2017 01-19Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting January 19, 2017
Meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission of January 19, 2017,
was called to order at 6:00 p.m. by Chairman Rhonda McCarvel.
Members Present: Commissioner Rhonda McCarvel Commissioner Ryan
Fitzgerald, Commissioner Treg Bernt, Commissioner Gregory Wilson,
Commissioner Jessica Perreault and Commissioner Bill Cassanelli.
Others Present: Machelle Hill, Ted Baird, Bill Parsons, Josh Beach and Dean
Willis.
Item 1: Roll-call Attendance
__X___ Treg Bernt ___X___ Steven Yearsley
__X___ Gregory Wilson ___X___ Ryan Fitzgerald
__X___ Jessica Perreault ___X___ Bill Cassanelli
___X___ Rhonda McCarvel - Chairman
McCarvel: Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. At this time we would like to
call to order the regularly scheduled meeting of the Meridian Planning and
Zoning Commission on January 19th, 2017. Let's begin with roll call.
Item 2: Adoption of the Agenda
McCarvel: Okay. The first item on the agenda is the adoption of the agenda .
Could I get a motion to adopt the agenda?
Fitzgerald: Madam Chair, so moved.
Bernt: Second.
McCarvel: Okay. It's been moved and seconded to adopt the agenda. All in
favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carried.
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. TWO ABSENT.
Item 3: Consent Agenda
1. Approve Minutes of January 5, 2017 Planning and
Zoning Commission Meeting
McCarvel: The next item on the agenda is the Consent Agenda. Could I get a
motion to accept the Consent Agenda as presented?
Bernt: Madam Chair, so moved.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
January 19, 2017
Page 2 of 16
Fitzgerald: Second.
McCarvel: It has been moved and seconded to adopt the Consent Agenda. All
in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. TWO ABSENT.
McCarvel: At this time I'd like to briefly explain the public hearing process for this
evening. We will open each item individually and, then, start with the staff report.
The staff will report their findings regarding how the item adheres to our
Comprehensive Plan and Uniform Development Code with the staff's
recommendation. After the staff has made their presentation the applicant will
come forward to present their case for the approval of their application and
respond to any staff comments. The applicant will have 15 minutes to do so.
After the applicant has finished we will open the public testimony. There is a
sign-up sheet in the back as you enter for anyone wishing to testify. Any person
testifying will come forward and be allowed three minutes. If they are speaking
for a larger group, like an HOA and there is a show of hands to represent the
group, they will be given up to ten minutes. After all testimony has been heard,
the applicant will be given another ten minutes to have the opportunity to come
back and respond if they desire. After that we will close the public hearing and
the Commissioners will have the opportunity to discuss and hopefully be able to
make a recommendation to City Council.
Item 4: Action Items
A. Public Hearing for Rainier Villas (H-2016-0129) by
Shannon Robnett Located West of N. Meridian Road,
Between W. Corporate Drive and W. Pennwood Street
Continue Public Hearing to March 2, 2017 Planning and
Zoning Commission Meeting
1. Request: Conditional Use Permit Approval for 180
MultiFamily Dwelling Units on Approximately 7.52
Acres in an Existing C-G Zoning District
McCarvel: At this time I would like to open the public hearing for Item H-2016-
0129, Rainier Villas, and we will begin with the staff report.
Beach: Good evening, Chair, Commissioners. As you said, this is an application
for a conditional use permit. The site consists of approximately 7.52 acres of
land, which is zoned C-G. It's located west of North Meridian Road between
West Corporate Drive and West Pennwood Street . Adjacent land use and
zoning. To the north is vacant commercial property -- excuse me. Up to the
north is an RV park. To the south is self-storage facilities zoned C-G. To the
Meridian Planning & Zoning
January 19, 2017
Page 3 of 16
east is Trade Plaza Subdivision, also zoned C-G. And to the west is vacant and
undeveloped commercial property, which is also zoned C-G. A little history on
this property. Back in 2008 the property was platted as part of the Trade Plaza
preliminary plat. The previous plat has since expired and this is a remnant parcel
that must be subdivided in order to be established for a building permit . In 2016
a preliminary plat was approved consisting of 15 multi-family residential lots and
five common lots and a conditional use permit was also concurrently approved
for the property to have 88 multi-family units and, then, lastly, also in 2016 a final
plat was approved consisting of 15 multi-family residential lots and five common
lots. The Comprehensive Plan future land use map designation for the property
is commercial. As I said, in June of 2016 a conditional use permit was approved
for the property to allow for 88 multi-family units. The applicant has acquired
additional property, bringing the total acreage from the previously proposed 5.35
acres to 7.52 acres and is requesting a new conditional use permit to increase
the acres and to increase the number of units from the approved 88 up to a
currently requested 180 units. The new conditional use permit will replace the
previously approved conditional use permit for the property. The UDC does
require CUP approval for a multi-family development in the C-G zoning district.
