing on RZ 13-017. Miller: Second. Meridian Planning & Zoning December 19, 2013 Page 34 of 45 Marshall: I have a motion and a second to close the public hearing on the project. All those in favor say aye. Those opposed? Ayes have it. The public hearing is now closed. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. Marshall: And I would ask for opinions. And, Commissioner Rohm, you seem to be biting at the bit. Rohm: I am. I'm ready to speak. The issue here, as I see it, is we got L-O as it's currently zoned and we have the rezone to -- what is it? Miller: TN-R. Rohm: Okay. There are two different uses and the original L-O zoning is what was deemed appropriate for that property at the time that development came through and all be it that there are provisions within our city code that allow you to make application for reasoning once a specific zoning has been obtained, I don't think that that's necessarily always in good keeping for the city and the existing zoning, in my opinion, matches the property that's there and I wouldn't be in favor of rezoning it to anything else, based upon the lay of the land and the way it was put together initially and I think that this is a significant departure from what the original rezoning to the L-O was at the time that the project came through however many years ago. So, that's -- that's where I stand on this project at this time. Miller: Mr. Chair? Marshall: Commissioner Miller. Miller: I share the same feelings in a lot of ways. I feel like the huge representation we have from existing people around the site is a very impactful statement, first of all. But to me on this corner it just -- to have afour-plex right there does not seem unique. You have all that other very affordable housing down below and when I look at this I don't see it as a four-plex, it's -- it's zoned appropriately as it is right now in my opinion. It is a very small lot. I think that that's a challenge and I think it's very doable. It does not sound like any of these people are opposed to developing the lot, they are just opposed to developing it this way. And 1 can certainly appreciate the concerns about esthetics as well. With what was presented I think it's possible that it might have come across a little better with some different elevations. I know this is a rezone, not, you know, design review or anything, but to show some undulation and facades and maybe different materials or something I think could have represented the case more. Neither here nor there. I -- I am not personally in favor of rezoning this to amulti-housing lot. It seems appropriately zoned to me. Marshall: Commissioner Freeman. Meridian Planning & Zoning December 19, 2013 Page 35 of 45 Freeman: Mr. Chair. Coming from the other side. I lost my place on -- oh, here we go. One of the things the Comprehensive Plan seeks to do is to encourage in-fill development and white -- it may have been appropriate, as Commissioner Rohm pointed out at one time that this be L-O, I think evidence against its appropriateness now is the lack of interest in developing it up until this point. Frankly, I'm in favor of changing it to a suitable zone so it can be developed as residential and I do not see that as being incompatible with the surrounding properties. I see that as very compatible and I see this as an appropriate use for that property. In listening to the -- the comments from the neighbors, honestly, I still have a really hard time understanding exactly what the main concern is. Most of the comments in the testimony were directed at whether or not some of the statements in the architect's application letter were true or not and, frankly, there are only a couple of those statements that are really at issue here and I think it was number seven. I will find it here in just a second. This is the one that the neighbors agreed with. Or said at least presumably. The zone change is in full compliance with the Meridian master plan and I think that's what's at issue here and I see that it is. To me that's the major factor to be considered. Comments such as it's too small for this kind of development I think are contradicted by the fact that I am seeing here a plan for afour-plex that fits within the setbacks, honors all the buffers, and has the required parking for that square footage in that type of use. The other comments about traffic, frankly, have -- have me wondering what the concern is, because given all of the alternatives or most of the alternatives as the project has developed, I would see nothing but an increase in traffic flow. If this was a business that served any sort of customer and it could be, it could be a two story business that serves a clientele, the trips are going to be all day long, instead of probably one in morning and a couple in the evening and, frankly, with nine parking stalls -- nine cars is not going to significantly impact the traffic flow in and out of this property. The two stories, you know, even if this was developed commercially