Loading...
2015 12-03Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting December 3, 2015 Meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission of December 3, 2015, was called to order at 6:00 p.m. by Chairman Steven Yearsley. Present: Chairman Steven Yearsley, Commissioner Patrick Oliver, Commissioner Rhonda McCarvel, and Commissioner Ryan Fitzgerald. Members Absent: Commissioner Gregory Wilson. Others Present: Machelle Hilll, Andrea Pogue, Bill Parsons, Joshua Beach and Dean Willis. Item 1: Roll-Call Attendance: Roll-call ______ Gregory Wilson __X__ Patrick Oliver ___X_ Rhonda McCarvel __X__ Ryan Fitzgerald __X___ Steven Yearsley - Chairman Yearsley: Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. At this time I would like to call to order the regularly scheduled meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission for the hearing date of December 3rd, 2015, and let's begin with roll call. Item 2: Adoption of the Agenda Yearsley: Thank you. So, the first item on the agenda is the adoption of the agenda and I just want to make sure that everyone noticed that they added the -- Item F, which is the -- amended to the agenda the Finding of Fact and Conclusion of Law as for the approval if we approve Paramount. So, just wanted to -- that is on the agenda. With that I would entertain a motion to adopt the agenda as presented. Fitzgerald: Mr. Chairman, I will move that we adopt the agenda as amended and as presented. McCarvel: Second. Yearsley: I have a motion and a second to adopt the agenda. All in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. Item 3: Consent Agenda A. Approve Minutes of November 19, 2015 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Meridian Planning & Zoning December 3, 2015 Page 2 of 26 Yearsley: Next item on the agenda is the Consent Agenda and on that we have the approved minutes of the November 2000 -- or excuse me. November 19, 2015, Planning and Zoning Commission meeting minutes. Are there any comments or questions, changes to that? And, if not, I would entertain a motion to approve the Consent Agenda. McCarvel: Mr. Chairman? Yearsley: Commissioner McCarvel. McCarvel: I move that we approve the Consent Agenda. Fitzgerald: Second. Yearsley: I have a motion and a second to approve the Consent Agenda. All in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carried. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. Yearsley: Before we go any farther I kind of want to explain how this hearing process will go today. We will open each action item one at a time. We will begin with the staff report. The staff will present their findings of how the application adheres to our Comprehensive Plan and Uniform Development Code with staff recommendations. We will, then, hear from the applicant and he will present their case to the Commission for their approval and any comments or changes to the staff report. He will be given -- or they will be given up to 15 minutes to do so. After that we will open it up to the public. There is sign-up sheets in the back. Anybody wishing to testify can sign up in the back. They will be given three minutes. If they are speaking for a larger group for a show of hands or an HOA, they will be given up to ten minutes. After the public comment has concluded the applicant has opportunity to come back up and rebut or comment on the public testimony and at that point they will be given ten minutes to do so. After that we will close the public hearing and, hopefully, deliberate and make recommendations to the City Council. Item 4: Action Items A. Public Hearing for Paramount Northeast Assisted Living (H-2015- 0008) by Brighton Investments, LLC Located Southeast Corner of W. Chinden Boulevard (SH 20/26) and N. Fox Run Way 1. Request: Conditional Use Permit for a 56,543 Square Foot Residential Care Facility Consisting of 73 Units with a Maximum of 88 Beds in a C-C Zoning District Yearsley: So, with that I would like to open public hearing H-15-0008, Paramount Northeast Assisted Living Center and let's begin with the staff report. Meridian Planning & Zoning December 3, 2015 Page 3 of 26 Watters: Thank you, Chairman Yearsley, Members of the Commission. The first application before you tonight is a request for a conditional use permit. This parcel consists of 19.5 acres of land. It's primarily zoned C-C and is located at the southeast corner of West Chinden Boulevard and North Fox Run Way. Adjacent land use and zoning. To the north is West Chinden Boulevard and rural residential undeveloped and commercial property, zoned R-1 and MUDA in Ada County respectively. To the west is agricultural and undeveloped land, zoned C-C. To the south are single family residential properties in Paramount Subdivision, zoned R-8. And to the east is North Meridian Road and a church zoned RUT in Ada County. The Comprehensive Plan future land use map designation for this property is mixed use community. The applicant requests a conditional use permit for a residential care facility in a C-C zoning district. A single story 56,543 square foot assisted living and memory care facility is proposed that will contain a maximum of 88 units. The site plan was submitted as shown that depicts how the site is proposed to develop. Access is proposed from two driveways via North Fox Run. You can see my pointer here. An existing collector street at the west boundary of the site. Additional access will be provided when the property to the south and east develops. Parking is proposed in accord with UDC standards. Landscape street buffers already exist along Fox Run and Chinden adjacent to this site. A ten foot wide multi-use pathway is required within the buffer along Chinden. The adjacent landscaping and pathway requirements along Chinden will be phased with a subdivision that's also in process right now. Building elevations and a rendering were submitted for the proposed structure as shown. Building materials consist of hardy panel lap siding, B board and shake shingles with stone veneer accents. The amended development agreement that was recently approved for Paramount that includes the subject property does need to be finalized, being signed, approved by Council and recorded prior to issuance of the certificate of zoning compliance for this site. Written testimony has been received from Mike Wardle, the applicant's representative, in agreement with the staff report. Staff is recommending approval. Staff will stand for any questions. Yearsley: Thank you. Are there any questions? No? With that would the applicant like to come forward? Wardle: Mr. Chairman, Commission Members, Mike Wardle, Brighton Corporation. 12601 West Explorer Drive in Boise. We appreciate the opportunity to be here this evening and appreciate staff's recommendation for approval. We did submit a concurrence statement earlier in the week relative to the recommended conditions, but I just want to -- for clarity to just kind of run through a series of slides to let you see a little bit more. The area that's still as yet undeveloped was actually annexed and zoned in the city C-C commercial and TN-C two years ago in 2013 and this is the first phase. We have submitted, actually, an application for a preliminary plat for the overall area with a first phase for what we are calling the Paramount Veranda Assisted Living Complex. I would note that this -- next slide, Sonya, just to focus in a little bit more clearly. This is a project -- joint venture between Brighton Corporation and the Gardner Company. The accesses noted here will be shown on a couple of streetscape scenes in just a moment, but it just shows the -- the site as it is surrounded currently by the fully improved landscape buffer and berm and a lot of amenities on both Chinden and Fox Run and the site plan, again, Meridian Planning & Zoning December 3, 2015 Page 4 of 26 with those two access points. The next slide I believe -- yes. Shows the southerly -- it's actually already in place. It was anticipated in the future that there would be access to that particular parcel from this point. This slide and the next, which shows the other location of the one closer to Chinden. Interestingly when you go on Google in today's -- they have everything up to