The multi-family residential development is proposed to consist of , as I said, 180
dwelling units, in 11 structures. The units will consist of two and three bedroom
units with a minimum size of 850 square feet . The applicant proposes a variety
of amenities. The development does appear to comply with the specific use
standards in the UDC for multi-family development and I will go through those
quick. A minimum of 80 square feet of private usable open space is required to
be provided for each unit. Developments with 20 units or more shall provide a
property management office, a maintenance storage area, central mailbox with
provisions for parcel mail and a directory map. At a minimum 250 square feet of
common open space is required for each unit, containing more than 500 and --
500 square feet and up to 1,200 square feet. So, units between 500 and --
explain that a little better. Units between five and twelve hundred square feet
required 250 square feet per unit in additional open space . The plat does appear
to -- the site plan does appear to comply with that as well. Common open space
is required. The calculation table depicts 59,541 square feet of common open
space and the applicant is proposing to -- an additional 5,000 square feet. So,
there -- forgive me. The 45,000 square feet open space is the minimum
threshold and they are proposing 59,000 and they are 5,000 of that has an -- as
an additional amenity that we allow per code. So, for multi-family developments
with 75 units or more, four site amenities are required to be provided with at least
one from each category. Because 180 units are proposed staff required that four
amenities be provided for the site with at least one from each category. The
proposed amenities include a clubhouse with a fitness facility, a sports court, a
play structure, a splash pad, a hot tub, an outdoor patio and a grassy open area
of at least 50 by 100 feet. So, they proposed eight amenities for the -- for the
development. They have provided some -- a landscape plan, which appears to,
as I said, meet -- meet code and some architectural elevations, which also
appear to meet the architectural standards that we have in the architectural
Meridian Planning & Zoning
January 19, 2017
Page 4 of 16
standards manual. Moving on. Access to the development is proposed from
West Pennwood Street and from West Corporate Drive. Go back to the site plan
here. The site plan as submitted depicts two access points to West Corporate
Drive, which is considered a collector roadway and the access points were
approved with the previous application. The applicant will have to execute a
reciprocal cross-access and share parking permit between all of the lots within
the subdivision to ensure that they have local street access. The plat does
appear to comply with the sidewalk standards and for parking. I will note that the
commissioner mentioned that one of the conditions is stated incorrectly and
indicates that the incorrect number of parking stalls are required of the condition ,
so we can -- we can tweak that as we get there. But the parking does appear to
meet code. With 180 units roughly two units or -- rephrase this. Two parking
stalls per unit with half of those being covered stalls . So, that would be 180
covered parking stalls for the plat. The applicant did not provide a site plan
indicating the location of any covered parking, so that's something that we have
conditioned them to provide. As well as the clubhouse is required to provide its
own parking above and beyond the housing , which is considered one for every
500 square feet, with an approximate square footage for the clubhouse of 2 ,400
square feet, that's five additional spaces. And, then, the plat does appear to
comply with the bicycle parking standards. Fencing -- we will note that the trash
enclosures as I have indicated to the applicant, do not appear to quite meet the
size that Republic Services will require, so we have a condition that they
coordinate with Republic Services to meet their requirements. With that staff is
recommending approval of the application and I will stand for any questions you
have.
McCarvel: Thank you. Are there any questions for staff? Okay. Would the
applicant like to come forward. Go ahead. Oh. I'm sorry. Please state your
name and address for the record.