it could be two stories and unlike the last application, which I know is irrelevant for this one, I don't see how this two story proposed building has any impact upon the surrounding property. It's -- it's not right on somebody's back door, it's up against a street, so two stories to me is not a real concern. The one -- when I -- when I asked Mr. Zaluska -- I'm sure I'm not pronouncing that correctly, but when I asked what the real issue was, what he told me was it's incongruous and I have a hard time understanding that, too. If -- if he means that it's incongruous because this is not the same type of building as in a single family dwelling or a church, sure, but that's not what the code means by incongruous or compatible. The fact that this is a fairly low density residential project by default makes it a compatible use with the surrounding neighborhood, because that's what's developed around it. And I -- I heard comments about it being promised or -- or it was implied or something about it being high end versus low end and, frankly, whether a residential project develops as high end or low end is really none of my business. I do know, however -- I shouldn't say it's none of my business, because we are also charged with providing for a wide diversity of housing types and protecting existing residential properties from incompatible land use. Like I said, I don't see an incompatible land use here. I do see a -- a different kind of a housing type available here and we still have -- this has to go through a CZC, we have design guidelines in place, and there is nothing that is going to exempt this architecture, this project, from meeting those design Meridian Planning & Zoning December 19, 2013 Page 36 of 45 guidelines. Staff will assure that it does meet the requirements of the guidelines. So, guess I'm done head scratching. I still fail to understand what the real dislike for this project is, because the traffic doesn't make sense to me. It being too small doesn't make sense to me. It being two stories doesn't make to me. It being incongruous or incompatible doesn't make sense to me. And maybe that's just because I view those things in a difficult way than you do. But, frankly, this -- this meets the requirements of the UDC and the Comprehensive Plan. Furthermore, it in-fills a property that has not developed and may not develop for a long time. I see it as a beneficial and a positive thing for this piece of property and I will stop with that. Marshall: I guess it's my turn. Again, there is a number of things that really concern me with this. First and foremost, it doesn't appear to me that the applicant has worked well with the neighbors. It really concerns me. And Item No. 1 is all of both the written and the verbal testimony that we have had and I have gone through each and every one of these. To be honest, much like Commissioner Freeman said, I do have a difficult time finding specifics about this particular project, other than we don't want it. Traffic is not an issue. It fits on the lot. I'm sorry, t do -- with the complaints that were registered, just as Commissioner Freeman just stated, I see a very different side of that and I'm having a difficult time finding fault with the issues that were addressed here. Do question whether or not residential up against Ten Mile Road is appropriate. I do question that, because Ten Mile Road is changing. That is dramatically changing and I drive some of the roads within the valley that have changed character over the years and you will see occasional houses facing those roads, but still a little surely they are disappearing and, then, there is the occasion where -- this is not one that would face Ten Mile, but it's going to back right up to it and Ten Mile is not a small side street, that's going to be a major thoroughfare, especially when Highway 16 pops through. I am concerned about that. You're going to see major commercial development along Ten Mile as well. There is some areas that have already been deemed appropriate for commercial development and this is -- this is -- you have got the Ten Mile interchange and it goes all the way to 20-26 and with the -- later the connection across going north, you're going to see a considerable amount of traffic down through here. Do I think residential abutting Ten Mile Road is appropriate? I don't generally. I mean higher densities towards large traffic corridors, as we were discussing earlier, seems appropriate. I don't -- again, is it harmonious with everything around it? Wouldn't be my first pick of buildings to say, geez, I really like that building, I want it there, but yet it doesn't seem to be totally out of place with the churches and things like that. No, it's not the same as the residences and everybody we are hearing from is actually buffered from this project with an existing residence, because Idon't -- we did not hear from the existing residents in between. I'm really torn on this one, to be honest and I don't think it's totally