Loading...
2014 02-06Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission February 6, 2014 Meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission of February 6, 2014, was called to order at 6:00 p.m. by Chairman Joe Marshall. Present: Commissioner Steven Yearsley, Commissioner Joe Marshall, Commissioner Patrick Oliver, Commissioner Macy Miller and Commissioner Scott Freeman. Others Present: Holly Binkley, Bill Nary, Caleb Hood, Justin Lucas, Sonya Watters, Bill Parsons, and Dean Willis. Item 1: Roll-Call Attendance: Roll-call X Scott Freeman X Macy Miller X Patrick Oliver X Steven Yearsley X Joe Marshall -Chairman Marshall: Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. I'd like to welcome you to the regularly scheduled Planning and Zoning meeting for February 6, 2014, and I would like to begin with the roll call, please. Item 2: Adoption of the Agenda Marshall: All right. First thing is the agenda and I have no changes to the agenda tonight. Did anybody have anything to add or subtract? No? Then could I get a motion to adopt the agenda. Miller: So moved. Yearsley: Second. Marshall: I have a motion and a second to adopt the agenda as written. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 3: Consent Agenda A. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: 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 Meridian Planning & Zoning February 6, 2014 Page 2 of 48 B. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: 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 C. Approve Minutes of January 16, 2014 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Marshall: All right. So, first thing on the agenda is the Consent Agenda. We have the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for CUP 13-016, the ACHD Park and Ride, and Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law of CUP 13-107, Connections Credit Union at Ten Mile. And we have the approval of the minutes of January 16th, 2014. Does anybody have any amendments, comments, or anything? No? Then could I get a motion to approve the Consent Agenda? Freeman: So moved. Yearsley: Second. Marshall: It's been moved and seconded to approve the Consent Agenda. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Marshall: All right. Action Items. Before we begin tonight I'd like to explain how this process works just a little bit. The first thing I am going to do is I'm going to open the public hearing on the Action Items and ask for the staff report and the staff will give us a full rundown on how the project meets city code and UDC ordinance and the like and, then, I will ask for the applicant to come up and they will have 15 minutes to present any additional information they would like to offer. After that we have asign-up sheet in the back and if you'd like to testify I would appreciate it -- it will make our job a little easier if you were signed up to testify and I will call off those names that would like to testify. They will have three minutes each. If anyone is representing a homeowners association or a group of people here in the audience by a show of hands they will be allowed ten minutes. After the public testimony the applicant will have an opportunity to come back up for -- to address any issues that might have arisen. At that time the Commission will close the public hearing and we will deliberate and, hopefully, render a decision. Item 4: Action Items A. Continued Public Hearing from January 16, 2014, 2014: AZ 13- 015 TM Creek by SCS Brighton, LLC Located Southeast Corner of W. Franklin Road and S. Ten Mile Road Request: Meridian Planning & Zoning February 6, 2014 Page 3 of 48 Annexation and Zoning of 45.34 Acres of Land with C-G (34.82 acres), R-40 (3.94 Acres) and TN-C (5.58 Acres) Zoning Districts B. Continued Public Hearing from January 16, 2014: 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 Marshall: So, that being said, I would like to open the public hearing for -- the continued public hearing for AZ 13-015 and PP 13-030 for TM Creek by Brighton Corporation and ask for the staff report, please. Wafters: Thank you, Chairman Marshall, Members of the Commission. The applications before you are a request for annexation and zoning and preliminary plat. This site consists of 41.03 acres of land. It's currently zoned RUT in Ada County and is located at the southeast corner of West Franklin Road and South Ten Mile Road. Adjacent land uses and zoning. To the north is Franklin Road and agricultural property zoned RUT in the county. And rural residential property, zoned R-1 in the county. And rural residential property zoned I-L. To the east and south is agricultural property, zoned RUT in Ada County and to the west is South Ten Mile Road and agricultural property zoned RUT in the county, with a church kitty-corner to this site, zoned C-N. The Comprehensive Plan future land use the map designation for this is mixed use commercial, lifestyle center, and high density residential. The applicant is requesting annexation and zoning approval of 45.34 acres of land, with a C-G zoning district, which consists of 35.82 acres. R-4 district consisting of 3.94 acres and TN-C district consisting of 5.58 acres, consistent with the future land use the map designations for this site. The applicant proposes to develop a mixed use project consisting of office and retail, some service and restaurant pad sites to mid size commercial and multi-family residential uses. A concept plan as you see here was submitted that depicts building pads, parking, access points, streets, driveways, landscaped buffers, easements, and a pathway along the Ten Mile Creek. Multi-family residential uses are proposed with an R-40 district at the southeast corner of the site. A proposed preliminary plat consists of 49 building lots and three common other lots on 41.03 acres of land. The applicant anticipates the development will be phased. However, a phasing plan was not submitted with this the application. Access to this site -- and I'm going to flip to the concept plan, so you can see a little bit better -- is proposed via one right-in, right-out, one right-in, right-out, left-in, and one full access via West Franklin Road and two right- in, right-out accesses and one full access by South Ten Mile Road. The concept plan depicts an approved traffic signal for the access, Franklin Crossing Avenue, on Franklin Road to be installed when warranted in the future. During the recent widening of Franklin and Ten Mile Roads all the curb cuts for access were constructed and have been approved by ACHD based on the Ten Mile area access study proposed by HGR Engineering on behalf of the Brighton Corporation. Deceleration lanes were also Meridian Planning & Zoning February 6, 2014 Page 4 of 48 constructed for the two accesses closest to the Franklin, Ten Mile intersection on Ten Mile Road and the access closest to the collector street off Franklin Road. Two collector streets, one east-west as you see here at the southern boundary of the site, is Ten Mile Creek Drive and one north-south collector street, Franklin Crossing Avenue, are depicted on the plat by Ten Mile and Franklin Roads in accord with the transportation plan for this area. They do terminate in a cul-de-sac at the south property boundary. There are a total of six driveway accesses, three on each side, proposed via Franklin Crossing and two via Ten Mile Creek Drive. A waiver to the access standards is the UDC, Section 11-3A-3, is needed from City Council for approval of the proposed accesses via the collector and arterial street. Staff recommends across-access ingress-egress easement is granted to the property to the east for future interconnectivity. A 35 foot wide street buffer is proposed along Ten Mile and Franklin Road in accord with the UDC standards. A sidewalk was constructed along Franklin Road and along the portion of the Ten Mile Road nearest the intersections with the recent road widening project. A segment of the city's multi-use pathway system is designated through this site along the Ten Mile Creek to the Franklin/Ten Mile intersection and also along the frontage of the site along Ten Mile Road. The Ten Mile Creek -- you can see here bisects the property and is a natural waterway. The applicant proposes to pipe approximately 380 feet of the creek from about here to Franklin Road and it has the open portion of the Creek with landscaping and other amenities. Because the UDC and Comp Plan requires natural waterways such as this to remain open and not be piped, staff is recommending the site plan be revised accordingly, unless otherwise approved by City Council. A portion of this site is within the Meridian flood plain overlay district. Prior to any development the applicant is required to submit a flood plain development application. Conceptual building elevations were submitted showing the types of structures that may be built within this development. All structures are required to comply with the design standards in the UDC, the guidelines in the design manual and the design elements in the Ten Mile interchange specific area plan. Written testimony has been received from Mike Wardle, the applicant's representative, in response to the staff report. They do request the following modifications to the staff report: Condition No. 1.1.1 K, they are recommending that -- requesting that be deleted, which requires the structure at the northeast corner of the Ten Mile Creek Drive to be shifted to the corner. The staff is not in favor of deleting this condition, as the design criteria in the Ten Mile plan calls for buildings to hold the corners. So, staff is not recommending approval of that. The second request is for 1.1.1 R to be modified to include office uses north of the creek and to include the language where feasible in reference to buildings being designed with multiple sidewalk entries. Staff is amenable to this change. No. 1.1.3C, the applicant requests it clarified to only require ramps within a ten foot wide area proposed for future expansion along the north side of Ten Mile Creek Drive. Because only curb and gutter will be constructed along the south side of the street with this development staff is amenable to this change as requested by the applicant. And, lastly, No. 1.1.7, the applicant request is modified to remove the reference to a specific agency from which an easement is required for the pathway along the creek. Staff is amenable to this change and the language from Bureau of Reclamation to appropriate agency. Staff is recommending approval of the requested annexation and zoning and preliminary plat with the Meridian Planning & Zoning February 6, 2014 Page 5 of 48 conditions in the staff report and a development agreement. Staff will stand for any questions the Commission may have. Marshall: Commissioners, any questions of staff? Yearsley: I have one. Marshall: Commissioner. Yearsley: Sonya, can you tell me which building you're talking about with regard to -- was it K? 1.1. K? Wafters: Chairman Marshall, Commissioner Oliver, are you referencing the building that they are asking not be required to be brought up to the corner? Yearsley: Yes. Wafters: That is -- if you can see my cursor here -- Yearsley: Okay. Wafters: This is Ten Mile Creek Drive. Ten Mile -- staff is asking they bring the building right up to the corner and they are requesting that they not be required to do that. Yearsley: Okay. Thank you. Marshall: All right. Would the applicant like to come forward? And I'm going to have to ask for your name and address for the record, please. Wardle: Mr. Chairman, Commission Members, Mike Wardle, Brighton Corporation. 12601 West Explorer Drive in Boise. Congratulations, Mr. Chairman. Appreciate the opportunity to be here. You will note from the staff report that we have continued this matter -- or you have continued it at our request a number of times, but during that period it has given us an opportunity to make refinements to a site plan to address the issues and concerns and conditions that staff had initially sighted and also to continue and complete all of our work with ACHD relative to internal access points. In sum, with what Sonya has indicated, obviously, we are in accord with the staffs recommendations with one exception. But I'd like to just take a moment and take you through this -- a few slides just for orientation purposes to make sure that we all understand exactly what we are talking about. Just one question -- technical question. Sonya, do I push the plus or how do I advance the -- Wafters: Is there an arrow? Do you see an arrow? I can advance it for you, Mike, if you would like. Wardle: Okay. Well -- Meridian Planning & Zoning February 6, 2014 Page 6 of 48 Wafters: It's a little different being pdf I think. Wardle: The site is as noted at the southeast corner of Franklin and Ten Mile. The south boundary is adjacent to a parcel that you will hear in two weeks. Separate ownership. In part also bounded by the Kennedy Lateral and that's kind of that squiggly line along the -- the south portion of the -- the site. Yes. Ten Mile Creek, as Sonya noted, goes right through the heart of the project. It's been a great deal of work in preparation to bring the site up to a uniform grade, both to the south and to the north and to the east of Ten Mile Creek over the last several years. The site plan as noted in -- and this is one slightly updated version. The only thing that has changed is the addition of the street trees on Franklin Crossing, which would be considered the main street corridor from Franklin north-south into the site and also providing access to the site to the south of TM Creek. The next slide, Sonya, kind of illustrates the waivers that have been requested and proposed for approval. Just notes that the left side of the slide the blue arrows note the access points that ACHD approved and that ITD constructed when they did the Ten Mile interchange project. To the north, the top of the sheet, the red arrows depict the ACHD approved and ACRD constructed accesses on Franklin Road. The others at the bottom right of the drawing show the access points internally to the two collector streets and we simply note that since the City Council has to approve the waivers with all of the ITD and ACHD approvals and construction, certainly we would expect the Council to approve the waiver for those access points and we also would be requesting that the Commission recommend that the others be provided as well through the waiver process, simply because we can't develop the site without access to it. But each of those access points -- those ACHD approved internal accesses all -- meet all of their standards in terms of separation from the arterial Franklin Road to the north and its separation internally. So, those do meet all standards and requirements of the Ada County Highway District. Next slide shows the other item that will require a waiver from the Council and this slide it says noted as part one simply to show, first of all, the area that's proposed to be covered from Franklin Road down to the first east-west internal service drive, which will function, essentially, as a street. And, then, it also shows, then, the open amenity corridor of Ten Mile Creek where there will be a great deal of grading, there will be an access -- a maintenance access, as well as pedestrian facility that will lie along the banks of that creek and make it much more functional than it currently is in a very rigid and very deep cut swath through that property and that was the notation for the required easement for that pathway, which will also serve as the maintenance access by Nampa-Meridian Irrigation District. We just don't know exactly which entity would be offering or providing that easement, so we did ask that one change to be delete the Bureau of Reclamation in case it isn't the bureau, but whomever it is we will take that step. The second slide, the part two portion, shows why we are proposing to cover a portion of Ten Mile Creek. With the access points closest to the intersection, both on Franklin and on Ten Mile, in order for those to connect and to make that corner functional, we actually have to construct -- or cover a portion of the creek elements. So, you can see where that north-south internal service drive, again, functions primarily as a street and the east-west connection necessitate a portion of that to be covered. We have limited that to the extent possible, Meridian Planning & Zoning February 6, 2014 Page 7 of 48 simply to make the site functional, so that we don't lose the benefit of what we call the presentation corner at the intersection of Ten Mile and Franklin. The next slide shows the one element that we are still in disagreement with staff. Mr. Turnbull in a few minutes will explain more thoroughly why we believe that that condition ought to be deleted, that it is -- it is a concern and it's a primary interest to us, because it is a significant access corner and from a visual and psychological perspective to that corner -- buildings right at that corner could, in fact, have some impact on the functionality of the internal site. The next slide shows that north-south Franklin Crossing Avenue and this is the one where we are in agreement with staff. We simply wanted to add some flexibility language that affords the opportunity where some of the users may not be able to provide access -- front door access as it were from the collector street, we want to be able to deal with their needs. Some users certainly would be, but there may be some that cannot without additional concerns and policing requirements for a dual access, both from the parking facilities that are behind those structures, as well as from the street. So, it was -- all that we were doing was asking for some flexibility in the language and staff has concurred with that. I believe the last slide simply talks about that east-west collector, which for the short term will be terminated in a turnaround at the first entrance into the site, simply because we do not own that adjacent property. You can see by the red arrows where the property line is, it follows the center line of the Kennedy Lateral and the Kennedy Lateral at some point in the future will be piped. There has already been Corps of Engineers approval fora 404 permit to do that, it's just a matter of when that will occur in conjunction with the adjacent property owner. And so as a result of that we simply requested that the amenities and improvements on the north side be provided initially, but from the curb and gutter south on the south side that there would be no landscaping proposed at this point until opportunities come forth for cooperation to the development of the properties to the south. So, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, I would stand for questions at this point. Marshall: Commissioners, any questions of the applicant? Freeman: Mr. Chair, I have one. Marshall: Yes, Commissioner. Freeman: Could you describe for me what you have done as far as facilitating parking on that Franklin Crossing Avenue? It looks like those buildings are right up against almost the curb -- I'm sure there is a sidewalk. I'm just curious how that's going to be parked. Wardle: Yes. Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Freeman, that street initially will have on- street parking. It will be constructed to eventual five lane width, but we worked with ACHD so that initially there will be on-street parking and one lane north and south, along with bike lanes. So, I think that there is a -- actually in your staff report there are cross-sections provided and that's on -- well, it's Exhibit A, page two, but short answer, again, is that there will be on-street parking. The buildings will setback -- I believe the requirement in the staff report is 12 feet and that comes out of the Ten Mile specific Meridian Planning & Zoning February 6, 2014 Page 8 of 48 plan. So, the buildings will be fronting that street and the intent was always to make that more of a main street type of an environment and so that's what this particular section does. Freeman: Okay. Thank you. Marshall: Any other questions, Commissioners? Wardle: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to have Mr. Turnbull come up -- if we can go back to that hold the corner slide, Sonya. Marshall: I would appreciate this. This was a question I was going to ask, so -- Turnbull: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, my name is David Turnbull. My address is 12601 West Explorer Drive in Boise. Appreciate the opportunity to provide a few remarks. I was amused a little bit when Mike was giving his testimony. When we come to the city if we use the term Ten Mile Drain we are thrown out. If we go to Nampa-Meridian Irrigation District and use the Ten Mile Creek we are thrown out. Mike appropriately called it Ten Mile Creek here, but we -- you know, there is always that -- you go to Nampa-Meridian they say that's not a creek, that's a drain. So, I just note that for -- so you can tell what conflicts we have to deal with between various entities. You know, when we -- we were very involved in some of the hearings in the Ten Mile area specific plan or interchange specific plan and this particular property was a note of change that was made in the plan at the City Council level and at that hearing we noted the desire of some of the elements of the plan and particularly the transit orientation that they wanted towards the rail potential at TOD area to the north as you go across Franklin and over to the rail system and we committed at that time to providing that main street atmosphere along a portion of that section of the road and that's always been our intent. We also noted at that same time that this is really avery -- going to be an intensive commercial property at this location and so there were -- they have changed the designation at that time in the plan. We also covered some of these issues when we had our previous application last year on the 80 acres parcel that we own that's known as Ten Mile Crossing that is at that intersection of the interchange and Ten Mile and also reiterated our commitment to providing some mixed uses, like multi-family and, again, reiterated our commitment to the main street the corridor. The condition regarding holding the corner on that one specific intersection is a little bit problematic and I don't want to spend a lot of time, but I want to just tell you our perspective why this is important for us. We don't have predetermined users for each of these locations. Those will come as we go through our -- you know, once we get our approvals and we go through our marketing process, but a limitation of holding that corner really limits the number of uses that we would be able to situate at that location -- to primarily small shops and restaurants and those are not .the kind of uses that you would typically put at a prominent access intersection like that. As Mike said, I'm not sure it's even appropriate that you want to box in that intersection with a -- you know, vertical structure to where you limit visibility, you know, there is going to be a fair amount of traffic coming off -- off that full access. So, we are asking for the flexibility. We have talked with staff Meridian Planning & Zoning February 6, 2014 Page 9 of 48 about this quite a bit and they -- and we all recognize that this is a decision that will be made at the City Council level. But we want you to understand what our concern for this is. We don't want to in advance limit the kind of users -- I could provide some examples. Like we did the Key Bank at the corner of Eagle and Ustick. A bank is a natural use for this kind of a location -- this kind of a convenience oriented location. But you couldn't do that by holding the corner. You know, we think that Key Bank at the corner of Eagle and Ustick is very appropriate. It would work out here, too. It's an attractive building and so we are just asking for that flexibility, so that that doesn't have to be predetermined. I would note, too, that Sonya and Mike pointed out some of those accesses off of Franklin and Ten Mile. When the Ten Mile plan was done they really cut back on the traffic study allocation to the consultant. We came back in after the fact, hired additional traffic studies to be done, and came to the City Council with those recommendations and it was actually the City Council that recommended to ACHD that these accesses be allowed, too. So, I don't think that there is any confusions there and we fully expect the City Council to reconfirm that decision, because they are already built. They were built when these roadway improvements were done. So, that's all have to offer right now and I will stand for any questions if you have some. Marshall: Commissioners, any questions of Mr. Turnbull? No? Thank you, sir. Turnbull: Thank you. Wardle: Mr. Chairman, Mike Wardle once again. Just in summary statement we are in agreement with staff on the proposed modifications that we presented. Staff I think has confirmed those with that one exception that was just noted by Mr. Turnbull. So, we ask for Commission action to recommend approval of the annexation and zoning as proposed and the preliminary plat with the modifications that we have provided. Thank you very much. Marshall: Thank you. All right. I don't have anyone signed up to testify. Would anyone in the audience like to testify to this project? I don't see any hands, so, Mr. Wardle, don't believe there will be any rebuttal in this case. So, can I get a motion to possibly close the public hearing? Miller: I move we close the public hearing. Freeman: Second. Marshall: I have a motion and a second to close the public hearing on AZ 13-015 and PP 13-30. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? All right. That motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Marshall: All right. So, I'd ask for your comments and thoughts. Who would like to go first? Commissioner Freeman? Maybe? Meridian Planning & Zoning February 6, 2014 Page 10 of 48 Freeman: Do you think I want to go first? Marshall: I don't know, but I caught your eye. Freeman: Oh. If you're going to ask me to go first I'm going to kind of think as I go here, because I haven't really organized my thoughts. Could we go back to the slide that shows the overall development? Thank you. I got to tell you I -- my -- I have two brains on this project. There are things that I really like about what's happening here and, then, there are things that disappoint me, too, and I think in order to correct some of those things -- and I will share what those are. We would have to see adifferent -- a different plat to resolve some of the issues that you're -- that you're running into. In general -- I will just work into this in general. The -- the pedestrian factor to me is really important in these developments and I see that we have done much to create a pedestrian environment along the Franklin Crossing Avenue and we have a very nice amenity that goes along Ten Mile Creek, but my comments are -- I see some missed opportunities. I see a great start, but some missed opportunities. I think that the pedestrian access along Ten Mile Creek and Franklin Crossing could really come together and continue one upon the other and what I see along Ten Mile Creek is a sidewalk in the southeast corner that dumps off into nowhere really and, then, in the northwest corner where we have abruptly ended the exposed creek and piped it, again, the sidewalk goes off into nowhere. It just goes off into parking spaces and it seems to me there is an opportunity here to take those wonderful pedestrian avenues and that great creek amenity and expand them and tie pedestrian access to the rest of the site as well. Another thing that bothers me about that great amenity is it's such a nice amenity, but it's like the buildings are trying to stay away from it. There is only four small buildings around that thing, which makes me wonder who is ever going to walk that. It goes -- it doesn't go anywhere from either direction when -- once you leave the sidewalk and there are very few buildings around it. It's almost like, you know, I go shopping, I park, and to get on that site amenity I would have to want to go for a walk in the park. It's not the -- the design of the buildings and everything aren't really talking to and linking in with what could be a wonderful amenity and a real attraction and that discussion ties into the covering of the pipe. I can see given that -- with that western most access off of Franklin Road, I can see why you would argue for having to cover part of the creek, but I think about that a different way, why not close off that one access and -- and stick with our code and allow that creek to be exposed the entire length across this site and continue the strength of that pathway to connect not only to Franklin Crossing Avenue and the rest of the path system, but also to Franklin Road. The site plan just seems very strong to me going from the northeast and, then, as we go towards the southwest it just kind of goes, well, we just want to be a normal old commercial development. So, again, I -- I know I kind of -- I sound kind of harsh, but I really like half of this and, then, I watch it just disappear into, gosh, this is just the same old kind of development for the southwest half and this is our Ten Mile interchange, this is a special plan area and I think we need to insist on a really special design here and I think you have a really special design for half of it, but there is still so much that could be -- could be done with this. I have a hard time approving it as it is. I will turn from that and go to Meridian Planning & Zoning February 6, 2014 Page 11 of 48 some of your requests on staff report. The application requests that the Commission waive Condition 1.1.A and 1.1.B. I suppose -- you know, I don't really have a say in that, you will take that up with the City Council, and you're probably correct that they would -- they would want to go ahead and approve those additional accesses, but, honestly, I would like to see that one access that seems to be a problem with the creek in keeping it open. I would like to see that access closed if that's what that takes to -- to keep that creek exposed the entire length of the site and build it into, again, a stronger pedestrian element that ties this design together. The presentation corner, I don't really have any comments on that. I am concerned about striking Item K. I would -- I would opt to stay with staffs recommendation that we stick with the TMSAP hold the corner objective there. Again, these may seem like problems. I see them more as design opportunities and it maybe that we limit the use of some of these buildings by the way they are oriented and I think that's okay. You know, to achieve the purposes of the city's vision for the TMSAP planned area, maybe we limit some uses for some of these structures on -- on these types of sites. And as far as the rest of your requests, 1.1.1 R and 1.1.3E and 1.1.3 -- or 1.17 I guess that is down here, I -- I think those are fine, have no issues with those. So, I feel like I may have left out some of my thinking on this, but I think I captured it in a nutshell. I will summarize. In my opinion, just as I'm looking at this now -- and I look forward to hearing my -- my other Commissioners' opinions on this -- I think that if we are going to hold the corners where the plan designates we should hold the corners -- and I think if we want to strengthen the pedestrian -- the pedestrian aspects of this and if we wanted to open up that creek and we want to take advantage of some of these opportunities I think that's going to change your plan a little bit. I think it's going to change your plan a little bit. I think it's going to change the way you plat this. And I don't think it's impossible, I think it's a challenge and I -- I think this plan could be so much stronger taking advantage of that creek of tying that creek with the pedestrian access we have on Franklin Crossing Avenue, that I'd like to see -- I'd like to see another try at it and I would be excited to see what comes back if, in fact, we know we have to hold some corners and we want to make the pedestrian access work throughout, not just die and -- and we want to open up that creek across the site. That's where I stand at the moment. Not saying my mind won't change by the time I hear the rest of you, but I'm done for now. Thanks. Marshall: Thank you, Commissioner. So, Commissioner Yearsley. Yearsley: I -- you know, I looked at this and, you know, I think it looks good. I don't know if I have the concerns that Commissioner Freeman does. I understand the need to -- or want to close Ten Mile Creek off, at least for that portion. You know, it would be nice if there was, near Franklin Road, a section of it that may be more open and having a smaller section be closed, you know, maybe a smaller bridge, but try to leave that open a little bit more. I think that would be amenable. With regard to the -- the corner there at Ten Mile Creek Drive, I don't know if I have a preference one way or the other to put it in the corner or not. I understand the desire to not put it on the corner. understand the site triangles. By not putting it on the corner, being able to see traffic coming in and out of there a little easier as you're trying to get out of this development, so -- so for that portion of it, you know, I think it looks good. Meridian Planning & Zoning February 6, 2014 Page 12 of 48 Marshall: Commissioner Miller. Miller: Mr. Chair. I have got some comments. I also -- I don't know that I feel that strongly as Mr. Freeman here. I do agree completely -- my first comment was that you have this really nice element in the middle and it seems like the buildings are completely avoiding it. I can see a lot of -- having a lot of cool shops happening there, but right now it's just a thing sitting there with -- it's not talking to the buildings, but also it -- I think that could be stronger. I also agree that the pedestrian connections within the development are not shown as strong as they can be. I think that those will work themselves out as things move in here. You know, they will figure their paths out and stuff. Clearly, the creek to me makes sense. That's a busy corner. I don't know that it makes sense to full pedestrian and I don't know how many people are going to be crossing at Ten Mile Road or Franklin Road by that. I can see that being more commercial uses, more driver, not as much pedestrian. The pedestrian is kind of in the development. With this issue K I -- I agree with Mr. Wardle, that that shouldn't hold the corner and as you run into this several times as well it's very limiting to what