Loading...
2015 03-051. 2. 3. WE IDIAN*-- MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING IDAHO COMMISSION MEETING AGENDA City Council Chambers 33 E. Broadway Avenue, Meridian, Idaho Thursday, March 05, 2015 at 6:00 p.m. Roll -call Attendance Patrick Oliver _x_ Gregory Wilson Rhonda McCarvel _x—Ryan Fitzgerald Steven Yearsley - Chairman Adoption of the Agenda Approved Consent Agenda Approved A. Approve Minutes of February 19, 2015 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting 4. Action Items A. Public Hearing Continued and Re -Noticed from February 5, 2015: RZ 14-007 Southridge Estates Subdivision by DBTV Southridge Farm, LLC Located South of W. Overland Road Between S. Linder Road and S. Ten Mile Road Request: Rezone of 3.05 Acres from R-15 to TN -R; 1.67 Acres from R-4 to R-8; and 0.83 of an acre from R-8 to R-4 Continue and Renotice Public Hearing for May 7, Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting B. Public Hearing Continued and Re -Noticed from February 5, 2015: PP 14-017 Southridge Estates Subdivision by DBTV Southridge Farm, LLC Located South of W. Overland Road Between S. Linder Road and S. Ten Mile Road Request: Preliminary Plat Approval Consisting of 167 Single -Family Residential Building Lots and 329 Common/Other Lots on 48.56 Acres of Land in the R-4, R-8 and TN -R Zoning Districts Continue and Renotice Public Hearing for May 7, Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting C. Public Hearing: RZ 15-001 Paramount Southeast Subdivision by Brighton Investments, LLC Located Northwest Corner of N. Meridian Road and W. McMillan Road Request: Rezone of 19.27 Acres of Land from the C -G to the R-40 Zoning District Recommend Approval to City Council Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Agenda — Thursday, March 05, 2015Page 1 of 2 All materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. Anyone desiring accommodation for disabilities related to documents and/or hearing, please contact the City Clerk's Office at 888-4433 at least 48 hours prior to the public meeting. D. Public Hearing: PP 15-002 Paramount Southeast Subdivision by Brighton Investments, LLC Located Northwest Corner of N. Meridian Road and W. McMillan Road Request: Preliminary Plat Approval Consisting of One (1) Building Lot in the R-40 Zoning District; Twenty -Two (22) Building Lots in the C -G Zoning District and Five (5) Common/Other Lots on 36.04 Acres of Land Recommend Approval to City Council E. Public Hearing: CUP 15-002 Paramount Southeast Subdivision by Brighton Investments, LLC Located Northwest Corner of N. Meridian Road and W. McMillan Road Request: Conditional Use Permit Approval for a Multi -Family Development Consisting of 280 Dwelling Units in an R-40 Zoning District Recommend Approval to City Council F. Public Hearing: RZ 15-003 Jayker Village Subdivision by Oak Leaf Development Company, Inc. Located North Side of Chinden Boulevard; West of N. Tree Farm Way and N. Tree Haven Way Request: Rezone 26.09 Acres from the C -N and the R-15 Districts to the R-15 (8.48 Acres) and C -C (17.61 Acres) Zoning Districts Recommend Denial to City Council G. Public Hearing: PP 15-003 Jayker Village Subdivision by Oak Leaf Development Company, Inc. Located North Side of Chinden Boulevard; West of N. Tree Farm Way and N. Tree Haven Way Request: Preliminary Plat Approval Consisting of One (1) Residential Lot, Three (3) Commercial Lots and Three (3) Common Lots on Approximately 23.59 Acres in the Proposed R-15 and C -C Zoning Districts Recommend Denial to City Council H. Public Hearing: CUP 15-003 Jayker Village Subdivision by Oak Leaf Development Company, Inc. Located North Side of Chinden Boulevard; West of N. Tree Farm Way and N. Tree Haven Way Request: Conditional Use Permit for a Self -Service Storage Facility Consisting of a Care -Taker's / Office Building and Fifteen (15) Storage Buildings on Approximately 11.18 Acres of Land in a Proposed C -C Zoning District Recommend Denial to City Council L Public Hearing: CUP 15-001 Franklin Mini -Storage by Osborne Enterprises Located 1975 E. Franklin Road Request: Conditional Use Permit for a Self -Service Facility in a C -G Zoning District Public Hearing Continued to March 19, 2015 Meeting Adjourned at 9:06 p.m. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Agenda—Thursday, March 05, 2015Page 2 of 2 All materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. Anyone desiring accommodation for disabilities related to documents and/or hearing, please contact the City Clerk's Office at 888-4433 at least 48 hours prior to the public meeting. Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting March 5, 2015 Meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission of March 5, 2015, was called to order at 6:00 p.m. by Chairman Steven Yearsley. Present: Chairman Steven Yearsley, Commissioner Patrick Oliver. Commissioner Gregory Wilson, Commission Rhonda McCarvel and Commissioner Ryan Fitzgerald. Others Present: Machelle Hill, Ted Baird, Sonya Watters, Bill Parsons and Dean Willis. Item 1: Roll -Call Attendance: Roll -call X Gregory Wilson X Patrick Oliver X Rhonda McCarvel X Ryan Fitzgerald X Steven Yearsley - Chairman Yearsley: Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. At this point we -- at this time we'd like to call to order the regularly scheduled meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission for the hearing date of March 5th, 2015. Let's begin with roll call. Item 2: Adoption of the Agenda Yearsley: Thank you. The next item on the agenda is the adoption of the agenda. A couple of items. Action Items A and B, the continued and renoticed from February 2015 of RZ 14-007 and PP 14-017 will be continued -- needs to be continued to May 7th, 2015. And Action Item I, the public hearing for CUP 15-001 is asked to be continued to March 19th, 2015. Sorry. Baird: Mr. Chair? Yearsley: Yes. Baird: For those in attendance who don't have an agenda in front of you, the names associated with those items, the first two would be Southridge Estates Subdivision and the second one that you mentioned for continuance is the Franklin Mini Storage. Yearsley: Thank you. Watters: Chairman Yearsley? Yearsley: Yes. Meridian Planning 8 Zoning Commission March 5, 2015 Page 2 of 47 Watters: Excuse me. If I may on that first item that you mentioned, Southridge Estates, staff is recommending that that project be renoticed and that the applicant pay renoticing fees. Yearsley: Okay. Thank you. With that can I get an adoption of the agenda? Oliver: Mr. Chairman? Yearsley: Commissioner Oliver. Oliver: I move that we adopt the agenda as read, with the exception of -- to change the -- to the agenda that Southridge Estates RZ 14-007 and PP 14-017 be continued to May 7th -- Yearsley: We are just asking for adoption of the agenda. We don't need to -- Oliver: Oh. Sorry. Wilson: Second. Yearsley: I have a motion and a second to adopt the agenda. All in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 3: Consent Agenda A. Approve Minutes of February 19, 2015 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Yearsley: Next item on the agenda is the Consent Agenda and we only have one item and that is the approval of the minutes of February 19, 2015, Planning and Zoning Commission meeting. Any questions or comments on that? Fitzgerald: Mr. Chairman? Yearsley: Commissioner Fitzgerald. Fitzgerald: The only change I had was my name incorrectly labeled on the minutes. So, that change I would move for approval. Yearsley: Okay. McCarvel: Second. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission March 5, 2015 Page 3 of 47 Yearsley: I have a motion and a second to approve the meeting minutes and the Consent -- Consent Agenda as amended. All in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 4: Action Items A. Public Hearing Continued and Re -Noticed from February 5, 2015: RZ 14-007 Southridge Estates Subdivision by DBTV Southridge Farm, LLC Located South of W. Overland Road Between S. Linder Road and S. Ten Mile Road Request: Rezone of 3.05 Acres from R-15 to TN -R; 1.67 Acres from R-4 to R-8; and 0.83 of an acre from R-8 to R-4 B. Public Hearing Continued and Re -Noticed from February 5, 2015: PP 14-017 Southridge Estates Subdivision by DBTV Southridge Farm, LLC Located South of W. Overland Road Between S. Linder Road and S. Ten Mile Road Request: Preliminary Plat Approval Consisting of 167 Single -Family Residential Building Lots and 329 Common/Other Lots on 48.56 Acres of Land in the R-4, R-8 and TN -R Zoning Districts Yearsley: Okay. So, first off we are going to open public -- the continued public hearing and renoticed from February 5th, 2015, of RZ 14-007 and PP 14-017, Southridge Estates Subdivision for the sole purpose of -- to continue it to May 7th, 2015, and to have it renoticed and that the -- the applicant will pay for the renoticing fee. Wilson: Mr. Chairman? Yearsley: Commissioner Wilson. Wilson: I move that RZ 14-007 and PP 14-017, Southridge Estates hearing be continued and renoticed for May 7th, 2015. Fitzgerald: Second. Yearsley: I have a motion and a second to continue the public hearing on RZ 14-007 and PP 14-017. All in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. I. Public Hearing: CUP 15-001 Franklin Mini -Storage by Osborne Enterprises Located 1975 E. Franklin Road Request: Conditional Use Permit for a Self -Service Facility in a C -G Zoning District Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission March 5, 2015 Page 4 of 47 Yearsley: We are going to drop down to Action Item I and we are going to open that public hearing for the sole purpose -- so, we are going to open the public hearing on CUP 15-001, the Franklin Mini Storage, for the sole purpose of continuing that to March 19th, 2015. McCarvel: Mr. Chairman? Yearsley: Commissioner McCarvel. McCarvel: I move that we open CUP 15-001 and continue that to March 19th, 2015, as requested. Fitzgerald: Second. Yearsley: I have a motion and a second to continue public hearing of CUP 14-01 -- or 001. All in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Yearsley: All right. So, now let's explain with everyone here -- I want to explain the process of how this is going to work tonight. The next two -- or the next items on the agenda we are going to open them one at a time. We will start off with the staff report. The staff will present their findings and how it adheres to the Comprehensive Plan and Uniform Development Code with staff recommendations. At that point the applicant will have an opportunity to come forward to present their case for approval. The applicant -- and respond to any staff questions. The applicant will be given up to 15 minutes to do so. After the public -- after the applicant has had a chance to testify we will open the public hearing to the public. There is a sign-up sheet in the back for those wishing to testify. Any person coming up to testify will be given three minutes. If they are speaking for a larger group and that there is a show of hands, they will be given up to ten minutes. Given the large number of people here today, those people that they are speaking for, we would ask that they not come up, because they are speaking already -- someone is already speaking in behalf of them, unless they have something specific -- different to talk about specifically and, then, to talk about that one item. After the public has had a chance to testify, the applicant will have a chance to come up and respond to the comments and do so and they will have an opportunity -- they will have up to ten minutes to respond. At that point we will close the public hearing and, then, the council will have an opportunity to deliberate and, hopefully, come to a decision and make recommendations to City Council. C. Public Hearing: RZ 15-001 Paramount Southeast Subdivision by Brighton Investments, LLC Located Northwest Corner of N. Meridian Road and W. McMillan Road Request: Rezone of 19.27 Acres of Land from the C -G to the R-40 Zoning District Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission March 5, 2015 Page 5 of 47 D. Public Hearing: PP 15-002 Paramount Southeast Subdivision by Brighton Investments, LLC Located Northwest Corner of N. Meridian Road and W. McMillan Road Request: Preliminary Plat Approval Consisting of One (1) Building Lot in the R-40 Zoning District; Twenty -Two (22) Building Lots in the C -G Zoning District and Five (5) Common/Other Lots on 36.04 Acres of Land E. Public Hearing: CUP 15-002 Paramount Southeast Subdivision by Brighton Investments, LLC Located Northwest Corner of N. Meridian Road and W. McMillan Road Request: Conditional Use Permit Approval for a Multi -Family Development Consisting of 280 Dwelling Units in an R-40 Zoning District Yearsley: So, with that I would like to open the public hearing on RZ 15-001, PP 15-002, and CUP 15-002, Paramount Subdivision -- or Paramount Southeast Subdivision and let's begin with the staff report. Watters: Thank you, Chairman Yearsley, Members of the Commission. The next applications before you are a request for a rezone, preliminary plat, and conditional use permit. This site consists of 36 acres of land. It's currently zoned R-40 and C -G and it's located at the northwest corner of North Meridian and West McMillan Roads. The zoning map you see on the left here, the orange portion highlighted there is R-40 zoning and the pinkish red color is C -G zoning. The map on the right is an aerial view of the property. This site is surrounded by existing and future single family residential properties, primarily zoned R-8 and Rocky Mountain High School to the east across Meridian Road, zoned R-4. A little history on this property. It was annexed into the city in 2003 with R-40 and C -G zoning and was included in the preliminary plat for Paramount Subdivision. A conditional use permit and planned development was approved for the overall Paramount development, which included multi -family and commercial uses on this site. And this is a copy of the planned development concept plan that was,approved at that time in 2003 that shows multi -family residential and commercial on this corner. A detailed conditional use permit was required prior to development on the multi -family portion of the site and that is what is before you tonight. The Comprehensive Plan future land use map designates this property as high density residential and commercial, as shown here roughly on the zoning map. The applicant requests approval of a rezone of 5.05 acres of land from C -G to R-40 and 3.37 acres from R-40 to C -G, increasing the R-40 area by approximately 1.68 acres. A site plan was submitted showing how the site is proposed to develop with a multi -family residential development and commercial lots. The applicant states that the northeast six commercial lots -- these right here -- may develop with multi -family residential uses in the future if market demand is insufficient to consume the available commercial property at the corner. In this case a new conditional use permit would be required for a multi -family development on that portion of the site. Staff is not recommending a new development agreement or amendment to the existing agreement with the subject rezone request. A 28 lot preliminary plat is proposed as shown there on the left, consisting of one building lot and five common lots in an R-40 district and 22 building lots in a C -G district on 36.04 acres of land. All of the lots comply with the dimensional standards of the applicable Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission March 5, 2015 Page 6 of 47 zone. Landscaped street buffers are required along all collector and arterial streets and along the local street within the C -G district as shown on that landscape plan. Four public street accesses are proposed for this development. Two via West McMillan Road, right here where my pointer is and here. And two via North Meridian Road, here and here. Both arterial streets. Additionally, two driveway accesses are proposed. One right here on Meridian, one right here on McMillan. There are -- these driveways right here are going to be restricted to right -in, right -out. Because the UDC limits access points to arterial streets in an effort to improve safety, staff is recommending access to the site as limited to the public street accesses and the driveway accesses are removed. Approval of the accesses as proposed requires City Council approval of a waiver to UDC 11-3A-3. ACHD did deem the proposed layout will provide a good split of vehicular traffic in all directions within this development and approved the access points as proposed by the applicant. ACHD did not require a traffic impact study for this development, as they reviewed and approved this site in 2003 as part of the original Paramount preliminary plat and planned development and the proposed density is substantially the same. There are three existing stub streets from Cedar Creek and Paramount Subdivisions to this site that will extend and connect to Studio Drive. Those are here at the left shown here. A detached sidewalk exists along the entire frontage of North Meridian Road and along a potion of the West McMillan Road frontage. The remainder of the sidewalk along McMillan is required to be constructed with the first phase of development. Detached sidewalks are also proposed along the public streets within the development. A conditional use permit is requested for the multi -family development in an R-4 zoning district as required by the Unified Development Code and the previously approved planned development. The development is proposed to consist of a total of 280 dwelling units within four two story, sixteen-plex structures fronting on the open space and pedestrian corridor at the center of the project. Right here. And nine three story twenty- four-plex structures containing a mix of one, two and three bedroom units. The previously approved planned development for Paramount anticipated a total of 270 apartment units in a density of 18 units per acre. The reconfigured R-40 area with 280 units results in comparable density of 17.9 units per acre. The applicant is required to comply with the specific use standards for multi -family developments listed in the UDC, which includes requirements for private usable open space, common open space, and site amenities. Building elevations were submitted as shown for the two and three story multi -family structures and the garages. Just run through these real quick. There is a black and white version. Two story structures and the garages here at the bottom right. Building materials are proposed to consist of a mix of horizontal and vertical siding with the stone accents. Final approval will take place with the certificate of zoning compliance and design review applications. Staff finds the proposed development is consistent with the planned development that was previously approved for this site, the UDC, and the Comprehensive Plan. Written testimony has been received from Mike Wardle, the applicant's representative, in agreement with the staff report. A letter was also submitted from Dr. Linda Clark of West Ada School District in support of the development. The following letters of testimony were received by the city in April and May of 2014 after the initial neighborhood meeting was held by the applicant, prior to submittal of an application. Brenda Duggan, Justin Lucas, Ken Swanson and Wendy Ann Trent. At that time the applicant proposed to construct 360 units. Since that time the applicant has met with the Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission March 5, 2015 Page 7 of 47 neighbors several times and reduced the number of units to 280. Staff is recommending approval of these applications with the conditions in the staff report. Staff will stand for any questions Commission may have. Yearsley: Thank you. Are there any questions? Would the applicant like to come forward? Please state your name and address for the record, please. Wardle: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, Mike Wardle, Brighton Corporation. 