inappropriate, but at the same time I am not fond of how it's moved forward to this point. But, then, again, is that enough to say no. I don't think so. Freeman: Commissioner Marshall, lunderstand -- I heard you voice your concerns about the inability of the applicant to work with the -- with the neighbors, but, frankly, if put myself in the applicant's shoes I wouldn't be really sure how to respond to some of these comments. Like I said, I can't identify if you're telling me it's too small -- well, no, Meridian Planning & Zoning December 19, 2013 Page 37 of 45 it's not. I have just shown you that it -- it fits. It's going to increase traffic. Well, no, it's not and I'm not going to be able to convince anybody otherwise that feels differently. It's two stories. Well, yeah, so it can be two stories. I think -- Marshall: I agree with you. Freeman: I see that there are a lot of people who are opposed to this, but what I do not see is an articulated reason for why this project is wrong or does not comply with the UDC and the Comprehensive Plan. I don't see that. And without that Ican't -- I can't in good conscience vote against it. I think it's -- I think it's appropriate. I think it meets all the requirements. I think it provides in-fill. I think it provides variety. I think for all those reasons it's a good project and leaving a little tiny lot like this up against other residential that isn't going to be developed for awhile and hasn't -- I'd prefer not to wait. I prefer to get this one going. Miller: I -- Marshall: Commissioner Miller? Miller: I -- disagree. I don't agree with in-fill just for the sheer fact that nothing else is happening. I think it should be good in-fill and you have your play area right next to Ten Mile .Road, I think I would feel maybe slightly different if it was say flipped or something where the kids aren't backing up right to Ten Mile Road. I don't think it's good to do a development if it's not going to get rented out either. I -- you know, I look at projects as they come through and would I like to be there, would I like to live there, and there is no way that I would want to live that close to Ten Mile Road. So, I can see this being built and, then, just sitting vacant and, then, as the economy bumps back, which it's doing, it's just taking up a lot that would make an excellent office lot, in my opinion. Marshall: I would suggest, though, flipping this would go against what some of our Comprehensive Plan suggests is trying to hide all that parking area back behind the building and things like that. Miller: That's why you do not put residential right up next to the road. Rohm: Mr. Chairman? Marshall: Commissioner Rohm. Rohm: Yes. It complies with the UDC only if it's rezoned. You couldn't put this development in the existing zoning. So, even though the city has a vehicle to make that transfer of property zoning from where it currently is to the proposed, that vehicle there, that doesn't necessarily mean just because a vehicle is there that we have to grant it. That's the point of the -- that's the point of the hearing. And so I still maintain that this is inappropriate and existing zoning is appropriate for the property as it -- as it is. So, with that being said, unless there is additional -- Meridian Planning & Zoning December 19, 2013 Page 38 of 45 Marshall: Commissioner Rohm, please, go ahead. Rohm: Okay. Mr. Chairman, after considering staff, applicant, and public testimony, move to recommend denial to the City Council of number RZ 13-017 as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of December 19th, 2013, for the following reasons: Reason being that the existing zoning, in my opinion, is more appropriate for that property than the proposed application. End of motion. Miller: I second that. Marshall: I have a motion and a second to recommend denial to the City Council for RZ 13-017. All those in favor say aye. Against? Freeman: Aye. Marshall: Motion carries. Three to one. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE NAY. ONE ABSENT. Public Hearing: CPAM 13-003 Da Vinci Park by CS2, LLC Located Southwest Corner of N. Locust Grove Road and E. McMillan Road Request: Amend the Future Land Use Map Contained in the Comprehensive Plan to Change the Future Land Use Designation on 7.76 Acres of Land from Low Density Residential to Medium Density Residential (6.36 Acres) and Mixed Use -Neighborhood (1.4 Acres) Recommend Approval to City Council J. Public Hearing: RZ 13-016 Da Vinci Park by CS2, LLC Located Southwest Corner of N. Locust Grove Road and E. McMillan Road Request: Rezone of 2.65 Acres of Land from the R-4 and R-8 Zoning Districts to the C-N Zoning District; and 6.3 Acres of Land from the R-4 Zoning District to the R-8 Zoning District K. Public Hearing: PP 13-036 Da Vinci Park by CS2, LLC Located Southwest Corner of N. Locust Grove Road and E. McMillan Road Request: Preliminary Plat Approval Consisting of Thirty- Eight (38) Single Family Residential Attached Building Lots, One (1) Commercial Building Lot and Eight (8) Common/Other Lots on 7.76 Acres of Land in the Proposed R-8 and C-N Zoning Districts Meridian Planning & Zoning December 19, 2013 Page 39 of 45 Marshall: All right. Next up is the public hearing for CPAM 13-003, RZ 13-016 and PP 13-036 for Da Vinci Park and I'd like to ask for the staff report, please. Waters: Thank you, Chairman Marshall, Members of the Commission. The next applications before you are a request for a Comprehensive Plan map amendment, a rezone, and a preliminary plat. This property consists of 7.7 acres of land. It's currently zoned R-4 and R-8 and is located at the southwest corner of East McMillan Road and North Locust Grove Road. Adjacent land use and zoning. To the north is McMillan Road and across McMillan is single family residential and agricultural property, zoned RUT in Ada County and R-4. To the south are single family residential properties in Havasu Creek Subdivision, zoned R-4. And to the east is North Locust Grove Road and an Idaho Power substation across the street and single family residential properties in Settlement Bridge Subdivision, zoned R-8. To the west is rural residential agricultural properties, zoned RUT in Ada County. This site was annexed in 2006 with the R-4 and R-8 zoning, with a development agreement. The plat was also approved, but has since expired. The Comprehensive Plan future land use map designation for this site is currently low density residential and this is a copy of the current future land use map you see here on top and the proposed changes to the map below. The applicant proposes to develop the site with 38 single family residential attached homes, with neighborhood commercial uses on the corner. In order to develop the site as proposed an amendment to the future land use map is necessary to change the land use designation on 6.36 acres of land from low density residential to medium density residential and 1.4 acres from low density residential to mixed use neighborhood. A rezone of 2.65 acres of land from the R-4 and R-8 zoning districts to the C-N zoning district, neighborhood commercial, consistent with the proposed mixed use neighborhood designation. The exhibit map on the left you see there is the rezone exhibit. And the rezone of 6.3 acres from R-4 to R-8 is proposed consistent with the proposed medium density residential designation. A concept plan was submitted for the commercial portion that shows two building pads and associated parking and drive aisles. This is only a concept, just showing how this site may develop in the future. The pad site on the right there does include a drive-thru, which would possibly accommodate a bank with adrive-thru. An amendment to the existing development agreement is proposed to change the development plan for the site from 22 single family residential lots are previously proposed to 38 attached residential lots and one neighborhood commercial lot consistent with the proposed concept plan. Staff has recommended provisions be added to the development agreement that require development of this site to be consistent with the concept plan proposed with this application. And requirement pertaining to the design of structures that back up to the arterial streets and consistent design elements between the residential and commercial structures. A preliminary plat consisting of 38 single family residential attached building lots, 1.14 acre commercial building lot and eight common lots on 7.7 acres of land is proposed to subdivide the property. One full access via East McMillan Road, one right- out access via North Locust Grove Road. And an extension of the existing stub street at the south boundary of the site is proposed for access. A stub street to the west is also proposed for future extension. Because access is available to the site via local street, North Bright Angel Avenue here from the south, the accesses via McMillan and Meridian Planning & Zoning December 19, 2013 Page 40 of 45 Locust Grove will require City Council waiver to the access provisions in the UDC. ACHD is recommending approval of both of the proposed accesses to McMillan and Locust Grove as proposed. A 25 foot wide street buffer is required along McMillan and Locust Grove. Both are arterial streets. A 20 foot wide buffer is required on the commercial portion adjacent to the residential properties. A total of .74 of an acre of qualified open space is proposed, along with a covered picnic area, playground equipment, pathway, picnic tables and benches in accord with the open space and site amenity requirements. Because there is a large mixed use neighborhood center designated area to the south of this site that consists primarily of professional office and healthcare uses, staff recommends those types of uses not be allowed on this site. Other neighborhood friendly uses as allowed in the C-N district are recommended. Hours of operation of businesses in the C-N district are limited from 6:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m., per the UDC. Conceptual building elevations for the single family attached homes have been submitted with this application as shown. Bob Unger submitted written testimony in agreement with the staff report. He is the applicant's representative. No other written testimony was received. Staff is recommending approval with the conditions in the staff report. Staff will stand for any questions Commission may have. Marshall: Any questions of staff? I guess I don't. So, at this time I'd like to ask for the applicant to come forward, please. And, please, state your name and address for the record. Unger: Chairman, Commissioner Members, my name is Bob Unger. I'm with ULC Management and our address is 6104 North Gary Lane, Boise, Idaho. 