Loading...
2014 01-16Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission _ January 16, 2014 Meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission of January 16, 2014, was called to order at 6:00 p.m. by Chairman Steven Yearsley. Present: Commissioner Steven Yearsley, Commissioner Joe Marshall, Commissioner Michael Rohm, Commissioner Macy Miller and Commissioner Scott Freeman. Others Present: Holly, Ted Baird, Justin Lucas, Sonya Wafters, Bill Parsons, and Dean Willis. Item 1: Roll-Call Attendance: Roll-call X Scott Freeman X Macy Miller X Michael Rohm X Joe Marshall X Steven Yearsley -Chairman Yearsley: Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. At this time I'd like to call to order the regularly scheduled meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning on January 16, 2014. Let's begin with roll call. Item 2: Adoption of the Agenda Yearsley: Thank you. The next item on the agenda is the adoption of the agenda. We have a couple of changes. Action Items B and C, which is RZ 13-014 and PP 13-035, Summertree Subdivision, has been -- the application has been withdrawn. And, then, Items No. F and G, AZ 13-015 and PP 13-030, TM Creek, has been asked to be continued to February 6, 2014. With that can I get a motion to adopt the agenda. Miller: So moved. Freeman: Second. Yearsley: I have a motion and a second to adopt the agenda as amended. All in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carried. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Marshall: Mr. Chair? Yearsley: Commissioner. Marshall: Did we want to move the first item to the end, which would affect the agenda, wouldn't it? Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission January 16, 2014 Page 2 of 29 Freeman: It would. Baird: Mr. Chair, Members, you can actually address that as soon as you get to it and just make a motion to table it until such time as the interpreter is present. Yearsley: Okay. Marshall: Thank you. Yearsley: Thank you. Marshall: And also vote to approve the agenda. Item 3: Consent Agenda A. Approve Minutes of December 19, 2013 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting B. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: 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 1-L Zoning District Yearsley: Okay. Next item on the agenda is the Consent Agenda and on that we have the meeting minutes for December 13, 2013, Planning and Zoning Commission meeting and the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law of approval of CUP 13-015, Terror Design Studios. Can I get a motion to approve the Consent Agenda? Freeman: So moved. Marshall: Second. Yearsley: I have a motion and a second to approve the Consent Agenda. All in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Yearsley: We were supposed to have an interpreter for Action Item A, the public hearing for Falconers Place, and we are going to table that and move it to the end of the agenda items until the -- so the interpreter can get here. Item 4: Action Items B. Continued Public Hearing from December 19, 2013: RZ 13-014 Summertree Subdivision by Summer Woods, LLC Located Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission January 16, 2014 Page 3 of 29 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 C. Continued Public Hearing from December 19, 2013: 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 Yearsley: So, with that can I get a motion to acknowledge the withdraw of RZ 13-014 and PP 13-035, Summertree Subdivision? Marshall: Mr. Chair? Yearsley: Go ahead. Marshall: Mr. Chair, I move that we acknowledge that. Miller: Second. Yearsley: I have a motion and a second to acknowledge the withdraw. All in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. F. Continued Public Hearing from December 5, 2013: AZ 13-015 TM Creek by SCS Brighton, LLC Located Southeast Corner of W. Franklin Road and S. Ten Mile Road Request: Annexation and Zoning of 45.34 Acres of Land with C-G (34.82 acres), R-40 (3.94 Acres) and TN-C (5.58 Acres) Zoning Districts G. Continued Public Hearing from December 5, 2013: PP 13-030 TM Creek by SCS Brighton, LLC Located Southeast Corner of W. Franklin Road and S. Ten Mile Road Request: Preliminary Plat Approval Consisting of Forty-Nine (49) Building Lots and Three (3) Common/Other Lots on 41.03 Acres of Land in the Proposed C-G, R-40 and TN-C Zoning Districts Yearsley: And at this time I'm going to actually open the public hearing of AZ 13-015 and PP 13-030, TM Creek, for the sole purpose of continuing that to the February 6th, 2014, meeting. Can I get a motion to continue that? Freeman: So moved. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission January 16, 2014 Page 4 of 29 Marshall: Second. Yearsley: I have a motion and a second to continue AZ 13-015 and PP 13-030 to February 6, 2014. All in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. E. Public Hearing: CUP 13-016 ACHD Park and Ride Lot by Ada County Highway District (ACHD) Located Southeast Corner of W. Overland Road and S. Ten Mile Road Request: Conditional Use Permit for aPublic/Quasi-Public Use in the R-8 Zoning District Yearsley: Kind of mixing things up a little bit. I am going to open Action Item E, the CUP 13-016, the ACHD Park and Ride Lot by Ada County Highway District and let's begin with the staff report. Wafters: Thank you, Chairman Yearsley, Members of the Commission. The next application before you is a request for a conditional use permit. This site consists of 2.5 acres of land, currently zoned R-8, and is located at the southeast corner of South Ten Mile Road and West Overland Road. Adjacent land uses and zoning. To the north is vacant land, zoned C-C. To the south is residential property, zoned RUT in Ada County. To the east is vacant land, zoned R-4. And to the west is South Ten Mile Road and rural residential agricultural property, zoned RUT in Ada County. This property was annexed in 2007 as part of the larger Southridge development. A conditional use permit is requested to construct an ACHD Park and Ride Lot in an R-8 zoning district. The UDC requires a conditional use permit for public, quasi-public uses in the R-8 district. The purpose of the facility is allow commuters of the surrounding area access to alternative modes of transit via car pooling, van pooling, and/or bus service. A landscape plan was submitted that depicts a 35 foot wide street buffer along Overland, an entryway corridor and arterial street and a 25 foot wide buffer along Ten Mile, an arterial street. Parking lot landscaping is depicted. All landscaping on the site is required to comply with the standards listed in UDC 11-3B. One access to the site is proposed by Overland Road, which you see here. A 30 foot wide potential future connection is shown to the east boundary. Storm drainage will be contained in storm water basins. Black vinyl coated chain link fencing with dense landscaping is proposed along the southern boundary of the site as a buffer to the residential property. The comprehensive plan future land use map designation for this property is civic, consistent with the proposed use. Written testimony has been submitted by Tim Mokwa in response to the staff report. Tim did have one concern about the pressurized irrigation requirement, that the development provide underground pressurized irrigation water in accord with the UDC requirements. City domestic water is only allowed to be used if the property does not have water rights in an existing irrigation district. The applicant is proposing water conserving landscaping within this project and because of that would like to be allowed to use city water, since the amount they would be using would be very Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission January 16, 2014 Page 5 of 29 little. Anyway, the applicant will speak to that in their -- in their presentation. Staff is okay with modifying condition number 2.1 under Public Works Department to say the development shall provide underground PI in accord with the UDC or as otherwise approved, if you should want to modify that condition. Staff is recommending approval of the proposed conditional use permit with conditions. Staff will stand for any questions Commission may have. Yearsley: Thank you. Are there any questions? Marshall: Mr. Chair? So, the condition on the development agreement; right? Wafters: No. Just conditions of approval of the conditional use permit. Marshall: Okay. On the CUP were as approved by -- Wafters: Staff. Marshall: By staff. All right. Wafters: Actually, it would be the city engineer. Excuse me. Marshall: All right. Thank you. Yearsley: Any other questions? Would the applicant like to come forward? Mokwa: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, my name is Tim Mokwa, I'm with KM Engineering, 9233 State Street, Garden City, representing ACHD on this application. As Sonya mentioned, you know, we have been working together on this and we really don't have any issues with the -- the recommended conditions of approval, with the exception of the PI issue. I don't know that this Commission has the ability or -- you know, that's what we were discussing before was the -- does the Commission in this forum have the ability to waive a condition that's -- that's, basically, part of the UDC. We would like to request that -- as Sonya had mentioned, that we -- we include a little bit of flex language in there at the end that -- or as approved by the city engineer, because we'd like to take this issue up a little further and I would like to get a couple of our concerns about this particular application and how it relates to using PI, just for your consideration and it might be something that the city would like to address at some point. The site was designed using not necessarily LID or low impact development standards, but particular care was taken with the landscape to -- to design a drought tolerant landscape and using only native materials, some materials that have a very low water use. This is somewhat of a test project for the highway district in that they haven't used this type