12601 West Explorer Drive in Boise. I am going to hand out just an excerpt, but it's not something that you need to read, it's just to reaffirm what's contained in this document, this binder, which is the record of the applications and approvals of a planned unit development, conditional use permit, rezones and preliminary plat in 2003. It was extensive and the record does show, obviously, that the project was approved and it has moved on dramatically over the course of the last 12 years. The only reason that I'm giving those to you -- and it's not that you need to necessarily read anything in them, but if you were to just thumb through the eight pages you would see reference after reference after reference to the apartment approvals that were noted at both the Planning and Zoning Commission level, as well as at the Meridian City Council level. So, in fact, the record is really very, very clear that apartments were anticipated from the get go and that the only stipulation was that when we came back with a refined application that there could be some variation in that number and that number is, in fact, 280 per the application submitted to you this evening. So, the record shows that this project approved 12 years ago and they -- the first slide simply is the latest Google Earth representation of that mile section between Chinden and McMillan, Linder and Meridian Roads, with the -- the yellow point showing the specific site that we are discussing this evening. Next slide. Okay. Let me try that. This is the site plan that actually Sonya showed you in her presentation -- and, by the way, she asked me today are you in support of the staff recommendation and I guess I surprised her by indicating that, yes, we are, with just one noted item that she also brought up and that's a waiver that we would ask for a recommendation to the City Council a bit later. The site plan had a lot of detailed single family residential component to it. In fact, there were 764 single family lots depicted. There were areas that were not yet detailed that would come back later. In fact, the letter D -- the bold letter D is an area that was annexed and zoned R-8 at the time, but was not detailed. The areas designated with the red A are properties that were subsequently acquired and annexed into the project. The letter D -- the blue D down in the lower corner is the subject property this evening and, then, there is an M on the east side and that is an area that was modified from original office and townhome use. You will note that there is a minus 39 and a minus 27 and a plus ten. That's the difference in the number of units as originally proposed and what the original project area consists of today. So, there was a significant reduction, simply based on how the project was laid out as it was final platted and the modifications on Meridian Road to the east where townhomes were removed and smaller lots were approved previously in a project called Paramount East. So, we are moving forward, then, with -- I'm sorry. Save me, Sonya. I'm going have to -- I don't -- technologically I'm not perhaps up to speed. So, let's go to my third slide. Okay. Very good. And this is something to show the decision made in 2003 for the R-40 multi -family zone and the C -G commercial at that northwest corner of the Meridian -McMillan intersection. The zoning Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission March 5, 2015 Page 8 of 47 boundary pretty artificial at that point, was essentially tentative pending future detailed conditional use applications. The next slide actually depicts the changes that are occurring as a result of the specific proposal. So, a portion of the commercial zone from 2003 becomes R-40. A portion of the R-40 becomes commercial over on the east side adjacent to Meridian Road. The first -- and that does actually represent the first of the three applications before you this evening. The modification and the zoning boundary to accommodate the specific proposal. The next slide simply shows the second and third applications, the underlying -- there is a single lot for the apartment project and, then, 22 commercial lots and as Sonya noted and as actually was determined in negotiations with the neighborhood, the six lots on the frontage of Meridian Road could at some point, if the market demand for commercial is low and the rest of the project is built out, it could become subject to a future conditional use application changing from commercial to additional apartments. Three quick slides that show the evolution of the project. The very first site plan that was provided to the public, in fact, was from February of 2004. Pretty early in its inception, but it does show arrows at the bottom right -- show that the titles adjacent to that intersection are for multi -family and commercial. The next site plan, 2006, is modified a little bit, because the red A area to the southwest is what was then approved as Paramount South 60 Subdivision and was incorporated into the project at that point. So, that was July 2006. And the terminology also continues for multi -family and commercial. And, then, finally, the current site plan that is on the Brighton website dated November 13th, 2014, shows the extended project as it has evolved with additional properties that were acquired, annexed, and zoned and platted, actually. And also carries forward the multi -family residential and commercial. Just a couple of comments. There have been some concerns -- the next slide shows Brighton initially is within that area, because questions had come up about whether we had done what we should do in order to provide facilities for the community. Specifically in starting as the project came into being, the school district was negotiating for the high school site. That site was sold to the district but at a discounted value. The elementary school site that's in the heart of the project was donated to the school district. And, then, there were also some major improvements -- Brighton did joint -- it did joint development agreements with ACHD in 2008 to improve both the Linder -McMillan and Meridian -McMillan intersections and Linder improvements actually went all the way up to the entrance to the project on the east side of the road. Also for students getting to the middle school east of Meridian Road at McMillan led Brighton to do a sidewalk improvement down that frontage from Producer Drive, so that there would be a safe means for those students to get to that school facility. Next slide shows really the basis, then, of the discussion this evening for the conditional use permit. Extensive neighborhood process that we were involved with from April until October of last year led to this refined plan as Sonya noted from the original concept of 360 units down to the 280 and also, as Sonya noted, that while you're approving a conditional use permit this evening and there are documents of record in the applications, the multi -family project and future commercial are all subject to design review and the certificate of zoning compliance process. So, there is a lot of detail that is yet ahead. Amenities included in the multi -family project -- in addition to that pedestrian corridor that actually links Paramount single family to the future commercial, there are two playground areas. There are -- there is a clubhouse and a swimming pool and a number of other amenities -- 3.2 acres of open space internal to the site and the two arrows that are Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission March 5, 2015 Page 9 of 47 depicted there are views that show the elevations and renderings from -- on the next page. The first is down that pedestrian boulevard as it's referred to in the application, fronted by two stories, 16 buildings and, then, the second one at the bottom is depicted from just north of McMillan Road looking into the drive, showing the garages and the landscape area out front, which the landscape area will actually be much deeper and more significant than what it shows, providing a visual barrier and buffer to the three story structures that sit some distance to the rear. So, the next slide really gets us to the one item that -- it's not a difference, but in condition 1.1.3D Sonya notes that -- I'm sorry, I have got to get some water. Thank you for indulging. That condition -- also requirement for a waiver from City Council to allow those service drives, which are not a public street, but just -- they would likely become right -in, right -out facilities. ACHD in its Condition 7.1.8 on page 31 of your staff report indicates approval not only of the public street access points, but also of these and it's noted that these actually exist. The one to the north on Meridian Road was constructed as part of that intersection improvement project as was the one on McMillan Road just to the west. So, in your recommendation this evening we would ask for your specific reference to granting that waiver and, obviously, that goes to the Council that makes the ultimate decision. Next slide is simply a summary statement. The fact that the apartments have been a component of the plan from the very beginning. All public documents and renderings, except for marketing purposes, have identified that proposed multi -family use. While the project has evolved, multi -family apartment proposal has always been a constant and Brighton has taken the initiative to provide for the neighborhood schools, enhancing pedestrian safety and the improvements of a transportation system that significantly assists in traffic conditions in that area. And we spent a lot of time, as noted from the meeting -- the first neighborhood meeting was late April of last year, followed by another meeting on the 5th -- on the 4th of May and the response that we got from the neighborhood at that point led us to a five month deferral as we worked through the intensity of the project, the design of the project, and addressed a number of issues that the neighborhood had identified. So, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, that really is the end of my presentation. We simply ask that you pass on recommendations for approval to the City Council and would answer any questions you might have. Yearsley: Thank you. Are there any questions? Thank you very much Wardle: Thank you. Yearsley: I have a couple people signed up. Jan Rivett. A Jenny Withers. Please state your name and address for the record, please. Withers: Jennie Withers. 5226 North Mitchum Avenue, Paramount Subdivision. First of all, I live on the street that is most newly developed. It's also the street that the apartments will butt up against. During this whole process, obviously, we were very late to the game. I just moved into my house a year ago -- bought my house a year ago. When I first moved in I didn't hear about any of the neighborhood concerns and -- until late and, then, I knew that there was a petition online that we could get on and sign. Myself and my neighbors also new, could not do that petition or participate that way, because our Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission March 5, 2015 Page 10 of 47 street wasn't even recognized yet. So, I'm testifying against this project for two reasons. I have been very involved in this process as much as I could. Both my husband and I and, of course, my neighbors, who weren't able to be here tonight. So, the apartments will be directly behind me. Before we purchased our house we asked several Brighton homes representatives -- between our realtor and ourselves, no less than four, what would be built behind us. We are not first time home buyers. We went into this knowing that we didn't want a lot -- we didn't want commercial behind us and we didn't want apartments behind us, we didn't want anything like that and each time we were told that it would be multi -residential in the form of townhomes. Never were we told it would be apartment buildings and we were certainly never told there would be three story apartment buildings behind our house. If Brighton Corporation would have been honest with us we would not have purchased our home. But that was not the case. And reason number two that I hate seeing this go in. I was a secondary educator for 16 years. I know this project would put too much strain on an already overburdened school system. The quality of education suffers when teachers are faced with 30 plus students in a classroom, when they are forced to travel because there is a lack of space and when they are teaching outside of the school environment in a portable. I have been through all three of those things as a teacher. Education does suffer. Our kids do suffer. This development would overwhelm our schools. We just got in the mail from the superintendent, Heritage Middle School where both of my children attend, 162 students over capacity. Thank you. Yearsley: Thank you. Brian Heffley. Heffley: Good evening. My name is Brian Heffley. I'm on 1101 West Bacall Street in Paramount Sub. I was on the residents leadership team. I got Steven Collins who started the -- kind of originated the coordination of the residents to fight against this project, which led, eventually, through the meetings and everything the way that we worked with Brighton turned into kind of a collaboration with them to reshape the project, as Mr. Wardle mentioned earlier. Bringing the number of units down and making such improvements as have been mentioned. The -- the concerns about schools not supporting the project are still our resident concerns. However, my understanding is the city is not really -- doesn't really have control over those things, being ACHD and the school district and Dr. Linda Clark submitted a letter in support of this, I don't really have much to say on that point anymore. The only thing that concerns -- a new piece of information tonight, when we pitched this project starting in April of last year, we heard the 360 unit number and we have since settled on 280. The part that I'm not sure we really -- it was originally planned for 270 back in 2003, so that might be some really, really bad negotiating on our part to end up with ten more units than originally planned for, but we heard 360. The concern is the rezoning of the northeast section to commercial, with the possibility of turning it back into R-40 someday if the market -- commercial market is soft. That's very subjective. If I was going to plan more apartments that would be a strategy that I would use to say with that 3.6 acres we can put another 100 or maybe even 120 units in there. So, I would only ask that -- and I'm not sure if the rezoning of that section is commercial or if it's a factual like we are turning into commercial and at a later date we can do conditional use like he discussed and turn it back into, but it's -- I'd like to see it -- zone the commercial with no real discussion formalities of the possibility of turning it back Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission March 5, 2015 Page 11 of 47 into residential -- you know, high density residential until the time comes. I'm not sure if that's entirely clear, but I would hope that it would be a proper rezoning and not able to quickly convert back to residential at this point, that more possibly would have to be done with the Council at that point. That's all. Yearsley: Thank you. Next on the list is Mark Wright. Okay. The next one I have is Randy -- and I can't read his last name. So, with that is there anybody else that would like to testify on this application? Well, I guess if no one else is wanting to testify, would the applicant like to come up and comment? Wardle: Mr. Chairman, Commission Members, once again Mike Wardle, 12601 West Explorer Drive in Boise. We had several people during the discussions with the neighborhood that indicated that they felt that they had not been properly apprised of what was being proposed, but all of the information that Brighton has ever put out has been clear and distinct and we can't control what some people that maybe are not involved in either the development or the actual marketing of the project might say. So, if there was any lack of clarity in -- the first person to testify indicated that was told multi -family townhomes, perhaps a distinction that is difficult to address. Brighton has tried in all cases to be honest and I think the effort that we put in after it was apparent that there was a great deal of concern initially expressed in April and May. We did go to the drawing board and in that process there was an e-mail that was sent to all of the neighbors on October 3rd, a few days -- about a week before the final meeting that we had before we submitted our application -- or started to prepare the application and it said: On September 25th, 2014, the core members of the Paramount apartment team met with Dave Turnbull and his team at Brighton to discuss updated apartment plans. We were told that Dave and his team took seriously the concerns and constructive input that so many of the community members have conveyed in the spring. Based on those interactions Brighton modified the original plans to incorporate resident input. Density was reduced from 360 to 280 and with regard to that number, originally the application did specify 270, but that was based on 18 units per acre on a fairly arbitrary square line, knowing that when that line was changed from -- and it turned out that the parcel changed from 15.3 to 15.62 acres, then, our density is a bit lower than the 18 that was allowed. So, it was just basically a configuration question of the parcel. It was noted also that Brighton converted a portion of the land for the apartments to commercial or high density. This is is now planned for office space and whatever as the market demands. However, if -- and this is -- again, this is a homeowner document. If it doesn't lease Brighton will need to rethink that land, reserving the right to develop as they choose, potentially including more apartments. And, then, it talked about the improvements made to the transportation system where we really had the access points out closest to the two arterial roadways. And, finally, we felt that Brighton did address the concerns the community expressed in the spring and represented a significant good faith effort. We understand that there was a number of folks that felt strongly that it should be stopped altogether. This was, indeed, the clear teams sentiment when all this started in the spring. However, since, then, we have all learned that the property was zoned high density in 2002 -- actually 2003. And whether it was disclosed to everyone or not, that would be a long and expensive process, so -- to going forward. We feel this new plan represents a good compromise and reduces Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission March 5, 2015 Page 12 of 47 impact to the community. Then there was one other document -- e-mail that came specifically to Mr. Turnbull and I'm going to give -- I will give the secretary a copy of this document, but it was dated October 17th, three days after the last neighborhood meeting. Dave, it was a pleasure to meet you at the meeting the other evening. The changes to the project are welcome. And, then, toward the end. Personally, I feel you have made considerable changes to the original scope, which will add value and livability to your concept and appease most of the Paramount property owners. Thank you for your open mind and gentlemanly attitude. All the best. So, Mr. Chairman, Commission Members, we think this represents a great project and from the hundred people that came to the original meeting, 35 came to the second meeting, because of the communication that had gone back and forth within the community and, then, the few that are here this evening. I think it does suggest that we have, in good faith, provided something that will be of benefit to the community as it goes forward. I would be happy to answer any additional questions you might have and I will give the secretary a copy of these statements. Yearsley: Thank you. Are there any questions? Thanks. Wardle: Thank you. Yearsley: I have one question of legal. Do we need to have the clerk copy those, so we can review that -- his comments before we make a decision? Baird: Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission, because Mr. Wardle actually read those verbatim, you don't need to separately read them, unless somebody would like to. Yearsley: Okay. I'm good. Okay. So, I do have one question of staff before we close the public hearing. With regard to the rezone of that commercial property, he's stating that he in the future may come back before -- and request going back to the R-40, but he would still have to go through a rezone process at that time; is that correct? Watters: Chairman Yearsley, Members of the Commission, they would not have to rezone the property. Multi -family residential is listed as a conditional use permit in the C- G zoning district. Yearsley: Okay. But he would still have to go after a conditional use permit? Watters: That is correct. And it would require a public hearing like this one. Yearsley: Okay. So, just want to make sure. Thank you very much. Any other questions before we close? At this time can I get a motion to close the public hearing on RZ 15-001, PP 15-002 and CUP 15-002? Oliver: Mr. Chairman? Yearsley: Commissioner Oliver. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission March 5, 2015 Page 13 of 47 Oliver: I move that we close the hearing on RZ 15-001, PP 15-002 and CUP 15-002, Paramount Southeast. Fitzgerald: Second. Yearsley: I have a motion and a second to close the public hearing. All in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Yearsley: So, any comments? If no one wants to go forward, I will start. I think Brighton has done a good job. For the comments that were made I -- the comment about that the real estate agents, you know, lied to them. I don't quite know how to respond to that. I'm sorry that you were lied to. I really am. You know, with the schools overcrowded, the school district actually sent a letter of recommendation to that and I think with the rezone or making that other parcel going to commercial -- or to -- you know, the commercial property back to apartments, you know, at that point in time if that ever happens you have an opportunity to come and express your opposition to -- to that at that point in time. I think Brighton has done a good job trying to screen the apartments from the residents. So, with that I think I'm -- I'm in favor of the project. Fitzgerald: Mr. Chairman? Yearsley: Commissioner Fitzgerald. Fitzgerald: I think I would agree with you completely. I think, you know, after, you know, getting feedback back from the community and making adjustments as they did, there has to be certainty in development, as you make a significant investment over ten, 15 years and they have done a good job of mixed use -- mixed use residential, giving buffer zones in between the smaller density, so I think they did a great job. I think they have been responsive to the community and I appreciate the effort. Yearsley: Thank you. Any other comments? Wilson: Mr. Chair? Yearsley: Commissioner Wilson. Wilson: I'm also going to support this. I think if you look at the 2003 plan, it's a fulfillment of that. I, too, like that they worked with the neighborhood and, then, also the fact that they are working with the community to make improvements. They have been a good partner with the West Ada School District and throughout they have been a collaborative partner. Yearsley: Thank you. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission March 5, 2015 Page 14 of 47 McCarvel: Mr. Chairman? I agree that -- my initial question as well was going to be the rezoning of that commercial district come again for some public notice in the future and 1 think the rest of it just seems really well thought out and a well liked design. Yearsley: Thank you. Oliver: Mr. Chairman? Yearsley: Commissioner Oliver. Oliver: I also agree with my constituents that this is well done. I think Brighton did a good job in doing their homework and bringing it up to date the way it should look and I think it will be a nice representation out there for us. Yearsley: Thank you Oliver: I agree with it Yearsley: So, with that just kind of one letter -- one comment, a quick clarification. The applicant did ask for comment. We cannot approve that waiver, but we can make a recommendation for yes or no on that waiver. So, however you guys want to do that. But we cannot approve that waiver. So, at this point I would entertain a motion. Wilson: Mr. Chair? Yearsley: Commissioner Wilson. Wilson: After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to recommend approval of file number RZ 15-001, PP 15-002, and CUP 15-002 as presented in the staff report for the -- on the hearing date March 5th, 2015, with the recommendation that -- that the plan being put forward -- Yearsley: The driveway? Wilson: The driveways be put forward. Yearsley: Okay. Oliver: Second. Yearsley: I have a motion and a second to approve file number RZ 14-001, PP 15-002 and CUP 15-002, Paramount Sub -- Southeast Subdivision. All in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries. Thank you. Congratulations. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission March 5, 2015 Page 15 of 47 F. Public Hearing: RZ 15-003 Jayker Village Subdivision by Oak Leaf Development Company, Inc. Located North Side of Chinden Boulevard; West of N. Tree Farm Way and N. Tree Haven Way Request: Rezone 26.09 Acres from the C -N and the R-15 Districts to the R-15 (8.48 Acres) and C -C (17.61 Acres) Zoning Districts G. Public Hearing: PP 15-003 Jayker Village Subdivision by Oak Leaf Development Company, Inc. Located North Side of Chinden Boulevard; West of N. Tree Farm Way and N. Tree Haven Way Request: Preliminary Plat Approval Consisting of One (1) Residential Lot, Three (3) Commercial Lots and Three (3) Common Lots on Approximately 23.59 Acres in the Proposed R- 15 and C -C Zoning Districts H. Public Hearing: CUP 15-003 Jayker Village Subdivision by Oak Leaf Development Company, Inc. Located North Side of Chinden Boulevard; West of N. Tree Farm Way and N. Tree Haven Way Request: Conditional Use Permit for a Self -Service Storage Facility Consisting of a Care -Taker's / Office Building and Fifteen (15) Storage Buildings on Approximately 11.18 Acres of Land in a Proposed C -C Zoning District Yearsley: Next item on the agenda is the public hearing for RZ 15-003, PP 15-003 and CUP 15-003, Jayker Village Subdivision. Fitzgerald: Mr. Chair? Yearsley: Commissioner Fitzgerald. Fitzgerald: I have to declare a conflict of interest, so I will be stepping out for this series of discussions. Yearsley: Thank you. So, with that I will give him a chance to leave, since he is recusing himself of this application. What we are going to do on this process -- since there is so many people here today and we want to make sure we get through everybody -- from what I understand there is a list of people that want to speak for three minutes each on each different topic. Those people who have signed up here, this does become a letter -- does go to the record. So -- so, what we would like to do is we have got a list of people who would like to speak on different subjects and if there is any other concerns beyond those subjects, please, come forward. We want to at least make sure everyone is heard, but we don't -- not saying we don't want to, but we understand the concern and if there is a lot of repetition, you know, we -- we understand that. So, we are going to do this a little bit -- this will be in the record showing that -- all who showed up and showed that they are against or for or neutral. But with that I am going to ask Robert Neufield to come forward, please. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission March 5, 2015 Page 16 of 47 Baird: Mr. Chair? Yearsley: Yes. Baird: A couple of preliminary items. I also want to mention that we do have in the record numerous written communications from the residents. Some were sent to the Mayor's office, some were sent to the Planning and Zoning Commission. It appear from reviewing that the staff responded to each one and said this is in receipt, it's in the record, I just wanted to -- to go on record saying that those are part of the record, we have been keeping the Commission informed, so you have reviewed those ahead of time. If there are any written materials that will be submitted with the testimony tonight, please, hand it to the clerk. When we are done taking testimony we will copy those, so that the Commission can read them, take a short time out at that point. I also have a quick crowd management request that -- this is being broadcast in the lobby, but for those people out there we do have some seats available in front and now might be a good time to come in if anybody is waiting for that opportunity. And, then, I wanted to recommend that we begin with the staff report. Yearsley: I just remembered that I -- I'm trying to adjust for what's going on I forgot that we will start with the staff report. Thank you very much. Parsons: I thought I was getting off easy tonight. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. The next item on the agenda this evening, as you stated, is the Jaykers Village Subdivision. You can see here on the zoning map before you this evening this property is annexed within the city. It's currently zoned C -N, which is our neighborhood commercial district and a portion of it is zoned R-15. Surrounding this development is primarily single family -- developed and vacant single family residential development that was -- roughly went in approximately about 2009 with the first phase in 2007 known as Jayker Subdivision and over time as the economy turned the subdivision was bought up by some previous developers and now since -- it's morphed a little bit from what it was originally approved as, but it always stayed within the context and the spirit of the concept plan that was approved with the annexation of the property. So, you can see here that this property is -- currently consists to two existing buildings and that will -- those will remain with the development of the property. The Comprehensive Plan for this site is medium density residential and mixed use community. The larger portion of it is medium density residential, although when you look at the zoning map you can see a majority of it is commercial. So, it's a little bit out of scale on what the comp plan is, but the Comprehensive Plan is not parcel specific, zoning is, and so that's really what we are focusing in on tonight. So, here is -- as I mentioned to you, this property was annexed into the city in 2006. This is the concept plan that was tied to the -- to the original development agreement approved with this project. I have placed a square around the area that's part of our discussion this evening and you can see here that a portion of it was planned for neighborhood commercial along Chinden Boulevard and north of that we have the community park, which is currently built and constructed with a previous phase and, then, we also have some additional housing that would be developed in the future. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission March 5, 2015 Page 17 of 47 Applicant is rezoning the property from the C -N zoning district and the R-15 zoning district to the C -C zoning district and the R-15 zoning district and the primary reason for the rezone is so that the applicant has -- can go concurrently with the submitted CUP application in order to develop the storage facility. So, currently the way the project is zoned now that type of use is not allowed in that C -N district and that's the main reason why the push for the rezone this evening. But to insure that this site does develop in an fashion consistent with the concept plan that I just presented to you, we wanted to make sure that not only did we get a detailed site plan for the storage facility, but we also got a detailed -- or a conceptual development plan for the other commercial lots as part of the subdivision. So, as I go through my presentation tonight I'm going to focus on each application individually, wrap up what the applicant wants to address and, then, close with staff's recommendation. So, the plat before you this evening does consist of a single residential parcel, which is approximately 6.41 acres located here consistent with that concept plan and in the C -C zoning area will consist of three commercial lots and there will also be three common lots within the proposed subdivision. Also with the annexation and the concept plan and in the development agreement the applicant at that time was required to provide a connection to Chinden Road -- Boulevard at the half mile mark, which is consistent with the entrance into the subdivision today and it is consistent with the current code as it's written in the UDC and it's also consistent with the ITD's -- the Idaho Department of Transportation's access management policies. With that approval and previous approval, this local street was also constructed to buffer the commercial uses from the single family residences to the north as well. Now, since that time the applicant has come forward and platted a six lot subdivision just north of this project with a pool house and a collector facility -- or a pool house -- a pool facility and a pool as another amenity to the residential portion of the development. Access to this development, again, will be primarily from Chinden Boulevard to North Tree -- I think that's Tree Farm or -- yeah. Tree Farm Way. And, then, again, collector street -- the local street will provide access to the commercial development moving forward. All right. Here is their landscape plan with the preliminary plat. The only landscaping that is required are the street buffers along Chinden Boulevard, a collector street into the development. On the commercial portion of the development would be required to do a ten foot landscape buffer and, then, as part of the subdivision approval the applicant is also required to construct a portion of the collector road to this project to terminate at their west boundary. This is an important connection not only for future connectivity, but also for this development and it's important to the UDC as well, because not only does the code restrict access to the state facility, but the code also requires that there is a backage road to parallel that state facility, so as properties develop adjacent to that corridor we want to insure there is adequate connectivity in the future to connect residences to these connection points at the state highway, so that we aren't having multiple curb cuts onto state facilities to make sure that they are -- we try to keep management and the congestion on that roadway to a minimum, because that is a 55 mile an hour roadway. So, this is a very important piece of collector road, although it's not being extended at this point in time, as I showed you in the concept plan, you can see that that road is to be extended to Black Cat at some point in the future and it was always part of the overall annexation. We will just have to wait -- and, again, these -- these roadways are typically developed at the time of development, not ahead of time. Here is the concept plan that I was mentioning to you as part of the commercial Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission March 5, 2015 Page 18 of 47 portion. As I presented to you, there are -- here are the two existing buildings that will remain on Lot 2, Block 1. In the staff report I did bring to your attention that there are current commercial businesses operating there and the applicant has not received city approval for those tenants to operate there out of the site. So, moving forward in the staff report we did recommend some DA provisions that required that the structures connect to city services and also get approval for the city in order for those tenants -- basically they need to get to the building department and get certificate of occupancies for them to occupy the buildings. The concept plan is only primarily for Lot 3, Block 1, and it does show two -- three commercial buildings on here, the largest being about 13,000 square feet and the smallest is about 6,000 square feet. You can see here that the applicant has tried to move the buildings away from the street and has no parking in between the buildings here. The main reason for that is because there is an irrigation easement that prohibits any structure from encroaching and it was the intent of the applicant to also create separation from the residences and also have a building screen the parking area, so those commercial businesses aren't impacting the adjacent residences. Again here is the detailed site plan for Lot 4 of the subdivision. Again, the applicant is requesting a conditional use permit to develop this site with approximately 183,000 square feet of storage buildings and office -- and an office building. The office portion of the development will consist of a caretakers unit, so they will have 24/7 management on site here to make sure the trash is maintained, there is no riff raff going on, the crime is down, and certainly these types of facilities also have surveillance cameras as well to keep an eye on that. The main access into this development will be from Tree Haven Way, which is that local street, again, which is consistent with the comp plan and the UDC. Per the specific use standards for storage facilities, the applicant has to provide a secondary means of access into the development and you can see here on the site plan that that primary access or secondary access will be coming from Chinden Boulevard. It will be gated for emergency access only. Typically when we have projects intensify we try to restrict access as well. In this particular case, because of specific use standards require that and the fire department requires it, staff is supportive of the secondary access to Chinden Boulevard. As the applicant moves through the process they will have to gain approval from ITD as well. Here is the street view of the proposed facility. I think in my staff report there was a couple modifications that I had recommended as part of my recommendation to you. Again, the applicant will have to go back through and go through the design review process, just like the previous plat did. But a couple things to note is this will be developing in two phases. So, the first phase will be, basically, all the improvements around the perimeter and, then, the first seven interior buildings here and, then, the