83714. And we represent CS2, LLC, who is the developer on the property. Right off the bat I -- I want to applaud Sonya and also Justin. They have really -- I have worked with them on other projects. I have worked with them on this project and they have really been helpful. It's been a long night. I don't have anything more to add than what Sonya has presented to you in her staff report and certainly we are in total agreeance with the staff report and the recommendations of approval and the conditions of approval. So, I will stand for any questions you might have. Marshall: Any questions for the applicant? Rohm: Just -- I have a comment. It says concept only on the drawing there and I can tell you that this Commission is very dedicated to having separation between commercial and residential and this concept looks pretty darn good and so that might be a hint to the future. End of comment. Unger: Mr. Chair, Mr. Rohm, the reason we put in -- put it in concept and we wanted to make it very specific, because in the past we have shown some conceptual ideas on a project and we got locked into it and it wasn't what we intended. This is -- our assumption is this is what's probably going to work and it's going to work very nicely, so -- Meridian Planning & Zoning December 19, 2013 Page 41 of 45 Rohm: Well, I'm not specific to lots as much as the separation and I think you have done a very good job of depicting it in a -- separating the uses very well in your concept and I can just say that this Commission has tried very hard to adhere to that as we have moved forward with projects and I just throw that out as FYI. Unger: Thank you very much. Marshall: I guess that's it, sir. Unger: Thank you. Marshall: All right. And, Mr. Unger, it appears you're the only one I have signed up to testify. Since I have just taken your testimony I'm going to ask is there anyone else that would like to testify to this project? And that appears, since there is no raising their hand and no one coming forth, I guess there is nothing to ask you to come up and respond to. Unger: Okay. Mr. Chair and Commissioners, thank you very much and we ask for your recommendation of approval. Marshall: Thank you. All right. So, since that's the end of our public testimony at this point in time, I would ask for a motion, possibly, to close the public hearing on CPAM 13-003, RZ 13-016 and PP 13-036. Miller: So moved. Marshall: I have a motion and a second to close the public hearing. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? And the motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. Marshall: Okay. So, comments? Rohm: I have already made mine. Marshall: All right. Freeman: Mr. Chair, we have a good plan. We have agreement from the applicant with staffs comments. We have nobody here opposed and no written testimony in opposition, what more is there to say? This works. I like it for it. Miller: It's an easy one to me, too. Marshall: I will point out one interesting fact -- well, two. First off, we got aright-out only on Locust Grove and, then, I'm hoping that maintains right-out only, as opposed to -- it now appears it's approved by ACRD as a right-out only, not a full access. That the Meridian Planning & Zoning December 19, 2013 Page 42 of 45 full access is coming in off the Park Crossing Avenue. I will also point out that on the Comprehensive Plan amendment, that the commercial area is the only area marked mixed use and I have heard a lot of rationale about this and it seemed appropriate, I'm buying it, that the mixed use area actually has only one use and it was zoned commercial. C-N is what the application is. So, we are going against that, again, because mixed use is typically at least if not three different uses and if we were to, then, hold three mixed uses, then, actually start then bleeding over to the property we see to the west or possibly to the east or to the south, that may eventually want to start putting in more mixed use and, really, I would also point out that staff did a nice job of identifying some professional services and excluding those in the DA simply because we have a lot of professional services and stuff at the half mile point where we have identified we wanted those to grow and this is -- this would