of a design before and they'd like to have -- you know, if it's successful they'd like to use it in more places, because the whole intent is, again, low water use and low maintenance. Some of the -- some of the justification, I guess, for our request on relaxing this condition. Again, we are proposing -- we are proposing an irrigation system, but our only connection would be the city metered water and irrigation Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission January 16, 2014 Page 6 of 29 system that we would be proposing is a low volume, subsurface drip irrigation system. The sprinklers would only be intended to provide periodic irrigation during the first two years, just to help that plant material get establish and after that only occasionally during extreme heat or drought situations. Using city water -- metered city water, as opposed to ditch water for this site, has three major advantages for the project. One being ACHD's limited maintenance. availability. They -- if it were ditch water they would be responsible for coming out, opening, closing gates. One of their big responsibilities for -- particularly for a low volume drip system would be cleaning their filters. Otherwise, the algae and sediment and silt from the ditch -- it's just not going to work. It doesn't typically work real well with low volume drip. We plug the holes and, then, when you do need the water you don't necessarily know it, because it's subsurface, until plants start dying. So, the second issue or second way in which using metered water would help is this being a test project for ACHD, being able to monitor the specific amount of water you're using and being able to track that against the health of the plant material really could help them set it up for future sites as well. And I mentioned a little bit about this, but with a low volume, low flow, drip system the algae and the silt, even with a high level of screening we -- these things are prone to failure, particularly on one like this that's -- it's not going to be running regularly, it's going to be pretty intermittent when that system comes on and off, just as, you know, some observed plant stress is going on. The city does require in all commercial developments that we calculate the common area for purposes of issuing an assessment on irrigation water. So, in other words, your -- you may have a pressurized system using ditch water, but you do across-connection with city metered .water for the purposes of watering these commercial development common areas and buffers in shoulder seasons where the irrigation water is not available. And then -- and this project even with city water as its only source of irrigation would only use a fraction of what that typical commercial site would use in the shoulder seasons. You know, staff recommends that we seek a waiver with the city engineer, but a waiver is only granted in the event that -- as code is written currently a waiver is only granted in the event that the irrigation district provides a letter stating that we don't have a water right. Well, it seems confusing to me that you would -- there is a provision for a waiver if don't have a water right, where if you don't have a water right it's basically impossible to provide pressurized irrigation. So, that's where I was discussing and I think Sonya discussed this a little bit with Caleb maybe that there should be some provision in the code for addressing this, particularly as we are looking at more low impact and drought tolerant types of developments where you can mitigate those negative effects of using treated potable water by using a fraction of the water, which is what -- what we are proposing here. So, again, I don't know that this is the correct forum or if there is even the ability to waive a UDC requirement, but our request would be -- I guess there is three options that we would request. One would be, as Sonya said, to add language that -- or as approved by staff. Our second -- our request or our preference short of that would be that that condition be waived and that this Commission, if possible, could grant us a waiver. I don't know that that's possible, but that's what I was talking to Sonya about beforehand and it -- I suppose it doesn't hurt to ask. And, thirdly, if you don't agree or don't feel that it's appropriate at this time, we would recommend that the conditions be approved as is and we can address that issue Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission January 16, 2014 Page 7 of 29 with the city engineer. So, is that clear? I hope that's clear on my -- the three -- three levels that -- I guess the fourth level is denial, but we certainly hope you don't go there. Yearsley: Thank you. Mokwa: I can answer questions. Yearsley: Are there any questions of the applicant? Freeman: I have one. I'm familiar with xeriscapes. That's not quite what you're proposing, though, is it? Can you describe the difference between what you're proposing and a xeriscape that virtually requires no water? Mokwa: Commissioner Freeman, I -- you know, I think there is -- there are xeriscapes that they will say take no water, but any plant material to survive through some of our 105 degree extended periods of drought and wind and -- are going to require some water, you know. Unless you're planting all sagebrush and gravel. So, you know, what we are proposing is going to require some water during the first couple seasons, just to get that root mat established and -- but all the plant material we have selected, particularly -- this site is particularly good for them. They are used to windier sites, exposed sites, lots of sun and dry --dry conditions. I hope that answers your question. Freeman: Yeah. Thank you. Yearsley: Any other questions? Thank you. Mokwa: Thank you. Yearsley: I don't have anybody signed up for this public hearing. Is there anybody wishing to testify? Marshall: Mr. Chair? Yearsley: Commissioner Freeman. Or Marshall. Sorry. Marshall: That's all right. I move that we close the public hearing on CUP 13-016. Miller: I second that. Yearsley: I have a motion and a second to close the public hearing on CUP 13-016. All in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Baird: Mr. Chair? Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission January 16, 2014 Page 8 of 29 Yearsley: Yes. Baird: If I could take a moment to respond to the request to waive the condition. I'm sure this Commission understands that you don't have the ability to do that, but I wanted to make clear to the applicant that that remedy does lie within the City Council to change the ordinance and that's why we proposed the language change to get the approval and allow them that opportunity to go seek that change if they so desire or work something out with the city engineer. So, that's the legal framework for accomplishing what they are -- what they are seeking. Yearsley: Thank you. Any comments? Marshall: Mr. Chair, I do. Yearsley: Commissioner Marshall. Marshall: Just a couple quick -- a little bit of a slippery slope when we start approving properties without the pressurized irrigation and there is a good reason for requiring the pressurized irrigation, because we don't want to be treating water and having to treat it and it becomes a tax on the system and I love this design. I think it's a great location. Everything is positive, except for I do worry about the water and as explained this is an experiment and if the experiment goes array and it doesn't -- it isn't able to work and they have to put in different landscaping, then, we are going to be watering that with potable water. Again, as explained, we don't have the ability to waive that. But I'm torn -- even if we did I would be torn as to whether or not to do that, because I think this is a great project, would love to see it go forward and I'm not sure, you know, is there a possibility that in the future, as other pieces of property develop, could they hook onto another pressurized irrigation system close by, you know, and pay some small fee -- monthly fee to be able to have that. I don't know. But, again, that's not ours to figure out. I'm glad to hear that. And so I do appreciate the language that was placed in there, giving some flexibility, because I do like that project. I mean it's well done and -- and I'm excited to see it go forward and that's it. Yearsley: Thank you. Any other comments? Miller: Mr. Chair? Yearsley: Commissioner Miller. Miller: I second the same concern. However, I do think it's a good idea to include the language just because of the potential this has. Really, this sort of landscaping has been fairly successful and that's why ACHD is looking at doing it potentially down the line. If they can get a baseline here, it's something successful, it could save, you know, a lot more burden down the line. So, it is a great project. I'm in favor of it. Yearsley: Thank you. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission January 16, 2014 Page 9 of 29 Freeman: Mr. Chair. I think Mr. Mokwa -- he articulated very well the reasons for the request and I can tell that a lot of thought went into designing the landscape, so that you wouldn't need regular irrigation. I applaud that. As it's been stated, of course, we can't grant the waiver, but I am -- I am in favor of changing the language so that there can be some flexibility in dealing with that. We focused on -- we focused on the irrigation primarily and that's really the only issue here I think is it looks like a well designed project and well landscaped. I like the landscape design as well. So, I'm in favor of the project and I have no issue changing that language. And, then, take it up with City Council and see what can happen and perhaps we need to consider some sort of exceptions in the UDC in the future to allow for creatively designed landscape that minimize the need for irrigation water of any kind. Yearsley: Thank you. So, I, too, agree that I think this is a good project and so we -- you know, I think it needs to be moved forward and with that I would entertain a motion. Freeman: Mr. Chair, after considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, what there was of it, I move to approve file number CUP 13-016 as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of January 16th, 2014, with the following modification: That the conditional -- the condition 2.1 language be changed to include -- to replace the end of that sentence with as -- or as otherwise approved by the city engineer. Hopefully that's clear enough. Yearsley: Okay. Marshall: Second. Yearsley: I have a motion and a second to approve -- approve CUP 13-016. All in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries. Thank you. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. A. Public Hearing: PP 13-039 Falconers Place by Falcon Drive Meridian, LLC Located Southeast Corner of E. Falcon Drive and S. Eagle Road Request: Preliminary Plat Approval Consisting of Two (2) Residential Lots and One (1) Common Lot on Approximately 4.69 Acres in an R-8 Zoning District Yearsley: As I see in the audience we do have our interpreter here, so at this time would like to open the public hearing for PP 13-039, Falconers Place, and let's begin with the staff report. Parsons: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. The next item on the agenda is the Falconers Place Subdivision. It's currently located on the east side of South Eagle Road, just west of East Victory Road -- or, excuse me, just south of East Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission January 16, 2014 Page 10 of 29 Victory Road. It's currently zone R-8 within the city and it's approximately 4.69 acres of land. This project was before you, annexed -- received annexation and zoning in 2005. At the time that that project came before you the applicant was proposing an assisted living facility on the site. Through their annexation request they did ask for a step up in density as allowed under the Comprehensive Plan to step it up from an R-4 -- R-2, R-4 zone up to the R-8 district and the main reason for that zoning district was because an assisted living facility is not allowed within the R-4 -- R-2 and R-4 zone. So, at that time under the current UDC, in order to get an assisted living out there -- or at least on this property consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, they would have to go through a conditional use permit in the R-8 zone and that's -- those were the approvals that were in place at the time that they came forward. As you can see, the surrounding developments -- the city is encroaching on some of this area quite rapidly. Currently to the west we do have a mixed use development -- at least a residential mixed use development, which has some four-plexes near the intersection and, then, transitions to single family lots. Across the street on the -- north of this site we do have a commercial node here that is planned for commercial development, is currently valid with the city as well. There is a remnant -- a five acre piece within the city -- or within the county still that was platted as the Golden Eagle Estates Subdivision and, then, recently the Council did approve a final plat for the Carmel Subdivision, which in this instance this property is currently zoned R-4 and it's platted with densities less than three units to the acre consistent with that land use designation on this property. And, then, as you can see along the west boundary of this site we do have a piece of property that's currently a five acre sliver that is also within the city limits, zoned R-4 currently. And, then, to the south is the Dartmoor Subdivision, which is a county subdivision, and these consist of three-quarter to one acre lot sizes and, then, also to the west we have the Tuscany Subdivision, which, again, is a mixed use development, which has alley loaded product, as well as traditional single family homes. So, in looking at the surrounding area here you can see what the applicant's trying to do here is mimic what was typically approved and allowed within the area as well. As I mentioned to you, the FLUM does designate this property as low density residential. You can see primarily on the east side of Eagle Road most of that development is at the low density standards at this point. As mentioned to you earlier, the west side of the street is currently medium density, although it's not developed at that density that was allowed at the time. Most of the development in the surrounding area, as I mentioned to you, is four acres -- four units to the acre or less. So, for purposes of this application staff has to evaluate the project based on the underlining zoning of the property and, then, take into account the surrounding developments and how this would melt into this or be consistent with that surrounding development and I think we have laid that context out with -- for you in the staff report as well. So, here is the preliminary plat the applicant is proposing. Again, it consists of two buildable lots. One of those lots is currently developed with an existing single family home that will remain with the development of the project. The one larger lot will consist of 36 townhome units and, then, there is a requirement for a common lot along South Eagle Road moving forward. Because this is a single family townhome development access needs to be provided from a local street. With the subdivision improvements the applicant is required to extend this public street into the site and terminate it as a cul-de-sac. The existing home will remain taking access from East Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission January 16, 2014 Page 11 of 29 Falcon Drive moving forward and, then, all of the townhome un-its will take access to the local street to a reciprocal cross-access shared parking agreement. In this particular case you can see how each one of these are -- there is internal driveways to serve these developments. I would mention to you that the applicant has submitted alternative compliance requests. Typically with our single family developments we do require a two car garage and a 20 by 20 parking pad in front of those garages. In this particular instance the applicant is requesting alternative compliance for a couple reasons. First of all, they want to provide more open space. than what you typically see in a residential development. By reducing that parking pad it allows them to narrow up their common drives and provide more passive common open space throughout the development. And typically with your townhome developments you have garage parking and you don't typically see the parking pads as well. So, in lieu of providing the parking pads the applicant has provided overflow parking for each one of the townhome nodes, if you will, at the end of these driveways.. Staff did have concerns with the southeast corner here and here is a blown up graphic. In my staff report I did recommend -- request the applicant provide an exhibit on how parking could be increased in that area. This is the exhibit that I have before you. You can see that they have definitely increased the parking, redesigned that slightly. They don't have the six required parking stalls that we requested in the staff report, but by adding the parking central to the node they were able to increase the area here and provide us some additional parking in front of the townhome units here. So, they have actually added more parking than what staff had required or recommended in the staff report. We are in agreement with this proposal as well. As I mentioned to you because of the increased open space and because this development is under five acres in size, the applicant has no requirement for providing ten percent open space. The only required landscaping is the 25 foot wide landscape buffer along South Eagle Road here. Because of the reduced parking on the site the applicant is able to develop -- the plan that you see here is approximately 2.74 acres of open space. Like the previous application, this property is unable to have sufficient surface water to landscape -- or water -- irrigate the development, so they, too, are also seeking city engineer's approval for domestic water to irrigate. In that particular instance ACHD is doing more of a drought tolerant -- planting xeriscape. You can see here with 2.74 acres of sod and trees it's -- it's going to be a lot of -- a huge burden on future -- future homeowners to irrigate the development. I know the engineer is looking to what they can do as far as providing a secondary source out here, but for right now we have crafted a condition that they provide the PI -- provide us a letter that the irrigation district cannot serve this property and that, ultimately, it will come down to City Council and city engineer on how they want this to be irrigated moving forward. So, here is the proposed elevations before you this evening. All of the buildings are meant -- are of a similar design. There will be multiple color schemes out there as conditioned in the staff report. You can see here that the -- each unit will be attached three units per building. There is a mix of stone wainscot, vertical siding, cedar siding, decorative corbels. One other item I would like to point out as far as this design as well is you can see that it's not a true two story method of shared walls, at least along the perimeter of the site. You can see that second story actually is stepped in a little bit, so it is to emulate more of the single family homes that you see in the area. So, from the street if you didn't go internal to the Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission January 16, 2014 Page 12 of 29 development you could definitely see that this could look like a large single family home development out there and certainly moving forward the applicant would have to come back through CZC and design review approval to make sure that they comply with these elevations. Because this -- one thing that I failed to mention was when this site was annexed into the city there was a development agreement required with the annexation. Moving forward the