date in 2015, except the street views. These street views are actually four years old. So, the landscaping is far more advanced than what it shows now, but -- or on these slides. The next -- as I mentioned a moment ago, we actually did submit a -- there will be plat -- preliminary and a final plat coming through the Commission soon relative to the -- this first phase. We did commit in the City Council action's last week, as they amended the development agreement to include the specifics of this site, that we would -- with this so-called first phase complete the ten foot regional pathway along Chinden and I believe the next two slides -- actually, this is a repeat. I think we can go past that, Sonya. Again, this is a four year old picture, but the -- the final slide that we will look at, looking back -- we actually have the -- the bench established for that ten foot pathway. It's just a matter of putting it in place as part of this project and, then, the balance of the buffering and the berms along Chinden will occur as adjacent development comes forward and we anticipate that next year that we will be bringing two projects forward for Commission review that will complete that entire northeast quadrant of the Paramount project. So, as stated earlier, we are -- we agree with staff's recommended conditions of approval and request that the Commission approve the conditional use permit for this particular use and would be happy to answer your questions. Yearsley: Are there any questions? No? Thank you. Wardle: Thank you. Yearsley: I do not have anybody signed up for this application . Is there any anybody wishing to testify on this application? So, with no one to testify we don't need to have the applicant come forward. So, at this point I would entertain a motion to close the public hearing on five number H-2015-0008. McCarvel: So moved. Fitzgerald: Second. Yearsley: I have a motion and a second to close the public hearing. All in favor sa y aye. Opposed? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. Yearsley: So, comments? Oliver: Mr. Chairman? Yearsley: Commissioner Oliver. Meridian Planning & Zoning December 3, 2015 Page 5 of 26 Oliver: At this point I don't see any problem with the particular area where it is and I think it looks -- the siting and the layout looks appropriate, so I'm in favor of it. Yearsley: Thank you. Anybody else? I have a tendency to agree. I think it looks good. I think it's a good location and so I don't have any issues with it either. So -- Fitzgerald: Yeah. Mr. Chair? I think it's -- Brighton has done a great job of bringing Paramount forward in the way they envisioned it. I think -- I think that staff did a great job and so I think it looks good. Yearsley: Okay. So, with that I would entertain a motion. McCarvel: Mr. Chairman? Yearsley: Commissioner McCarvel. McCarvel: After considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move to approve file number H-2015-0008 as presented in the staff report on the hearing date of December 3rd, 2015. I further move to direct staff to prepare an appropriate findings document to be considered at the next Planning and Zoning hearing on December 17th, 2015. Yearsley: Actually, that should be today. Fitzgerald: Today. Later on in the -- McCarvel: Later on? Okay. Later in the meeting today. Fitzgerald: Second. Yearsley: I have a motion and a second to approve file number H-2015-0008. All in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries. Congratulations. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. B. Public Hearing for Culver's (H-2015-0013) by Glenn Walker, NeuDesign Architecture Located 3494 E. Tecate Lane 1. Request: Conditional Use Permit Approval for a Drive-Thru Establishment for Culver's Restaurant Within 300 Feet of Another Drive-Thru Establishment in a C-G Zoning District Yearsley: Next item on the agenda is the public hearing of file number H-2015-0013 and it's for Culver's and let's begin with the staff report. Watters: Thank you, Chairman, Commissioners. The next application is also a conditional use permit. This site consists of .75 of an acre of land. It's currently zoned Meridian Planning & Zoning December 3, 2015 Page 6 of 26 C-G and is located at 3494 East Tecate Lane, east of North Eagle Road on the south side of East Ustick Road. Adjacent land use and zoning. To the north is East Ustick Road and a retail store, Lowe's, zoned C-G. To the east is a Les Schwab tire store, also zoned C -G. To the south is vacant, undeveloped land zoned C-G and a multi-tenant building with a drive-thru that's currently proposed on the property to the south. The property to the west is vacant, undeveloped land, zoned C-G. The Comprehensive Plan future land use map designation for this property is mixed use regional. A conditional use permit is requested for a drive-thru establishment for Culver's restaurant within 300 feet of another drive-thru establishment in a C-G zoning district. A site plan was submitted that shows how the site is proposed to develop with a 4,207 square foot building, drive-thru, and associated parking. Also shown on the site plan to the -- is the abutting lot to the south where another drive-thru facility is proposed under a separate conditional use permit. That item will be heard after this item on the agenda. A blanket cross-access easement exists between these properties. The design of the proposed drive-thru complies with the specific use standards for drive-thru establishments. Two accesses are proposed via East Tecate Lane, an existing private street to the south. You can see my -- my pointer here that shows the two accesses. Parking is proposed on the site in accord with UDC standards. A sidewalk exists along Tecate and Ustick Roads. A 35 foot wide landscape street buffer is required to be installed along Ustick. Elevations were submitted for the proposed building. Building materials consist of horizontal fiber cement siding with eff ice, stone veneer accents, and canvas awnings. The p roposed elevations do not match those previously approved for this development and included in the development agreement, although these appear to be of higher quality and design. There is a concurrent development agreement modification application in process that proposes to remove the requirement for compliance with those elevations and only require design review approval. Approval of these elevations is contingent upon the development agreement modification being approved. If the modification is denied revised elevations will need to be submitted for this project that complies with those in the development agreement. Written testimony has been received from Glenn Walker, the applicant's representative, in agreement with the staff report. Staff is recommending approval with one added condition. A 35 foot wide landscape buffer along Ustick Road is required per UDC Table 11-2B-3 in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3B-7C. Staff will stand for any of questions. Yearsley: Are there any questions? I just have one. So, this additional condition that you just stated, we need to actually include that in our motion if we approve this; is that correct? Watters: Yes, please. Staff inadvertently left that out. I thought the buffer was already installed along Ustick. Yearsley: Okay. Watters: And it was just a sidewalk. Yearsley: And that's a 35 foot landscape buffer? Meridian Planning & Zoning December 3, 2015 Page 7 of 26 Watters: Yes. Yearsley: Okay. Watters: It's an entryway corridor there. Yearsley: Okay. Any other questions? With that would the applicant like to come forward? Please state you name and address for the record. Walker: Glenn Walker. 