types of uses can be there and when you look at all these different corners it makes sense that that one could be set off. I know holding the corners is a lot to avoid seas of parking lots, you know, right there, but this is a one drive access, it's not, you know, this huge parking lot and I think that that could bring different types of development and I think that corner is an appropriate one to let that condition slide a little bit. Otherwise, I think it's a cool development. I think there is a lot of potential with it. I don't think that the pedestrian side of things aren't as strong as it could be. I'm in agreement with Mr. Freeman there. But all in all I agree with the development. It looks nice and I would support all of your comments. Marshall: Thank you, Commissioner Miller. Commissioner Oliver. Oliver: This is interesting. Yeah. Thank you. Just looking at it from the -- what I see here in the presentation, I also like it. I think it looks very nice. I do have to go along with holding the corner. I think that's important we do that. It is a main entrance into that area and I think it -- it's important to hold that area. But I don't have a problem with the creek being tiled either. So, there is no problem there. Overall I think it looks very nice. Marshall: Thank you. Well, I guess I will share my thoughts as well here. I guess I'm not as set -- set on hold the corner. It is a very -- we are all a mixed bag here on -- on the one corner. I would prefer not to see a significant amount of parking there, but also understand the bank access or the drive through there for a bank or something like that. What I am very disappointed, though, is that we are not taking advantage of that Ten Mile Creek. That -- I have to commend you for working with the irrigation district and the city and everybody, because I know that can be a very laborious process, very daunting process and 1 really commend that you have been able to get this far to be able to widen that out and use this amenity, that's difficult to get through all those steps and get everybody on board with this. I love what I'm seeing there personally. I would Meridian Planning & Zoning February 6, 2014 Page 13 of 48 like to see that follow all the way through to Franklin and I think you're missing a huge opportunity by opening up that view to that intersection and being -- having a visual view down there you could open up so many more buildings and, then, Isee -- being able to see, you know, if we oriented that a little bit more with the creek that you could have restaurants with open patios along there, offices -- professional offices where people want to go and sit on a bench and eat their picnic lunch there, maybe eat their lunch along that. I almost see it -- if done right could almost be like a little Boise River where everybody wants to be up against it and it could be an absolutely awesome central corridor for everybody to just take a lunch walk and people shopping want to just kind of peruse down this and they are able to see restaurants and little shops and professional offices and things like that and to see that start all the way out at Franklin -- and I think it opens up that view all the way down and you actually get a view well inside that becomes attractive -- people are attracted to that. I mean just like they are with the Boise River or something like that. Geez, that's someplace I'm going to go check out, want to go see, and you get a lot more visibility of a lot more buildings down through there, instead of a street with trees blocking the view and that amenity I think by carrying it on as it follows down Ten Mile Creek is through other developments that could be become a very enticing amenity and to be honest it's -- I don't think you're using -- it doesn't look like it's using full advantage of that. I do think maybe that -- addressing these issues that maybe there could be a little more flexibility on hold the corner. I do want to see something out closer to the corner, but a little more flexibility with it and I'm not sure how to go about wording that. In this case it's probably not going to be my problem. Freeman: I'm not sure it's any of our problem, because that's a waiver from City Council. Marshall: I agree. If we choose to make any kind of recommendation there or the like. Personally I'm disappointed with all the accesses. I understand why businesses want them and, you know, if I was a business owner I would want full access to mine as well. But it's also what has developed along Eagle Road and why it doesn't flow well and you know my thoughts on access by now I think. I'm not fond of them -- lots of them. really really like a lot of this development and especially with the crossing area, the Franklin Crossing Avenue there and I do like and I think it does need to tie into the Ten Mile Creek better with a pedestrian walkway. As far as -- I guess I'm wavering on K. I'd like to see something in the middle on the -- 1.1.K, as opposed to being fully hold the corner. But I don't want to see -- I think the idea is that we don't have lots of parking pushing that building back away from there and as far as the -- the corner up at -- the access there on Franklin, I agree with Commissioner Freeman, that if you did away with that access and opened up that Ten Mile Creek by reorienting things and being able to take advantage of that whole green space, but I am fine with R -- 1.1.R. Fine with the language change, as well as 1.1.3E and 1.1.7 seem fine to me, the changes and modification requested there. So, unless anybody has anything else to add -- does anybody want to take a stab at maybe a motion? Freeman: Mr. Chair, I'd like to -- I'd like to follow up just from -- Meridian Planning & Zoning February 6, 2014 Page 14 of 48 Marshall: Yes, sir. Commissioner Freeman. Freeman: I don't know that I'll offer the motion on this, but somebody else may. I'm just looking forward. You know, we can -- we can approve this as it is and you and I have both voiced some concerns about what could be done here that make this so much better. We could approve it and some minor modifications will be made, we will probably never see those, and we will get pretty much this. I would be disappointed by that personally. We could deny this particular application, which actually still would be my preference, not because I don't like this whole thing, but because I would like to see the applicant come back taking that into consideration. And it seems to me this -- this could all be honed down to one issue in my mind, that the Five Mile Creek just needs to go through and that was staffs recommendation as well. Well, that alone gives us an opportunity to maybe use this creek more, strengthen some of the pedestrian connections, strengthen the pedestrian connections to the rest of the site and the buildings and also tweak the overall plat, because if we leave that unpiped I agree with the applicant there are at least some changes that are going to have to happen in that northwest corner. We are not going to see the same plat layout. I would like to see them have that opportunity myself. So, if I was going to make the motion I would be moving that we deny -- please come back and show us a stronger plan building on what you have done so well on part of this. But I just want all the Commissioners to be aware we -- those seem to be our options. We can approve it, we are going to pretty much get this. It's okay, but to me it's just a start on what could be done on this -- on this great site. Or we can deny, realizing we would like to work with you on just some -- some strengthening of this concept. That's all I have to say for now. Miller: Mr. Chair? Marshall: Commissioner Miller. Miller: I -- I would tend to agree with it, even though I like the development I think that there is -- this is an important corner and don't want it to be just okay, you know, I think there is a lot of good opportunities that are being missed, even though I don't necessarily agree that we need to maintain the creek all the way through, I think it can be done differently and better, you know, paying homage to that creek, whether it be this internally -- you guys make a lot of good points about the views down and making it a destination place. It's not enough to convince me that it's -- it can't, you know, be covered and be successful. But I think it can be a lot more successful than it's showing right now and I think it's an important corner. But I agree with Mr. Freeman on that situation. Marshall: Anything else? Freeman: Mr. Chair, if not I would make a motion see if I get a second. Meridian Planning & Zoning February 6, 2014 Page 15 of 48 Yearsley: Actually, can we make an alternate motion. There is a motion to continue this hearing and allow them to make those changes, instead of having -- denying and have them reapply is another option as well. If they are willing to -- to look at those options. Because, counsel, I -- just a question for counsel. If we deny this, this automatically still goes before City Council, does it not? Or does it -- where does it go beyond -- if we deny this how does that process work? Nary: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, Commissioner Yearsley, even if -- even if this Commission denies it, it would still go to the City Council. Yearsley: And the Council could have -- could approve it from there; correct? Okay. Freeman: So, Commissioner Yearsley, Mr. Chair, if I may. I think that's -- that's another option. I think that assumes that the applicant would want to work with us in seeing this improve before it goes to City Council. Yearsley: Right. Freeman: Which I would prefer to see, honestly. Marshall: Well, Commissioners, before we decide to continue I would suggest -- if that's the way you're leaning, I would suggest reopening the public hearing and, then, talking to the applicant about that, seeing if that's feasible in their mind, if they want to move forward and say, look, it's either recommend or deny. Yearsley: And I think that's an appropriate response. Freeman: Would you like to -- Yearsley: I would make a motion that we reopen the public hearing for AZ 13-015 and PP 13-030. Miller: I second that. Marshall: I have a motion and a second to reopen the public hearing. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Marshall: Okay. Mr. Turnbull. Turnbull: Mr. Chairman. Marshall: Name and address for the record, please. Meridian Planning & Zoning February 6, 2014 Page 16 of 48 Turnbull: I think you have got my name. David Turnbull and you have got my address for the record. Marshall: Thank you. Turnbull: You know, I am not opposed to some further discussion. I wish that there had been some questions regarding some of the concerns that you brought up, because I think we could have addressed some of those questions, but, you know, Mr. Freeman -- and I'm -- let me just say that we have lived with this project for two years. We have looked at all of the options. We haven't made any of these proposals lightly. We have worked with the city parks department on our pedestrian accesses and worked all of those issues out with them. You know, a lot of this -- a lot of what we are doing here is centered around Ten Mile Creek. If you look at Ten Mile Creek anywhere it's been developed in this city it's, basically, just the way it was and nobody's done anything but put a gravel road to the side of it. We have proposed major enhancements to this and don't think we have turned our back to it or ignored it at all. In fact, those buildings that you see located there, we'd love to have more buildings there, but the constraints of the easement that is required by the Nampa-Meridian Irrigation District, as well as -- you know, we go very specific into our detailed plans on these -- what size of buildings can we put here with the parking parameters that we have to address and so we have really tried to take maximum advantage of this. These buildings that you see clustered around it our idea is that those -- is that they would be offices and restaurants, that there would be patio dining. If I had known this was a concern I could have brought you some of our charette drawings that show patios that would overlook that creek. So, we have been really trying hard to not just turn our back to that creek, but to do dramatic improvements to it with landscaping, pathways -- while we still have to work with Nampa-Meridian Irrigation District on their landscape limitations and their -- and their service road requirements, you know, this is a real balancing act here and we are doing our best -- you haven't seen anything like this I dare say come before you in the city, because most developers -- most developments are simply turning their back to it, providing a gravel pathway, and walking away. This is a major enhancement. The issue with the access and the portion we are asking to cover there is simply because as we looked at this, you know, if -- if our geometry were different there are other things that we could do, but it comes into that intersection at an awkward location and at an awkward angle and we are simply trying to make the best feasible effort to provide the city with the best product we can provide and that's sincerely what we have tried to do. We have had countless meetings with staff and we have beat this thing to death and we could -- and we could go through a lot more reasoning, but, you know, I understand your concern, Commissioner Freeman, all I can say is that within the constraints of what we are working with, the geometry, the agencies, and everything we have to work with, we have come up with -- you know, like I said, we have worked mightily with Steve Siddoway to try to provide appropriate connections and as you go to the -- to the east it may show in this drawing that that doesn't connect. This is intended to connect all the way to the east along that Ten Mile Creek. It's only this portion at that corner that just becomes so logistically difficult that to get an appropriate -- you know, a feasible project really where access and parking and all of those constraints that make a successful Meridian Planning & Zoning February 6, 2014 Page 17 of 48 project -- the last thing we want to do here is build something that's -- everybody thinks is really pretty, but nobody wants to rent, you know, and that's -- that's the things that -- we have to deal with that every day. Nobody wants an unsuccessful project and we are not going to build an unsuccessful project. So, I assure you we have been working and working -- we probably -- if we had not taken so much care in this, this would have been before you a year or two ago. We have been working on it that long. And so, you know, hopefully you trust that we have been working with staff, we have worked out -- the list of issues you see before you is probably whittled down from 150 or so issues that we have worked through and come to agreement with, so -- and so far as I know right now the only one is that hold the corner in that one location. I agree with you, Commissioner Marshall, we don't want to see a bunch of parking out there, we will hold it as tight as we can, but we have to have the flexibility to provide the appropriate access there. So, you know, I guess, you know, if you have any other questions for me at this point I would be happy to answer them. We are not opposed to working with you, but I think that we have really done a lot of the work to date and, you know, we'd appreciate your recommendation to the City Council to move this forward and, you know, don't -- I think it's perfectly acceptable to express any concerns you might have that are residual, but -- in any event, that's kind of my take on it. It's a little bit of explanation to some of the concerns that I heard here after the hearing was closed. Freeman: Mr. Chair, if I may ask an additional question? Marshall: Yes, Commissioner Freeman. Freeman: Mr. Turnbull, I appreciate your response. I have a question for you, though. Like I said, if -- to me this thing kind of hinges on Five Mile extending all the way through, exposed or not, and -- yeah, the Ten Mile Creek. And I have heard two or -- one or two other Commissioners agree with me to some degree. My question to you is if -- if we were to hold that line, say, you know what, that creek has got to stay open and that's been staff's line, too, they are recommending that that creek stay open -- I agree with them one or two of these Commissioners is going to agree, too, so if we hold the line and say, well, we will give you everything else -- or most of it, but this creek has got to stay open, is that not going to require you to replat this and reconsider not just that northwest corner, but how that connects to everything else? Turnbull: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Freeman, staff can speak for themself. I think staff is required to make that finding and I think they noted -- recognized in their staff report that that is a waiver that is required from the City Council. So, they are not going to make a recommendation on that that would be contrary to that. I don't know that they have philosophically expressed anything other than that to us, other than that's just something that City Council is going to have to decide. Freeman: Okay. And I'm hearing your response, too, even if -- again, I don't know what the proposal is going