applicant does have to seek City Council approval of that DA modification. Currently this property is restricted to the assisted living facility use. So, in your recommendation tonight if you feel strongly or support the proposed development this evening, I would encourage Commission to support Council on modifying that development agreement to change that language in the DA that -- restricting the use from the assisted living facility and allowing them to move forward with the townhome development. We do have that language in the staff report restricting the use of the site to no -- the 35 townhome units and a single family home. So, I at least wanted to get that on the table. We did receive some written testimony in opposition of this application. The primary concerns were really the density. The use. I believe you have that written testimony in your packet and it identifies -- I think in those letters you can see they basically have turned to you as the recommending body to look at those past approvals. They have highlighted what was approved on the site as far as an assisted living facility and how it is tied to the development agreement. So, it is the staffs recommendation, based on our DA provisions in the staff report, that we have addressed the neighborhood concerns. We are tying the applicant to the plan as shown this evening. We are tying into the uses and the density that they are proposing. The plan before you this evening is roughly 7.87 units to the acre, so it is a little bit denser than the surrounding development, but because there is a roadmap only for this development, there is greater setbacks along the perimeter. The design emulates the single family developments in the area. Staff believes that we have everything locked into place as far as recommended DA provisions. We find that the site does comply with the UDC and the Comprehensive Plan and, therefore, we are recommending approval for this before you this evening and I'd stand for any questions you have. Yearsley: Thank you. Are any questions at this time? Would the applicant like to come forward? Bailey: Good evening, Chairman, Commissioners. My name is Laren Bailey. My work address is 3023 East Copperpoint Drive, Meridian, Idaho. 83642. Again, I'd like to thank you for hearing our application this evening and I'd like to thank staff for all their help. I'd also like to introduce the developer David Alexander, who is here tonight. If there are any questions for him he would be glad to answer them as well. I think Mr. Parsons did a great job explaining the project, so I'm not going to regurgitate a whole bunch of information for you again. I would like to point out a couple items. First off, just to make things clear, this is a different developer than who was proposing the assisted living -- assisted living prior. That project fell through and Mr. Alexander since purchased the property. I'd like to talk about that this is an in-fill development. It really is surrounded by other developed properties and so, you know, part of the Comprehensive Plan and city's goal says to fill in these spaces and develop. So, that's one of the issues that we wanted to talk about tonight. The other thing is that in the Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission January 16, 2014 Page 13 of 29 Comprehensive Plan, you know, it talks about getting a diversity of housing products within the city and we feel that -- we feel that this is a good way to do that. These are a different type of housing products than is in the neighborhood, they are not your stacked four-plex apartments, it's somewhere in between that and a single family. We are going have, you know, where you have got atwo-car garage, you have got more of a single family type living, but we are able to achieve a little higher density and have that extra open space. So, it's not congested, we are not adding, you know, a lot of congestion here, we are just -- we have got the open space, we have got the -- the tighter housing units to add that diversity to the area. The other thing is the quality of building materials. The type of building materials, as you can see from the rendering, it's going to be a high quality product. It's going to be very nice. There is going to be a lot of amenities here, a lot of landscaping, a very nice project. Another issue about the parking is the CC&Rs are going to require people to park in their garage. It's not going to be a storage unit attached to their house, it's going to have to park their cars in their garage, so that, you know, we don't have cars parked all over the place. Leave everything open so people can get in and out easily. Again, the landscaping is all going to be maintained by the HOA and so you're not going to have separate lawns, did this guy water his lawn, did that guy mow, did -- you know, you're not going to have those issues. It's all going to be maintained by one group and not only will that help keep the area nice, but it will also increase the property values in that area, because it's going to be taken care of, there is not going to be any question on whether the plantings or trees need replaced, things like that, that's all going to be taken care of. Landscaping will be watered accordingly. want to point out that this project is close to employment opportunities and we feel that that's why some of the density here is warranted. You know, you're close to -- we are on Eagle Road, we are close to Eagle and Overland and all the employment opportunities there. We are close to city services -- or to city services. So, from an in- fill standpoint we think it makes a lot of sense this density in this area. I think -- I think that pretty much covers the comments I wanted to make tonight. If there is any questions -- I mean if you have with me or the developer we will stand for those now. Yearsley: Are there any questions? Freeman: No. Yearsley: I have one. I'm assuming that these are going to be rentals; is that not correct? Bailey: Well, we are actually going to condo them, so some of them probably will be rentals, but they will be available for -- for purchase. Yearsley: For purchase. Okay. And that's what I was just kind of curious with that, so -- all right. Rohm: I had a question, Mr. Chairman. Could you speak to the irrigation for a bit here, please? Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission January 16, 2014 Page 14 of 29 Bailey: Yeah. I'm working with the Boise Project Board of Control currently. This area -- we do have water delivery, but from what I'm understanding it's on a rotation and the amount of water we are getting and the type of rotation can make it difficult to have a full-time system. So, we are working with them to try and understand when we do have water could we utilize it at that period and, then, use city water maybe in between to offset that. So, we are working through that right now. My understanding is the assisted living that was proposed before in talking with Boise Project Board of Control is they -- they weren't going to use the irrigation water at all, their plan was to use city water as well, because of the -- the difficulty in receiving the water. So, we are working through that. We will definitely work with the city engineer to make sure we are, you know, doing the best we can to utilize what water is available. Yearsley: Any other questions? Thank you very much. Bailey: Thank you. Yearsley: I have on here David Alexander. I'm assuming you don't want to -- or do you want to come up and testify as well? Okay. Bradley Turner. Would you like to come forward? And I failed to mention this before. Each individual will be given three minutes to speak. If you're speaking for a larger group and there is a show of hands of who you're speaking for, you will be given up to ten minutes, so -- and, then, if you would, please, state your name and address for the record, please. Turner: Certainly. Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. My name is Brady Turner. I live at 3678 South Caleb Place in Meridian. 83642. I worked with The Cottages on the original proposed development of this community. We -- the neighboring property owners did have some concerns about the development that was proposed at the assisted living facility, but in working with them we came to the conclusion that the single story building units that they were proposing and the fact that this was an assisted living facility would have minimal impact on traffic during rush hour and that it would be acceptable within the lower density housing that's in this area of the -- of the city and as was previously mentioned, the R-8 zoning was only done because of the use of the assisted living facility. That facility, as a result, as previously noted, that development has gone belly up and the original developer is in default of the development agreement. I would like to point out to you a couple of paragraphs from that original development agreement that states Section 7 states: Compliance or -- or consent to rezone. This agreement and the commitments contained herein shall be terminated and the zoning designated reversed upon default of the owner. The Section 8, consent to de-annex and reverse all the zoning designations states: Owner developer consents on default to reversal of the zoning designation of the property, subject to and conditioned on the following conditions precedent to wit: That the city provide written notice of any failure to comply with the agreement to the owner- developer and that the owner-developer shall secure -- failure within six months of. Now, both of these conditions have occurred. It seems to me that the -- the developer is in default. The development agreement should be terminated and that the zoning should be restored back to the original RUT zoning of the county and, therefore, based Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission January 16, 2014 Page 15 of 29 upon that the intent of the city that was clearly established in the development agreement, we feel that the R-8 zoning and the benefit of this project is