725 East 2nd Street. That is located in Meridian. Downtown Meridian. I'm with NeuDesign Architecture. Mr. Chairman, Council Members, I appreciate you allowing me to come up and present this to you. I really want to thank Sonya for her hard work on both conditional use permits that we did. We feel that this would be a high quality -- you know, it's a project that's going to meet the needs of the owner and it brings a restaurant that's not located here in Boise to the valley and so we do feel it's a good project and we are here to recommend the Commission approve this conditional use permit for a drive-thru for the Culver's Restaurant. Yearsley: Thank you. Are there any questions? I just have one question. With the additional condition that Sonya has asked for for the 35 foot landscape buffer, I think you're actually already showing it, but I would just like you to just verify that you're okay with that condition? Walker: Yeah. We have plenty of room there for that 35 foot. In fact, even our landscape architect had already drawn the landscaping for that area, so I think we are already in compliance. Yearsley: Okay. Just wanted to make sure we were there on record. Okay. Oliver: Mr. Chairman? Yearsley: Commissioner Oliver. Oliver: If I could ask just one other question. Is there -- Culver is already in Twin Falls? Walker: Yes. Oliver: And what style of food is this that you say is -- Walker: It's a fast food restaurant. Yeah. Burgers. Oliver: Okay. Thank you. Walker: Uh-huh. Yearsley: All right. Meridian Planning & Zoning December 3, 2015 Page 8 of 26 McCarvel: Mr. Chairman? Yearsley: Commissioner McCarvel. McCarvel: I was reading in the notes and it says it hasn't -- the trash enclosure doesn't meet the requirements of Republic Service. Do you have a plan for -- Walker: Yeah. I actually spoke with Sonya on this and I don't believe she was aware of this, because I was working with Republic Storage kind of on my own back in the early stages of this. I sent it to Bob over there at Republic Storage and asked his opinion. He mentioned some things that I needed to modify and I needed to change. The reason why I sent it to him is it was behind some parking stalls earlier on and I was a little concerned about that, but Bob mentioned to me that that was not his concern, because they come in after hours and pick up the trash. But he was mentioning that we showed two dumpsters and a recycle bin and at that point he said that's not going to be allowed and so I sent it back to him with showing only a recycle bin and a trash -- or single and he said that's fine. So, Bob has already looked at this and has already approved this. McCarvel: Okay. Walker: I probably did not mention that to Sonya. Yearsley: Any other questions? Thank you. Walker: Thank you. Yearsley: Again on this application I do not have anybody signed up to testify for this application. Is there anybody wanting to testify on this application? So, with that we don't need to have the applicant come forward, so I would entertain a motion to close the public hearing on file number H-2015-0013. Fitzgerald: Mr. Chairman, so moved. McCarvel: Second. Yearsley: I have a motion and a second to close the public hearing. All in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carried. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. Yearsley: Any comments? McCarvel: Mr. Chairman? Yearsley: Commissioner McCarvel. Meridian Planning & Zoning December 3, 2015 Page 9 of 26 McCarvel: I think it looks like a great addition to that space, something we don't have here already and it looks like they have done a really nice job on the elevations and the drive - thru looks sufficient to handle their traffic. Yearsley: Thank you. Oliver: Mr. Chairman? Yearsley: Commissioner Oliver. Oliver: As mentioned I did see one of these down in Twin Falls and they are very attractive from the road. I have never eaten at one, but they look nice and I think it makes a good addition to the restaurants that are all right there around that area and the growth that's happening. So, I think it's a good project. Yearsley: Thank you. And I agree. I think it looks good. I don't -- I don't see an issue with the -- the drive-thru. I think they have enough storage and enough capacity with the escape lane, so I think it good. So, with that I would entertain a motion, just remembering who makes sure -- whoever does that if we agree to this to make sure we add the condition for the 35 foot landscape buffer. McCarvel: Mr. Chairman? Yearsley: Commissioner McCarvel. McCarvel: After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to approve file number H-2015-0013 as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of December 3rd, 2015, with the addition of a 35 foot landscape buffer along Ustick as suggested by staff. I further move to direct staff to prepare appropriate findings document to be considered at the next Planning and Zoning Commission hearing on December 17th, provided the City Council approves H-2015-0016 on December 15th, 2015. Fitzgerald: Second. Yearsley: I have a motion and a second to approve the public hearing on file number H-2015-0013. All in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carried. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. C. Public Hearing for Una Mas Drive-Through (H-2015-0020) by Glenn Walker, NeuDesign Architecture Located 3490 E. Tecate Lane 1. Request: Conditional Use Permit Approval for a Drive-Thru Establishment Within 300 Feet of Another Drive-Thru Establishment in a C-G Zoning District Meridian Planning & Zoning December 3, 2015 Page 10 of 26 Yearsley: Next item on the list is the -- I will open the public hearing for file number H-2015-0020. It's Una Mas drive-thru and let's begin with the staff report. Watters: Thank you, Chairman, Commissioners. The next application is also a conditional use permit. This site consists of .76 of an acre of land, zoned C-G, located at 3490 East Tecate Lane. The Comprehensive Plan future land use map designation is mixed use regional. A conditional use permit is requested for a drive-thru establishment within 300 feet of another drive-thru establishment in a C-G zoning district. This is the site that is just directly to the south of the previous project that was shown on that site plan. The original site plan submitted with this application, in staff's opinion, did not comply with the specific use standards for drive-thru establishments in regard to the sufficiency of the stacking lane. The plan only accommodated three cars in the drive-thru. Stacking beyond that number would block the drive aisle and affect circulation within the site. The staff report issued last week included a recommendation of denial from staff for the proposed drive-thru. Since that time the applicant has submitted a revised site plan that addresses staff's concerns. The staff report has been revised to include a new site plan and you should have that before you. A site plan was submitted that depicts how the site is supposed to develop with a 3,097 square foot building with two tenant spaces and associated parking. A dry cleaning business with a drive-thru will take up 1,706 square space on the west end of the building, with a 1,309 square foot space for a future tenant on the east end of the building. Two accesses are proposed via East Tecate Lane, and existing private street on the south boundary. A cross -access exists between this property and the property to the north. Parking is proposed on the site in accord with UDC standards. A sidewalk exists along East Tecate Lane. The design of the proposed drive-thru, as shown on the revised plan that's before you, does comply with the specific use standards for drive-thru establishments. Building elevations were not submitted for this application. And the future building is required to comply with design standards. Written testimony was received from Glenn Walker in agreement with the staff report. Staff is recommending approval per the revised staff report. Staff will stand for any questions. Yearsley: Are there any questions? Okay. Would the applicant like to come forward? Again, please, state your name and address for the record. Walker: Sure. Glenn Walker at 725 East 2nd Street, Meridian. Mr. Chairman, Council Members, again, I want to thank you for allowing me to come here and present the project. But I truly want to say thanks to Sonya. This one was a little more challenging due to the fact that the first proposed site that we submitted was denied. So, we did some scrambling and some last minute changes to the site, several e-mails back and forth to Sonya. I think we came up with a good solution to work out the drive-thru, which will allow several more cars to be able to be in the stacking lane of the drive thru. This