to be, the motion, but if -- you would almost prefer this be denied and go to City Council and seek a waiver there than go back to the drawing board and come back to us, but I'm reading between the lines, I guess, in what you're saying. Meridian Planning & Zoning February 6, 2014 Page 18 of 48 Turnbull: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Freeman, no, I prefer you recommend approval. Freeman: Of course. Turnbull: And I would just say this: There are trade-offs in everything we do here. You know, like I said, we are proposing a significant improvement to a major portion of Ten Mile Creek which you have never seen in this city before. In order to make that happen we have certain economic realities that we are dealing with and, you know, there -- we think that we have provided the city with a significant amenity that is not seen heretofore and so we would appreciate that recognition and we would appreciate your approval. Freeman: I don't have anymore questions. Marshall: Anyone else have a question? No? Thank you, sir. Mr. Wardle. Wardle: Mr. Chairman, Commission Members, Mike Wardle. I apologize to David and to the Commission for not anticipating more serious consideration of that corridor, because as David notes correctly, we have spent a great deal of time and have a lot of information that we have generated to show how those buildings, in fact, do and will relate along that creek corridor, but I also want to point out that in our conversations with staff everybody had come to the consensus that that was the amenity, that's really the heart of the project it's not something to be hidden. What the challenge is -- I'm going to hope that this thing will work, but we end up with coming across the north -- Marshall: I think you have to punch one of the colors on the button first. Wardle: You have to come that far in order to get to the creek, but the creek is substantially lower than the roadway. So, functionally you can't really just get to the creek from a pathway and the corridor along Ten Mile is anticipated to be a pedestrian facility, but Franklin gets you to that creek alignment. So, in discussions with staff it was decided that the way to do it is to come to this first -- oops, a little bit too far there. This roadway and do your major pedestrian connections along that side of that street and, then, it takes you into the facility along the creek itself into that pedestrian facility and it also, then, becomes the access for maintenance purposes for Nampa-Meridian. So, it was actually a point of discussion with -- not just planning, but also the pathway folks on how to get to that facility and make it functional, provide a separated facility for the pedestrians that do get to -- there will certainly be some, but I agree that primarily people are going to come into the site in vehicles, they are not going to come into this site as pedestrians. And so it really is a facility that has great benefit for the internal elements of the site, but to keep that corner open actually destroys the viability of the corner itself, because there is very little room -- I'm going to go to the blue here -- with the creek coming in this location and easement on the outside edges to it, you really have made a corner that needs to be a presentation corner unviable. So, as Mr. Turnbull pointed out, we have spent years looking at all of the elements that come into this and, again, my apologizes for not really anticipating the discussion on this very vital Meridian Planning & Zoning February 6, 2014 Page 19 of 48 amenity that we, in fact, will provide to the community. So, I just wanted to add that it's not isolated, it's not separated, it's accessed for pedestrians as well as those that will be users within the site itself. Marshall: Mr. Wardle, you mentioned that it drops significantly there to Ten Mile Creek. What kind of drop are we talking about? Wardle: The creek itself at that corner or throughout the project? Marshall: At that corner. Wardle: About 14 feet to the bottom and if you were out on the site today you would see that that is a canyon through there currently. There is a step back within the easement area. We did not do anything filling within the easement itself Nampa- Meridian has, but that creek or drain from their perspective, is very very deep and so that's the reason that we are going to do a great deal of work to get to that and make it an amenity. Marshall: So, if you leveled off to match Franklin and Ten Mile Road at that corner pad, you're going to have a -- what kind of slope are you talking within that easement then? That's a pretty significant slope, then, isn't it? Wardle: Well, the whole site will be brought up when that area is filled -- when that is covered. That site will become uniform from the southwesterly side to the northeasterly side and, then, when you come off at the -- where it opens up again, that pathway will, then, go down substantially, probably, you know, could be eight or ten feet below grade to get down to a point where it has a relationship with the -- Marshall: Okay. Follow me here. I'm just trying to justify in my own mind why this has to be covered up and so I'm looking at this as an amenity and if it were open. You can still put that corner building in there. You might -- you're probably going to lose a building, but -- but what we are saying, though, is if we leveled off to match Ten Mile Road and Franklin Road, that that slope within the easement areas down to Ten Mile Creek is going to be pretty significant and not going to work probably very well for an amenity at that point is what you're saying? Wardle: Mr. Chairman, actually, it would take a great deal of separation from grade to get down to the creek, because it is substantially deeper. So, it's not something that just right off the corner you would be able to just get to it and enjoy it, it's going to require a great deal of grading and that's the reason that when you get to the point that you have access from that internal roadway system, it's still -- the pathway will go down substantially from the street grades, substantially lower than the pad areas to the site and so will be stepping back into the buildings that are adjacent to the creek in order to make those useful with overlooking patios and so forth from some of the restaurant type uses. So, I apologize for not providing that type of information, it was just not something Meridian Planning & Zoning February 6, 2014 Page 20 of 48 that had come up in our discussions with staff and I did not anticipate your concerns, but they have been addressed and they will be addressed. Freeman: Mr. Chair, if I may -- Marshall: Commissioner Freeman. Freeman: -- ask a question of Mr. Wardle. No apology necessary. You can't anticipate what we crazy guys might want to look into and ask more questions about. I do have a question about what you showed us there, though. You indicate a path going from Franklin Road down to your amenity. I didn't see that on your plan. Is there actually a path there that continues that's not shown on the plan? Wardle: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Freeman, it's probably shown, but it's -- at this scale it's very hard to see. There is actually -- let me see if I have got -- Freeman: It just looked like landscape to me, which -- Turnbull: There is a path. Freeman: Okay. Wardle: Yeah. There is -- Freeman: Then Ihave afollow-up question. Where this amenity -- where it goes off to the northwest -- the sidewalk goes off to the northwest and, then, where I said it just ended and went nowhere, apparently that's not true to the north, it actually continues to the north. Does it continue to the west where it V's off to the west or connecting paths that go from the northwest tip of our amenity westward to connect to the rest of the site? I just want to make sure I'm not missing something here. Turnbull: Meaning in this area here? Freeman: Yeah. Even south of there. Turnbull: It certainly can be. I don't -- you know, I -- because there is no issue with that. In fact, Mike probably -- we should note that there is a ten foot pathway all along Ten Mile Road, so -- Freeman: Right. Turnbull: -- we are not shy of path -- of pedestrian circulation and pathway opportunities here. Freeman: Am I correct, though, in interpreting this drawing that there are no pathways that, then, extend down to the southwest corner of the site that I have missed? Meridian Planning & Zoning February 6, 2014 Page 21 of 48 Turnbull: Down to this area here? Freeman: The whole southwest -- the whole southwest path there is nothing that connects to the amenity pathway. Turnbull: Well, there is a ten foot pathway here. Freeman: On the street. But internally there is nothing. Turnbull: You have all along the perimeter streets and you have these connections here and, then, you have, of course, all the way down here and so there is -- Freeman: Okay. Turnbull: -- a number of -- Freeman: Yeah. When I commented on that -- when I commented on the pathways not tying through the entire site -- it seems to me you could extend pathways from your amenity directly westward to your -- your access directly north of Ten Mile Creek Drive as well and start connecting some of those buildings to everything. The way it is now, part of what bothers me again is that even though we want strong pedestrian connections, if somebody parked in the northeast corner of this site and wanted to go to the northwest, what are they going to do, they are going to get in their car and drive to the northwest part of the site, whereas if there were pathways connecting them maybe they would be encouraged to use this wonderful amenity that just kind of stops to get from one side of the site to the other, instead of driving across your site. It's things like that and the creek not extending through where I see opportunities maybe missed. But, anyway, you answered my question and I got to share a little bit more of my thinking with you and I'm glad you got the chance to actually answer some of the questions that we didn't ask initially. Wardle: Mr. Chairman, Mr. -- Commissioner Freeman, you used the term pathways. There will be a lot of sidewalk connections, because those primary drive aisles will serve substantially as streets, not just parking lots, you know, where sometimes you have no distinction between the drive aisles and the parking areas. Freeman: So, again, am I just not seeing that and they are here or are they not shown here and I -- Wardle: Well, if you look at all of those drive aisles you will see -- let me just use this one as the -- it becomes a functional street system internal and it's not public, but it still will necessarily have that type of pedestrian access along a lot of those elements, so this is not just a -- Meridian Planning & Zoning February 6, 2014 Page 22 of 48 Freeman: And the drive that goes completely across your site from east to west down in the southern third, that as well? Turnbull: This one in this location here? Freeman: Yes. The sidewalks are connecting? Turnbull: We can certainly provide something. We can provide -- as Mr. Wardle said, the city distinguishes between pathways and sidewalks. Freeman: Yeah. I'm sorry. I mixed my terms. Turnbull: And the intent is not to run pathways through everything, but sidewalks are a part of the functionality and development of the specific area of the development. Yearsley: Mr. Chairman? Marshall: Commissioner. Yearsley: I think that would be my question is -- is I'm assuming that most of all your internal drive aisles will have sidewalks against the roadways; is that not correct? Or was that not the plan? Turnbull: Along these primary ones we have delineated here, yes. Yearsley: Okay. Miller: Mr. Chair, I have got a question. Marshall: Commissioner Miller. Miller: The main Ten Mile Creek it looks like the pathway just goes along one side of it. Is there any cross-over where if somebody wanted to go from the south building to the north building they could without walking -- or getting in their car and driving around that amenity? Turnbull: We had discussed for probably in a mid block scenario if they would allow it, a pedestrian crossing. Wardle: But that would necessitate down and probably stairs up, because getting up steeply -- unless you have a long ramp area it becomes a bit of a challenge. But that's -- it's possible, it's just that it's going to require some real effort to make some of those connections work to upgrade. Marshall: Any other questions, Commissioners? Meridian Planning & Zoning February 6, 2014 Page 23 of 48 Wardle: Thank you very much. Marshall: Appreciate that. Yearsley: Thank you. Marshall: Okay. So -- Yearsley: Mr. Chairman? Marshall: Commissioner Yearsley. Yearsley: Oh, we need to open the public -- Freeman: Close. Marshall: I think we had it opened already. I think we still need to close. Yearsley: Well, we need to make sure that anybody else -- if there is anybody out there that else wants to comment on -- Marshall: Do I have anyone in the audience who would like to make a comment on this project? No? All right. Yearsley: Mr. Chairman, I would move to close the public hearing. Miller: Second. Marshall: I have a motion and a second to close the public hearing on PP 13-042 and MDA 13-0 -- oh, no. No. Wrong one. AZ 13-015 and PP 13-0030. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Marshall: All right. So, Commissioners, for me that was a bit enlightening in a couple areas. It helped me see why maybe the creek is maybe a little closed off there towards Franklin and covered up and being tiled or piped. Understand now that that's considerably lower. I do like the amenity and that's about the only thing that I took out of that. Commissioners, anyone else? Yearsley: Mr. Chairman? Marshall: Commissioner Yearsley. Yearsley: I do agree. I think it does make sense to -- to the that portion of it and there -- you know, even though it's not shown that there is still significant internal sidewalks or Meridian Planning & Zoning February 6, 2014 Page 24 of 48 pathways, so I think it does provide pedestrian access. So, I understand that and you have to realize the Ten Mile Creek is not a Boise River, it's a small creek, so it's not flowing a lot of water a lot of times, so I think it's appropriate. Wafters: Excuse me, Chairman. If I may, I would just like to clarify that if you were -- if you felt strongly about the sidewalks along those main drive aisles within the site you should recommend that those be required. Those are not required by staff, nor are they shown on the site plan at the time, so just wanted to make that clear. Thanks. Freeman: And I would think we would want to do that. Miller: Mr. Chair? Marshall: Commissioner Miller. Miller: I -- I pretty much stand by what I was saying before. I don't think there is enough information to deny the application, but I would really like to see more connection on the north and south with that amenity, so that it doesn't just act like a slice down the middle of the development preventing one side from crossing to the other if you're a pedestrian. You could do a cool bridge or something like that, but I think that's important. I'm still good with the creek being covered right there. I think it's -- there is a lot of case to be made for that, as well as that case comment. So, I'm good to go. Marshall: I'm going to make a quick comment, if I could. I would -- personally, the connectivity I'm fine, as long as we require the sidewalks along the main drive aisles there. As far as the bridge across there, it sounds like they would be amenable to it, but we can't -- the problem is we can't require them to do something that they not be allowed to do. They have worked -- I understanding working with the irrigation district they have come a long way from -- it used to be the irrigation district didn't -- just wanted a fenced gravel road and leave it alone and I think this is -- it is very impressive what they have done here and -- and I do appreciate it. I would love to see a bridge there. agree with connectivity. But I don't know if the irrigation district or anyone else is going to allow that. That's just my comment on that. Freeman: Mr. Chair, (wouldn't -- I wouldn't want to see a bridge there. It wouldn't work very well. I think we can connect the site. If the -- if the creek remains tiled to the north, we can use that driveway up there where it cuts off the exposed portion and make sure we have got sidewalk connectivity to connect the site together for pedestrians. Yearsley: I guess it's up to me. Mr. Chairman? Marshall: Yeah. Commissioner Oliver, just wanted to make sure you have an opportunity to say something if you want to. Oliver: Being the new guy here I still agree with -- I think it's a wonderful plan and I still like the -- I have no problem with tiling that or putting pipe in there. That's great. And Meridian Planning & Zoning February 6, 2014 Page 25 of 48 do agree with Commissioner Freeman that it is important to have those pathways -- or in this case sidewalks and I see a lot of sidewalks there that potentially it will help get pedestrians around through that development. So, I think it's a great plan. Marshall: So, Commissioner Yearsley, you have something you would like to say? Yearsley: Since Commission Freeman probably won't want to do this one, I will go ahead and make my attempt at it. You will have to pardon my inexperience. I haven't done this for a year, so -- after considering all staff and applicant and public testimony, move to recommend approval to the City Council of file number AZ 13-015 and PP 13- 030, as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of February 6, 2014, with the following recommendations: That we strike 1.1.1 K in its entirety. 