not compatible with the intended use of this property. So, based upon that we are asking the Planning and Zoning to -- the planning board to reject the applicants and follow up on the original intent of the development agreement and restore the original zoning of this property. Thank you for your time. Yearsley: Thank you. Is it Theresa Turner? Would you like to -- okay. A Lindell Timothy. Okay. Just so -- for the record you are against this project as well. Harold Krusinski. Would you like to come forward? Again, name and address for the record. Krusinski: Good evening, Mr. Chairman, Commissioners. Harold Krusinski, 3475 East Falcon Drive. We own the property at the cul-de-sac at the end of Falcon. We have some similar thoughts that Brady had. We -- I don't know that we were tricked necessarily. However, we feel that the original intent was that particular development, the fairly low amount of traffic flow in and out -- we would have residents, employees, and visitors, but not 36 families coming and going all day to work, rush hour. We are on a fairly rural road and having that density at the end of the road I think is going to create an even bigger mess than we already have, because they are not far from the Victory- Eagle intersection and it's pretty hard to get out of there now and with the whole stream of cars coming out I think that's going to be more than we bargained for when we, you know, kind of agreed to the previous development plan, which seemed like it would be fairly low impact at the time and, as Brady stated, it does sound like -- and we were led to believe if for some reason that fell through we would go back a lower density development if one were to take its place. So, certainly I think the 36 units in there is probably more than we can handle and, actually, if you look at the proximity of Falcon Road to the Victory-Eagle intersection, that's probably not what normally would be approved these days anyway, except for the jog in the road, Falcon Drive might make more sense to line up with the Falcon Drive on the other side -- on the west side of Eagle for that other small subdivision over there. And I speak for myself and my wife Shawntelle that we -- we have a lower medium density around us and we would certainly like to keep it a little bit more rural as long as possible, so I guess that's all I really have on that respect, so -- Yearsley: Thank you. Krusinski: You're welcome. Thank you for your time. Yearsley: Next up is Rex Cook. Would you like to come forward? Cook: My name is Rex Cook. 3691 South Caleb Place. 83642. I'm not sure I have much more to add, other than maybe just the intent of the height of the -- the buildings that will be right butting up next to the subdivision that we -- we currently are residents of and understand that the density seems to kind of go from a really low density to now a very high density proposal and so we'd just kind of like to reiterate and appreciate you taking the time to listen to this and that's all I have to say. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission January 16, 2014 Page 16 of 29 Yearsley: Thank you. Tammy Cook. Would you like to come forward? Okay. And just for the record you're against this as well. And, then, last I have is Bob Aldridge. Aldridge: Mr. Chairman, to start I do represent a number of people here. I'm also a homeowner. I'm at 3300 Falcon and in the past I have been before this Commission a number of times on surrounding projects before the City Council, so if possible I would like to ask for the ten minutes and there is a number of people I think that would raise their hand who I am representing their interest, if that's possible. Yearsley: That would be fine. Aldridge: Okay. Thank you. Looking at the -- I will do my best to use this technology, but I will probably mess it up. My home is the home right here and (have -- Yearsley: You need to press the button at the top, I believe. Aldridge: Okay. I just mainly want to be able to indicate points. Okay. This is my property. I have been there since 1985 and originally all of this was the Golden Eagle, all five to six plus acre development. During the time period since then we have had a number of surrounding developments. In each of those I have worked with those and we have been able to work out problems and have been very cooperative and we have been able to rationally solve all of those and, for example, over here in this area there are a few things you need to know. First of all, that's a very deep hole. From street level that goes down approximately 20 feet to the actual level of the ground there and that, with the surrounding fence, means that that -- those of the high density area -- very protected. You simply don't see it. It is out of sight. I did work with ACHD and that developer to move what they originally said was gong to be the entrance street here, which would have been a traffic disaster down to this area here. That is the area in which this drops off rapidly. There is quite a dip there. And that's a real problem and traffic coming out of here -- the reason we moved that was so the traffic here could look to the south and see things coming. When we come out on this area Eagle Road is a two lane road. There is no center turn lane. I had a talk with ACHD. This was on their 20 years plan forever. They have no current plans to widen that two lanes -- past the two lanes. Currently when I come out in the morning, if I'm lucky the stop sign -- stop light up here is stopped, the traffic is stopped and if the people are nice I may be able to get in. If traffic is moving it's a tremendous problem due to the fact that that's a 40 mile an hour zone out there, people are going 40 miles an hour and you have that dip to the south where when you're looking down there -- when you start out traffic can pop over that and they are on top of you immediately. Second, when you're coming south through this that is now a green light that turns from two lanes north of that intersection into one lane and so all of that southbound traffic is down to a single lane of traffic and that's the high point. And so down here is out of sight until you have cleared that crest and when I'm here waiting to turn in there is only one lane and I'm occupying that lane and we have had traffic have to go around us -- we had one that went in and screeched into the ditch and barely missed a telephone pole, et cetera. It's a major major traffic Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission January 16, 2014 Page 17 of 29 problem. And if you now add that kind of density of traffic coming out I don't know, frankly, how it's going to work. It's already a huge mess there for traffic and this is simply going to make it much much worse. And that there is no way to cure it. The problem is that this has a single entrance onto a very small road that was designed back in 1979. At the time there was no freeway exit. Eagle Road was a tiny two-lane road that I used to joke I could go out and lay down in the middle of it and lay there for two hours without worrying that the only one to come by would be a farmer. Now Eagle Road is full of traffic. We have the roundabout down at the end that generate traffic speeds coming up through. We have Tuscany, we have all the other developments to the south dumping out onto Eagle Road and heading north and in the mornings and evenings that traffic is simply something you cannot navigate coming up and the second thing is that, again, when Gerrald first brought up that project about the assisted living, we worked with them, we thought it was an excellent project and I thought it was great to have some assisted living in that area. It was low density. I work around those areas, I know what kind of traffic would come from that. I thought it was excellent. But also said that when the day came my driveway went right down to their driveway and I could just get in my wheelchair and go down into the assisted living unit. This situation could be drastically different than that. If you look at that plan and you see there is footage of those, it is massive, that is highly dense. Everything else around here is four to the acre -- that's four to the acre and under and mostly under. The ones that are higher are shielded. Carmel Subdivision we worked with them to have large lots on the edge, to have fences and so forth and screen all of that. Attempting to put that amount of mass there is going to totally change the look of the area. It is not compatible in terms of the density, because you have 36 units there on four acres. This area here at the corner I donated my frontage to ACRD, hoping that they would be able to put in some kind of sidewalk or whatever, because that's where school kids -- on the corner of our property we have a little building they can stay in and so forth and right now there is nothing but mud and a ton of traffic out in front. These units are realistically going to have children. How many we don't know and I don't know where they are going to go. If you try to have the school bus stopping at that intersection you're going to have real problems. You don't want them trying to cross that road -- having school children cross to the other side where there is more room to stop isn't going to work. There is no crossing guard. There is no space for that. None of those problems can be solved. As much as in the past I tried to work with developers and realize that even though they impact me, even though, as I have said before, everybody will go away and it was still 1979 again, that's not going to happen. But we have to have rational development. We have to have things that will work in terms of traffic. We have to have things that will work in terms of compatibility with the neighborhood and when I'm sitting here looking out my front door I'm going to see a huge mass of property. From my viewpoint that's going to be solid. Those are two story and even though the ends may be slightly down, they are two story. They are large and they fill the vast majority of that property, especially