project is not designed to a point where we could show elevations. However, we worked on the dry cleaner on the site where Culver's were located and even through all of the conditional use -- at that time went through a conditional use, even went to a design review and even to -- and received zoning compliance. But I can assure you that this building will look very Meridian Planning & Zoning December 3, 2015 Page 11 of 26 nice. In fact, it's probably going to be the same similar look that we proposed about a year and a half ago, because it's the same owner, so he's probably going to be using the same look to this building. In the staff report we went through it , agree to the staff report's findings. There was one thing that was brought up that Republic Services made a comment on the trash enclosure that they felt that that did not work. That was a last minute item that I saw just this evening right before we came here. Talked with Sonya. I believe we have room to kind of shift it, rotate it. That is something that we would need to work with Republic Services on that, but I do believe very confidently that we can get that worked out. Other than that that's really it. Yearsley: Are there any questions? Okay. Thank you. Walker: Thank you. Yearsley: Yes. Fitzgerald: Sonya, can you ask -- or answer a question for me? So, the design guidelines that were on the other location, do they carry over to this location as well or is there a design guideline within the development agreement that were originally on this whole property or is -- how does that break down? Watters: Chairman, Commissioner Fitzgerald, are you referring to the building elevations or the specific use standards for a drive-thru establishment or -- Fitzgerald: I guess the design standards for external on design review components. Because you said it was -- it impacted the other property that was just approved. Does that carry over to this property as well? Is there a development agreement with design standards that cover this area as well or is -- does that bring something back? Watters: Yes. The reason I didn't mention on this building is because they did not propose elevations at this time. So, when they do come forward with elevations they will be required to comply with the development agreement that's in effect and the design standards. Fitzgerald: Okay. Perfect. Thank you, ma'am. Watters: And if you guys are interested and didn't see a copy of the previous site plan, the original site plan that they proposed is -- this is what it looks like. As you can see there is a great improvement between the two. Yearsley: Thank you. I don't have anybody signed up to testify on this one as well. Is there anybody wanting to testify on this application? With no one wanting to testify, I would entertain a motion to close the public hearing on file number H -2015-0020. McCarvel: So moved. Meridian Planning & Zoning December 3, 2015 Page 12 of 26 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: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. Yearsley: So, I guess on this -- given it's such a late time frame, are we comfortable moving this forward? Do we want to try to continue this to next week and make sure that the Republic Storage issue is taken care of or are we comfortable with staff -- personally are you looking at it -- it's a major improvement over the -- the other -- the original drive- thru configuration and at this point I'm comfortable with staff making sure the trash enclosure meets Republic Storage. So, I would be interested to hear what everybody's comments or thoughts are. McCarvel: Yeah. Mr. Chairman? Yearsley: Commissioner McCarvel. McCarvel: I think just, yeah, flipping those and having just that -- those fewer cars allowed in a drive-thru, especially at a dry cleaners, it's not like you're going to have a big lunch rush there as you would with a fast food establishment. I think the way they have flipped it is sufficient for our discussion tonight. Yearsley: Okay. Thank you. Fitzgerald: Mr. Chairman? Yearsley: Commissioner Fitzgerald. Fitzgerald: I would agree. I think we trust city staff to make sure we are -- we are within the code for the trash enclosure and that it meets Republic Services requirements. I think the improvements were needed and they did a good job of working that out and so I thin k it looks good. I think the impact will be significantly less than Culver's or another fast food establishment, as Commissioner McCarvel had mentioned, and so I feel comfortable moving forward. Yearsley: Okay. Thank you. Oliver: Mr. Chairman? Yearsley: Commissioner Oliver. Oliver: I just felt a little uncomfortable knowing that it was kind of a last minute change, but, again, I agree with the other Commissioners that if the staff feels comfortable with the changes and it meets what -- the standards that they have to meet, I'm in agreement, so -- Meridian Planning & Zoning December 3, 2015 Page 13 of 26 Yearsley: Thank you. So, I guess if there is no other comments or concerns, I would entertain a motion on this public hearing. McCarvel: Mr. Chairman? Yearsley: Commissioner McCarvel. McCarvel: After considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move to approve file number H-2015-0013, as presented in the revised staff report for the hearing date of December 3rd, 2015. I further move to direct staff to prepare an appropriate findings document to be considered at the next Planning and Zoning Commission hearing on December 17th, provided that City Council approves H-2015-0016 on December 15th, 2015. Oliver: Second. Yearsley: I have a motion and a second to approve the public hearing -- or public -- yeah. Fitzgerald: One question, Mr. Chairman. Yearsley: Yes. Fitzgerald: So, we said one three and it says two zero. Yearsley: Two oh. Okay. Fitzgerald: I wanted to make sure, just for clarification. At the top it says two zero and down here it says thirteen. So, I just wanted to make sure we ar e -- we are approving the right one. McCarvel: Yeah. Let's do two zero. Yearsley: Okay. So, do we have -- McCarvel: I thought that sounded odd when I said it. Yearsley: Second again. All right. Well, we have a motion and a second to approve file number H-2015-0020. All in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries. Thank you. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. D. Public Hearing for Settlers Square Subdivision (H-2015-0014) by Seagle Three, LLC Located Near the Norwest Corner of W. Ustick Road and N. Venable Ave Meridian Planning & Zoning December 3, 2015 Page 14 of 26 1. Request: Preliminary Plat Approval Consisting of Twelve (12) Commercial Lots and Two (2) Common Lots on Approximately 9.001 Acres in the C-C Zoning District Yearsley: All right. Next item on the agenda is a public hearing for file number H-2015- 0014 for Settlers Square Subdivision and let's begin with the staff report. Beach: Thank you, Chair, Commissioners. This is a -- an application for a preliminary plat. The site consists of 9.001 acre. Currently zoned C-C or Community Commercial and is located at the northwest corner of Ustick Road and Venable Avenue. The s ubject site is surrounded by residential subdivisions located on the north and south sides of the proposed development, which are both zoned. A commercial development is located east of the subject site with a gas-convenience store and a mix of office uses, which is zoned C-N. A little history. In 2008 the property was granted annexation and approved by the City Council with a C-C zoning district for Settlers Square Subdivision. A development agreement was approved with the annexation. A preliminary plat was also approved concurrently and consisted of 12 commercial lots and two common lots on 9.001 acres. The preliminary plat expired in 2010, but the development agreement for the property does not expire and is still in effect. In the development agreement that was signed in 2008 the applicant was granted direct access to Ustick Road. Due to policy changes at ACHD the applicant is no longer allowed to have direct access to Ustick Road. However, city staff and ACHD are supportive of a temporary access to Ustick Road until such time as the property to the west develops with an access