1.1.1 R, the changes to be made per the applicant's comments and, then, 1.1.3E, the north side of Ten Mile Creek be added. And, then, no -- and, then, also at the end no street improvements shall be required beyond the curb and gutter of the south side of the street and 1.1.7, the developer shall obtain an easement from appropriate agencies, instead of the Bureau of Reclamation. Furthermore, I would make the recommendation that -- that the drive aisles -- the major drive aisles all have sidewalks as well for connect -- pedestrian connectivity. Miller: I will second that. Marshall: I have a motion and a second. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries unanimously. Thank you. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. C. Public Hearing: PP 13-042 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 Forty (40) Single-Family Buildable Lots and Four (4) Common/Other Lots on Approximately 5.28 Acres of Land in an R-15 Zoning District Marshall: All right. At this time I would like to open the public hearing for PP 13-042, Centre Point Square by Centre Point Square, LLC, and ask for the staff report, please. Parsons: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. Next item on the agenda is the Centre Point Square Subdivision. It's currently located on the west side North Eagle Road, just south of East Ustick Road. This property was before you in 2012 and was called Bienville Square East. At that time the applicant did propose 28 single family lots, which you see platted already. And, then, one 4.23 acre multi-family lot here. All of the property is currently zoned R-15 and the pad itself is -- contains 5.28 acres this evening. You can see to the north here that the property to the north -- excuse me -- is zoned C-G. To the east we have C-G zoned property with three additional commercial buildings developed on the site. To the west we have R-8 Meridian Planning & Zoning February 6, 2014 Page 26 of 48 development and that was part of this development in 2005 and, then, we have county subdivisions surrounding it, which is currently zoned R-1 and R-2 as well. The applicant is here this evening to discuss a 40 lot single family subdivision consisting of four common lots as well. One of the common lots is actually the -- being platted over the existing private streets that are currently constructed in the development. Overall density for this development is 7.58 dwelling units to the acre. If you were to take out that common lot for the private street you actually are upwards towards ten units to the acre, if you just look at what's being developed with the single family homes. Over the years there has been many reiterations for this development. Sometimes it has been proposed for townhomes, it's been designed for single family, it's been designed for multi-family. I think the applicant's here to finally discussing the final version of the plan and, again, it will consist of single family homes consistent to what's currently to the south of it -- will be a mix. A few lots will have detached product. Some of the lots will have attached product. As I mentioned to you, primary access for this development will be from the existing private streets and, then, some of the lots will also front on a private alley along the south boundary that was constructed when the other portion was developed in 2012. Here is the landscape plan before you this evening. You can see here that all of the lots will front on a MEW lot, which is approximately 39,000 square feet. If you recall when this came through in 2012 the applicant did amend the development agreement and as a provision in that DA they were allowed to construct open space on this multi-family lot and it was to be reallocated when this lot was developed and so in keeping with the spirit or the recommendation or the approval of that DA, the applicant is, in fact, complying with that recommendation in the DA. In fact, the plan before you this evening actually proposes more open space than what was required under the DA. So, this site does still maintain the ten percent open space as approved in the development agreement. As I mentioned to you, the primary focus here, again, is the MEW lots. There are some conditions in the staff report that staff is recommending to them to submit a landscape plan and I will go over those fairly quickly. As you can see here, since all of these homes do front on this amenity you can see that there aren't any pedestrian connections to the internal pathway system here, so one of staff's recommendations to you this evening is to require those pedestrian connections from the front porches here as well. And, then, also the applicant has gone so far as to provide an exhibit on how the buildable lots would develop as well. I know this exhibit doesn't showed the parameters of the front porches very well, but right now as this sits this would be a typical placement of a building on the site and this would be the MEW lot to the north. Staff has -- in the staff report has recommended that they take the plantings here that you see along the south -- or along the side yards and wrap those planter beds along the front of the structures. One, it helps form the MEW lot and separate the front porch from the common MEW lot as well. In speaking with the applicant it's their intent to have one landscape company maintain all of this development, even the buildable lots. So, in this particular instance getting that out on the table certainly makes sense. Framing those front porches with shrubs and bark and landscaping, rather than just lawn, seems to help define the private open space from the public -- or at least the common open space. So, I believe the applicant's amenable to that as well. At the time that the applicant came forward in 2012 they did propose a singular elevation and what I have done in this exhibit is provide a collogue, but Meridian Planning & Zoning February 6, 2014 Page 27 of 48 currently if you look at my cursor here I'm highlighting four facades here for you and this is currently what's constructed on those lots to the south. And at this time the applicant would like to get more flexibility out there. So, this collogue isn't necessarily representing the exact elevations proposed for the development, it's merely a collogue to kind of emulate or depict the styles and the building materials proposed for the development. I think it's the intent of the applicant to get a different flavor and they are not to have one development with a singular design theme. So, this is what they propose. And, then, also along the end of this -- at least the bottom of the screen there, you can see their intent for the MEW lot as well. This is the exhibit for the planned gazebo that they are proposing to construct as well. The amenities proposed for this development will consist of the gazebo and also the tot lot. One thing I would mention to you -- mention that -- as I mentioned, that lot is currently developed with 30,000 square feet of open space and it does have a tot lot and some benches on it now and that would just float over and be added to the MEW lot as part of this development. Because the -- the number of homes and because the single family attached product is proposed for the development, the UDC requires that they go through design -- CZC and design review. So, staff has a condition in the staff report and has a recommended provision in the DA that every single family home within this development go through CZC and design review process. If I could step back quickly here. Because of the way these homes will front along Cajun Drive and how visible it will be from Eagle Road, staff has recommended a DA provision that the applicant provide some more mix of materials, articulation in the wall plains, decorative trim elements similar to what you would see on the front facades, so that we don't just get a garage dominant street front -- streetscape along that private street. We certainly want to make sure that that is probably the most attractive and it coincides with the MEW as we move forward. The other item that I would point out to Commission is currently this site does have a traffic calming landscape island in the middle of it and we certainly -- because of the way the traffic patterns are within the development we didn't want to have a continuous line of driveways along that street frontage, so we have actually had the applicant design the project to only have one curb cut to serve some of these units, so that we do have cars entering the roadway frontwards and not backing into the intersection. So, we felt this was a compromise. It certainly adds to the safety of folks entering and exiting from these pods of homes. Moving forward the applicant would have to plat a common lot and provide cross-access across the properties, making sure that every homeowner in there has access across that to the public street system as well. I would mention to you that I did receive written testimony from John Blakesly. He's actually the chairman of the Almonds Lateral Association. Currently this property is bisected by an irrigation easement that runs in this general vicinity here and bisects the property. He just wanted me to go on record and let Commission know that he wants to make sure there is a condition in the staff report that the applicant receive written approval prior to him relocating that irrigation facility. As I pointed out in the staff report, it will be relocated in this general location and moving forward we have placed a condition in the staff report that they vacate the easement and, then, coordinate -- we want to make sure that he coordinates that and gets that in writing before any of that construction happens. Other than that staff has not received any additional testimony on this. The site does comply Meridian Planning & Zoning February 6, 2014 Page 28 of 48 with all UDC standards as conditioned in the staff report. Staff is recommending approval and I will stand for any questions you have. Marshall: Commissioners, any questions of staff? Okay. Before I call the applicant up, unfortunately, in my haste to get going this evening and first time doing the chair in quite some time, I failed to mention that this evening there are police and SWAT drills in the building and they are typically upstairs and in the stairwells and if you happen to run into the SWAT teams out in the hallway, don't worry, it's just a drill. Okay? I apologize for not announcing that earlier and now I would like to ask for the applicant -- and I'm going to have to ask for your name and address, please. Unger: Mr. Chair, Commission Members, my name is Bob Unger. I am with ULC Management. My address is 6104 North Gary Lane, Boise, Idaho. 83714. And I represent the applicant on this project, which is Centre Point Square, LLC. As usual Bill has done a great job of reviewing the application. Historically and continuously any projects that we bring to this city we spend extensive time with staff and staffs made some great recommendations, particularly on this project with the MEW. Never heard of it. Great idea. And it works wonderfully with this project. So, I commend -- commend them on their recommendation and their -- their help in designing the project and, really, I had no issues with the conditions of approval recommended by staff. I know there is some folks here that live in the neighborhood that would like to speak. There were specific -- there were scientific discussions that we had at our neighborhood meeting and let me preface all of this in saying that the previous phase of this project was the 28 townhomes and we sold all of those to one buyer and he built the same building, same color right down through that whole stretch of 28 buildings and to our disappointment I should say also. So, you had the same color roof, you have the same architectural design -- everything. And I think neighbors are really concerned is that going to happen again here and we have assured them that, no, that is not what's going to happen here. We were very disappointed in it and we are -- in our -- although it's essentially the same building, we are changing the architectural design and roof designs to mix it up throughout this next phase of the project and I think what -- you know, what we have given staff is just an example of some of the architectural applications that we would put on these buildings. And I think staff's done a really fine job of putting this in this -- these concerns in the development agreement and -- which I shared with the neighbors. And I think the neighbors -- you know, we are -- we are in agreement with what the neighbors are concerned about. We understand their concerns and so we have really made an effort to -- to make this project something that we can be proud of and they can be happy with also, because they live there, too. So, really that's about all I had to say at this point in time. I will certainly stand for any questions that you might have. Marshall: Commissioners, any questions from Mr. Unger? No? All right. Thank you, sir. Unger: Okay. Thank you. Meridian Planning & Zoning February 6, 2014 Page 29 of 48 Marshall: All right. I have some people signed up. And please forgive me if I slaughter some names here, but I'm going to call Pat McBrayer. And, sir, I'm going to have to ask you to state your name and address for the record. McBrayer: Pat McBrayer. 2976 Centre Point, Meridian. As Bob Unger -- Mr. Chairman, Commissioners. As Bob Unger said about the original 14 units, with that our neighborhood now is 52 percent rentals and I don't know whether this Commission has authority to put a stop to that. I mean that's ridiculous. I bought a home in a neighborhood and am very concerned about these turning into rentals. The other thing would be the roof line and everything on the original project looks like an Army barracks. There is no grass. It's all rock and so on and so on like that. And Bob has stated to us that he is not going to do that and I'd like it in the record that he's not going to do that, because it -- I didn't realize I was going to be living in an Army fort with this other project. The other thing would be if possible he could put in speed bumps, because our neighborhood is going to increase dramatically in cars and kids. That was one of the things we had requested and I learned this evening that they may possibly put in some metal roofs. I'm very much opposed to that. We would like -- as our neighborhood is, all composition roofs, so that it doesn't turn out anywhere near those other roofs and he also stated that they were going to use rock and bricks and so on for the facades, instead of the program with the other ones that are all identical. That's one of the major concerns that I have is the fact that I don't want an Army -- another fort next to us. Thank you, gentlemen. Marshall: Thank you, sir. Any questions? All right. Thank you. All right. Julie Hysmith. Hysmith: Good evening. Marshall: Good evening. Hysmith: I'm Julie Hysmith. 2903 North Centre Point Way, Meridian. We do have the pictures of the houses, but what I guess we are looking for, too, is what is he physically going to build. As Pat just said, we were told what was going to be in the front when they built the previous 28, which, of course, was not done. That's what we are concerned about now. We want to know what is going to be put in there? If there is four different plans, that's great. Show us the plans. We were told they would be compo roofs, no metal roofs, and now we are hearing, of course, that there are metal. And the rock landscaping -- I'm sorry, rocks don't drop petals. It's just a nightmare. Looking at that you don't see any variation. We talked about the previous people that were just here and how they want to have a facade that people enjoy. This is what we are looking for and if you look at Eagle and you drive down there right now, if you look into that area it looks like a giant skateboard ramp. Don't know what else to say. Either that or a launching pad for a test plane. And that's what we are trying to get away from. This is a residential section that's going to have children and we are very concerned -- we have the common areas, the play areas, but also an upbeat place for people to live. Thank you. Meridian Planning & Zoning February 6, 2014 Page 30 of 48 Marshall: Any questions? No? Hysmith: Any questions? Marshall: No. Thank you. All right. Janet Bailey. Bailey: Good evening. I'm Janet Bailey. 