visually. Number two, any traffic coming out of here there is only two options. Go this way onto Eagle, virtually impossible. They come down here and try to wind their way through, come out eventually up here on Overland Road, along with all the units that Carmel -- that subdivision has and any left turn is going to be almost impossible. I don't know how they get back to Eagle Road. Right turn outs are about the only thing Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission January 16, 2014 Page 18 of 29 they are going to be able to do. So, if this is approved you're going to be creating a traffic problem in perpetuity. I'm going to be meeting with ACHD to talk about something to do with this area, but realistically staff assures me it's not going to happen. Center turn .lane, no place to put it. And so I just don't see how we can do this. And I, again, agree -- back to the time that we did this with Gerrald my clear understanding was -- and as an attorney I looked at that pretty thoroughly -- that if he couldn't get his assisted living units in -- this was solely for the R-8, this was going to go away and we would be able to start over again with that low density and so I think that it is, in a sense, a bate and switch, that we now are suddenly looking at piggybacking that technical requirement for the R-8 that wasn't really meant to be an R-8, now turning into a true R-8 with heavy density without being able to change the surrounding houses, surrounding traffic, and all those other situations. So, for those reasons reluctantly have to oppose this vehemently. I would be happy to answer any questions. Yearsley: Are there any questions? Thank you. Aldridge: Thank you. Yearsley: I don't have anybody else signed up. Is there anybody else who would like to come forward on this application? Please come forward. And, please, state your name and address for the record. Thomas-Mowery: Good evening. Holly Thomas-Mowery. 3295 Falcon Drive, Meridian. 83642. My property is the little notched out property that you see, that little point .502 acre lot. My family and I have lived there since 2008. When we bought our property in 2008 we were told that the current developer, which is at that point Maxfield Subdivision, was going to be an assisted living facility and because of that it was zoned R-8, but it was for that purpose and that when that was put in that our property would be fenced and that our property would be brought onto city sewer and water. Well, that development went away and, then, this newer development option came about and we weren't involved to know that was it supposed to revert back to R-1 or 2. We didn't know about that part. We just thought, oh, well, this is what it has to be, let's be in favor of this, because now we get a really nice fence, we get to get city sewer and city water. After learning that it may not be right what's happening, it may not be that this new property developer gets to continue on with the R-8 zoning, if that's the case and that's our understanding that that's the case, we are not in favor of 36 houses directly in our front yard and directly to the left of our house. So, that's directly to our west and to our south. It wraps around half of our home. Well, all of the front of our home and all of the side of our home. And so because of that we are against this much congestion when have got horses and a five acre lot and a nice family behind us, we have got a nice half acre lot -- sure, we don't mind it being developed at some point if that's in the cards and it's according to zoning, that's fine, but we want it to revert back to the original zoning. Thank you. Yearsley: Thank you. Is there anybody else that would like to come forward? Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission January 16, 2014 Page 19 of 29 Freeman: I think you have one more. Yearsley: Yeah. Go ahead. Come forward. State your name and address for the record. Mowery: Okay. Hello. My name is -- I am Golden Mowery. I live at 3295 Falcon Drive and I ask the Planning and Zoning Commission to deny the 12 tri-plexes or 36 residences in front and on the side of our home. Thank you for your consideration. That is all I have to say. Yearsley: Thank you. Is there anybody else? Would the applicant like to come forward and comment? Bailey: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Again, Laren Bailey for the applicant. Just wanted to cover a couple items that came up. We talked about traffic repeatedly. We met with ACHD on several occasions to discuss this project. They don't feel that it's going to be an unnecessary burden on the local traffic situation. We are dedicating -- or, actually, right of way was dedicated with the prior development to ACHD along Eagle Road to facilitate widening in the future. So, that property is there and they have significant -- or sufficient width. Also wanted to talk about curb, gutter, and sidewalk was brought up. We will be installing curb, gutter and sidewalk on Falcon Drive adjacent to the property, as well as sidewalk along Eagle Road. We won't be doing curb, gutter on Eagle Road, because ACHD has got that in their plan to widen. So, that will provide access for school children or whoever needs to use the sidewalk it will be there. I wanted to talk about -- density came up a couple times and we ran a quick calculation on the plan for the assisted living center and that plan had about a little over an acre -- about 1.25 acres of the four and a half acres were in actual open space. This project over to -- were close to -- were over 50 percent open space for this entire project. On building height we would meet the building height requirements for the zone. We are not going to be any taller than any other two story homes in the area and there are several in the area. We are not going to be any taller than they are. The site also has some topography. As you move south the topography does slope down considerably. We lose about ten, 12 feet of elevation. So, this isn't going to be one block you're looking at, you're going to -- that's going to taper down the hill, it's going to be very attractive. Sorry. I'm just reviewing my notes real quickly. I guess with that I'd stand for anymore questions you might have. Yearsley: Any questions? Bailey: Thank you. Yearsley: Thank you. With that can I get a motion to close the public hearing on PP 13-039? Miller: So moved. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission January 16, 2014 Page 20 of 29 Rohm: Second. Yearsley: I have a motion and a second to close the public hearing on PP 13-039. All in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Marshall: Mr. Chair, before we do too much discussion I have got a quick question for counsel. Yearsley: Okay. Freeman: You do? Marshall: Yeah. Yearsley: I wouldn't be surprised if all of us do. Marshall: Yeah. I'd like to address that elephant right about now. So, supposedly we have an agreement to dezone -- in this case it would be annexing -- do we go about de- annexing pieces of property? Baird: None of that is before you tonight. That's totally within the purview of the City Council. All the arguments that have been made on that need to be repeated when this does become before the City Council for the DA modification. I will probably ask planning staff to add -- add to my opinion here, but, really, your focus is -- this is a request for a preliminary plat in that zone and it presumes that the Council will amend the DA to allow it. So, you're sort of the cart before the horse here. It's a very unusual situation. So, you're looking at it in a vacuum. Just preliminary plat approval requirements. That's why staff recommends approval, because it does meet those requirements for the zone, but, again, that's only if that DA is changed and that's a big if and, unfortunately, the way that this is set up you can make recommendations to the City Council with regard to the DA, but the matter is not officially before you for any particular action and I will look to planning staff to make sure I adequately characterize the decision before you tonight. Yearsley: Just for staff, is that correct? Parsons: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, that is correct. One other -- just to elaborate just a little bit further on what counsel has guided you on is their proposed townhomes are a principally permitted use in the zone, so at this point, even though our staff report to you says it's proposed for 36 townhomes, the use isn't approved for the site yet. As counsel said, it's really -- tonight it's really just a preliminary plat. It's a two lot residential subdivision and keep in mind that the Mowerys, who got up and testified, they -- they own the home -- they are part of the application before you this evening. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission January 16, 2014 Page 21 of 29 So, just wanted to go on record and let you know that they are all interrelated here. They need to work together and come up with a solution here. Freeman: Mr. Chair, if I may. Yearsley: Commissioner Marshall -- or Freeman. Freeman: I have a follow-up question for you. The comment that we are looking at in a vacuum -- and I think I understand the situation that's before us, why staff is recommending approval. We have got an R-8 zone here. However, as a commissioner the DA does figure into how I would address this project and I'm wondering is that going to be appropriate for me to address the fact there is a standing DA, even though I realize I don't have any control over the DA, this project is R-8 zoned with a DA attached to it and that DA would have some impact on how I would proceed here publically. Baird: I think you're free to proceed on that basis. Freeman: Okay. Thank you. With that I can proceed, unless somebody else wants to. Yearsley: Go ahead. Freeman: Okay. I'd just like to start by saying to the applicant I like your project. It's a quality project. If this was in -- if this was an R-8 zone not attached to the DA that it's attached to I would be saying I recommend approval of this project. However, I also understand that because it was attached to a DA, the DA -- and we run across this all the time where we attach an approval to a DA to limit what might otherwise be allowed to be done on that property, in this case an R-8, but we are intentionally limiting it, so they can't do everything an R-8 might allow them to do. It's limited. And I have heard the testimony and I would say that those of you who have testified and those of you who have written these letters, you did an excellent job of highlighting an issue at hand, think the situation we are in, the cart before the horse situation, what's before us is -- it's kind of an unintended stepping stone, if you will. An R-8 was allowed for that particular use, but I don't think in this case my opinion is an R-8 zone other than that particular use, or an R-8 zone here in this particular place, given this development, it's not appropriate for this location and because of that I would be recommending denial of this application. Again, I like your project, I just think given the particular circumstances of this R-8 zone and a legal DA that's attached to it, I -- I would not be able to recommend approval. It is not in the right place. Yearsley: Commissioner Rohm. Rohm: Mr. Chairman. I was on the Commission when this previous proposal came through for the assisted living and it was very strongly stated at that time that it is only for the assisted living that the R-8 is being accepted and so if, in fact, that's not the same development that's occurring, I wouldn't be in support of this project, other than if Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission January 16, 2014 Page 22 of 29 it were to go back to its previous zoning and along with the preliminary plat request for a rezone to -- and have it all reheard again. But I know from personal involvement that that project was only approved because of it being an assisted living development. So, would -- I wouldn't be in favor of moving this forward without revisiting that issue either. Yearsley: Thank you. Miller: Mr. Chair? Yearsley: Commissioner Miller. Miller: I second what these guys say. I don't have a whole bunch to add to it, other than I do like the project, too, and I appreciate staff working on those parking requirements and stuff. I think there is some really good stuff that's happening in there. Also what all these people have to say are some very valid points and it just seems like you're putting a square peg in a round hole at little bit at this point. Yearsley: Commissioner Marshall. Marshall: Mr. Chair. Again, I really like the project. I do. It's a gorgeous project. It's the wrong location and we really -- back in '08 I was here for that. That -- that was stipulated in the development agreement specifically because this was an improper place for an R-8 zone, we didn't think it was appropriate for an R-8 zone. But that was the only way we could get the assisted living center there. That was the only thing -- only way we could allow that. And so that's why it was stipulated in the development agreement specifically that it would be an assisted living center. I'm not sure exactly how we stated that, but it could be de-annexed or dezoned or whatnot. That doesn't make sense now, but whatever -- the purpose of that was to say we don't expect any other R-8 project on this piece of property and so I also would recommend denial. Yearsley: Thank you. I, actually, have a little bit different take. I actually live across the street, so I understand the issue that you guys see and I walk by there every day. I like the project and I actually think the location is a fairly decent location given the constraints that there are. That being said, given the conditions that were put on the original agreement and the -- from what I can see -- and it may not be the case that the residents -- or the adjacent residents were not really brought into the fold with this and had their issues heard, I, too, am in -- won't be in agreement of this, just because of that. Like I said, I do like the project, I think it's -- it's well done, it's well developed, but given the existing development agreement and the issues that the homeowners have concerns with I -- I will recommend denial as well. So, with that -- Freeman: Mr. Chair, after considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony I move to recommend denial to the City Council of file number PP 13-039 as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of January 16th, 2014, for the specific reasons stated, that their development agreement would not allow this sort of development on this piece of property. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission January 16, 2014 Page 23 of 29 Rohm: Second. Yearsley: I have a motion and a second to deny public hearing PP 13-039. All in favor say aye. It's unanimous. Motion has been denied. Thank you. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. D. Public Hearing: CUP 13-017 Connections Credit Union at Ten Mile by Connections Credit Union Located Southeast Corner of W. Pine Avenue and N. Ten Mile Road Request: Conditional Use Permit Approval for Two (2) Drive-Thru Establishments (Multi-Tenant and Bank; Each with aDrive-Thru)in a C-C Zoning District Yearsley: And thank you guys for coming and testifying as well. So, we have one last one. It is public hearing for CUP 13-017, Connections Credit Union. Let's begin with the staff report. Parsons: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. The last item on the agenda this evening is Connections Credit Union at Ten Mile. The subject property consists of 2.24 acres. Is currently zoned C-C within the city and is located on the southeast corner of North Ten Mile Road and West Pine Avenue. In 2003 this property was platted with the Courtyard at Ten Mile Subdivision. At the time that it came through was approved for a mixed use development that consisted of the multi-family to the east and, then, five commercial lots here. In 2010 Mr. Eddy came forward and rezoned the property to the C-C zoning district, so that he could develop the southern portion of the commercial lots with his C store. That currently is in place. In 2010 the -- Steve Eddy or the previous developer came through and, actually, did a property boundary adjustment and reconfigured the parcels in what you see here this evening, at least the south portion. The north portion is actually approved for two lots. In this exhibit you see three buildable lots. Last week City Council did act on a development agreement modification for this site in which they approved two paths to develop on this north portion of the development, consistent to the city plan that's before you this evening. So, I did want to go on record and let you know that the DA has been -- at least been through the hearing process to move forward with development on the site. As you can see here the applicant has shown how Steve Eddy's will interface with this development on the concept plan as well. And I think that bodes well with giving you abig -- a clear picture on how all three of these drive-thrus are to function on the site. So, moving forward, at this time the applicant will only be proposing to develop the western lot at this time with a bank. The drive-thru is on the east end of that building. All the access points that you see depicted on this concept plan were approved with the platting of the property in 2003. So, those are constructed, they are in place, and they are operating as allowed under city approvals and, of course, ACHD's approval. With the property boundary adjustment the applicant did realign the cross-access for the development and currently there is a shared access driveway constructed between the two Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission January 16, 2014 Page 24 of 29 developments, which both properties have the right to use. There is a reciprocal cross- access agreement. So, it's our proposal this evening -- we are not requesting any additional cross-access with the development either. There is no development at this time proposed for the eastern portion. The applicant is merely requesting the CUP for the drive-thru on that site just to basically market the property moving forward. Although because the proposed drive-thrus are within a 300 foot radius of an existing drive-thru, i.e.g., Steve Eddy, and, then, a residential district to the east, the UDC requires the applicant to come before you and ask for approval of a conditional use permit. As mentioned in my staff report, the drive-thru lanes proposed for the bank site is in compliance with the UDC. Typically when we have drive aisles that exceed one hundred feet in radius we require adrive-thru lane or an escape lane. In this particular case the way the architect has designed the site you get a lot of queuing here on the end cap here, so, essentially, this internal drive aisle here becomes the de facto escape lane, so folks enter the site, see that cars queued up and they can make an informed decision without entering the drive-thru and, then, able to get to the parking area. So, in this particular case we feel competent that they do comply with the UDC drive-thru standards. For the eastern portion of the site we have recommended a modification to the site plan. Because there is no end user we are concerned with how this drive-thru could function with two drive-thru lanes and not have the appropriate drive-thru -- or escape lane if you will. But because of the dimensions that the architect has depicted on the plan, staff is confident that they could -- this could function as a single drive-thru lane and the by-pass lane could be accommodated as well next to that or somewhere in that vicinity without much modification of what you're seeing here. So, rather than it being a stacking lane, this outer drive lane becomes an escape lane. So, there aren't really any modifications or a revised concept plan before you this evening. This is what we are recommending to you this evening. As you can see here the applicant's landscaping is