to Ustick Road that aligns with north of Blairmore Way, which if you look at the site plan here, this is where the -- the road would be constructed to stub with the property here. The Comprehensive Plan future land use map designation for the property is mixed use community. The applicant requests a preliminary plat approval consisting of 12 commercial lots on 9.001 acres of land in the community commercial zoning district. There are no minimum setbacks, lot sizes or street frontage requirements for lots in a C-C zone. The maximum building height allowed in the zone is 50 feet. Future buildings proposed on the subject lot shall meet the minimum dimension standards listed in the UDC. In the development agreement that was signed in 2008 the applicant was granted direct access to Ustick Road, as I mentioned, and ACHD has agreed to temporary access. The access shall be removed at such time as that road to the west is developed. The site consists of shared -- shared cross-access easements here to the north to Buckstone Lane, to Venable, and, like I said, a temporary access here on Ustick. These are proposed for a private drive. In the previous approval for this site in 2007 ACHD granted -- sometimes they require a turnaround. Because of the public and private connection here ACHD is not requiring that, similar to the -- as they approved it back in 2007. So, as the preliminary plat shows two shared driveways into the development, there is a missing north-south public stub street to this property of the north property line, as I mentioned here, Buckstone Lane or Buckstone Avenue. This street is located 330 feet west of Venable. The applicant is proposing to provide access to the site through the extension of Buckstone, with an access easement driveway. The proposed shared driveway will run from the existing stub of Buckstone all the way down to Ustick Road on the south boundary of the site. The p roposed east-west driveway -- private driveway aligns with the existing commercial development to the east across Venable and Meridian Planning & Zoning December 3, 2015 Page 15 of 26 should stub to the western boundary of the site for future connectivity. Submitted concept and landscape plans do not show this driveway extending all the way to the west boundary. Further, the cross-access easement will need to be provided to the property to the west and that is the staff report that staff has submitted. On the revised preliminary plat there was a note that states the proposed access to Ustick is temporary. The draft staff report for ACHD also requires the applicant to enter into a development agreement with ACHD for the temporary access to Ustick Road and provide a financial surety for the closure of the driveway. The buffer to the existing proposed residential land uses to the north and west from future commercial uses on the site, a minimum of 25 foot wide landscape buffer should be installed. According to the UDC, the submitted landscape plan indicates a 25 foot wide landscape buffer adjacent to the residential subdivision to the north and a 20 foot buffer along the western property boundary. The applicant is to provide an additional five feet of landscaping to the west property and construct material in accordance with the UDC and seek a waiver from City Council. We rec eived written testimony from Mac Myers, who works for the Settlers Irrigation District and from the applicant Lance Warnick. Staff will stand for -- or staff is recommending approval and will stand for any questions you may have. Yearsley: Are there any questions? With that would the applicant like to come forward? Please state your name and address for the record. Warnick: Thank you very much. For the record my name is Lance Warnick. I'm a professional engineer with Aspen Engineers, business address is 485 West Main, Suite B in Kuna. 83634. Here tonight on behalf of the Seagle Three, LLC, to ask your approval of this preliminary plat. I appreciate the work that Josh and Bill have worked with us on this project. Bill has history on this clear back to 2007 and as Josh stated, we had had a plat approval on this property and it expired just due to the slow down in the economy, so we are trying to get that back into place. The initial application we submitted to the city showing a preliminary plat that was identical, essentially, to the previous one, but, as Josh said, due to some ACHD policy changes they asked us to eliminate the public roads we have interior on the project and to use these private service drives and also to just have the driveway accessing Ustick as temporary, with the condition that we remove it when we are granted access on the west side. We are agreeable to all these conditions and ask for your recommendation tonight for the Council to -- of approval of the preliminary plat. With that I would stand for any questions. Yearsley: Thank you. Are there any questions? All right. Warnick: Thank you. Yearsley: Thank you. I don't have anybody else signed up to testify on this application. Is there anybody wanting to testify? So, I guess with that we don't need to have the application come back up on this one and so I would entertain a motion to close the public hearing on file number H-2015-0014. McCarvel: So moved. Meridian Planning & Zoning December 3, 2015 Page 16 of 26 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: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. Yearsley: Any thoughts on this one? McCarvel: Mr. Chairman? Yearsley: Commissioner McCarvel. McCarvel: I think it looks just fine. It looks like they have just brought everything up to current code. I don't see any problem with it. Yearsley: Thank you. Fitzgerald: Mr. Chairman? Yearsley: Commissioner Fitzgerald. Fitzgerald: I would agree, yeah, I think it looks fine. It's a -- a return to what we said in the past during the slow down. I understand that that's -- I think the removal of the Ustick access is interesting, but I understand where the temporary component comes in and I think that I applaud the staff and the applicant for working together with ACHD to make it happen. So, I think I'm good in that regard. Yearsley: Thank you. Oliver: Mr. Chairman? Yearsley: Commissioner Oliver. Oliver: I just had one question to ask staff if I could. At that point where that is going to be or will probably be is currently a two lane road on Ustick? Beach: I believe there is concurrent some widening procedures. Oliver: Will be happening in the future? Beach: I believe next -- next year. Soon. Oliver: Okay. Meridian Planning & Zoning December 3, 2015 Page 17 of 26 Beach: So, the applicant -- or the property owner has sold some right of way to ACHD to facilitate that. Oliver: That would be my concern as far as opening up that much land is to -- if you have driven down Ustick you know that that particular area is very difficult to go down and without having a private lane road in that section I wouldn't approve that, you know, because to me that would -- that makes it even tougher to get to that section. I know that they have approved it through Locust Grove -- up to Locust Grove and Ustick. But I was wondering if there would be -- at the same time it could concurrently happen to where they would open up -- Beach: I'm not a hundred percent sure on the time frame for -- on widening that section, but we had a meeting with ACHD, staff, the applicant , and ACHD and had some discussions on specifically the access to Ustick Road and whether or not they would be agreeable to a temporary access and ACHD determined that they would be, as along as they were agreeable to having it temporary and closing it and moving access to the -- a road that's not yet constructed on the west boundary. Yearsley: And I think, according to ACHD, they were already planning a five lane there and as they developed this phase they requested the right of way for the five lanes prior to construction and so they are -- they are designing their -- their -- basically their frontage to be back far enough to accomplish that five lanes, so -- Parsons: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, the applicant just brought up ACHD's draft staff report and it looks like they are p lanning on widening that in