second phase would be these additional structures here -- let's see. One, two -- five additional buildings. So, a lot of the contents will be screened from view from the public and internally from the subdivision as they go through their first phase. Staff wanted to make sure that there was some additional architectural embellishments to the building, additional screening from Chinden Boulevard corridor and some additional landscaping requirements along the east boundary and also the north boundary and those are highlighted in the staff report. I will quickly go through those. Because this building and the north building will be visible for quite some time until the office component develops or the multi -family or the residential to the north develops -- I shouldn't say multi- family, but the residential lot develops to the north, staff has recommended that they Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission March 5, 2015 Page 19 of 47 increase their amount of block on the back of that north facing fagade from four feet to six feet. Because the facility will be screened by a six foot tall wall -- or fencing and a block wall combination, we felt that wainscot at the height of the fence would actually have the buildings blend into the surroundings and actually look more like it's walled off than just metal buildings standing along the perimeter. The applicant was in agreement with that recommendation. And, then, also on this north fagade we are also recommending some additional windows moving forward. And, then, of course, the landscape buffer along this perimeter -- if I can step back here. You can see here. The applicant is deficient in the required trees by the UDC, so they have to put in several more trees along this boundary to add additional screening. And, then, also along the east boundary they are missing the required trees and staff has required them to put in the 12 required trees along this east boundary and the applicant stated that they can -- can do that and can accommodate those conditions. Again, here is the street view from the -- as you can see here along the Chinden Boulevard originally the applicant had proposed berming, some block walls and, then, some wrought iron fencing to kind of blend in with the adjacent neighborhood. But you can see here based on the UDC standards for the storage facility, these areas -- the storage facility must be screened from public view or public streets and this is just too visible from the street and so staff's recommendation in the staff report was the applicant was to provide a decorative block wall along the Chinden corridor and incorporate not only the block walls -- or the stone walls you see here, but also the berming and that was our recommendation this evening. The applicant was also required to provide you a detail of the fencing around the compound and this exhibit here at the very bottom shows what they are planning to do in order to comply with that requirement by staff. Here are the conceptual elevations for Lot 3, which shows the three lots, the new buildings in the future. The applicant tried to tie in architecture with the two existing buildings on Lot 2 and these will have -- as you can see here a mix of wood products, metal siding -- or metal roofing to compliment not only the storage buildings, but also the entry features into the residential portion of the development and, then, also we have the same build and form and the red barn that's currently constructed on the site as well. And, then, the storage facility here is the proposed elevations for the manager's unit or the office building. Again, this architecture is similar to what the pool facility is across the street. It has stucco, stone, the metal -- the same metal roofing as the rest of the architecture within the development as well. As I mentioned to you, the majority of the building materials in this development will be metal. All the internal buildings are not subject to design review, because they will be screened or walled off from adjacent view and I touched on it a little bit, but you can see here where they -- the block wainscoting is along the building and this would be the east side building, the east perimeter and the back of that building and so staff is, again, requesting a six foot tall split face wainscot and, then, also on the end caps or the north- south ends of the building we are requiring that they add two of these windows to break up that metal siding, to -- to just add or at least meet the intent -- the requirements of the design standards. Here are the buildings that are proposed along the north boundary, which would be building number 13, number 14, and number 15. Again, that wainscot is along the back of that building. Staff is, again, recommending that that be raised in height to six feet in height to provide additional materials on the back of that building and, then, the applicant this evening -- originally staff had required that the same Lexan windows be applied to all the back fagade of these buildings. All of the buildings Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission March 5, 2015 Page 20 of 47 the applicant is proposing this evening to -- I know they do it on the center building, because it's a taller building and the two end caps aren't as tall, so it would be difficult to have a fix foot wainscot and put those windows in and I will get into that a little bit more as I get through here -- through the presentation. But as you're aware -- and with all the members in the audience, you can see we have quite a bit of public testimony. As the city attorney had testified to, all of that information is in your packet. Not all of it is in opposition of the project. We did receive one -- one positive vote on the project from one of the residents in the neighborhood, so that's included in your packet as well. And, then, staff also received written testimony from the applicant in rebuttal for the staff report and I quickly want to go through what they want you to act on or take into consideration this evening. So, that first condition would be CUP condition 1-B. As I mentioned to you in my presentation -- if I could step back here very quickly to the landscape plan. Originally if you looked at the required plat -- or the submitted plat here, the applicant is currently tiling the existing irrigation facility on the property and when he -- when he did that the irrigation district required a 40 foot wide irrigation easement and that runs along the east side of the facility, cuts through the parking lot, then, runs down along the north and, then, exits up along the west boundary. Originally -- and, again, this landscape plan doesn't show the required trees. So, staff wasn't certain if the irrigation district would allow the trees to go in their easement. Now, the pipe itself is offset in the easement, so from looking at the site plan this evening and looking at the landscape plan, it appears that the trees could be planted in there without widening that landscape strip, provided the irrigation district could support that. Staff is amenable to the applicant's request to strike that condition, provided they provide documentation from the irrigation district allowing the required trees within the easement and they would have to submit that with their certificate of zoning compliance and design review application. The next condition would be CUP condition 2.17 or 2-F, which requires the detail for the block wall and also the fencing materials along the perimeter of the development. I can jump back to that very quickly. So, imagine along the west boundary the applicant would do some kind of wood fence treatment to kind of mimic the same fencing style as the Spurwing development has currently and, then, along the Eagle Road corridor here we are looking at some decorative block pilasters and, then, a combination of block wall and possible mixture. The applicant is asking for some latitude on the requirement this evening and let them work with staff through the design review process to work this staff as they submit their CZC and design review as to finalize that design of how that landscaping and how that screening is to look. Again, staff is amenable to that request. We feel as long as they screen it and make it an attractive corridor along the Chinden corridor and staff believes that it would blend in with the neighborhood and we believe that it would meet the intent of the ordinance and still provide that screening as required by the UDC requirements. The other condition would be 4 -- 4-B, which, as I stated to you on the back side of that building, 13 and 14, because they are having a six foot wainscot block wall or split faced block, staff is amenable to only requiring the Lexan panels on building number 14 and in the last condition of approval they want you to take -- act on this evening is 4-C, which if you looked originally -- if you look at the site plan here, because most of these entry gates into these facilities are electric gates, it's difficult -- right now the way the staff report is written we require a solid gate for the -- along entrance off of Tree Haven Way and most of these facilities have electronic key pads to get into there, so it's very difficult to have a solid gate, because of Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission March 5, 2015 Page 21 of 47 the weight and have those control arms lift the gate up. So, as long as the applicant complies with staff requirements for at least providing a solid material for the wing gates, staff is amenable to having them decorative or some kind of wrought iron fencing for the entrance off of the -- off of Tree Haven Way as you enter into this facility. With that staff finds that the proposed development does comply with the Comprehensive Plan and the concept plan that was originally proposed for this project in 2006. With the conditions that I have laid out in the staff report, staff finds that they will comply with the UDC. Therefore, we are recommending approval of this project tonight. This concludes my presentation and I will stand for any questions you have. Yearsley: Thank you. Are there any questions? Oliver: Mr. Chairman? Yearsley: Commissioner Oliver Oliver: Could I ask staff a couple questions if I could? Go back -- there. Perfect. So, it's two phases that's going to go in. So, if the first phase will consist of what we see here on the right-hand side and on the dotted line will be the second. So, that will be a vacant lot at that point. It will be there, but there just won't be buildings on it at that point. Parsons: Correct. Mr. Chairman -- go ahead. Oliver: So, my question is -- is that all of the items that would be placed in these storage units in an enclosed environment or will -- like I see some storage where they have outside vehicles -- recreational stored. And will that be used in that vacant area? Parsons: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, the concept plans -- or at least the site plan this evening shows enclosed storage and covered storage for the -- the RV parking as you suggested. So, as they go through the first phase we are expecting everything to be stored in their covered storage and enclosed storage and right now the way the conditions are in the staff report we have approved no out -- open outdoor storage. Everything has to be under covered storage. So, if that phase two is not developed and it remains undeveloped, nothing is allowed to be parked on that and it will be a condition in the -- in their CZC or in condition right now, it's not approved for storage and when they come in with their first phase we would have a condition in their certificate of zoning compliance that says phase two is not approved for storage or any kind of -- I mean nothing. Everything has to be indoors per the CUP. Nothing outdoor -- no outdoor storage is approved on this site. Oliver: Yeah. And, then, the other question I had is that -- that will be butted up towards the Chinden Road; correct? And, then, will that be a -- a raised buffer along Eagle -- along Chinden rather? Parsons: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, Commissioner Oliver, as it stands now there is three foot -- the decorative wall berm combination that I showed in the -- Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission March 5, 2015 Page 22 of 47 provided by the applicant shows a three foot berm -- the wall is about three feet and the berm is about three feet tall. Again, the applicant wants to change that a little bit because of the requirement for providing a solid screen wall on the road and they are asking -- they don't have a specific detail on how that landscape buffer would look, but they want the latitude to work with staff through the design review process on those final details. But they at least have complied with staff's recommendation of bringing forth what the wall is to look like or the fencing material is to look like for you to take it under advisement this evening. Oliver: Thank you. Yearsley: Any other questions? I actually have just a couple. Go back to -- keep going back. Right there. Well, actually, go back -- keep going back. Keep going. One more I think. Back one more. So -- sorry. Right now that area is zoned C -N, which is neighborhood commercial; correct? Parsons: That is correct. Yearsley: So, he could actually go ahead and start building potential commercial units in there without actually having to go through this process; is that not correct? Parsons: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, that is correct. He would still have to come back and plat it. Yearsley: Correct Parsons: But certainly if anything -- any commercial use in the UDC that was what we deem principally permitted, that would be allowed at staff level and would not require -- the platting itself would require a public hearing. But as far as developing the office use or some kind of retail use on this site is a principally permitted use and would not require a public hearing. Yearsley: Okay. Parsons: It would be staff level approvals to construct an office building on the site or a commercial retail building. Yearsley: Okay. So, I just want to make sure I understand that clearly. So, that's all I have. Would the applicant like to come forward? Please state your name and address for the record. Carnahan: My name is Doug Carnahan and I live at 7270 North Tree Haven Place. I am the owner and the developer of this project, the Jayker Village Subdivision. Bill did a good job of describing the original master plan that was put in place nine years ago. The only point I'd like to make -- there is two points. One is this is not a surprise. This has been in place for nine years and it's consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. The other thing is Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission March 5, 2015 Page 23 of 47 it's a multi -use master plan. It's only been developed in single family residential units so far. So, looking forward this is the first venture into commercial or a higher density -- higher density residential. About three years ago I retained Thornton Oliver Keller to both list the property -- put it on the market to see what buyers would say about it and a second thing is to do a study to find out what was -- the property could be used for. What would be the best use based on the marketplace. I will not go through all the gory details of the research project, but let me say this: The conclusions came back -- the one-third to the north, the R-15 parcel, was proper, it can be sold as an R-15 parcel and there is demand for it. The way they explained it to me they said draw a -- take a line that's one mile long and extend it out to the north and clear around to the east. What do we find? You find several very large stores, Fred Meyers, Walmart, and they have neighborhood commercial around them. If you go across the street from Spurwing Country Club they have neighborhood commercial. The bottom line was while the residential office fits, you cannot sell lots, because there is no demand for it. There is just no market for neighborhood commercial, because it's all taken up. So, that was the feedback. So, I said as part of that study what did you conclude might be the best use. So, the answer was the best use for that would be a storage parcel and it came from a number of developers that we talked to. They looked at the marketplace, they looked at where other storage parcels were and it's an underserved area in that regard. So, when I went out and talked to different people in the storage business they validated that. Yeah, we have interest in that, because we -- it's a place. The -- so, in thinking about storage, what was top of mind for me? There were a couple things. One is that comes up as a question. People have this vision of storage facilities like you see out in that agricultural area or whatever and they don't see a facility that is as attractive as it might be and so that's always an issue. So, that was on my mind. And the second thing that was on my mind was traffic. Is this going to create a traffic problem. So, I said the right thing to do is to understand these and set a goal where we come up with a plan that could be visually palatable and compatible with the surrounding community. To do that we retained Cornel Larson, Larson & Associates, architects, who have designed most of the infrastructure for Spurwing Greens and a lot of the infrastructure for the club at Spurwing. So, Cornel is going to speak to you in a few minutes and talk to you about how you take what might be unattractive and turn it into an attractive -- or at least a visually pallatable design. On the traffic, everybody questions is there going to be a traffic problem. So, I set out with the engineer Barry Semple and he's going to talk to you in a couple minutes about the traffic. There aren't traffic issues. People think there are and we are going to give you some data, as opposed to just the emotional feel for it. So, the other thought that I had was that we can talk about all the detail and the -- what the plants are going to look like and all that, but I think you have to reflect a bit and look at these things more strategically. My understanding of -- is that the City of Meridian has a strategic intent that they don't want to be a bedroom community. They want to be a community that has jobs near homes. The second thing applies to services. The strategic intent is to have services near homes. There is so many people think that you have to have a bedroom community and travel a long way away for a facility like that -- a storage facility. You don't. You can have it near by. You just need to make it pallatable. So, my attitude about all this -- and we are going to get Cornel to give you some specifics and Barry, too. But, one, it's a strategic to Meridian, it's built in the nine year plan. It matches the Comprehensive Plan and as Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission March 5, 2015 Page 24 of 47 important we have found a partner in -- that owns a facility like this looks that's willing to make the commitment and the financial investment to make it attractive. So, with that I would ask for your favorable consideration of this proposal. And so now if I could get Cornet and Barry to come up. Yearsley: Please state your name and address for the record. Larson: Thank you. Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, my name is Cornel Larson. My address is 210 Murray in Garden City. I'm here tonight representing the applicant and as the applicant mentioned we have been the architect -- is that better? Sorry. We have been the architect on all of the facilities out at Spurwing, the original clubhouse, all the entry features, all the estate entry features. We have actually laid out a lot of the subdivision stuff and the planning phases as well. So, tonight I thought I would -- maybe if Bill would flip back to the slide that shows the commercial area -- or I guess it's on the screen. So, we had a -- did you get a copy of the rendering of that? Did you get the office buildings and that? There was a color rendering that we did for it. Anyway, maybe it didn't make it into the packet, but the intent was that the offices on the corner or the buildings on the corner be uses that were consistent with the existing zoning. Some of those uses are, obviously, office buildings, medical buildings, retail. Retail could consist of a restaurant, bike shop, furniture store, some of those items could be included in retail. There could also be daycare there. Charter school. Fitness center. Coffee shop. Those kind of uses we would typically see in a neighborhood facility. So, the buildings that were designed there were a take off of what the existing structures look like, the existing red barn that's there, in an attempt to try to incorporate some of that architecture into the new office buildings that were proposed there. With the -- with that being said I think most people are here tonight for the -- for the storage facility and we looked at the storage facility and typically Republic Storage has had a color theme and a -- a look that they have used for most of their facilities. But we have encouraged them to upgrade the facilities. The existing residence -- office that's being proposed would look like the pool facility in the sense of using the same materials, trying to use maybe not the same exact color roofing, but a metal type roofing, stone fagade, blended into what was done across at the pool house, community center, which is another building that we have done out there. So, we were familiar with what the look needed to be and what we wanted it to be going into the entry of the facility. Also along the Chinden side of the facility when we met with Bill yesterday, went through the staff report with him to see what his concerns were and kind of -- and he addressed those quite well in the meeting tonight, so I wasn't going to go back though those in the interest of time. But we had submitted a proposal back to him on things that we would be willing to do to help upgrade the landscape and the screening along the -- the front of Chinden. We are trying to keep some of the stone elements that are along Spurwing Greens now. Some of those features -- if you look at those features out there they have stone, they have concrete walls, they have landscaping and berming. Most of the time in a commercial instance berming is not required along a major arterial or along a collector road. In this case businesses need some exposure to survive and to six feet, so we lowered the berming down, but we have gone ahead and gone back and looked at the screening and how we could handle that better. We looked at the -- the conditions that Bill would add about a continuous block wall out there and we felt that that Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission March 5, 2015 Page 25 of 47 was an 860 foot block wall that we would like to see broken up a little bit with maybe some different material and some different design features. So, we propose the items that you see on the -- on the bottom of the page that's on the screen right now to give a little bit more defined character to the front of the building. A lot of the mini storage buildings have been -- that Republic Storage has done have been gray and white and in this case we elected to change the colors, add some masonry wainscoting, vary the roof lines, modulate some of the buildings back and forth in an effort to get some more character in it, soften its appearance, make it look like it's a more quality product. Keep it in conjunction with the colors that are consistent within the neighborhood. The tans, browns, and stones have been used throughout that facility. And so to conclude, I think that the upgrades that have been in the buildings, some of the things that are done with screening -- we have increased the buffer on the north side. There is an irrigation easement. There is distance between the buildings, as well as landscape. We have offset the irrigation line in the easement, so we could get landscaping up next to the building, so all the irrigation lines are set away from the mini storage facilities to allow for some additional landscaping in those areas. The irrigation district, as you probably know, won't let us plant landscaping, other than low grasses or bushes in their irrigation easements. Typically they don't want trees, because they interfere with the pipes, so we have tried to hold the buildings in different locations, so we can have a place to put trees and add some additional screening. So, I would be happy to answer any questions. I know there was one of the commissioners, excuse me, had the question about the vacant part of the yard. That typically -- when Republic Storage does a project, they go in and do all the perimeter work, they do their first phase work, but they also put a three-quarter gravel in on all of the rest of the site, so that it -- and they maintain it, so there is no weeds or anything and no one's usually allowed to drive on that, except for maintenance. They don't park on it. They would not have outside storage in this facility. There would be no outdoor storage of vehicles. And with that I would be happy to answer any questions. Yearsley: Thank you. Are there any questions? Thank you. I think we had -- the transportation guy was coming up. Larson: Yeah. Barry was going to come up and had a few questions -- comments. Yearsley: Please state your name and address for the record and, then, just also for clarification, you have about two minutes left. Semple: Got it. My name is Barry Semple. I'm with RiveRidge Engineering. 2447 South Vista Avenue in Boise. I will be brief. I just wanted to speak briefly to the transportation issues that may be associated with this. We anticipated that there may be some concerns about transportation, so we had Thompson Engineering, who is a professional traffic engineer, prepare a trip generation evaluation, comparing three different scenarios. The first scenario is if the entire 23 acres was developed all as single family. The second scenario is if the entire was all developed as office. And the third scenario is with the proposed development as it is. Specifically the numbers produced were if the entire site developed residential it would generate 1,589 trips per day. All office is 2,217 trips per day. And with the proposed development it generated 1,313 trips per day. So, almost Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission March 5, 2015 Page 26 of 47 half of what all office would be and less than if the entire 23 acres developed as single family residential. In addition, the City of Meridian requires that Ada County Highway District to issue documentation as to whether a traffic study is required for each application. We received an e-mail from Mindy Wallace with ACHD indicating that no traffic study was required. Further, her staff report, which did come late, but it was presented -- it was made available from them this afternoon, he indicated that they had no issues with the proposed development and, in fact, they were planning to approve it administratively and, finally, there is a referral response from Idaho Transportation Authority -- or Idaho Transportation Department. It specifically says that no more trips than anticipated by the City of Meridian Comprehensive Plan will be generated from the proposal and, further, that the Comprehensive Plan does not allow access out to Chinden Boulevard, except at the half mile marks and I think I may have gone over two minutes, but I tried to go fast. Yearsley: Thank you. Or do you have a couple more items, is that what you're saying? Semple: No. Yearsley: You're done? Semple: Anybody have any questions? Yearsley: Any questions? No? Thank you. Semple: Thank you. Yearsley: All right. Now, let's get back to where we were before. Now I will open up to public comment. Like I again said, that there is an order -- Robert Neufield. Could you, please, come forward. Baird: Mr. Chair? Yearsley: Yes. Baird: At this time could we clarify if this gentleman is speaking for a group. Neufield: I am not. Baird: Okay. Yearsley: Three minutes. Neufield: Thank you very much. Baird: You might want to find out if there is someone speaking for a group. I don't want to interrupt you. As long as you're up there I think we will let you go. Meridian Planning $ Zoning Commission March 5, 2015 Page 27 of 47 Yearsley: Well -- and think I -- sorry. Just for clarification. I do have a list of people that were going to talk about different items and all of them had talked about for three minutes. Baird: Great. They have got a plan. Let's go for it. Yearsley: Yeah. They have a plan, so -- so, that's kind of what we are following. Neufield: Great. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, my name is Robert Neufield. I live at 3756 Snow Cherry Court in the City of Meridian. I would at this time like to present to the city clerk some additional late signatures that we had in opposition to the project. These came in after -- Yearsley: Be back at the microphone. Sorry. Neufield: These signatures came in after we had turned in the petition to the city clerk last week. The thing that is significant about the petitions tonight is that it brings the total of people who were opposed to this particular project to 238 individuals that represent 163 homes within the subdivision and that equals 81 percent of all the homes that are opposed to this project. As the chairman of the Spurwing Greens Advisory Committee, which is an advisory group that functions with the homeowners association, which is run and controlled by the Brighton Corporation, we have looked at various aspects of this proposed plan and we find numerous faults in the plan as presented by the developer. You will hear tonight from the people that will follow me on various aspects that we have worked very diligently to try to prepare cohesive and coherent talking points, so that they will be understandable to you and, hopefully, not repetitious. The only thing that I assume you will hear several times tonight is that we are opposed in total to this project and that we will ask as a part of our comments that you deny the application in its totality and that -- that is our -- that is our position. We have had several meetings with the community here to bring this thing forward and we have had a tremendous amount of support from the local residents to participate in what we feel would have many detrimental impacts on the country club community that we live in called Spurwing Greens. The majority of the residents in our area are 55 plus. There are, though, however, a very, very strong population of middle aged and young families that were upwardly mobile, that were attracted to the City of Meridian by the quality of life that is afforded in this city. A city with a motto that says Built For Business, Designed For Living. When you live in a country club community there is a certain expectation of what is to be around you in the way the city is built. This particular proposal is -- as you will hear, is extremely detrimental to what we believe is the -- what should be the proper use of that land. Again, we are asking that you deny the application of Oak Leaf Development and the Jayker Village Subdivision for their request for rezoning and for the conditional use permit. I thank you for your time. Yearsley: I have one question for you. Neufield: Yes, sir. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission March 5, 2015 Page 28 of 47 Yearsley: You mentioned you're -- you're in opposition of this -- trying to figure out how to say this. Are you in opposition of the storage units or commercial in general? Neufield: Just to this particular proposal, not to whether it's commercial. We understand that it is currently zoned commercial and they could build as long as it meets the requirements of the zoning for C -C, that they could build anything that falls within that parameter right there. What we -- what we believe is that there are significant faults with the traffic counts, the impacts on the local community in the way of safety to the kids that live in that area. You will hear more details about that. But we are generally opposed to this project, because we don't believe it has been properly studied as to the impact on the local community. Yearsley: Okay. Thank you. Neufield: Thank you very much. Yearsley: Next on the list is Travis Hawks. Again, state your name and address -- name and address for the record. Hawks: Travis Hawks. 6828 North Sunset Maple Way in Meridian and I am not 55 plus, so I will start with that. By way of background, I have lived in Meridian for 18 years. I also own a business in Meridian. I employ about 30 residents of Meridian and I give you that context, because I want you to know that I love Meridian and I have chosen to live in and do business in Meridian, because Meridian is pro growth and I'm very pro growth and I'm very pro business. However, in this case this isn't smart growth and as a credit to our Mayor and the City Council and to the Planning and Zoning Commission, Meridian has also employed smart growth and this case is an exception to that. This is, as has been mentioned, a country club community and there is -- there is not a reason to put an industrial looking in use of a storage facility complex on -- in a country club community. Now, one of the things -- one of the things -- when we moved we built this house two years ago and with respect to the owner and developer of the property, this is a surprise to us, because before we built the house and looked at the zoning to the adjacent property of our subdivision, it was not zoned in a manner that would build storage units. So, it is a surprise. It is a surprise to us. It doesn't fit. The best way I can describe it is this is a square peg in a round hole and there is lots of other places in Meridian where a storage facility and this change of zoning would make sense, but I don't see any justification for the Commission here to recommend at change in zoning that would facilitate building of storage units and access into this residential neighborhood where we have kids that play and where we live and with that is there any questions? Yearsley: Any questions? Hawks: Thank you. Baird: Mr. Chair? Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission March 5, 2015 Page 29 of 47 Yearsley: Yes. Baird: If I could take an opportunity to remind the audience to keep the clapping down, just so we can move through this efficiently. Appreciate your cooperation and you're doing great so far. Yearsley: Thank you. Next one on the list is Keith Allred. Again, state your name and address for the record, please. Allred: Can these microphones be raised? Yearsley: Unfortunately, no. Allred: Keith Allred. 6811 North Topaz Jewel Place in Meridian. For the first five and a half years my wife and I have lived here we were in Lochsa Falls Subdivision. I commute five to six days a week to Boise State University where I'm faculty. Approximately two and a half years ago we moved a mile to a mile and a half west into the Spurwing Greens Subdivision. So, I have been traveling Chinden for seven and a half years and I can say that seven and a half years ago it took me 25 minutes to get to Boise State University, now it takes 45 minutes. I don't need a traffic study to tell me how significantly the traffic has increased on Chinden and I dispute any study that suggests it's negligible. A half century ago a thoughtful man in his writings said that if a person goes down into a basement and suddenly turns on the lights and sees rats, turning on the lights didn't create or cause the rats to be there, but when you discover the rats you need to deal with them. Turning off the lights doesn't take away the rats. This proposal by Oak Leaf Development was the equivalent of turning on lights. Those of us who live in Spurwing Greens began to see rats and we are here suggesting that turning off the lights or just approving this proposal doesn't takeaway the rats. There are significant safety concerns among most of us. There is over 500 people that live in that vision -- subdivision right now and by the time its fully developed the number will be closer a thousand people. It's laugh -- it would be laughable if there weren't a single entrance and exit into that subdivision if it weren't so dangerous. To suggest that the -- there is regulations which say that it's okay to have a single entrance and exit into a subdivision that's eventually going to hold close to a thousand people, we are -- we are ignoring the rats when we do that. I have driven up and down Chinden looking for another subdivision that has a single entrance and exit and so far I have not found it. Staff may say that, oh, it's -- it's -- what we are doing is legal. I would suggest to you that we need to distinguish between legal and ethical and it may be legally permissible to get by with a single entrance and exit into Spurwing Greens, but accidents will happen. Yearsley: Can you, please, wrap it up? Your three minutes are up. Allred: Okay. I'm suggesting that you be pro active and not reactive and that you take into account that there is going to be the need for first responders and emergency vehicles in and out of that area and if we -- there is a single entrance and exit, then, we have put ourselves in a very precarious situation. Thank you. Meridian Planning R Zoning Commission March 5, 2015 Page 30 of 47 Yearsley: Thank you. Next one on the list is Helen Little. Again, name and address for the record. Little: Helen Little. 