appropriately move to something that serves the local area, but more in a commercial ice cream establishment or something like that, as opposed to health services and professional services, which are only a half mile away. I'm just pointing those out. But I think staff did a phenomenal job in putting this together. That's my -- I appreciate the applicant's project and, again, I'm going to reiterate that I hope that right-out, I'm sorry, but I hope it remains aright-out only. I think a full access is inappropriate, but there we have it. So, can I get a motion on this? Miller: Mr. Chair? Marshall: Commissioner Miller. Miller: After considering all staff and applicant testimony, I move to recommend approval for file number CPAM 13-003, RZ 13-016, PP 13-36 as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of December 19th, 2013, with no modifications. Freeman: Second. Marshall: I have a motion and a second to recommend approval to City Council of CPAM 13-003, RZ 13-016 and PP 13-036. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? Ayes have it and it carries. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. L. Public Hearing: CUP 13-015 Terror Design Studio by Brian Spangler Located 760 E. King Street Request: Conditional Use Permit Approval to Operate an Indoor Recreation Facility in an I-L Zoning District Marshall: All right. Last item on the agenda and I'm scared. Well, I hope to be. Let's see. CUP 13-015 for the Terror Design Studio and I'd like ask for the staff report on this one. Meridian Planning & Zoning December 19, 2013 Page 43 of 45 Lucas: Thank you, Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission. Hopefully we can -- I'm going to try to keep this as brief as I can. It's been a long night and hopefully this one won't take us too much longer. The applicant is requesting a conditional use permit to operate an indoor entertainment or recreation facility in an I-L zone. In that zoning designation a conditional use permit is required for that type of use. As you can see in that area it's pretty much all industrial, except for like kitty corner there is a section of commercial zoned property. The applicant is proposing to operate this use within an existing industrial office or warehouse, so there is no new -- no new buildings and no new development really proposed. This is purely the applicant requesting the ability to use an existing building for this use that is not principally permitted in the I-L zoning designation. The applicant already has space within this -- within this complex and uses it primarily for fabrication and manufacturing of haunted house items and his business plan and plan is to set up during a seasonal use a haunted house within his -- within his building, so people can come in, use and participate in the items that primarily he fabricates on site. So, his primary use really is fabrication and this is an accessory or secondary use to that fabrication business. That being stated, it does require a conditional use permit in the I-L zone. We have received written testimony from the property owner and indicating that they are in full agreement with the staffs conditions. The one issue that staff looked at pretty carefully is parking. These types of uses, these seasonal uses, in the City of Meridian can generate quite a bit of traffic and I'm sure that's the applicant's intent is to have a lot of people come through. We see this with corn mazes and other things where, you know, seasonally they become very popular. The applicant proposed a parking plan, which staff looked at and felt was -- was more than adequate to address the parking and the applicant will continue to work on parking issues as they arise, as the use becomes more popular. That stated, staff can certainly stand for any questions you might have. Marshall: Any question of staff? No? I would like to ask the applicant to come forward. As you have heard several times tonight, I'm going to ask for your name and address for the record, please. Spangler: Brian Spangler. 2659 North Santee Place in Meridian. And, first of all, want to thank Justin very much for going through the process with us and -- because this is my first time ever doing this and it has been very lengthy and unique and so we appreciate him, but we are in full approval of -- with staff's recommendation for the proposal. Marshall: Any questions of the applicant? Rohm: I have none. Marshall: Thank you. We have several people signed up and all have marked -- each and every one has marked that they are for the project and my guess is it's the four people that we still have in the audience. That was Mr. Spangler. Brian Spangler is marked down here. Steven Hill? Would you like to speak to this? For the record he's saying he's fine and that Mr. Spangler has already spoken for him and he's just for the Meridian Planning & Zoning December 19, 2013 Page 44 of 45 project. Dave Kettles? Also Mr. Spangler spoke for you and you're for the project. And Debbie Kettles. Mr. Spangler spoke for you and for the project. That is everybody we have in the audience tonight. So, since Mr. Spangler spoke for everyone I am not sure he has anything to respond to at this time, so maybe I can get a motion. Freeman: Mr. Chair, I move that we close the hearing for CUP 13-015, Terror Design Studios. Miller: I second that. Marshall: I have a motion and a second to close the public hearing. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? And the motion carries. The public hearing is closed. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. Marshall: Any discussion? Miller: It seems pretty straight forward. Marshall: I was impressed he went across the street and got an agreement for the parking places across the way, so there is an additional 225 parking places across the way, I think he's got plenty of parking in the future. I'm impressed with that. Twenty-five on site, 30 on the street. I'm excited to see that go forth and I wish him the very best of luck. In fact, my kids will probably be down there hopefully this next year. So -- Freeman: Mr. Chairman? Marshall: -- good project. Yes. Freeman: After considering all staff and applicant testimony, I move to approve file number CUP 13-015 as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of December 9th, 2013, with no modifications. Miller: I second that. Marshall: I have a motion and a second to approve CUP 13-015. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? And that motion passes unanimously. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. Miller: Sorry you guys had to wait so long. Marshall: All right. I believe I have one last motion to hear. Meridian Planning & Zoning December 19, 2013 Page 45 of 45 Freeman: But do we need to point out before we close that this is perhaps Commission Rohm's second to the last meeting with us? And we can discuss off the record how we are going to party hard after that, possibly. Marshall: Wow. Commissioner Rohm, this is -- you served two terms. Rohm: And then some. Marshall: And then some. Rohm: It's been -- I have enjoyed every bit of it. I have thoroughly enjoyed being part of this process and I have learned a lot and I have met a lot of great people and -- and I'm going to miss it. Freeman: You are going to be here in January for at least one more meeting. Rohm: I'm sure I will. Freeman: So, then, we can sing your praises and decide how to congratulate you afterwards. Rohm: Okay. All right. Mr. Chairman, I move we adjourn. Miller: I second that. Marshall: I have movement -- motion to adjourn. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. Marshall: We are adjourned. MEETING ADJOURNED AT 8:36 P.M. (AUDIO RECORDING ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS.) APPROVED - ICE-CHAIR IAN DATE APPROVED ATTEST: o~~tio Pucvsr7 ~9~ ova JAYCEE HOLMAN, CITY C ERK ~ ~ z ,~~'"?°ntP~~ ~y r ~' ., S o! T ,~ J aCFNr6Q o t t h ~ t~E~S ~ Meridian Planning Zoning Commission Meeting DATE: December 19, 2o~s ITEM NUMBER: 3A PROJECT NUMBER: ITEM TITLE: Approve Minutes of December 5, 2013 Planning and Zoning Commission meeting MEETING NOTES ~~~~~~ a~i ~5 CLERKS OFFICE FINAL ACTION DATE: E-MAILED TO STAFF SENT TO AGENCY SENT TO .APPLICANT NOTES INITIALS Meridian Planning Zoning Commission Meeting DATE: December 19, 203 ITEM NUMBER:. 3B PROJECT NUMBER: CUP 13-014 ITEM TITLE: Westmark Credit Union ~ Bridgetower Crossing FFCL for approval: Conditional use permit for a drive thru establishment (bank with dreive thru) in a C-N zoning district by Westmark Credit Union - 3115 W. Quintale Drive (Lot 66, Block 10 of Bridgetower Crossing Sub No. 7) MEETING NOTES ~, X/ ~„~ l`p~P-/g4 N"" ~h F~` CLERKS OFFICE FINAL ACTION DATE: E-MAILED TO STAFF 8ENT TO AGENCY SENT TO APPLICANT NOTES INITIALS ( a~ i ~/ ~ Meridian Planning Zoning Commission Meeting DATE: December 19, 2013 ITEM NUMBER: 4/.~ PROJECT NUMBER: CPAM 13-002 ITEM TITLE: Solterra Public Hearing: Amend the future land use map contained in the comprehensive plan to change the land use designation on approximately 22.61 acres from Office to Mixed use Regional by Capital Christian Center, Inc. -NEC of E. Fairview Avenue and N. Hickory Way MEETING NOTES Y G ~~ . ~-I~"~.~ CLERKS OFFICE FINAL ACTION DATE: E-MAILED TO STAFF SENT TO AGENCY SENT TO APPLICANT NOTES INITIALS Meridian Planning Zoning Commission Meeting DATE: December 19, 203 ITEM NUMBER: 4B PROJECT NUMBER: RZ 13-015 ITEM TITLE: Solterra Public Hearing: Rezone approximately 22.61 acres from the L-O (Limited Office) zoning district to the C- G (General Retail and Service Comercial) (2.39 acres); L-O (Limited Office) (9.04 acres) and R-15 (Medium High Density Residential) (11.18 acres) zoning districts by Capital Christian Center, Inc. -NEC of E. Fairview Avenue and N. Hickory Way MEETING NOTES 5'e-F f,,. ~~~ L -~ L~ ~y- ~~~< ~~ ~~~,~ ~' ,,,,~ CLERKS OFFICE FINAL ACTION DATE: E-MAILED TO STAFF SENT TO AGENCY SENT TO APPLICANT NOTES INITIALS Meridian Planning Zoning Commission Meeting DATE: December 19, 2013 ITEM