calendar year 2017. A couple years out. Oliver: It kind of runs right along with what they are doing. Parsons: I don't want to give you a lot of the history on the access, but when this property -- since I did originally work on it back in 2007 with the city, originally when the applicant came through, as Josh mentioned, that development agreement ties them to a specific concept plan and a layout and that access was part of that. When the applicant met with us at our pre-application meeting they were told that the city would have to allow them that access, but ACHD didn't and so that's what facilitated the meeting between the city and ACHD and the applicant. So, I do want to applaud the applicant for working with the city, because, really, as you know with commercial development, access is everything to them and so for them to even come to the table and enter into a temporary access for that point until -- until another access point is provided for them, I think that is a win for all three parties, not only the city and ACHD, but also the applicant. So, some of that history going through again -- we didn't want to pit the city's requirements against ACHD, so the applicant stepped up, was willing to work with us and give us a temporary -- at least accept that as a temporary access, so that they could at least get this development moving forward, get some tenants in there and, then, understandably they would have to close that at some point. I would mention to you that one of the conditions in the staff report does require the applicant to seek a development agreement modification from City Meridian Planning & Zoning December 3, 2015 Page 18 of 26 Council and providing us a revised concept plan showing the closure of that access point. So, ACHD has the same requirement, they want money up front. They want some assurances that that's going to be closed. The city does, too. So, certainly we have conditions in place to make sure that that happens and that whatever happens, whether that drive aisle or whatever it is, has to be inte grated back into the proposed development, either through parking, seating area, plaza, who knows what it could be. We will get those details once the applicant comes forward with that DA modification application. Oliver: Thank you very much. Yearsley: Thank you. So, I'm in agreement as well. I think it looks good. It fits the area. So, with that I would entertain a motion. McCarvel: Mr. Chairman? Yearsley: Commissioner McCarvel. McCarvel: After considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, move to recommend approval to the City Council of file numbers H-2015-0014 as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of December 3rd, 2015. Fitzgerald: Second. Yearsley: I have a motion and a second to approve the public hearing on file number H- 2015-0014. All in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. E. Public Hearing for Falconers Place Subdivision (H-2015-0015) by Summit Equity, LLC Located East Side of Eagle Road, South of Victory Road 1. Request: Preliminary Plat Approval Consisting of Twenty- Three (23) Single-Family Residential Lots and Six (6) Common Lots on Approximately 4.69 Acres in the R-8 Zoning District Yearsley: All right. Next one on the list is the -- opening the public hearing on file number H-2015-0015, Falconers Place Subdivision and let's begin with the staff report. Beach: Very good, Chair, Commissioners. This is an application for a preliminary plat and for development agreement modification. This site consists of 4.69 acres of land. It's currently zoned R-8 and is located on the east side of Eagle Road, south of Victory Road. To the north are single family residential properties in the Golden Eagle Estates Subdivision, which is part of Ada County, zoned RUT. So, if you follow my pointer that's this property here. East is a single family residential property in the Accommodation Subdivision, which is zoned R-4. Single family -- the south single residential properties Meridian Planning & Zoning December 3, 2015 Page 19 of 26 has not been platted and is one part of the Dartmoor Subdivision. Both are located in unincorporated Ada County, zoned RUT, which is these properties here. And to the west is the Sobe Subdivision, recently approved this year, which is zoned R-15. The property again has some substantial history. In 2005 City Council approved an annexation, preliminary plat and a conditional use permit to construct and operate an assisted living facility, comprised of five individual facilities on the property as part of the anne xation approval. The developer and the city entered into a development agreement, recorded under instrument number 105152708, under which the property was tied to an assisted living facility, which is why the applicant is coming forward with the development modification. In 2008 City Council approved a new preliminary plat and conditional use permit for the same use on the property. However, the developer at the time failed to submit the time extension application or record the plat and establish the use on the site within the time limits of the UDC. Currently the recorded DA restricts the use of the property, as I said, to the assisted living facility. In 2013 City Council denied a new preliminary plat and development agreement modification to construct 36 condominium units in two buildings. Council denied the application, because the changes, quote, are not improvements or the contemplated use of the subject property. City Council elected not to deviate from specific use as an assisted living facility as approved in the conditions governing development of the subject property as outlined in the existing development agreement, dated September 27th, 2005. The Comprehensive Plan future land use map designation is low density residential. The proposed plat consists of 23 building lots and six common lots on 4.69 acres of land. The R-8 zoning district exists with a step up in density that is allowed for -- within the bounds of the Comprehensive Plan. This works for the proposed development. The gross density for the subdivision is 4.9 dwelling units per acre and with the request of the step up in density from a low density residential to medium residential, is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. And the minimum lot size proposed is 4,004 square feet, with an average lot size of 5,717 square feet. As drawn the 4,000 square foot lots would require attached homes. However, the city is in the process of modifying the UDC to reduce the dimension standards within an R-8 district to allow for detached single family homes, but that would -- but for the final plat the applicant would be tied to whichever code was in effect at the time. There is an existing single family home on the site that will remain and become part of the proposed Falconers Place Subdivision. The existing home will be connected to city utilities at the time of final plat approval. Development of this site is required to comply with the dimension standards listed in the UDC. Staff has reviewed the proposed plat and found it to be in compliance with the R-8 dimensional standards. Access to the development will be provided from East Falcon Place Drive, which is the road here. It's an existing local street. The existing single family residence on the proposed Lot 29, Block 1, which is this home here, will continue to take access from this roadway, as well as the future residence on the proposed Lot 4, Block 1, which is this lot here. The remainder of the development will take access from the extension of South Falconers Place and staff is supportive of the public street access proposed for the development. There are two common drives proposed. The applicant is proposing Lot 16 through 19 and Lots 21 through 23 of Block 1 to take access from a single common driveway. Per UDC, common driveways shall serve a maximum of six dwelling units. So, one of the conditions in the staff report was that the applicant reconfigure these lots here to take access from the cul-de-sac and not Meridian Planning & Zoning December 3, 2015 Page 20 of 26 from the private drive, because that would result in greater than six. Sidewalks are required along all public