6523 North Salvia Way, Meridian. And I will make up -- I will be shorter than him to make it up. About three weeks ago is when most of us found out there was anything going on. I realize there may be this plan going on for some time, but we were -- it was unbeknownst to us. What I'd like to bring to your attention tonight is -- are two points. And first is the entrance into that storage unit is off of -- well, to the proposed storage unit off of Tree Haven Way, which is situated on the local road and as far as we understand that is subject to different requirements than our residential feeder road. Tree Haven -- another problem with it is that it supposedly does not have current ACHD approval for a business use off the local road and considering the next point, business should not be considered for any reason at all, because my second point is that the pool and club house across the way is within five hundred -- 50 to 100 feet from the proposed entrance into that storage facility. There are children -- when that pool is in use there is only six parking spaces in that little tiny pool area and so at full use for the pool there will be either street parking, which I'm not sure is allowed, but there certainly will be a lot of mothers and grandmothers walking their kids to the pool, perhaps their teenagers going to the pool and at the same time on a little local road there is going to be big trailers pulling boats and RVs and so forth and that right there is a hazard. So, we are concerned for our kids and this does not sound like a liability that I think that the city or anybody else should even consider, knowing of the dangers. It's so close to the pool, so close to kids playing. They show on that map of -- that you can turn left from Tree Farm onto Tree Haven. There is a lot of big vehicles now, because we are under construction that have to actually -- they cannot negotiate that turn and turn, then, again left and go around the big catch basin with these boats and trailers and things to be able to -- and still regardless of what they do they will be going by the pool where the kids are. So, thank you for your time. Yearsley: Thank you. Jennifer Domiano? Again, name and address for the record, please. Domiano: Jennifer Domiano and I'm at 3655 West Jayker Court in the Spurwing Greens Estates Subdivision. I thank you for the consideration of the safety of the children. My husband and I looked at a lot of different areas before settling in Meridian. We actually moved from Boise. We looked at surrounding areas in Eagle and landed in Meridian in the subdivision because of what -- the lifestyle that it afforded. In addition to that, because we have two small children, ages nine and three, we took into consideration that our number one priority is safety of where we would raise our children for the next 15 years and we were unaware of the proposed storage units that were being built. We did our due diligence and asked. My husband, then, went to the city as well to find out what the vacant land was going to become. We would not have built our home and lived in Meridian in that subdivision knowing that the storage units were there. Given that, what I am most concerned about, along with a lot of other individuals that live in that subdivision that are in my age group is that we have young children. There is a bus stop that's right there at the Tree Farm Way entrance where it picks up small school children and quite Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission March 5, 2015 Page 31 of 47 often with the heavy fog that's in Meridian that we all understand on Ten Mile, it's hard to see and with that storage unit being in there we are very fearful that our children won't be seen as well. Our kids play outside, they ride scooters and bikes and walk and we walk to the pool quite often during the summers and we enjoy that lifestyle and we are very afraid that the additional proposed storage units are going to create potentially a hazardous accident one day with one of our children, so thank you. Yearsley: Thank you. Domiano: Any questions? Yearsley: Any questions? Thank you. Next one on the list is Don Lyman. Lyman: Good evening, Commissioners. My name is Don Lyman. I live at 4204 West Highland Fall Drive with a wife and two children ages three and five. One of the things -- I'm a firefighter by profession. Not here locally. But one of the things that raises my concern -- and it's not really the developer's fault, nor the city's fault, it's the code's fault. The Routine Fire Code and building codes for the City of Meridian don't offer a way for periodic checking of what's being stored in these storage units. As I said, I'm a firefighter. I have been on fires in similar storage units that have created hazardous emissions. They have created a hazardous exposure to the residents when they are built in residential areas, such things as drug labs, pot grows, flammable liquid storage, oxidizer and other chemical storage. We cannot get in them as a public entity to inspect those on an annual basis because of the codes and will tend the attendance of such storage units. So, while it may not be legal, we know that there is -- we all know there is people out there that do illegal things and we can't enhance our safety when these type of units go in. In addition to that, I refer to the -- Meridian's motto, which is Built For Business, Designed For Living, as others have alluded to. When we moved here we moved into this subdivision for the country club lifestyle that is advertised and I don't think you would anymore want to ruin the jewel of the residential development in Meridian than you would the commercial jewel down in The Village. You wouldn't be a storage unit down there, because I guarantee you they would probably be up in arms about it, too. So, with that the public safety hazards come up and there is really nothing we can do about it, unless we change the Uniform Fire Code or the building codes here in the City of Meridian. Seeings that probably is not going to be done in time to take this to the Council, I would recommend that we deny the development and I would like to see the development and the community that is most affected by it get together and talk about maybe some solutions. Thank you. Yearsley: Thank you. Wendell Welch. Welch: Mr. Chairman, thank you. My name is Wendell Welch. I live at 4094 West Highland Fall Court. My wife and I have lived there for about two years now -- almost two years now. I bought her a house on her birthday March 14th and we signed on that day and so that was the house I bought for my wife because of the community that we are living in. But one thing that concerns me is the challenge of a single entrance and exit from Spurwing has been brought up. I wanted to bring my personal reality of what traffic Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission March 5, 2015 Page 32 of 47 means to me at 7:30 in the morning. I'm dodging cars that are parked on North Jayker Way that are protecting their children so they can get to the bus on time. I'm dodging the construction workers in their vehicles who are coming right onto Jayker Way, because they have got a job to do. And, then, I'm worried about hitting -- as you notice I'm not under the 55 bunch, but I'm worried about hitting those little guys that are coming out between those cars, even though their parents have good intentions trying to save -- protect them to get to the bus and I can't see them in my truck. So, I'm concerned about that. Also there is a subdivision going to be developed to the north of us and that single entrance is going to access to that other side. That's a lot of traffic coming by. Nine years ago when a cow got loose and walked on the road that was a traffic hazard. Today, though, it has changed in that area and we need to look at the single entrance. The traffic light that's at that entrance is not managing traffic very well, I might add. I have sat many times there waiting for a legal left turn when there is no traffic on the road and so I just appeal to you that there is a traffic issue at that single entrance and when you put more traffic available units -- storage units in particular there, that traffic is going to go up. When you get traffic on the other side of the subdivision north of us, traffic is going to go up and there is a single entrance. There is a coded gate that goes out the other way. Some might say there is a second exit there. I haven't been given the code yet, so, you know, bear with me. I will find it out and share it, I guess. But there is a problem with traffic there. I see it every morning at 7:30. 1 called the bus people about moving that bus stop, but so far it has not moved and I -- I appreciate the fact that this is being looked at and would ask that it be looked at a little closer. That's all I have. Thank you. Yearsley: Thank you. Next on list is Larry Graham. Just a reminder. Please state your name and address for the record, please. Graham: Larry Graham. 6824 North Tree Haven Way. Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. I'd like to thank the representatives of the City of Meridian, the citizens and the members of the Planning and Zoning Commission here tonight for the opportunity just to share a few comments with you regarding the proposed Jayker Village development application and more specifically the proposed conditional use permit for a storage facility consisting of an office building and 15 storage buildings to be located next to our Spurwing development. My wife and I relocated to Meridian from out of state and purchased our home in the Spurwing development in July of 2013. It took us several years to reach our decision. We carefully analyzed where we wanted to locate to. We looked at the Boise metro area in its entirety, the City of Meridian, and the lifestyle as presented by Brighton Corporation and the Spurwing development builders. We, like many others here tonight, would not have selected our present home location or the Spurwing development if a storage facility existed next to this neighborhood at that point in time that we made our purchase decision. The potential placement of a storage facility next to Spurwing and other developments nearby will have a direct impact on whether potential new residents will select this area for their home, will cause many current residents to move, will have a major financial impact on homeowner -- homeowner investments. As each of you can imagine, no one wants to invest 300 to 700 thousand dollars to reside in a neighborhood located next to a storage facility and commercial development. My question to you is is there actually a need for an additional storage Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission March 5, 2015 Page 33 of 47 facility at this location? I did a quick Google search today and it shows approximately 20 plus storage facilities are currently available in Meridian. That's today. There are four existing storage facilities located within approximately three miles of the Spurwing development. I think the needs are being met by the City of Meridian for storage facilities at this point in time. I printed a quick map, if you would like to have that as a matter of record to look at where these storage locations are located at present. It's my understanding that the proposed storage facilities within a residential area do not follow the City of Meridian's Comprehensive Plan. This plan encourages compatible uses to minimize conflicts and maximize use of -- of land. We request that the City of Meridian reject this application for an additional storage facility. This type of business is typically located in an industrial zone and does not belong in a residential area. It is not needed, nor wanted, by the majority of residents in this area. I would also like to add -- just very briefly I'd like to add that on the north side of that proposed storage facility -- I believe you mentioned a six foot fence going in around there. Most RVs are typically ten to 14 feet high, so that facility is not going to cover -- the tops of that fence is not going to cover the tops of those facilities and will definitely be visible from the Spurwing neighborhood. Appreciate your thoughtful consideration. Thank you. Yearsley: Thank you Graham: Any questions? Yearsley: No. Thank you. Next on the list is Steve Humble -- Hubble Hubble: I don't think I'm going to be humble. It's Hubble. Yearsley: Sorry. Hubble: Steve Hubble. And my address is 6748 North Moon Drummer Way. I don't want to add to what already has been stated today by my good neighbors, but I do want to say that it was a few years back where this planning commission basically staged a country club sub to be started and I know there was a vision that this was going to be a star sub for the City of Meridian. Maybe competing even against Hillcrest in Boise. Well, you have accomplished that and the last four years there have been over 200 homes built in there, ranging from 250,000 way up to a million dollars. But more so -- and something you may not know -- there is a neighborhood of friends and just good neighbors coming together as one and standing together, protecting their investments, but more so protecting the most wonderful lifestyle that any neighborhood could present. So, why would you, as -- as decision makers here for us, shoot yourself in the foot and cripple this growth of a wonderful, wonderful community. It doesn't just make sense to us why that would happen, allowing storage units that just don't fit a community like this to come into play. So, yes, we oppose the storage units in total, because it's not a fit and we are so afraid that this star that really shines in Meridian is going to be a negative reflection not only on the sub and the community, but also on the City of Meridian. We have people that have come in -- I serve as a semi -real estate agent and I have people coming from out of state and when I show them Spurwing as a place to live, they say, wow, we have never seen Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission March 5, 2015 Page 34 of 47 anything like this. I do not want to cripple that vision. I appreciate your attention. Thank you. Yearsley: Thank you. Next on the list is Karen Dawson. Dawson: I hope this is tall enough. Hello. My name is Karen Dawson. I reside in Spurwing Greens at 3808 West Magic Spruce Drive. Welcome to Spurwing Greens, a country club community. This is how Spurwing Greens is branded through Brighton Homes advertising and marketing team. This is what the Spurwing Greens residents bought into and this is how it will remain. There are three storage unit facilities in our northwest Meridian neighborhood and not one of them requires storage unit renters to drive throughout the neighborhood, unlike the Oak Leaf Development proposal. Spurwing Greens has strict CC&Rs that residents are required to abide by at all times. Spurwing Greens residents can only have RV, boats, and other recreational vehicles on their property for loading and unloading purposes only. Yet we will see those same vehicles that aren't allowed in our neighborhood 24/7. Garbage cans are to be taken in and stored in one's garage or behind fences and not in view of the neighbors. Yet this garbage development of storage units will be in our view 24/7. A month ago I went to an open house in the Estates. There were four couples looking at the home. I asked the agent if he was aware that there is a proposal for an 11 acre storage unit to be developed. Two couples left upon hearing this and the other two couples were concerned. I told them there is a meeting on March 5th at City Hall. How does this proposed allowance of this indiscriminate development affect the builders that bought these lots? How will the builders perpetuate the sale of dirt lots for the further development of Spurwing Greens with a cheap and shoddy storage unit facility and full deal. Not only will the builders be impacted negatively, but also the contractors, the plumbers, the electricians, the framers, the landscapers and the roofers. The mission statement of the planning division is to be an innovative planning team that advances the quality of lifestyle and economic -- and economy envisioned by our Comprehensive Plan. Mayor Tammy de Weerd states that Meridian is a vibrant community who vision is to be the premier city to work with and raise a family. How can the City of Meridian hold onto its high city rating when junk development is allowed to be built in a country club community. Oak Leaf Development has been for sale for 13 months with a four million dollar price tag. Oak Leaf Development must be having trouble off loading this land and are asking for these zoning changes and conditional use permits in order to make this land a more desirable sale advantage for them. This is why we are all here tonight. I'd like to present you a quote from Mr. David Packard of Hewlett Packard. I grew up with the Packards. My father went to Stanford with Mr. Packard. Mr. Packard kept a quote on the family refrigerator that I remember to this day. A company that focuses solely on profits ultimately betrays both itself and society. The planning commission, do not betray the Spurwing Greens residents. I ask that you reject the conditional use permit for a storage facility to Oak Leaf Development. Yearsley: Thank you. Lee Dawson is the next on the list. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission March 5, 2015 Page 35 of 47 L.Dawson: Hi. My name is Lee Dawson. I live at 3808 West Magic Spruce, Spurwing Greens. Most everything's been touched upon here. I'm vehemently opposed to this project as well. I retired in May 2013. We have lived in this community for about ten years, but up until May 2013 1 was working and my commute was back to Los Angeles. I just retired up to 38 years in the motion picture business. I know a little bit about nine year plans. I know a little bit about -- Yearsley: Speak in the microphone. Sorry. L. Dawson: -- a lot about motion. I know how -- that's my business. So, for the first eight years the commute wasn't really in a lovely place. Be here three weeks. I go back to Los Angeles. I'd be there for two weeks, I go to Nevada somewhere and film something. I have been here for two years and I'm here to testify that if you let this get out of control -- because you're already going to have Bainbridge across the street. We have talked about the traffic -- and I want to make this very brief. I come from a city -- proud of it -- that's out of control and we all know that to be true. Takes you two hours, 15 minutes to drive 26 miles. I know. We lived in Malibu for 26 years. Not unlike when you drive a race car -- and raced go carts and cars as a young man growing up and when you get in your car and drive and you look at the front of the hood, you're looking for traffic, but when you start growing as a city and you start going faster in that car, you got to start looking down the road and if you don't look down the road you end up like Los Angeles and I love Los Angeles and it's a mess and if you want to see a mess here, keep letting this happen and the Idaho Department of Transportation calls a Highway 20-26, Chinden, but it's, essentially, a two lane road and you're asking for big problems right now from experience in having done that. I appreciate the hearing, the chance to stand and speak to you. But I'm more proud that I get to stand with my neighborhood upward of that 80 percent range and I'm sorry I missed the joke or who the one person was that's for this project. But I still don't get it. But, anyway, I will find out. And my regards to Mr. Fitzgerald and I'm asking for a no vote on the entire proposal. Thank you. Yearsley: Thank you. Next on the list is Lynn South -- Southam. Southam Southam: Before I speak, we had someone whose name was left off. Yearsley: Oh, I'm so sorry. Southam: Sue Fillman I think is over here. We wanted her to go first Yearsley: Okay. Sue. Sorry. Fillman: Good evening. My name is Sue Fillman. I live at 6550 North Lonicera Way. I have come to you tonight because I have lived in Spurwing Greens since 2011 and as everyone has stated it's been a fantastic place to live, but there are there things that I found in our own City of Meridian Comprehensive Plan that some of them have been touched on tonight, but I wanted to just enforce a little bit the quality of life, our own Comprehensive Plan says: Sustain, enhance, promote and protect elements that Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission March 5, 2015 Page 36 of 47 contribute to the livability and high quality of life for all Meridian residents. Make Meridian a premier place to live, work, and raise a family. So, as we have all gathered in our meeting, approve the rezoning application will have such a detrimental effect on the entire Spurwing Greens community and, therefore, Meridian will also suffer. When it comes to land use our Comprehensive Plan says: Encourage compatible use to minimize conflicts and maximize use of land. You have heard how many storage units there already are. How is this the best use of land? And talk about a conflict, putting a storage facility -- approving a rezoning to put that in a residential community that's a country club community. Property rights. Insure that all planning decisions and ordinance implementation balance the interest of the community with the protection of property rights for owners today and future generations. So, neither allowing the rezoning to allow construction of a storage facility, nor allowing Oak Leaf development use of the Spurwing Greens entrance is in the best interest of the community at large and it's devastating for the Spurwing Greens property owners. We are counting on you to protect our property rights and to insure a safe and secure environment for all families. Please, deny the rezoning application submitted by Oak Leaf Development and require that the Jayker Village Subdivision build its own entrance. Questions? Yearsley: Any questions? Thank you. All right, Lynn. Southam: Mr. Chairman, I'm informed that Mr. Glen Humphreys also was left off, but I also think on your note that after I speak anyone else -- Yearsley: Oh, absolutely. After you speak anyone else can get up and speak. Southam: I will deter to him and, then, I will -- Yearsley: Okay. Name and address for the record, please. Humphries: Glen Humphries. 