NUMBER: 4C PROJECT NUMBER: PP 13-037 ITEM TITLE: Solterra Public Hearing: Preliminary plat approval for three commercial lots, 1 office lot, 93 residential lots and 11 common /other lots on approximately 21.51 acres ina proposed C-G, L-O and R-15 zoning dfistricts by Capital Christian Center, Inc. -NEC of E. Fairview Avenue and N. Hickory Way MEETING NOTES ~`~~~~ ~I~' ,~~ ~'~ CLERKS OFFICE FINAL ACTION DATE: E-MAILED TO STAFF SENT TO AGENCY SENT TO APPLICANT NOTES INITIALS Meridian Planning Zoning Commission Meeting DATE: December 19, 2013 ITEM NUMBER: 4D PROJECT NUMBER: PP 13-012 ITEM TITLE: Centre Point Square Public Hearing: Conditional use permit approval to construct amulti-family development consisting of 68 residential units in an R-15 zoning district by Center Point Square, LLC -west of N. Eagle Road and south of E. Ustick Road MEETING NOTES ~~ CLERKS OFFICE FINAL ACTION DATE: E-MAILED TO STAFF SENT TO AGENCY SENT TO APPLICANT NOTES INITIALS Meridian Planning Zoning Commission Meeting DATE: December 19, 2013 ITEM NUMBER: 4E PROJECT NUMBER: PP 13-012 ITEM TITLE: Centre Point Square Public Hearing: Preliminary plat consisting of 17 multi family buildable lots and 5 common/other lots on approximately 5.28 acres of land in an R-15 zoning district by Center Point Square, LLC -west of N. Eagle Road and south of E. Ustick Road MEETING NOTES a~~ CLERKS OFFICE FINAL ACTION DATE: E-MAILED TO STAFF SENT TO AGENCY SENT TO APPLICANT NOTES INITIALS Meridian Planning Zoning Commission Meeting DATE: December 19, 2013 ITEM NUMBER: 4F PROJECT NUMBER: RZ 13-014 ITEM TITLE: Summertree Subdivision Public Hearing: Rezone approximately 2.64 acres from the R-4 (medium-low residential) zoning district to the R-15 (medium-high density residential) zoning district by Summer Woods, LLC - SWC of W. Cherry Lane and N. Summertree Way MEETING NOTES cv~~ ~a~~'~~,g ~-~~-~~ CLERKS OFFICE FINAL ACTION DATE: E-MAILED TO STAFF SENT TO AGENCY SENT TO APPLICANT NOTES INITIALS Meridian Planning Zoning Commission Meeting DATE: December 19, 2013 ITEM NUMBER: 4G PROJECT NUMBER: PP 13-035 ITEM TITLE: Summertree Subdivision Public Hearing:Preliminary plat of 156 single family residential lots and 1 common lot on approximately 2.30 acres in a proposed R-15 zoning district by Summer Woods, LLC - SWC of W. Cherry Lane and N. Summertree Way MEETING NOTES C~~~~~1'~~~,e -~~-1~- CLERKS OFFICE FINAL ACTION DATE: E-MAILED TO STAFF SENT TO AGENCY 8ENT TO APPLICANT NOTES INITIALS Meridian Planning Zoning Commission Meeting DATE: December 19, 2013 ITEM NUMBER: 4H PROJECT NUMBER: RZ 13-017 ITEM TITLE: Sheryl 4-Plex Public Hearing: Rezone of 0.54 of an acre of alnd from the L-O to the TN-R zoning district by JTC Inc. or Assigns - 3150 W. Sheryl Drive MEETING NOTES ~~~~` ~. ~5~~ ~~'~` 2 I ~~ ~ ~~ CLERKS OFFICE FINAL ACTION DATE: E-MAILED TO STAFF SENT TO AGENCY SENT TO APPLICANT NOTES INITIAL8 Meridian Planning Zoning Commission Meeting DATE: December 19, 203 ITEM NUMBER: 41 PROJECT NUMBER: CPAM 13-003 ITEM TITLE: Da Vinci Park Public Hearing: Amend the future land use map contained in the comp plan to change the future land use designation on 7.76 acres of land from low density residential to medium density residential (6.36 acres) and mixed use neighborhood X1.4 acres) by CS2, LLC - SWC of N. Locust Grove and E. McMillan MEETING NOTES ~p C L S,~ . ~~ Sep ~v,- c/C 1-a~-/~{ CLERKS OFFICE FINAL ACTION DATE: E-MAILED TO STAFF .SENT TO AGENCY SENT TO APPLICANT NOTES INITIALS Meridian Planning Zoning Commission Meeting DATE: December 19, 2013 ITEM NUMBER: 4,1 PROJECT NUMBER: RZ 13-016 ITEM TITLE: Da Vinci Park Public Hearing: Rezone of 2.65 acres of land from the R-4 & R-8 zoning districts to the C-N zoning district; and 6.3 acres of land from the R-4 zoning district to the R-8 zoning district by CS2, LLC - SWC of N. Locust Grove and E. McMillan MEETING NOTES ~~ C~G~~" Q~~~\ LL Sc~ -~.- c~c ~ a-.31 CLERKS OFFICE FINAL ACTION DATE: E-MAILED TO STAFF SENT TO AGENCY SENT TO APPLICANT NOTES INITIALS Meridian Planning Zoning Commission Meeting DATE: December 19, 203 ITEM NUMBER: 4K PROJECT NUMBER: PP 13-036 ITEM TITLE: Da Vinci Park Public Hearing: Preliminary Plat approval consisting of 38 single family residential attached building lots, 1 commercial buildng lot and 8 common/other lots on 7.76 acres of land in the proposed R$ and C-N zoning districts by CS2, LLC - SWC of N. Locust Grove and E. McMillan MEETING NOTES ~~ , ~~ `~~ ~~ C~ ~ S'~~ r~ y~ ~ ~,~ 6L CLERKS OFFICE FINAL ACTION DATE: E-MAILED TO STAFF SENT TO AGENCY SENT TO APPLICANT NOTES INITIALS Meridian Planning Zoning Commission Meeting DATE: December 19, 2013 ITEM NUMBE~t: 4L PROJECT NUMBER: CUP 13-015 ITEM TITLE: Terror Design Studio Public Hearing: Conditional Use Permit approval to operate an indoor recreation facility in an I-L zoning district by Brian Spangler - 760 E. King Street MEETING NOTES ~~~ ~ 5 ~C~ ~ I--I(~-13 ~~ a~~ CLERKS OFFICE FINAL ACTION DATE: E-MAILED TO STAFF SENT TO AGENCY SENT TO APPLICANT NOTE8 INITIAL8