pretty minimal at this point. They wanted the opportunity to work with staff through the CZC and design review process moving forward. I would make mention to the Commission that the width along both street frontages, Ten Mile and Pine, are required to be 25 feet in accordance with the UDC. The dimensions -- as dimensioned on the site plan it does comply with the 25 foot required. So, the plantings are on the plans, but the appropriate landscaping depicted on the plan are in place consistent with the UDC. One of our recommended conditions before you this evening is because of the high standards of development on the Steve Eddy site or Fast Eddy's site, excuse me, we have placed a condition on this conditional use permit that they provide landscaping equal to or better than what Steve Eddy has done on his site. So, we want to have that consistent development moving forward and the applicant appears to be in compliance -- or in agreement with that condition as well. There aren't specific elevations for you this evening. The applicant did propose these elevations for the site, so building materials look to be brick, glass, and stone accents with some metal accenting. There are some variations in roof forms and modulations and wall plains, so our staff is confident that the proposed sample elevations in the photo is consistent with our design guidelines. Further, this DA is also part of the record in the development moving forward as well and also with the development of the eastern pad site staff envisions a consistent design theme, which not only this building, but also Steve Eddy's moving forward. Staff has not received any written testimony on this application and, Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission January 16, 2014 Page 25 of 29 again, we are recommending approval of both drive-thrus before you this evening and I'd stand for any questions you may have. Yearsley: Are there any questions? I actually have one question. And will you go back to the previous slide? I realize we don't know what's going to be at that other facility, but if that becomes a fast food restaurant would they not have their ordering facility in the alleyway potentially and would that cause an issue? Just as a thought. And I don't know. And I guess they may to come back for, you know, a conditional use amendment or something like that based on that, but I was just looking at that issue. Parsons: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, I will try to address your site circulation of how that drive-thru would interact with the others, but also go to what the UDC requires. Yearsley: Okay. Parsons: So, essentially, it's a good point. Certainly a fast food restaurant has more trip generation than say a bank drive-thru or even Steve Eddy's convenience store. But if you look on the -- how they have laid out the site is Steve Eddy's comes along the back and enters out this way. The bank drive-thru is situated so cars entering here will go this way. If this is a fast food restaurant it would be opposite moving of the two other drive-thrus, so it would enter from this driveway instead of this one. So, in essence, yes, you could get some queuing in this area here -- Yearsley: Okay. Parsons: -- but in our opinion we still think there is enough queuing lanes there to support a single drive-thru use. The only caveat to that is the UDC groups drive-thrus as one. It doesn't say this is a restaurant drive-thru use, this is a bank drive-thru use, it clumps all of them as one definition. So, that's what's before you this evening. Certainly if it is a fast food restaurant there will be a lot more traffic in there than what you would see otherwise, but, unfortunately, code doesn't give us those tools to say yes or no, whether it's -- I think it's your body, if you think it should only function with one, that's certainly within your purview of the conditional use permit tonight. I would mention that the submitted site plan for you this evening also calls out that adrive-thru may or may not happen on the site. So, through that DA modification they did build some latitude into that, saying that there may be a drive-thru, there may not, but, again, it is in your purview this evening if you feel it's appropriate to only have two drive-thrus -- or asingle drive-thru on the site, you could certainly recommend that change as well. Yearsley: Okay. Well, I was actually thinking that the circulation would be -- the ordering would be in the back to the alley, but where you said coming from the other direction I -- that's not as big an issue, then, so -- thank you. Would the applicant like to come forward? And, please, state your name and address for the record. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission January 16, 2014 Page 26 of 29 Slichter: Chad Slichter, Slichter Architects. 6611 Ustick, Boise, Idaho. 83704. Mr. Chairman, Council, Commissioner, it's my understanding that there is actually a deed restriction on a fast food going on the property, so it would, you know, potentially be a pharmacy or something of that line, not actually fast food in that other plat. So, shouldn't have an issue there. I think Bill did a real nice job in doing the presentation. We don't have any concerns with the stipulations presented, so if you have any questions I would be more than happy to respond. Yearsley: Are there any questions? Freeman: I have none. Yearsley: No? Thank you. Slichter: Thanks for your consideration. Yearsley: I don't have anybody signed. Is there anybody that would like to come forward and testify? With that I would entertain a motion to close the public hearing on CUP 13-017. Miller: So moved. Marshall: Second. Yearsley: I have a motion and a second to close the public hearing on CUP 13-017. All in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Yearsley: Any comments? Since there really isn't any outcry against this. Rohm: Mr. Chairman? Yearsley: Yes. Rohm: I think that this is kind of what we expected the balance of that corner to develop as when we met with Steve Eddy and they put the -- the convenience store, gas station, combo there, it was presumed that it would develop just as being proposed here, so don't see any issues myself. Yearsley: Thank you. Any other comments? No? My one concern sounds like it went away with the deed restrictions to not have fast food there, so I am in favor of it as well and with that I would entertain a motion. Rohm: Mr. Chairman? Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission January 16, 2014 Page 27 of 29 Yearsley: Commissioner Rohm. Rohm: After considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move to approve file number CUP 13-017 as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of January 16th, 2014, with no modifications. Marshall: Second. Yearsley: I have a motion and a second to approve the public hearing on CUP 13-017. All in favor say aye. Nay? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 5: Election of Offtcers 2014 Yearsley: Thank you. Two things left on the agenda, really. One is the elections for 2014. I have really enjoyed being the chairman on this and have learned a lot and from my first meeting to this one I feel like I have done a lot better, so I appreciate your letting me be your chairman for this period. And I guess is there any discussion for a new chairman? Freeman: I have a nomination in mind. Yearsley: Okay. Freeman: I'd like to nominate Joe Marshall to be the chairman for the next term. Rohm: Second. Marshall: I was going to say, you do understand I may not be here for the month of February. Yearsley: Well, that's why we have avice-chairman, don't we? Freeman: Yeah. We will figure that out in a minute. Yearsley: So, I guess are you willing to serve as the chairman? Freeman: He doesn't get a say in this, as I recall. Yearsley: Oh. Is there anybody that would nominate somebody else? Freeman: I -- my reason is Joe has been on this Commission for a long time and he's -- he's ahighly regarded colleague. I think it's your last term you're serving and I think it would be appropriate that you take the chairman seat for your final year. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission January 16, 2014 Page 28 of 29 Yearsley: I have a -- I agree with that, too, as well, so -- so, with that there is a motion and a second to nominate or to approve -- Freeman: Approve. Yearsley: -- approve Joe Marshall as the Chairman. Freeman: Mr. Chair, I move that Joe Marshall be the elected chairman for the coming term. Yearsley: Okay. Miller: I second that. Yearsley: Motion and a second. All in favor say aye. Congratulations. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Yearsley: So, with that who wants to be the vice-chair? Freeman: I have another nomination idea. I nominate Commissioner Yearsley to be the vice-chair for the coming term. Rohm: Second. Yearsley: Motion and a second to approve me as the vice-chair. All in favor say aye. Opposed? Congratulations. Freeman: Congratulations to -- Yearsley: To both of us I guess. One last thing. Commissioner Rohm, this is your last time. Thank you very much for your service and appreciate it. I understand that you will be potentially coming back next week to receive your awards -- or in February. Rohm: First week in February. Yearsley: First week in February. Freeman: Are we going to roast him? Yearsley: So -- but I do appreciate your knowledge and your -- your service on this and thank you very much. Rohm:, It was a pleasure. Thank you. With that I move we adjourn. Marshall: Second. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission January 16, 2014 Page 29 of 29 Yearsley: I have a motion and a second to adjourn. All in favor say aye. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Yearsley: We stand adjourned. MEETING ADJOURNED AT 7:30 P.M. (AUDIO RECORDING ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS.) APPROVED ~~ 6 ,mole STEVEN YEARSL Y - CH DATE APPROVED ATTEST: JAYCEE HOLMAN, CITY C RK /,tip AUGUS~\ 0440 I'4+ ~` City o4 _ . i.T~ r/ ~1 lY,O pHC w A ~t+ Aj v ~(1+' a° ~6 8 °~ 15e t4E