streets, as set forth in the UDC, and the applicant proposes to construct a five foot wide detached sidewalk along West Falcon Drive, including in front of the existing home. So, extend this sidewalk here, as well as along the proposed South Falconers Place. Because the plat is under five acres minimum, the UDC does not require compliance with the common open space and site amenity standards set forth in the UDC. However, the applicant is proposing to co nstruct a micropath -- it's kind of difficult to see, but this micropath here was all on the common driveway and connected to an existing pathway in the Accommodation Subdivision just to the east. The o nly required landscaping for the development is the 25 foot wide landscape buffer adjacent to Eagle Road. The landscape plan as submitted provides the required 25 foot wide landscape buffer in accord with the UDC and the City of Meridian requires that pressurized irrigation systems be supplied by a year around source of water. The applicant shall be required to utilize any existing surface or well water for the primary -- as the primary source. If a surface or well source is not available, a single point connection to the culinary water system shall be required. The owner is, in fact, requesting the use of domestic water to serve as the primary water source for the proposed development with irrigation water. The applicant states that the use of surface water from Nampa -Meridian is not feasible and surface delivery to his property is on a ten day rotation and cannot provide adequate water. The building elevation depicts a mix of building materials, lap siding, and cedar shake siding, decorative window or door trim, decorative corbels, covered entries and stone wainscot consistent with the surrounding development. Staff is of the opinion the future single family homes will compliment the existing homes in the area and demonstrate high quality materials. Because lots on -- lots on -- homes on lots that back up to South Eagle Road, as well as West Falcon Drive will be highly visible, staff recommends that the sides of any structures that face the public street on these lots incorporate articulation and changes in material, color, modulation and architectural elements to break up monotonous wall plains and roof lines. Written testimony was received by Laren Bailey, the applicant, and st aff is recommending approval. Stand for any questions. Yearsley: Are there any questions? Fitzgerald: Mr. Chairman? Yearsley: Commissioner McCarvel -- or Fitzgerald. Fitzgerald: Josh, so the irrigation issue, there is -- so, did we get feedback from Nampa- Meridian Irrigation of whether that -- what their statement was? Beach: They have not provided a letter to the -- they will need to and that's something that can be approved by City Council to access the culinary system for irrigation. So, that's one of the requirements in the staff report is that they -- they demonstrate that they are not able to do that by providing that letter. Fitzgerald: Okay. Thank you. Meridian Planning & Zoning December 3, 2015 Page 21 of 26 Yearsley: Any other questions? McCarvel: Mr. Chairman? Yearsley: Commissioner McCarvel. McCarvel: Just for my own personal -- I have not ever lived in this valley where there is not water supply to pressurized irrigation, so if they are not paying Nampa-Meridian Irrigation, does it cost them -- each house use of city -- Beach: Theoretically it would be more expensive. McCarvel: City water would be very expensive. Okay. Yearsley: And also I believe that this is still part of the Nampa-Meridian Irrigation, so they still have to pay irrigation tax whether they get water or not and so more than likely. But that's probably between the irrigation company and the homeowners. McCarvel: Thirty-five bucks a year is going to be the least of their worries. Yearsley: Yeah. Fitzgerald: Mr. Chairman, could I ask one more question? Yearsley: Absolutely. Fitzgerald: Josh, the -- on Falcon Drive is that an improved sidewalk on the road at all right now or is it just a rural street? Beach: I don't believe there is sidewalk on the road currently. Fitzgerald: Okay. Thank you. Yearsley: It is a rural street. I drive by it every day, so -- I guess with no more questions, would the applicant like to come forward? Please state your name and address for the record. Bailey: Good evening, Commissioners. My name is Laren Bailey. My address is 30 South Lemhi Drive, Nampa, Idaho. 83651. I'd like to thank you for hearing our application tonight. And, again, thank staff for their help. We have -- it's been kind of a long road on this project. Just wanted to answer a couple of the questions that maybe came up. One of the things about the irrigation, we have talked to Nampa-Meridian, we have talked to some of the neighbors and this is the end of the line, so to speak, on this delivery and the problem is it's not that water can't get there, it's that the duration between rotation to get the water doesn't -- wouldn't work for a pressurized irrigation system. It would be pretty Meridian Planning & Zoning December 3, 2015 Page 22 of 26 hard to only water your lawn every ten to 12 days. So, that's why we are asking for some relief from that. The other issue is this site is rather small and there is not really room to put a pond or something to store water in between those times and so that's why we are -- we are asking for that. Let's see. One of the items in the staff report that I don't think was brought up -- I do want to point out we agree with the recommendations from staff. One of them was on fencing and we do plan to provide perimeter fencing similar to the neighboring developments. The other thing I want to point out is the existing home that needs water and sewer supplied to it -- we have actually already brought a sewer line up to the property line that came -- the Accommodation Sub to the east, when -- they needed to come through our property with their sewer to get to Eagle Road, so they worked with the owner to develop an easement and actually stubbed in a sewer service for that existing home already. It's not connected to the home, but it's to the property line and, then, water is available on West Falcon Drive. So, that will be fairly easy to connect them. The other item that came up -- staff mentioned that we were going to -- we were proposing separated sidewalk on West Falcon Drive. That is originally what we proposed. The Accommodation Subdivision actually constructed attached sidewalk, so I don't know that we care one way or the other, but we would propose actually to do attached, just so it's consistent. But that's -- that would be up for your recommendation. With that I will stand for any questions. Yearsley: Are there any questions? So, I had one. I believe in the condition even though there is not surface water that you provide a secondary line, like an irrigation line, so if water did become available at a future date. Are you proposing not to install a secondary water system for irrigation? I don't know if I heard that right or not. In the condition I thought it said that there should be a single point connection for the irrigation system, which I'm assuming is a separate irrigation line connected to city water at a single point. Parsons: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, certainly our preference is that they take -- take advantage of the surface water delivery. That's your first point. And, then, your second would be domestic water. That's what we require. In this particular case if the applicant is successful in obtaining the use of city water there wouldn't be dry lines put in for him to take advantage of a secondary connection, he would only have the one point connection, which would be the city water. That's all they would ever have ou t there. So, no, I don't believe there is a condition that says put in -- Yearsley: Okay. Parson: -- dry lines in case water becomes available. That's the intent behind that. Yearsley: All right. I just wanted to make sure I understood that, so -- okay. I didn't -- that was my only question. Any other questions? Thank you. Bailey: All right. Thanks. Yearsley: I do have one person signed up for this one is Bob Aldridge. If