2925 North Centre Point Way, Meridian. You know, I, too, bought in that neighborhood, because I love the look. But, then, like Julie and Pat said, the -- the townhomes that were put in completely changed the whole feel. Now, with Mr. Unger proposing this other batch that he's putting in, they are squeezing them in and traffic in there -- it's created traffic issues. It has -- there is small children in there and the traffic is now an issue. The look of these -- it doesn't match the one they had initially done. The street meeting -- what they had told us versus what is in there now, night and day. So, I think what we are looking at now is that, yes, they are going in, but, yes, it needs to match. It really does. It doesn't -- what's there is an eye sore. It just doesn't blend, so -- I just want to protect my investment, truly, because it's changed the neighborhood. Traffic, people, it is all -- it's getting congested in there, so -- Marshall: Any questions? No? Bailey: Thank you. Marshall: Thank you very much. Joseph LeMay. Again, your name and address for the record, please. LeMay: Good afternoon. My name is Joseph LeMay. My address is 2989 North Centre Point Way. Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, thank you having us. Given the inconsistencies of what has been presented in the past, what has been presented at various meetings that we have had with Mr. Unger -- and, again, these plans changed multiple times, so that's the whole fault -- and what was built in phase two I think, as you heard from our other neighbors, that's our big concern. I would respectfully ask that very stringent requirements be attached to the approval of the final plat -- plan. Most of them have been addressed in one way or form in the staff report, but they are somewhat vague. I would like to see that the -- the common areas, the MEW lots, are specific landscape requirements of grass, trees, shrubs, unlike as was pointed out, the rock yards that are in phase two. Elevations. Noted again in the staff report that request is made for vertical and changes in the roof line that front Eagle Road, but later in that staff report says there is no design requirement by the city to -- to actually do that. I would like some verbiage to say that this will be changed as -- as you have indicated -- everyone's indicated having a -- just a flat roof facing Eagle Road does -- is not a -- it's not a nice view to see. In Exhibit A it shows -- and Bob has pointed out that this is what's existing and you can see the one -- one view of the two flat roofs with two roofs on top of it. If that's to front all of Eagle Road it really detracts from the neighborhood. We have requested the developer eliminate all the metal roofs. We were informed tonight that that is not possibly the case and change the facade to be Meridian Planning & Zoning February 6, 2014 Page 31 of 48 more like the single family homes, which is where most of us live, to blend these with the neighborhood. We, obviously, can't ask them to change what's already there, but we specifically do not want a repeat of what's there. The final concern that I have also -- is the changes between the preliminary plat and this final plat. Are those going to go through any kind of a design review? Is there going to be another meeting where we can come in? And what's the assurance that we have that -- that the developer does make the changes that are set up in the staff review, but are somewhat again left vague. Is there any kind of review that we can -- we can have the assurance that what was built in phase two doesn't be repeated in phase three? Those are my concerns. Thank you very much. Marshall: Thank you, sir. Any questions? Make the comment that we will try to address these things here in a bit. Next up I have got Larry Hysmith. And name and address for the record, please, sir. L.Hysmith: Larry Hysmith. 2903 North Centre Point Way. Again, I could stand up here and reiterate exactly what everyone else has said. I have a couple of major concerns and the one is the -- the roof lines and no -- no metal roofs, please. The other is -- I'm very concerned about the traffic flow. Going out the only way you can go north and -- is to come down to Centre Point and get on Ustick that way. And that's going to really create a traffic jam. That way you have small children who go down to the school bus and we will have a lot of traffic going out to work at that time, so it's a major concern, the traffic flow, and like I say, the -- the homes that were built, they are not what we were told would be built and we would like -- as some of the neighbors have said -- to be able to maybe be assured that, indeed, this will not happen again. Thank you very much. Marshall: Thank you, sir. Mr. Unger, you're on here, but I think you have gotten your chance and we will talk to you again here in just a minute. After I call up Elizabeth Gammon. Gammon: Thank you. My name is Elizabeth Gammon, 3305 North Centre Point Way, Meridian. I'm not as eloquent as some of these people are, but I want to tell you I'm here because I'm trying to protect my investment and we are seeing that investment go down, because of what was put in before. We do not want to see it again and we think we have been given a lot of promises, again, that may not be kept. Traffic, too, from me is a very major concern. It's already is a big problem, not only to people living in the duplexes, but people coming in off -- off of the shopping center, turning around in there, -- this house is right at the entrance and I can say in five minutes I have seen seven cars go by and turn around in there. When they put this all in it's just going to add to it. The only other way is off of Eagle and, of course, there is median in the middle and so people come out the other way. Again, the roof lines -- we don't want rentals. We have got enough of that right now and like somebody said before, we already have 50 percent rentals. If we have more rentals in there we are a rental neighborhood, not a home -- the homes were -- we bought the home because it was what we wanted, but we didn't the rest of this. We want to make sure that what they tell us is going in -- I didn't feel a whole lot of what I could tell that really was coming in on this and one thing -- Meridian Planning & Zoning February 6, 2014 Page 32 of 48 somebody mentioned 30,000 square feet of common area and I thought they were supposed to have 37,000 and that's a concern of mine, because that's already dropped down from what we were promised of 46,000 -- to 30,000. If that's the case. I'm not sure -- maybe I heard that wrong. But we want this to match and blend in with the neighborhood and not look -- not look different. Thank you. Marshall: Thank you. All right. I don't have anyone else, other than the applicant, signed up. Is there anyone else that would like to testify on this project? Yes, sir. Please come on up. And I will ask for your name and address for the record, please. Sessions: Thank you. My name is Mark Sessions. My address is 3005 North LeBlanc Way. I would like to also go on record and agree with everything that's been said so far by the -- the folks in the neighborhood. My lot is on LeBlanc, which faces the newest development and when we moved in those -- those -- the development wasn't there, so now when you look out we just see this -- excuse me -- very large building, just one lot after another. It's just a wall of roof lines and in addition to that, instead of any lawn or landscaping at all, they have taken -- the other folks mentioned rock. It's just crushed gravel. It's not architectural at all, it's just flat gravel and so very disappointing when I'm looking out of the house that I just recently purchased, with my lawn being landscaped and everything, look across the street just see gray rock. So, one other thing I'd like to mention, with the additional units going in and the traffic that's involved -- the traffic is already very busy, not only from the people that live in that neighborhood, but there is a commercial restaurant on Eagle that is a sandwich shop and they will use that street down through our neighborhood out to Ustick constantly. There is just a constant flow. And you can tell it's their vehicles, because they put the signs on top and they go fast, they run the stop sign at Centre Point -- or, sorry, Picard and LeBlanc. So, this is going through and real concerned. So, we'd like to emphasize the need for speed bumps or some kind of traffic control there. Thank you. Marshall: Thank you, sir. Is there anyone else that would like to speak to this? Yes, ma'am. Please come on up. Again, I will ask your name and address for the record, please. Holsinger: Good evening. My name is Wanda Holsinger. Address 2836 North Centre Point Way, Meridian, Idaho. 83646. My husband and I just moved here and we were shown that area and really fell in love with the Centre Point side and, then, went over to the other side that is facing these homes -- or these townhomes that the other folks have spoken about and the first thing we said is, oh, we would never want to live on this side, because it's so ugly. And so I'm sorry that some of the folks do live facing those, because it is really ugly and it's -- as they said, it's just crushed rock, there is no landscaping, they all look exactly the same and it's really just not a beautiful neighborhood at all. So, a little bit of a different angle. We moved here November 13th, so those were already built, so we had the advantage of knowing what we didn't want to look at. So, thank you for considering our concerns tonight. We really appreciate it. And, then, to speak to the traffic, the Jimmy John's, they have an advertisement where they can get your sandwich really fast, so they are using our way right through there Meridian Planning & Zoning February 6, 2014 Page 33 of 48 and they are not stopping at the stop sign and I know that you don't have control over any of that, but, again, to add another 40 townhomes and the traffic, great concern. So, thank you so much. Marshall: Thank you. Holsinger: You're welcome. Marshall: So, is there anyone else that would like to speak on this project? All right. At this time I'd like to call the applicant back up. Mr. Unger. Unger: Mr. Chair, for the record Bob Unger. Mr. Chair, Commission Members, like stated earlier, we had a neighborhood meeting and all of these issues were brought up and discussed. So, let me clarify a couple of things here that -- so we can make some of this go away. I forgot about the speed bumps and we did discuss that and we -- we would propose -- and this is with emergency services' approval only -- speed bumps on Picard Lane, which is the street to the north there where Bill is showing you. And that's the street that Jimmy John's delivery guys just fly up and down, you know, and understand the police have been out there and tried to catch them, but they never quite catch them. So, definitely speed bumps there and, then, also a speed bump on the southern road, which is Bourbon Lane and that's where Bill's showing there. That road's already constructed. And the roundabout pretty much serves as a speed bump. It, you know, doesn't allow a lot of speeding going up and down through there, so -- but we certainly agree with that one hundred percent. Metal roof. They are gone. Okay? No metal roof. Okay. There was one little section of all of those buildings that had a little bit of metal roof, just one little section, but in our neighborhood meeting I -- understood that it was no copper roof, but I guess that means no metal roof. I don't have a problem with that. So, metal roofs are gone. No rock landscaping. I agreed to that with them and I totally agree with it here. I was rather disappointed in what the previous builder did. And I think, you know, somewhat -- that somewhat addresses the concerns of the traffic. The speed bumps will help with the -- slowing down the traffic. The common area -- I just want to straighten that out. We were required to have 37,000 square feet and we are at 40,000 plus now. So, we have increased the amount of common area. I also feel that in Bill's discussion of the development agreement where Bill discusses the different roof lines and things, that's where he kind of specifies along the northern street. I think we should go ahead and make that as a throughout the project, that we have varied roof lines and things like that. I think that would be a wonderful idea. That way it's clear with everybody, it's not specifically that section, but the entire project. And that is totally our intentions. I think that kind of covers the real issues. In 2006 when we originally -- when we did the original project, this specific -- this section of the project was originally going to be four-plexes and the density was going to be 15 units to the acre. So, we are -- we are down to ten or 11 -- ten -- 10 point something net density in this area. So, actually, we reduced the density. We are reducing the traffic that could have gone in there. We had even looked at one time -- we were showing office in that section in there -- a couple large office facilities, which that really doesn't work either. So, I think, you know, what we are proposing is -- is a Meridian Planning & Zoning February 6, 2014 Page 34 of 48 really quality development here to finish up this project. Yeah, we are paying for what we allowed to happen in the last phase, as you're hearing this evening and you're hearing our disappointment in what happened there, too. I wish I could fix it, but I can't. But certainly we will make -- we will make this one much much better than what was done there, you know. And the MEW I think is a wonderful idea, you know, with the -- the covered area, the playground equipment, we have got a lot of nice amenities in there and these folks will be welcome to use those also. It's just not for us, it's for everybody. We want to form a complete community there and we need to tie all of our associations together to do so. I don't think I'm really hearing opposition from these folks. I think what I'm hearing is concerns and they want to make sure that this -- that last phase is controlled much better than the last -- than the previous phase. I think that would maybe -- we and staff and had no idea what could go wrong and now we know what can go wrong and we are taking all those steps to make sure it doesn't happen again. So, at this point, you know, we'd ask for your recommendation of approval and I'll stand for any questions that you might have. Freeman: Mr. Chair? Marshall: Commissioner Freeman. Freeman: So, I think everybody out there agrees that whatever happened last time -- nobody likes that, including you, and I appreciate you committing to, you know, no metal roofs and no rock landscaping, but I'm still curious from your perspective as the applicant, how you intend to assure that you can prevent those things. What is to prevent the same thing from happening? Unger: Mr. Chair, Mr. Freeman, we are building these buildings and we are building them -- we will be building them as they are purchased. We are not doing -- we are doing spec construction here. We will have five or six options as far as how the floor plan is laid out to some extent. The exterior applications, the roof lines and somebody comes in, they want to build in here, we will sit down, go over the plans with them and show them these options that they have, okay, and that's why we will go in and we will have total control over that, as we did not have control over the previous phase. Freeman: In the last phase what was different? How did you not have the control then? Unger: In the last -- in the last phase we sold those lots to one builder and we have had no control over the architectural application or the colors or anything like that. I mean we had specified, you know, neutral colors and that was pretty much it. We are the builders this time. Freeman: Have you considered tying the development to some CC&Rs that would prevent certain things from happening regardless of who the builder was? Meridian Planning & Zoning February 6, 2014 Page 35 of 48 Unger: Mr. Chair, Mr. Freeman, certainly, you know, we will have CC&Rs that will have some architectural control involved. They will also specify the maintenance of the common areas and things like that. So, there certainly will be CC&Rs involved in all of that. Freeman: I assume you didn't have those in place last time. Unger: No, sir, we did not. Freeman: That's all of my questions for now. Oliver: Mr. Chairman? Marshall: Commissioner Oliver. Oliver: Mr. Unger, I would like to just ask you -- I noted that listening to the testimonies that a lot of the people that came up here spoke about the number of rentals that are in the development currently and one person I think said approximately 50 percent are rentals. I wonder if in your meeting with them -- if you spoke to that point with them and talked about the concerns about that? Unger: Mr. Chair, Mr. Oliver, yeah, we did talk about that. Okay? And we have no control over what somebody does with their house. Okay? As it is anywhere else in the country. We cannot -- we cannot restrict people from building a house and turning around and renting it. I can't do that. I mean it's illegal. Now, the structures that we plan to build, they are very very nice. They are not cheap. They are in the 199 to 220 thousand dollar range and that's per unit. That's -- you know. And anybody that's going to, you know, do this they are -- you know, there is a lot of money involved. Now, they have a right to rent it out if they want to. Okay? But our preference -- and we -- is to have the owner live there, but we can't control that. When we sold the other 28 lots we were under the impression that he was going to sell those. Well, once he started doing his numbers he realized that he could build all of those fairly