6880 North Pira Avenue. Thank you very much this evening and for this meeting, for allowing me to talk. We moved to Meridian specifically because of the city and because of the area. I spent 36 years in law enforcement in California and came to Idaho to get away from California. To get away from crime and that's what brought me here. Spurwing Greens attracted me because of the neighborhood and because of the country club atmosphere. I worked a lot of years in narcotics and I know what mini storages bring. They bring crime. They bring an element to an area that we don't need in Spurwing Greens. I have not put in an alarm yet, hoping I wouldn't have to put an alarm. But the element that will come store their things in a mini storage will also start driving around Spurwing Greens to see what they can see and what they can take. That's a simple fact of life and there is not much you can do about it. You have a great police department here. But the city is growing rapidly and they can't be everywhere at once. It is not appropriate to bring something that will attract that element to a country club setting and I would request that you not approve this request. Thank you very much. Yearsley: Thank you. Meridian Planning $ Zoning Commission March 5, 2015 Page 37 of 47 Southam: Mr. Chairman, also Scott Lattimer. And I might tell you there are probably others, so I will just defer until I -- okay. Lattimer: Scott Lattimer. 6591 Lonicera Way. Actually, I live on the corner of Jayker and Tree Farm, directly across the street from what Oak Leaf is proposing. So, I see the school buses every morning. I see the traffic. It's not going to work. I'm of the over 55 group. Worked my whole life to afford to buy the American dream in the subdivision that pronounced that they are the corner of exclusive and accessible. The lights from those parking lots will shine in my master bedroom. The traffic goes right by my house. We do not need more traffic on that road that's already out of control. I want to ask you one thing. You have had one guy come in here wanting to do this development. You have heard there is 220 some odd signatures of the people who live there saying no. My only question to you is how can you not say no? How can you not turn down this development when the neighborhood is against it, an 80 percent turn out. Don't make us go to Tammy tomorrow. Do your correct job tonight, turn down Doug Carnahan and send him back to the drawing board to bring something to Spurwing Greens that fits into exclusive and accessible at our country club that we have worked our whole lives to be able to afford to live in. Any questions? Yearsley: Thank you. Southam: Mr. Chairman, Commission, my name is Lynn Southam. I live at 6408 North Salvia Way in Spurwing Greens. I'm grateful to be here. You have heard a reference to 81 percent of the people standing with us. The others have not yet been contacted and I guarantee you it will probably be in excess of 99 percent when they are all contacted. No one needs this project. No one wanted this project. There is no reason to do this. If I may refer to your Comprehensive Plan for the City of Meridian, this application is a change from zoning from C -N to C -C. That application in and of itself is an admission that the proposed use of the land is not compatible with being in the neighborhood. They know it. We know it. You know it. We are asking you to deny it and tell them not to do it. They can still use the land. If they want to change the zoning, let them zone it to residential and build homes like the rest of us have. Something that's complimentary to a community that is recognized and appreciated. Let me, if I may, quote from the Comprehensive Plan, paragraph 11-2C-2. And in that regard I will just say that storage units are approved in C -C and in industrial zones. This provision provides for uses that may fall into more than one category. The director shall determine the most appropriate category based upon the more restrictive standards. The restrictive standards would, obviously, place this in an industrial zone. I would refer you to the exhibits that I have given to you. There are six of them. The first one, Exhibit A, has pictures of three Republic Storage facilities. They all look alike. The structures. The colors. We are told today that they are going to change the colors, they are going to do some other things differently. But the reality is everyone of these looks the same. You have heard the phrase: If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck you know what it is; right? The reality is this will still be a storage facility. If you look at Exhibit B, this shows you the signage that compares what Republic Storage does by way of signage compared to Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission March 5, 2015 Page 38 of 47 what's at the entryway to Spurwing Greens and that tells you right up front what they intend to do. They are going to have signs on their buildings. If you look at them they are high. They may have a three foot berm with a little brick wall above that, but that sign has got to be in excess of three feet high. These buildings they are proposing to build at the eaves will be nearly 20 feet and on the tall ones more than 20 feet. They are going to stand way above anything. They are taller than most of the homes that will be in Spurwing Greens. Exhibit C shows you what the houses and everything looks like across the street from Republic Storage on Chinden in Garden City. Then, if you look on that exhibit you will see the homes in our neighborhood and what they look like. I suggest that you look at the other homes in the neighborhood. I would also suggest to you as you do so -- we would be delighted to have any of you as our neighbors, but which one of you is going to buy a home in our neighborhood with a storage unit next door? The reality is clear. This is not for you, it's not for us, it's not for Meridian. I would suggest to you that there are several things -- I was asked to speak for ten minutes for a large group of people and I know I can't do that, but -- so they asked me to speak for them. Let me just conclude by saying this: There are potential liabilities for the developers who maybe knew about this and didn't tell anything when they bought their homes. The property values will go down and we are going to end up paying for this project, because of the loss of our property values and the City of Meridian is going to have a lower tax base for property taxes with the local governments, because the values of the homes are going to go down and this community will have less tax income. I have had a neighbor tell me he would not have purchased last year if he had known about this development. We know of others who have decided not to purchase. We know of some in our community who have now put their homes on the market. I hope you understand that this is a critical issue. We would invite you to come out and drive through. This is not a place for a storage facility. They talk about what they are going to do to obscure the vision. Have you seen trees in this area come winter? They lose their leafs. Yearsley: Can you wrap it up quickly, please? Southam: You bet. I will. What I'd like you to do is look at those exhibits. Some of those trees look like outside of those other Republic facilities. This is not a place to build a storage facility. We ask you to reject it and I would just ask by show of hands how many of you agree. I rest my case. Thank you. Yearsley: Thank you. :�T I ii I ■ 1�l Icy if] I iPi Yearsley: Yes. Baird: If I could ask a procedural question. Do we have a further sign -in list of people who have signed up to testify? Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission March 5, 2015 Page 39 of 47 Yearsley: We -- we have this list that's been signed up that we were not going to call off, we were just going to -- at this point we were done with the list. We were going to ask if anybody else would like to testify. Baird: Okay. Yearsley: So -- so, at this point this is done. Is there anybody else who would like to come up? Please come forward. Hubble: Good evening. My name is Janice Hubble. My address is 6748 North Moon Drummer Way. As a resident of Spurwing Greens I would like to state that I am vehemently opposed to the proposal by Oak Leaf Development for a changing of zoning. Ours is not a typical subdivision. Our community is comprised of professional people who have worked diligently and saved wisely to obtain their dreams of living in a country club atmosphere. I have lived in several cities and traveled to many others and never have I seen commercial development adjacent to a country club or the houses surrounding one. This would not be wise zoning or planning and would create a bad reputation for the City of Meridian and its leaders. I faithfully trust that as members of authority over our city that you already are most certainly aware of what is -- what an imprudent decision it would be to rezone said property. The proposed plan would not only be unsightly, dangerous, a traffic problem and unjust, but also a cruel insult to the very people who innocently paid good prices for their homes, placing money in trust in the Spurwing Greens community without knowledge of said proposal. I also invite you to drive through our neighborhood. You will see well kept homes and lawns, driveways and streets basically free of parked vehicles, children riding their skateboards and bicycles, families having picnics, fishing, relaxing at the pond near our entrance and the most friendly, trustworthy, and upstanding people one could ever hope to have as neighbors. Ultimately you will see the type of pride one would expect in a country club community. What you will not see is trash, reckless driving, displeasing signs, pollution being expelled by large vehicles, people who are leery of strangers driving around the neighborhood, metal roofs, which went out in 1993. And, most importantly, commercial storage units with lean-tos. As a former school nurse and teacher I can attest to the fact that it is crucial for all of us to place our highest priority on the safety of the children in our community. A bus stop in an unsupervised traffic stop with a storage facility entrance cross the street, are a lethal combination. It is imperative that we do the ethical thing -- Yearsley: Could you wrap it up, please? Your time's up. Hubble: Sure. Yearsley: Thank you. Hubble: I have only got four more words. It's imperative that we do the ethical things, not just all agree in order to prevent injuries or even save the lives of our school children. I have seen one killed. Thank you for your consideration. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission March 5, 2015 Page 40 of 47 Yearsley: Thank you. Anybody else? Please come forward. State your name and address for the record, please. Lee: My name is Sharon Lee. I live at 6832 North Topaz Jewel Place. I'm a proud owner of a home in Spurwing Greens. However, I'm a user of Republic Storage. I work in both construction and healthcare. I have employees who have run over everything on the way to leave supplies in Republic Storage. I have left concrete clods all along parkways into Republic Storage, which is in a commercial area. I also am in the healthcare industry. I have Republic Storage for my facility. I get calls about every six months, because the locks have been cut off our storage unit and I have to go and see what has been stolen. I'm opposed to this and I hope you will think of this for someone who does Republic Storage in commercial areas. Yearsley: Thank you. Anybody else? Before we go any further I'd like to take a break before we have the applicant come forward. With all the testimony and the stuff that we received, I want to have my clerk go make copies, so we can have a chance to review it before we listen to the rebuttal and, then, we will go from there. So, at this point we will take a quick little break so we can make copies and have a chance to review the information that was provided. About ten minutes or less. Recess: (8:28 p.m. to 8:40 p.m.) Yearsley: We would like to call this meeting back to order, please. We would like to call this meeting back to order, please. Thank you for your patience. We have had a chance to kind of go through everything and look at everything. I just want provide one last opportunity. Is there any one last person that would like to testify? Thank you very much. You guys have done a great job. I appreciate your -- your time. At this point we would like to ask the applicant to come up. Again state your name and address for the record, please. Carnahan: Yeah. My name is Doug Carnahan. My address is 7270 North Tree Haven Place. So, a lot of comments and I'm going to try to -- to kind of summarize them and some of them I'm going to move through pretty quickly. Let me start with the -- some simple ones. Cheap. Shoddy. Junk development. When we get comments like that I'm not going to spend any time on those. I don't think it's fair or accurate. The -- a lot of money invested in the planning and potential eventual construction for the landscaping and all of the -- is included in the plan. Crime and bad elements. I don't have any data that says there is going to be more crime in that community or more bad elements in that community if it's a storage area. First of all, it's not habited by anybody -- inhabited by anybody and it's the occasional person that goes in there. But, hopefully, a lot of them that go in there will be from the subdivision. Lights on parking lots. There aren't going to be any lights. There is prohibitions to that in the code. There aren't going to be lights shining down and out. I think the point got made and covered. All storage will be covered. There won't be any stand alone RVs or anything out there on the tarmac. I think that got covered. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission March 5, 2015 Page 41 of 47 Baird: Mr. Chair? Yearsley: Yes. Baird: If I could take a moment. Yearsley: Yeah. Baird: Mr. Carnahan, sat back quietly through the testimony of the others. This is his opportunity to rebut and respond and I'd ask that the audience continue to be as pleasant and respectful as you have been so far tonight. Thank you. Yearsley: Thank you. Carnahan: Thank you. A number of people said not only was the storage part of the issue, but being next to a commercial center I heard a handful of people that made that point. This has been master planned as commercial for nine years. So, just to make that point clear. But most of the comments were aimed at the storage. A couple issues on height. The highest building would be 18 feet, which is different from what was quoted. These are going to be blocked all the way around. So, we are clear on that. Several times the Comprehensive Plan compliance was questioned. It is compliant with the Comprehensive Plan and that was stated by staff and so even though it was brought up by some of the people, that was not accurate. So, if I go down my list it comes down to really two things that I categorize as the issues. The first one it is -- safety was brought up many times and safety mostly related to traffic and the children -- the concerns about children's safety, the concern about cars driving. This is the lowest volume development alternative with that storage facility there. The lowest volume. As a matter of fact, we have got new data that suggests it's a lot lower than we even put down. Some of the people from ACHD have said the numbers are too high for storage. It's much lower than that. So, to the extent a lot of people brought that up, it's -- that is not a legitimate claim and it is probably the safest environment. So, that brings me -- my list down to one. The country club image. This is a mixed use master planned facility. It's not a country club. And I appreciate -- I live in it. I live there. I appreciate that it's turned out to be a very nice community. That's great. But it's a mixed use plan and we are just getting on with the rest of the plan. So, if we don't -- so, let's just say that this doesn't pass and we go forward, we are not going to turn that commercial piece into all residential. That's not going to happen. So, it will come back and I don't know how many we have to come back. The meeting time it ought to be a manufacturing -- let's turn it all into manufacturing. Get a commercial zone with the acceptable risk. People just need to understand that it is zoned mixed use. The master plan is mixed use. And we plan to develop it as mixed use. And so it's just what goes in there. We think we have an attractive option and it's just the image thing that we are in a country club community and if somebody put a storage facility in our country club -- in our community we just aren't going to like the image. So, I don't -- I have property rights just like all of they have property rights. I have property that I own that is zoned a certain way. I want to use it that way. The need is -- I have talked to. The need is there. The data says a need. We have done the market research. So, I guess in Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission March 5, 2015 Page 42 of 47 conclusion I hope you would respect my rights. I would hope you would respect that Comprehensive Plan. I would hope you would expect the use of that for a commercial purpose that is designed in an attractive way so that -- not to fool anybody and say this is a country club setting and we are going to just go forward into the future with it always being a country club setting. That's just not it. It's a mixed use community. So, I don't know whether Barry or Cornet have anything they would like to add, but now would be a good time for them to come up if they do. Semple: Thank you. Barry Semple. RiveRidge Engineering. 