he would like to, please, come forward. And, please, state your name and address for the record. Meridian Planning & Zoning December 3, 2015 Page 23 of 26 Aldridge: My name is Bob Aldridge and my address 3300 Falcon Drive. I'm the house immediately to the north across Falcon. We have been working on this literally with Darrell Max and so forth since 2005 or so. The last time around with the proposal we were totally opposed to that. Since that they have worked into single family dwellings and we think that that's a great improvement. ACHD is totally unprepared on what they are going to do with that section of Eagle Road, it's so horrendous, d ifficult, and dangerous. They are going to have to come to grips with that. On the situation with the irrigation I think I can clarify that. I have been running that system since 1983. If you look clear up on Victory Road up -- it would be further to the right on what now is the Carmel Subdivision, that's the diversion point and I will admit to spending way too much money to convert over to pressurized irrigation, but that's the only site that's available and -- and my pump is going to be putting out 220 gallons of water per minute probably every two weeks or so. There is simply no way to get that from there to here. You just can't do it. And that is the end of the line. My pump is literally a hole in the ground off of the main lateral there. So, there is no way to flow through and there is going to be some work, obviously, for the corner there. You have had that before you as well coming in on a commercial development. I'm concerned on what they do as well on that situation. In any event, it's certainly not my dream of what I want to have across the road, but vastly better than what we had before and I think that given the realistic state of affairs this is what is going to be there. It's going to provide much better accommodations than we had with the multi-family dwellings that were there. So, I think with that I think this is going to solve a number of problems. We have had the single family house sitting there going through a resolving door of people because it's not a legal split and that's caused some real problems and it will solve that and I think they would prefer to have that problem solved as well. So, I would be happy to answer any questions. Yearsley: Are there any questions? Thank you. Aldridge: Thank you. Yearsley: Is there anybody else that would like to testify on this application? I guess based on that question does the applicant want to come forward or does he need to come forward? He's shaking his head no. So, at this point if there is -- barring any other questions, I would entertain a motion to close the public hearing on file number H-2015- 0015. McCarvel: So moved. 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: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. Meridian Planning & Zoning December 3, 2015 Page 24 of 26 Yearsley: Comments? Thoughts? McCarvel: Mr. Chairman? Yearsley: Commissioner McCarvel. McCarvel: I think it looks like a good transition from what's around it. The single dwelling homes verses apartments, I mean if it's got to be something else. I think the assisted living was a nice thought there, I mean just -- I'm still wondering about the burden that is going to be on these homeowners with having to water their yards in a desert with city water. A commercial -- somewhat commercial use might have been better that -- for that reason, but I think the R-8 and the -- the homes looks like, even with the shared driveways I think it looks okay. Yearsley: Thank you. Oliver: Mr. Chairman? Yearsley: Commissioner Oliver. Oliver: I like the idea as well. I know the lots are small and I would much rather see them detached than attached, so I appreciate staff working on that to get that to that point where they are a little bit nicer looking home . Also I want to appreciate Mr. Aldridge for coming up and sharing his feelings about it. It helped me to understand a little bit more about what you're dealing with out there, so I appreciate that. Other than that I think it looks all right. Yearsley: Thank you. Fitzgerald: Mr. Chairman? Yearsley: Commissioner Fitzgerald. Fitzgerald: I would agree. I think -- I very much appreciate Mr. Aldridge coming and giving us his thoughts, so I think that helps the thing that impacts him greatly and he has worked on this for a number of years. The applicant has a right to -- or the owner has a right to develop with the buyer beware with the water situation. I think it's -- that's a rough gig, but if that's the direction they want to go I think that's their right and I think it's a good project, I think the applicant and Mr. Bailey should be commended for working through it. So, I am in agreement with the commissioners. Yearsley: Thank you. Actually, I was on the Commission when we recommended denial of the apartments and I do believe that this is a step up from that previous application. I do understand the issue with the irrigation and the -- and the lots sizes are small enough that hopefully it won't be as big a burden, so -- but I do agree with the buyer beware and so -- but I do like it. I was a little concerned that some of the -- the private driveways, but Meridian Planning & Zoning December 3, 2015 Page 25 of 26 they meet conditions and are allowed, so -- so I'm in favor for it. With that I would entertain a motion. McCarvel: Mr. Chairman? Yearsley: Commissioner McCarvel. McCarvel: After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to recommend approval for file number H-2015-0015 as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of December 3rd, 2015. Fitzgerald: Second. Yearsley: I have a motion and a second to approve file number H-2015-0015. All in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries. Congratulations. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. F. Amended onto Agenda –Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: Paramount Northeast Assisted Living H-2015- 008 Conditional Use Permit for a 56,543 Square Foot Residential Care Facility Consisting of 73 Units with a Maximum of 88 Beds in a C-C Zoning District Yearsley: So, next item on the agenda is the approval of the Findings of Fact and Conclusion of Law for Paramount Northeast Assisted Living Center, file number 2015- 0008, if I'm not correct. It's an approval. So, could I get a motion to approve the Findings of Fact and Conclusion of Law. Fitzgerald: So moved. McCarvel: Second. Yearsley: I have a motion and a second to approve the Findings of Fact and Conclusion of Law for file number 2015-0008. All in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. Yearsley: Made it through. One last -- Fitzgerald: Mr. Chairman? Yearsley: Commissioner Fitzgerald. Fitzgerald: I would move for adjournment, even though I should let Commissioner McCarvel continue her motions. Pl a n n i n g & Z o n i n g Pl a n n i n g & Z o n i n g Pl a n n i n g & Z o n i n g Pl a n n i n g & Z o n i n g Co m m i s s i o n M e e t i n g Co m m i s s i o n M e e t i n g Co m m i s s i o n M e e t i n g Co m m i s s i o n M e e t i n g De c e m b e r 3 , 2 0 1 5 De c e m b e r 3 , 2 0 1 5 De c e m b e r 3 , 2 0 1 5 De c e m b e r 3 , 2 0 1 5 It e m # 4 A : P a r a m o u n t N o r t h e a s t A s s i s t i n g L i v i n g - V i c i n i t y /Z o n i n g M a p Landscape Plan Si t e P l a n El e v a t i o n s It e m # 4 B : C u l v e r ’ s D r i v e - T h r o u g h Zo n i n g / A e r i a l M a p La n d s c a p e P l a n Ov e r a l l S i t e P l a n It e m # 4 C : U n a M a s D r i v e - T h r o u g h Zo n i n g / A e r i a l M a p Si t e P l a n RE V I S E D S i t e P l a n It e m # 4 D : S e t t l e r s S q u a r e S u b . Pr e l i m i n a r y P l a t Zo n i n g / A e r i a l M a p Si t e P l a n La n d s c a p e P l a n El e v a t i o n s It e m # 4 E : F a l c o n e r s P l a c e S u b . Pr e l i m i n a r y P l a t Zo n i n g / A e r i a l M a p Si t e P l a n La n d s c a p e P l a n El e v a t i o n s 1 PARAMOUNT “VERANDA” ASSISTED LIVING 2 “VERANDA” SITE ACCESSES CHINDEN 3 4 SOUTHERLY FOX RUN WAY ACCESS 5 6 7 8 CHINDEN / FOX RUN INTERSECTION 9 CHINDEN BERM, EAST TO FOX RUN INTERSECTION 10 QUESTIONS and DISCUSSION