inexpensively, because the -- of the quantity. He could buy everything so much cheaper if he bought everything, you know, in large -- in large quantities and realized that he could make a fairly decent living if he rented all those things and that's exactly what he did. And that's not our intention here, you know. And I don't see anybody coming in and buying all 40 of these. just don't see that happening. Yearsley: Thank you. Unger: Thank you very much. Marshall: All right. Commissioners, I guess it's about time to close the public hearing, possibly? Meridian Planning & Zoning February 6, 2014 Page 36 of 48 Freeman: It is more appropriate that I ask my question of staff before we close the public hearing? Marshall: Let's do it. Freeman: Okay. Question for staff. Marshall: Commissioner Freeman. Freeman: I asked the applicant what he is intending to do to prevent this from happening. I will say I'm blindsided by what happened out there. I think probably speak for all of us. What are we as a city doing to make sure that doesn't happen again? Parsons: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, certainly -- and that's why we are here this evening and why we have some of the conditions we have in place this evening as well and let me elaborate on this project a little more, until you know what transpired. If you recall, this property was purchased from the bank. When the bank got it back from the previous developer they split it off into two quadrants. Jackson Square where these neighbors live were rolled into their own CC&Rs. The bank controlled the commercial property and this property at the time it came back before you in 2012. At that time, because they bifurcated the two properties, this developer wasn't subject to the same CC&Rs that these homeowners are today and it's still that way out there. The intent when it came back before you was that all of the development would be cohesive under one CC&R, but I learned of that change and I wasn't aware of it when we came forward in 2012. So, when the CZC -- the certificate of zoning compliance and the design review applications came in for the townhome units, I remember specifically meeting with the developer of those homes and I told them specifically I can't regulate landscaping on single family lots. Our ordinance doesn't allow me to. But I highly encourage you to have a designed landscaping plan that compliments the adjacent residential subdivision. He ignored me and, therefore, we got stuck with the rock. I repeatedly told him every time I saw him out there at one of those homes, work with the neighbors, put some sort of lawn in there. Get something nice out there, because we are going to hear it for a very long time. Again ignored. So, we do have rock. I had multiple calls, multiple visits from these neighbors complaining about it and I said my hands are tied. Freeman: We don't have a mechanism. Parsons: We don't have a mechanism at this point. Not for single family lots. Not -- for common lots we have something, but in the UDC for single family lots the CC&Rs control what landscaping goes in on those lots and that's where we are at. But in this particular application, when Bob came forward, I told him -- he knew the history. He's met with the neighbors. He's testified to that. I said bring us forth a landscape plan that's prepared by a landscape architect and something that you really intend to build. That would build the rapport with the neighbors and help you go a long way to your Meridian Planning & Zoning February 6, 2014 Page 37 of 48 project. And so, therefore, he brought forth this MEW lot, this landscape plan that's before you this evening, he brought fourth a schematic on how the buildable lot is to look and be landscaped and he would further go on and said he was -- it's his intent to have one -- the landscape company maintain not only the common lots, but also the buildable lots. And that's why our mechanism tonight is in our DA provisions we have tied him to this landscape plan and to the buildable lot landscape plan. That's our mechanism. That's how we control it. So, when Bob comes in with each of his certificate of zoning compliance and his design review application for each one of those buildable lots for each unit, I will be checking for performance with these submitted landscape plans. If they are not right, they won't get approved. He can take his request up to Council and that's how we are going to move forward. I would encourage you -- don't know. I would defer to legal counsel. Is there -- can Planning and Zoning Commission say in the CC&Rs that's a buildable lot to be maintained by an landscape company. Is that -- is that feasible? Is that within their purview this evening? I'm not sure. Nary: Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission, no, it's not, so -- I mean the CC&Rs are clearly outside the purview of the city. What Bill is proposing and making it part of the development agreement is within the purview -- and that's just a piece that you don't have in front of you tonight, because that part will be what, Commissioner Freeman, you're asking is how do we get some assurance on what the future looks like. I would encourage the developer here, if you really, truly want to connect these -- these two different homeowner association groups into one, then, to do that. They can do that. The city can't require that, but they can do that, and that would go a long way to getting some compatibility. You're going to end up with this wayward piece and it is just what it is and there is not much that you can do. The other thing that I did want to comment -- Mr. Unger and the neighbors can -- can seek -- the Ada County Highway District has to put in traffic calming, not the developer, not the neighbors, not the city. It has to meet their criteria to allow it. So, whether or not it meets that criteria I don't know, but there are standards that they have to go through to allow any kind of traffic calming. Generally in residential subdivisions they do not put in speed bumps. Speed bumps can be very problematic for emergency services, but they have other measures and there may be other things that can be done to create some traffic calming. So, there are other things, but the highway district has to be involved with that. Again, the city can encourage that, but, again, we don't have the authority necessarily to direct that and that's the difference. But I think they are on the right track here. I think Bill's correct at how this is being presented and how Mr. Unger is trying to meet the needs of the neighbors and tying these two to the development agreement is our strongest assurance that we will get it to be what you intended it to be. Parsons: Mr. Chairman? I'm sorry. If I could elaborate on what Bill just said -- Marshall: Yes, sir. Parsons: -- regarding speed bumps. These are private streets, so they will not need ACHD's approval. I have discussed the matter with our fire marshal and he said he Meridian Planning & Zoning February 6, 2014 Page 38 of 48 would not allow the speed bumps, but there are other mechanisms they could do in that street to provide some traffic calming. We have a condition in the staff report that says they need to coordinate with them on that -- on the approval of traffic calming. So, we have addressed that in the staff report to make sure these neighbors get what they need out there to slow down the Jimmy John's drivers. The other item I'd also point out, too, is what Mr. Unger testified to. Right now, as I mentioned, we are requiring design review for all of the units and certainly I have a little bit more meat on the rear facades of those elevations and all of the facades, so if it's your intent to knock down, have a little bit more specifics on the design of these homes, certainly it's within your purview to maybe have a recommendation that I modify that DA provision to require all homes to have the same design element. Freeman: Bill, what's different on this one versus the last one is you now have teeth to tell a builder; correct? Sorry, you can't do the same design on all these lots. Am I correct in that assumption? Parsons: Under the -- well, when they came forward in 2012 I did tie those elevations to the DA and that's why we only had variation. Staff did not require them to provide three different building elevation types. He came forth with a specific elevation and those were the single family attached homes. We required three multiple colors schemes -- reviewed all of the plans, they were consistent to what was shown. The landscaping had no control over. Freeman: Right. Parsons: If he used the same color and he mixed it up differently on each facade, that's still providing a different mix there. Or it could all be the same color. We don't -- we don't try to regulate color through the UDC. It's not the intent to design review. Marshall: But, Bill, in the DA modification here you have listed that there would be changes in material, changes in colors, changes in modulation and so there has to be differences between all the buildings as we go along; correct? At least on the ones that were identified, but we could expand that to control all -- correct? Parsons: That is correct. You could make a recommendation that we include all the homes to have the same -- Yearsley: Well, wasn't it my impression that he agreed to that already? Parsons: That's correct. Marshall: Yes. Freeman: It's a wakeup call for me. It seems to me that from now on when we do residential subdivisions we need to keep this sort of a scenario in mind, because it snuck by us. Strange. Meridian Planning & Zoning February 6, 2014 Page 39 of 48 Marshall: Would we be prepared to close the public hearing on this? Freeman: I think so. Mr. Chair, I move that we close the public hearing on PP 13-042. Miller: Second that. Marshall: I have a motion and a second to close the public hearing on PP 13-042, Centre Point Square. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Marshall: So, I am going to ask for your opinions and see where this leads. Yearsley: Commissioner -- or chairman? Marshall: Yes, sir. Commissioner Yearsley. Yearsley: You know, I have to admit I agree with the neighbors. You know, I started watching those homes be built and saw that sea of roofs along Eagle Road and I understand your -- your concerns and no offense to Bob Unger, but he's got -- he needs to qualify what he's going to do and I think with the development agreement and what we have got in place, hopefully, we can work together to get a nice development over there. I have been over in that area. It's a beautiful area. Nice homes you guys have. And so, hopefully, with this we can -- we can make it work and I would recommend with Bob's comment that we tie all the homes to that given what they are having across the street. Marshall: Anyone else? Miller: Mr. Chair? Marshall: Yes, Commissioner Miller. Miller: I also know the development just from driving by it and thinking what the heck is that. It's unfortunate that that got through somehow. I agree with the comments before and I want to point out that in order to sell these lots Mr. Unger is going to have to go above and beyond, because these people -- these are already there. If he wants to sell them he's got to make something extra cool. So, hopefully, that will play in favor. But -- I think we have covered a lot of ground and,. hopefully, a lot of your guys' concerns have been clearly brought to the record and that we have done as much as we possibly can as this committee goes. I'm in favor also of recommending the design criteria on all of the houses. Freeman: Mr. Chair? Meridian Planning & Zoning February 6, 2014 Page 40 of 48 Marshall: Commissioner Freeman. Freeman: I hope everybody here through the -- listening in on the discussions that we have had through your public testimony realizes there are certain legal things we can do and certain legal things we cannot do and those assurances that we can have through the legal means that we have, staff has taken advantage of those things, so I feel much better that we are going to be able to get something more in line with what was initially proposed on -- on this project given what staff has done and you have some commitments from Mr. Unger to see to it that that is done as well and I would encourage you guys to continue to talk together. He said he would have some CC&Rs in place and he may -- he would do well to take your input on those CC&Rs and put those together to project yourselves beyond what we can do as a city. So, I will be in favor of the -- of the project. Staff, good job on doing what you needed to do on this one. Marshall: Commissioner Oliver. Oliver: Not knowing the subdivision, but hearing what I have heard tonight, I feel like Mr. Unger has addressed your concerns and I understand that you do have some legitimate concerns, but I also believe that there is some safeguards put in there that are there to help make sure that your property values stay where they are. I would absolutely love to see that happen to Jimmy John's to get that control. I know what it's like to have somebody zipping through your neighborhood and it's not a nice thing to happen. So, t think from all I have seen and heard tonight that I think it's going to be a really good thing for you and not hurt you at all, so I'm in favor of it. Marshall: Again, I appreciate staff's work on this. I also would recommend changing the language as a modification to actually include the modulation and change of materials and colors and everything to apply to all of the lots, not just the few stated, and, then, I think, again, unfortunately, we see a number of complaints about traffic and the like and one of the things that I like to recommend is talking to the traffic commission and Ihope -- hopefully you have been in touch with them and gone -- let me help us. Pictures, photographs, big blow-ups, here is what's happening. Yeah. I think they will listen closely to you and do everything in their power to help you out and I sure hope we can get a handle on that. I do understand, though, when that commercial piece of property developed, the idea was that it was to have across-access easement going to the north from the commercial property out on Eagle and the idea wasn't that everybody was supposed to go through that neighborhood, but right now that's the way it's set up and it does, because of the new islands on Eagle and because of the -- actually, the island right there in their own drive aisle doesn't allow people to go to their parking lot and the like and forces everybody back. I know exactly what you're talking about and I am sorry to see that happening. We have got to find some kind of solution for it. Unfortunately, we don't have the means to be able to do that, but I'm hoping that the traffic commission will be able to help you there. So, Commissioners? Freeman: Mr. Chair? Meridian Planning & Zoning February 6, 2014 Page 41 of 48 Marshall: Commissioner Freeman. Freeman: I'm almost ready to do this, so I'm just going to go ahead and start. After considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony I move to recommend approval to City Council of file number PP 13-042 as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of February 6, 2014, with the following modification: That we add -- that the recommendation that the DA agreement -- I think that was redundant. The DA change the language to include all of the lots, instead of just the single family lots. Miller: I second that. Marshall: I have a motion and a second to forward with amendments a recommendation of approval for the DA on 13 -- PP 13-042 for Centre Point. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? That motion carries. Thanks very much. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 5: Other Items A. Community Development Department: Modification to Amenities Approved Through Conditional Use Permit Discussion by Justin Lucas Marshall: All right. We have one more item on the agenda. There is another item -- not really an action item, but, Justin, I'm going to ask you to come forward and present what you have got, please. Lucas: Thank you, Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission. Periodically staff will come to you with other items. We -- oftentimes when we are enforcing our Unified Development Code come across questions that may require some input from you. Ultimately the code is staff's responsibility to uphold, but it's also your responsibility and so we have one of those situations now -- and I didn't even know if you were aware of this, but I will kind of tell a little story and we can hopefully get the direction we need. Oftentimes multi-family developments when they come through require a conditional use permit. You have seen several of these in the last probably six months. When they come through they are required to propose an amenity package that is consistent with our unified development code and you see that in an amenity package, maybe it's a pool, maybe it's a basketball court, it could be several different things and so that -- that will get approved. Sometimes the amenity package isn't specifically called out in the conditions of approval, it just says the amenities are approved -- or as required per the UDC and -- which is not necessarily a bad thing, it's just part of the -- part of the process. Our code does allow for after the -- the project goes through conditional use permit approval for the -- the owner to come back and say, hey, you know, my design of my amenities in my open space, I want to modify it slightly, I want to make some changes, and code does allow for the developer to petition the director, which is basically, staff to make those changes and why I'm here tonight is I wanted to get kind Meridian Planning & Zoning February 6, 2014 Page 42 of 48 of a feeling from you on what you think would be appropriate for -- a change could be and what maybe you would want to see, because what happens here is if staff feels like, you know, this change, as I described in my memo, if it's not a minor change it has to come back to you, which means they pay an application fee, they, basically, are coming back for a modification to their conditional use permit and as you can imagine, they want some flexibility, but we don't want to have too much flexibility and so I'm here seeking your direction on -- on how much flexibility the developer should have at the kind of staff level to make those kinds of modifications to the amenity package. In your -- your memo I have a couple scenarios and I was hoping to run through these just to kind of get a feel for where you're at. And, please, ask any questions you might have and let me know -- let me know what you're thinking. As I said, I did provide the memo. And I will pause here. Did you have any questions about what I just said about the amenities, how they might change and things like that? Anything? Okay. So, the first example I put in the memo is something we see quite often and something I think staff is relatively comfortable doing and 1 put a small plaza and gazebo and they want to replace it with a community garden. Now, let's say there is a -- you know, they have a gazebo and a picnic table and they come in and say we want to replace that with a community garden. In that situation staff looks at it and says, hey, both of those are approved in the UDC, they seem -- they are different, but ultimately how much different are they really. They seem to be -- and they are not really high ticket items and we are pretty comfortable with that. And so in general we have been approving those .kinds of things at the staff level. Now, the next -- I will pause with that scenario. Any questions on that? And I could probably provide hundreds of scenarios just like that, but that's kind of the one I came up with where, you know, they are different, but they are in the UDC and it seems pretty straight forward that staff would be able to do that. So, the second scenario -- and this is -- I'm trying to kind of hit on a key point here -- which is a clubhouse is proposed and per my scenario I am assuming that let's say through the -- through the hearing process Commissioner Freeman says, you know, that clubhouse is great, I like the design. Freeman: Was it me? Did I do it? Lucas: I don't know. No, this isn't an actual -- Freeman: I was hoping not. Lucas: And let's say at this point the -- after the public hearing process is over you have acted, they come back and say, hey, that clubhouse, for whatever reason, they are going to have some -- they are going to have varied reasons why they may not want to do it, but they said we want to replace that with some outdoor fitness stations. Now, the Commission you mentioned -- you mentioned the design, but it wasn't -- you didn't specifically say this clubhouse has to be part of this development for this thing to work. But it was talked about, it was brought up at the public hearing, so on this one I kind of wanted to pause and get some feedback from you. What do you think about that? Would be your expectation -- this is kind of a straight forward question. Commissioner Freeman, when you went to visit your friends you look at that development and you go Meridian Planning & Zoning February 6, 2014 Page 43 of 48 where is that clubhouse that I love and that's -- that's where we want to make sure that we have some kind of parameters there. So, stop on that -- I will pause on that scenario, give you a chance to respond. Freeman: Mr. Chair? That's a significant change in my -- that's not a minor modification. Marshall: I am absolutely in agreement with that. It seems like a huge change to me. mean they are not equal. They are apples and oranges. Lucas: Okay. Okay. Miller: Clubhouse versus monkey bars. Marshall: I mean as an amenity I often look for a clubhouse when I'm looking for a neighborhood that -- look, I don't have room for all the gym equipment, you have got some gym equipment. Oh, geez, you have got a swimming pool. Yeah, that makes this one nicer than that one that doesn't have a swimming pool. You know, those -- I look for those amenities and if you have got builders building houses and people are moving in and -- and they haven't built the clubhouse, because oftentimes we tied the clubhouse to -- you got to -- you have to have it built by the 50th house or something like that or whatever and -- that's a pretty significant amenity that I would be expecting moving in there. Lucas: Any other comments on that scenario? Oliver: I will just say that when I read through your report that was the first thing that -- when Ilooked at the gazebo said, oh, I could live with that. I could see that, changing that, and, then, I got to -- oh, that wouldn't work. I just -- I would agree with you both that that is something that (couldn't -- couldn't agree with, so -- Freeman: Well, not to mention us, but the people that came to the public hearing -- Marshall: Right. Freeman: -- and thought clubhouse and all of a sudden it doesn't show up and -- Marshall: Right. Freeman: That's probably even worse than surprising -- that shouldn't happen. Marshall: The people that live there or next door to it or -- Lucas: Got it . Got it. I think I'm clear on that. Now, the last one -- and pools are often questions we get and I think based on your previous comments this one is going to be relatively straight forward. The -- would be -- let's say a developer came back and said, Meridian Planning & Zoning February 6, 2014 Page 44 of 48 hey, I was going to do a pool, I do not want to do a pool, but let's say he was going to do a pool and a clubhouse and all kinds of stuff and he says it's just a pool. They are a maintenance nightmare, I don't want to do the pool, I will build the clubhouse and I will replace the pool with a half basketball court. Now, in that situation what's your -- what's your -- let's say it wasn't brought up at the public hearing, there was no one from the public that came and testified and said I have to have a pool, what's your thought on something like that? I mean is it a deal breaker, pool, no pool? Marshall: If it was not brought up in the public hearing, I'm not sure what the issue is. Anything that was brought up in the public hearing, though, has been reviewed by the public and the public's making comment on and so I have got a little bit of a problem changing this if the public knows about this, this was part of the presentation packet and the public may not be here, but they may -- they may have access to it -- I mean, you know, you go to check something and -- and you can find it on the city website and you can go look for it, you know, if -- if they come to me I don't want to discuss it with them, just go look at what was presented. There it is. And if it's in that presentation that's what their expectation is, you know, pools and clubhouses are two of the real big ones. But if it was never presented -- if afterwards, yeah, we will have these amenities, and nobody every stated what they were, then, you know, what does it matter if they change their mind? Freeman: Mr. Chair. Along those lines -- a picture is worth a thousand words. So, if you come with a plan you're communicating something to us and everybody out there, whether anything is said about it or not. If the plan shows a pool, the expectation is there is a pool, whether we address it or not. And, again, that's another big one right up there with a clubhouse in my mind -- Marshall: I absolutely agree. Freeman: -- that's not a minor change. Yearsley: And I would agree with that one as well. Marshall: I mean it's -- I agree with -- if you're going to show it, build it, or don't show it. You know, if you don't -- don't come back to me and say, geez, pools are really expensive and a maintenance headache -- you knew that before you put it on the plan and tried to sell everybody on the plan. Lucas: Well, based on your comments I think we have some real good direction and the reason we bring this up is it helps us to gauge these requests, because oftentimes a word like minor change it's -- what does that really mean. And -- and we come to you as the Commission, because you're ultimately the ones making the decisions on the majority of these multi-family projects and we want to make sure that we are in line with what you're thinking when you're going through that process. So, I think this discussion really helped us and in the future requesting changes to amenities. You will be seeing some of those come in and you may be having to act on that and they may be Meridian Planning & Zoning February 6, 2014 Page 45 of 48 requesting to remove a pool. Oftentimes the scenario may be -- it goes through the process and it's not uncommon in multi-family for a developer to come through with a package and, then, he sells it to a builder who is actually a builder of multi-family units, who wasn't necessarily even involved in the entitlement process and, then, that builder comes and says, oh, I hate doing pools at my complexes and that would be something where we as staff would say, well, tough luck, you have got to go back and ask our Planning and Zoning Commission if that's a change that they are willing to make for that project. So, I just wanted to make that very clear. I think your direction is spot on and thank you so much for the time. I know you had probably a longer meeting. Freeman: I have a question for you before you're done. Lucas: Yes. Freeman: Are we -- is this discussion just informing your ability to judge or this is discussion going to come out in something in writing that claries what a minor change is in the UDC? Lucas: To be honest, it is -- it informs our ability to judge most of all. We don't anticipate making a change to the UDC, but I will look at that. When we do the UDC changes there might be a tweak that we need to make to that section of code -- Freeman: Maybe. Lucas: -- describing a minor change. Freeman: Because we have informed you and this is on public record. Lucas: Sure. Freeman: And Bill heard us, but heaven forbid if you guys weren't around some day and went off to be rich and wealthy and famous or something else -- Yearsley: Well, I think if you look to go to future modifications in the UDC you might tie it to a dollar value, that they have to replace it with an equal dollar value -- you know, a pool for -- a clubhouse for a pool or a pool for a clubhouse, you know, those have similar dollar ranges I would think and status -- or not status, but, you know, the nicety of the amenity. So, I would think that that might be considered, you know, in that concentration. Freeman: I don't know if dollars translate across the two. If I was expecting to see a pool as somebody in the neighborhood, I would expect to see a pool and not a clubhouse, whether it costs more or not. Nary: Mr. Chair? Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission, one of the things -- I mean that the staff can look at that might fit what you're talking about is maybe if they were to Meridian Planning & Zoning February 6, 2014 Page 46 of 48 group types of amenities into some sort of table. We have an lot of tables in the UDC. They might look at that as a way to sort of memorialize what you're talking about, so that if you have a table that said, you know, you're going to build a type of amenity, like a pool, and if there are other ones that are equivalent to that in this Commission's mind or in the City Council's mind, then, that would give staff some ease of saying, well, in the same category as a clubhouse or something else that's been determined to be equivalent, so if they want a change they could change to that. Or they could change to something higher, because if you're going to build something better than what you originally proposed we are probably going to be okay with that, but you can't build something less or that's contained in the category and that might help with that. So, mean that's something they could maybe kick around internally at the staff level, too, if that might help that discussion a little bit, because some things are fairly -- you know, we could probably all sit around and figure out there are some things that you might all think are similar, whether it's a gazebo or a barbecue pit or a fire pit or some things that might be fairly common. But that might be a way to do that, but they could probably kick that around at the staff or they were looking at the code change. Marshall: Here is just a question as to why don't we require them to commit to what amenities they are putting in? Because they show them on the plans and sometimes we do put restrictions on say how the clubhouse is built or how it's handled, but, then, have we restricted them to a clubhouse or, you know, if they are going to show them on the plans why aren't we requiring them to actually say here are the amenities we are approving. I mean we do that with the landscaping. Here is a landscape plan, well, now you have to keep it, you know, pretty much like that landscape plan. Lucas: Yeah. Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission, they are required to build what's showing, except if they come to us and ask for a minor change and that's where there is kind of that gray area is. They can't say I want to remove all my amenities, we'd say, no, you can't do that. The situation that staff is put in is more of a swap situation of I did this, but when I got in and I was doing my, you know, testing for my storm water drain it looks like doing a community garden is dumb, I can't make it work, it's not going to drain right and they come back and say, you know, can I replace that with a gazebo and some park benches and staff in those situations -- I think it's good to have some flexibility, because if we came back to you with a change like that you would probably be going why are we having a public hearing and noticing to have a question about a community garden versus a gazebo. But a pool or a clubhouse from what I'm hearing is that is probably worth having the discussion and staff I think can make that -- make that call and have that flexibility to do that. Marshall: I seem to recall some projects where the applicant wasn't actually committing to amenities. Well, we will have that many amenities, but I can't commit to whether it's going to be this type of park or this and it's like, well, why not. Lucas: Sure. Marshall: I guess that's just what I'm recalling from a past project. Meridian Planning & Zoning February 6, 2014 Page 47 of 48 Freeman: I remember that, too. Lucas: And it is possible -- staff will share this with developers as they come in for preapplication meetings, we are going to say, hey, we are kind of tightening up things on these amenities and we want to make sure what you're showing is what you're actually going to build. So, it's possible through the process what you can -- what you will see is developers less willing to show certain types of amenities and it's very possible that's the case. So, it does -- there is some give and take there on how -- on how that will work and we will have to kind of feel that out through the process, but strict application of our Unified Development Code allows them to pick amenities out of categories and it doesn't really look at dollar value or anything else and so strict interpretation from the staff perspective is if you meet your categories you're complying with the UDC, but with a conditional use permit you have the ability to tie them to specific things and that's kind of where this is at. Staff was trying to gauge what your expectation is and what you're tying them to through that process and so I think we have got a pretty good way forward here. We will continue to see multi-family development coming through you over the next many years I'm sure and this will help us kind of make sure that we ,have the figured out. So, thank you for your time and certainly will stand for any other questions you have. Marshall: Thank you. Anyone? Commissioners? No? Well, thank you very much. Appreciate that. So, Commissioners, I believe there is one more motion to go. Freeman: Who wants to make it? Shall our new Commissioner move -- Marshall: Does he even know what it is? Oliver: We are moving to close the meeting. Yearsley: I will second that. Marshall: I have a move to adjourn and a second. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Marshall: We are adjourned. MEETING ADJOURNED AT 8:37 P.M. (AUDIO RECORDING ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS.) Meridian Planning & Zoning February 6, 2014 Page 48 of 48 APPROVED ~1 V 2 12 o I / ~- -CHAIRMAN ~" DATE APPROVED ATTEST: ~/~ ~ ~Y JAYCEE HOLMAN, CITY CLE K /~.~ED AUCUSTI 6044 Jyo~ w CrtY of .. ~~ CTH ~~l a ~~ Jar , r P Np~~ °~ the TQE ~SUQ