2447 South Vista Avenue in Boise. I just very briefly wanted to elaborate on one point that Doug made. This afternoon we received the staff report from Ada County Highway District and utilizing their numbers for trip generation and applying it to the 11 acres that is proposed for this storage unit, the daily trips generated using their numbers from the storage unit is 68 trips per day. If that 11 acres were developed as single family residential it would generate 847 trips a day. That's using Ada County Highway District's numbers. That's all. Yearsley: Thank you. Did the architect want to come up and comment? Okay. Thank you. Is there any other questions before we close the public hearing? At this time I would entertain a motion to close the public hearing on RZ 15-003, PP 15-003, and CUP 15-003, Jayker Village Subdivision. McCarvel: So moved Oliver: Second. Yearsley: I have a motion and a second to close the public hearing. All in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries. Thank you. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. Yearsley: I think I would like to go first, if you guys would allow me. First of all, I want to say thank you for how well you have -- how do I want to say it? How well you presented yourself today. It was very concise, very organized. It sounds like you guys are very excited about this and opposed to it and I appreciate, you know, listening to comments and not being so, you know, rowdy in that respect. So, with that I appreciate your comments and everything. I believe this comes down to one item and realistically is is the -- is the zoning change appropriate for the use and that's kind of the hinge pin of all of this. We live in a state of property rights. The property has -- the property owner has a right to develop his property as long as it adheres to codes and ordinances set forth by the city and so the question really is is -- there is R-15 zoning. There is already a commercial zoning and, then, he wants to change it to a different commercial zoning. So, what we need to weigh is is that zoning detrimental to the surrounding subdivision. And that's a tough decision, because -- I will kind of give you an example. The subdivision I live in, the City of Meridian wanted to put a water tank right next door. We had a lot of people in the subdivision that were very against it and very opposed to it, thinking it would cause lower property values, very similar to what you guys are experiencing right now. They put in the tank, everything went well. One of the opponents who was adamantly against the project Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission March 5, 2015 Page 43 of 47 come back said, well, why didn't you tell me it would look so good. So, I'm not saying that this is going to happen here, But as an alternative to what could happen, my opinion is it's actually probably the least worst alternative, because, one, traffic volumes are going to be the lowest. Visual impacts -- yeah, you might have a little bit and, then, you know, is -- is a storage unit appropriate there? And that's the one that I -- I keep trying to decide and so with that also I want to address -- the couple of other items was traffic. You know, people are complaining about entrance -- only one entrance to the subdivision and -- and I think a lot of that hinges upon where you live. You don't really have much access to the north, because you have got the canal and the cliff on the one side. Spurwing was already developed to the east and you have got future development to the west, which is where the second entrance and more entrances are going to occur in the future. That being said, whatever happens there you're going to see more traffic in your subdivision coming out of there, because you're seeing growth. You're seeing new homes being built. You have got future development to the west and more that way and right now the state has already said that they are not going to widen Chinden, because they don't have the money, unless they get more money, so that's kind of a separate issue. So, I guess I'm going to leave it at that. I'm kind of undecided on which way I'm leaning to this and so -- but I'm trying to weigh out which one is the best for the property owner and the adjacent subdivision, so -- and, again, thank you for your patience. Anybody else? McCarvel: Mr. Chairman? Yearsley: Commissioner McCarvel. McCarvel: I have a question. I guess I should have asked it during the public -- what are the business hours of this place? 24/7? Parsons: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, let me address that, please. Right now there is two standards that apply to this property. First of all, the storage facility, because it abuts a residential district, is limited to its hours of operation between 6:00 a.m. and 11:00 p.m. regardless. And it will be that in perpetuity. As part of this project the applicant has submitted a development agreement modification in which the City Council will act on as part of a recommended DA provision in that -- as part of the new DA staff is also limiting hours of operation on the two commercial lots to the east to the hours of 6:00 a.m. and 11:00 p.m., so that they do not interrupt the neighborhood -- the residential subdivision. To further that -- I didn't get in too much of the DA modification tonight, because it's really more for City Council, but if you have had a chance to look at my staff report, and which I know you have, we have also looked at the schedule of uses between the C -N zoning district and the C -C zoning district to see where -- what the differences are between the two commercial zones. The C -C is a little bit more intense than your C -N zoning district. I want to be very frank with the community here. So, in my analysis of that I looked through that, I saw what made sense and based on the comparison I have restricted certain uses from occurring on Lot 2 and 3 and if you would indulge me just for one moment, I will go through my staff report and let you know staff's best guess at saying this is what we think shouldn't develop on the site moving forward. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission March 5, 2015 Page 44 of 47 Baird: Mr. Chair? Yearsley: Yes. Baird: While Bill is doing that I will just mention that because Bill is quoting from things that are already in the record or in the code, we are not opening up -- or there is no necessity to open up the public hearing at this time. There won't be any opportunity for rebuttal if Mr. Parsons sticks to what's already in the record. Yearsley: Thank you. Parsons: So, the way the staff report is crafted in those DA provisions that we are taking forward, we are limiting drinking establishments from occurring on the property. No bars. No vehicle repair. No equipment sales or rentals. No cell towers on the property. No drive-thru establishments on the property. So, you won't have that additional traffic going through the community. No vehicle washing facilities there. No convenience stores or fuel facilities in your neighborhood. No outdoor recreation facilities on that property and, last, but not least, we are also prohibiting vehicle sales or rentals from occurring on there. So, everything that we have tried to get towards on this piece of property has been neighborhood commercial uses is the intent behind that in the staff report. Yearsley: Okay. Parsons: And along with those hours of operation Yearsley: Okay. Thank you. Any other comments? Baird: No. Yearsley: I'm so sorry. Commissioner McCarvel, do you have anymore comments or McCarvel: Yeah. I'm -- I'm just -- I'm questioning how -- some of the things that have stuck out in my mind with having a -- the storage facility -- and I understand some of these are going to just be covered, not enclosed. How having that in this community -- the residents have to abide by certain rules and having vehicles and stuff parked and that's a site issue, but yet these are going to be right there and I just don't understand -- I mean -- understand. I mean I'm just not sure if it's a good idea to up the industrial nature of the zoning -- give it one more step up I guess and still using the main entrance to what is so obviously a residential entrance. I guess if -- that's where I'm having a problem with how you come into that community and, then, having something that looks -- and I don't -- I'm not sure it matters how you dress it, it can be made a lot nicer than what the picture of previous buildings have been, obviously, and they have worked with staff to do that, but I'm just not sure -- I can see utilizing that one entrance. It is a very narrow street there. I don't see how you're going to get -- I mean RVs and the boats, like I said, it -- into that narrow little place of something that's already so widely used. That's where my struggle is I guess. Meridian Planning 8 Zoning Commission March 5, 2015 Page 45 of 47 Yearsley: Okay. Thank you. Oliver: Mr. Chairman? Yearsley: Commissioner Oliver. Oliver: I, too, have a lot of trouble -- when somebody came up to testify of the fact that they are building a pool directly across from the entrance, if that's true and there are a lot of children using that facility -- and I -- again, I'm not sure whether that's a Spurwing pool or whether that's a different subdivision -- or maybe it's used for both of them. I doesn't matter either way. But it's a fact that there will be several children using the pool or adults as well and if it's directly across from that entrance I worry about that. Possibly somebody could get hurt in that situation. The traffic -- the amount of traffic that was talked about was, in itself, heavy for that entrance and, again, as Commissioner McCarvel said, is that it's the main entrance for their subdivision and that's it and it seems hard to think that commercial traffic will be going in and using that. And it just doesn't seem to me to be compatible with the existing zoning that's there, so -- Wilson: I agree. You know, just to add -- I don't want to repeat, but I will add the testimony by the firefighter about the dangers of a storage unit in proximity to a residential area stuck in my mind, too, as a reason to oppose this. You know, I think in 2006, you know, a C -N zoning district might have made sense, but considering what Spurwing Greens has become, I just don't think that this -- this re -up in zoning makes any sense and I'm troubled, too, by the fact that the developer, you know, and the community haven't been working together and I, too, am -- have serious issues with this. Yearsley: I just have one last comment and I'm going to play Devil's advocate here and -- so, don't -- commercial traffic will enter this subdivision no matter what. As you notice the developer did say that it is zoned commercial and it will stay commercial. Depending on what commercial he can get in there is up to be -- is to be determined. So, you know, there will be commercial traffic in that -- in that subdivision, just because the way ITD has required that no access besides the mile and half mile be completed, so -- so, there is some of that. But I will -- I will leave it at that as well and if anyone is ready -- actually, one last thing. A point of order. Instead of doing each of these together -- the three applications together for approval or denial, we need to do each one of these individually. So, the first one we will need to vote on would be the rezone, the RZ 15-003, and that will determine what we do with the other two is how that one gets approved -- if that one gets approved or denied. So, with that I would I would entertain a motion. Oliver: Mr. Chairman? Yearsley: Commissioner Oliver. Oliver: I hope I do this right. Correctly. After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to recommend denial of file number RZ 15-003. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission March 5, 2015 Page 46 of 47 McCarvel: Second. Yearsley: If you would -- Oliver: Presented during the hearing on March 5th, 2015. Yearsley: And your reasons? Oliver: The reason for being it's just on in compliance -- or it does not -- be compatible with the existing zoning that is there. Yearsley: Okay. Wilson: Second. Yearsley: I have a motion and a second to deny file number RZ 15-003. All in favor say aye. Opposed? Aye. Motion was approved. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE NAY. ONE ABSENT. Yearsley: So, with that motion being the way it was, we will need to do the motion for the public hearing and in doing so that one will need to be denied as well, because it does not fall within the zoning compliance, because we denied the actual up zone and so the preliminary plat showed a commercial use that would not be actually an approved use in that zone, so -- if that's correct. Baird: Mr. Chair, that is correct. But I would suggest that given the outcome of the vote on the rezone you can take up the next two matters together, because they both fall -- Yearsley: Okay. Baird: -- together. Yearsley: Perfect. Thank you. So, with that I would entertain a motion. Oliver: Mr. Chairman? Yearsley: Commissioner Oliver. Oliver: After careful consideration of all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move to recommend denial of file number CUP 15-003 and PP 15-003, as presented during the hearing of March 5th, 2015 -- Yearsley: Because -- it does not comply. It's not in compliance. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission March 5, 2015 Page 47 of 47 Oliver: Right. McCarvel: Second. Yearsley: All right. I have a motion and a second Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. All in favor say aye. Opposed? Yearsley: Thank you very much. I'm glad to see you guys had worked out. So, I hope you and the developer can come up to an agreement on future arrangements and so -- Baird: Mr. Chair, if I -- before we close the hearing -- before we close the hearing I do want to mention that -- Yearsley: Excuse me, guys. We are still in meeting. Baird: This is potentially important information for -- for the community. These are recommendations to the City Council. The matter will be noticed for another public hearing in front of the City Council to consider the recommendations that were made tonight. So, look for that noticing and that's the last -- the last stop along the way here at the city. Yearsley: Thank you. Now, we have one last motion. If you will give us a few minutes. That we need. Oliver: Mr. Chairman? Yearsley: Commissioner Oliver. Oliver: I move we adjourn. Wilson: Second. Yearsley: I have a motion and a second to adjourn. All in favor say aye. Motion carried. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. MEETING ADJOURNED AT 9:06 P.M. (AUDIO RECORDING ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS.) APPROVED — - `AIRMAj�N �V/\ DATE IAPPROV D ` :TTE:ST7�9�3C0VSORATROgb be�XV/I l X �1 c �/'Geyor s{g JAYCEE HOLMAN, CITY CLERKYt E IDjAN s pyo uxev Meridian Planning Zoning Commission Meeting DATE: March 5, 2015 ITEM NUMBER: PROJECT NUMBER: RZ 14-007 Item: Southridge Estates Subdivision Public Hearing continued from 2/5/15: Rezone of 3.05 acres from R-15 to TN -R; 1.67 acres from R-4 to R- 8; and 0.83 of an acre from R-8 to R-4 by DBTV Southridge Farm, LLC - s/o W. Overland Road between S Linder Road and S. Ten Mile Road MEETING NOTES CLERKS OFFICE FINAL ACTION DATE: E-MAILED TO STAFF SENT TO AGENCY SENT TO APPLICANT NOTES INITIALS Meridian Planning Zoning Commission Meeting DATE: Mrach 5, 2015 Item: Southridge Subdivision ITEM NUMBER: 4B PROJECT NUMBER: PP 14-017 Public Hearing continued from 2/5/15: Preliminary Plat approval consisting of 193 single family residential building lots and 19 common /other lots on 48.65 acres of land in the R-4, R-8 and TN -R zoning districts by DBTV Southridge Farm, LLC - s/o W. Overland Road between S. Linder Road and S. Ten Mile Road IJil=1 =111 I I Z [Cm Z IQ 9 =61 r)r V `��.�j F-),- 6-- 7- /s �a CLERKS OFFICE FINAL ACTION - DATE: E-MAILED TO STAFF SENT TO AGENCY SENT TO APPLICANT NOTES INITIALS Meridian Planning Zoning Commission Meeting DATE: March 5, 2015 Item: Paramount Southeast Subdivision ITEM NUMBER: PROJECT NUMBER: RZ 15-001 Public Hearing: Rezone of 19.27 acres of land from the C -G to the R-40 zoning district; and 16.86 acres of land from the R-40 to the C -G zoning district by Brighton Investments, LLC - NWC of N. Meridian Road and W. McMillan Road MEETING NOTES CLERKS OFFICE FINAL ACTION 0to//2F 5-D DATE: E-MAILED TO STAFF SENT TO AGENCY SENT TO APPLICANT NOTES INITIALS Meridian Planning Zoning Commission Meeting DATE: March 5, 2015 ITEM NUMBER: 4D PROJECT NUMBER: PP 15-002 Item: Paramount Southeast Subdivision Public Hearing: Preliminary Plat approval consisting of 1 building lot in the R-40 zoning district; 22 building lots in the C -G zoning district; and 5 common/other lots on 36.04 acres of land by Brighton Investments, LLC - NWC of N. Meridian Road and W. McMillan Road MEETING NOTES IZCcovnwtmd I)Pp rTvk( C/C s� 01C CLERKS OFFICE FINAL ACTION DATE: E-MAILED TO STAFF SENT TO AGENCY SENT TO APPLICANT NOTES INITIALS Meridian Planning Zoning Commission Meeting DATE: March 5, 2015 ITEM NUMBER: 4E PROJECT NUMBER: CUP 15-002 Item: Paramount Southeast Subdivision Public Hearing: Conditional Use Permit approval for a multi -family development consisting of 280 dwelling units in an R-40 zoning district by Brighton Investments, LLC - NWC of N. Meridian Road and W. McMillan Road MEETING NOTES CLERKS OFFICE FINAL ACTION DATE: E-MAILED TO STAFF SENT TO AGENCY SENT TO APPLICANT NOTES INITIALS Meridian Planning Zoning Commission Meeting DATE: March 5, 2015 Item: Jayker Village Subdivision ITEM NUMBER: PROJECT NUMBER: RZ 15-003 Public Hearing: Rezone 26.09 acres from the C -N and the R-15 zoning districts to the R-15 (8.48 acres) and C -C (17.61 acres) zoning districts by Oak Leaf Development, Inc. - n/side of Chinden Boulevard; w/of N. Tree Farm Way and N. Tree Haven Way MEETING NOTES VC- CC V)'1 nICAn e� be VU a-, 4� C)C� CLERKS OFFICE FINAL ACTION DATE: E-MAILED TO STAFF SENT TO AGENCY SENT TO APPLICANT NOTES INITIALS Meridian Planning Zoning Commission Meeting TC. hAnrch 5 2n15 Item: Jayker Village Subdivision ITEM NUMBER: PROJECT NUMBER: PP 1 Public Hearing: Preliminary Plat approval consisting of 1 residential lot, 3 commercial lots and 3 common lots on approximately 23.59 acres in the proposed R-15 and C -C zoning districts by Oak Leaf Development, Inc. - n/side of Chinden Boulevard; w/of N. Tree Farm Way and N. Tree Haven Way MEETING NOTES J� e o olw"6t - Q`A-( -/�) C -/C iso / g4T t q -b r.►_ERKS OFFICE FINAL ACTION DATE: E-MAILED TO STAFF SENT TO AGENCY SENT TO APPLICANT NOTES INITIALS Meridian Planning Zoning Commission Meeting DATE: March 5, 2015 ITEM NUMBER: 4 PROJECT NUMBER: CUP 15-C Item: Jayker Village Subdivision Public Hearing: Conditional Use Permit for a self-service storage facility consisting of a care-taker's/office building and 15 storage buildings on approximately 11. 18 acres of land in a proposed C -C zoning district by Oak Leaf Development, Inc. - n/side of Chinden Boulevard; W/of N. Tree Farm Way and N. Tree Haven Way MEETING NOTES I \-cC &ru -4D C_ JO°l2" q CLERKS OFFICE FINAL ACTION DATE: E-MAILED TO STAFF SENT TO AGENCY SENT TO APPLICANT NOTES INITIALS Meridian Planning Zoning Commission Meeting ,TE: March 5, 2015 ITEM NUMBER: PROJECT NUMBER: CUP 1 ire„- Franklin Mini-Storaae Public Hearing: Conditional Use Permit for a self-service facility in a C -G zoning district by Osborne Enterprises - 1975 E. Franklin Road MEETING NOTES 3,���, t�.,L +, 3 /S )2Pi,?/ nF- s,0 CLERKS OFFICE FINAL ACTION DATE: E-MAILED TO STAFF SENT TO AGENCY SENT TO APPLICANT NOTES INITIALS Meridian Planning Zoning Commission Meeting DATE: March 5, 2015 ITEM NUMBER: PROJECT NUMBER: ITEM TITLE: Approve Minutes of February 19, 2015 PZ Meeting 0 MEETING NOTES rrlm,c 5-0 CLERKS OFFICE FINAL ACTION DATE: E-MAILED TO STAFF SENT TO AGENCY SENT TO APPLICANT NOTES INITIALS