Robinette: Devin Robinette. Address is 1037 West Pine, Apartment No. 3,
Meridian, Idaho. 83642. Members of staff -- or Members of Planning and
Zoning, excuse me, I want to thank you for your time tonight to remind you of the
project that you reviewed six months ago. At that time we had more land and
less units that were more scattered on an illegal lot. It was a very different
scenario than we have tonight and we have staff to thank for that and a lot of
help getting us to this point. I think that we have been able to successfully
address all of the issues that were present in the previous version and actually
make this project better with a higher density and a smaller building footprint,
allowing for more open space and several more amenities. As you may recall
last time we were here we had a five-acre parcel that for reasons unknown to us
and not caused by staff was an illegal lot split and we recorded a preliminary plat
to not only fix that problem, but to create additional lots. Along the way our vision
for our project has changed and we are attempting, with staff's support, to
incorporate four more lots, individually plotted and recorded, that have frontage
and access on Pennwood. These lots have all utilities installed, as well as city
Meridian Planning & Zoning
January 19, 2017
Page 5 of 16
sidewalk on the north property line and are buildable lots. I know that by
combining them with Rainer Villas' plat as part of the CUP before you is a bit
confusing as to which process at which time and which order will take place and
while we are -- we have been able to get on the same page with staff on all the
other aspects of the application, there is one issue that we would like to discuss.
With recorded lots being part of the final plat in process, they should not be
subject to the condition to have Corporate Street finished prior to being built on
them. As they sit they are buildable lots and we are asking that we be allowed to
begin the process on them while Rainer Villa's final plat is being finished and
Corporate is being worked on. As we all know, we would be subject to fire, life,
and safety requirements at all times, as well as Section 11-4-3-27, Part C,
Section 3, in regard to how common area is dealt with in a phase d project. So,
with that being stated, we would like to ask that we be allowed to start on the
recorded lots on Pennwood without being tied to the improvements of Corporate,
fully understanding that in order to begin building on the lots on Rainier Villas plat
we would first need to complete the specific construction as required by the city.
Thank you for your time tonight and I will stand for questions.
McCarvel: Are there any questions?
Fitzgerald: Madam Chair?
McCarvel: Yes.
Fitzgerald: Can you tell me in regards to -- do know in your phasing plan if this is
your -- your question to us. Do you have a phasing that you -- when that would
be built out in regards to Corporate? Because I think the challenge when you're
building in multi-family is you want amenities, you want walkability, you want
connectivity through that whole development and so having just built up this
section on Pennwood it makes me concerned we are -- of questions of what
happens in the middle.
Robinette: Thank you. So, in front of you you have a copy of our site plan and if
you turn it upside down you can see where Pennwood Street is and in the red
line that goes across the page is the property line of the Pennwood lots. What
we are asking to do is we are asking to move this back a little bit and comple te
the sidewalk and the parking area. Put a construction fence along that line, then,
begin building our clubhouse, which would contain the mail structures, the fitness
facility, as well as a conference area/open -- open area in the clubhouse. That
was kind of our -- that was the plan. We understand that -- that amenities are
important in an apartment complex and we would be -- we would be interested to
work with staff to figure out what they would like to see and which order in order
to be able to begin on these lots on Pennwood.
Fitzgerald: Madam Chair?
Meridian Planning & Zoning
January 19, 2017
Page 6 of 16
McCarvel: Commissioner Fitzgerald.
Fitzgerald: And that's my question. I think the amenities piece and whether
that's -- and Josh or Bill, you can probably correct me, this is an issue to make
sure -- because what I see happening is we start the project and you guys build
up the three buildings and they have no amenities at all. So, you have got half of
a -- you know, you got half of a street length and some sidewalk. You have a
mailbox area and no other amenities and that becomes a challenge for me at
least. So, that's -- I guess that's -- Bill or Josh gets -- what would staff like to
see in regards to making sure this is held accountable for -- as we build out.
Beach: Sure. So, I guess starting with the first thing, we already communicated
with the applicant that there are just a couple of things that are going to prevent
them from getting a building permit for at least a couple of those lots along
Pennwood is there is utility easements that need to be vacated in order to do
that, because there is property lines there right now. They were created with the
Troutner Park Subdivision. So, there is utility easements that need to be vacated
first in order to be able to build over those property lines and I think that's -- like I
said, we communicated that with the applicant. The other thing is they are
requesting to vacate 3rd Avenue, which is something that we had indicated they
need to apply for soon, because it usually takes three or four months to get that
through the process at the highway district. Having said that, code requires that
the open space -- it doesn't actually talk about the amenities that need to be
provided for those units, but it does say that the open space needs to be
required. The issue with this is we can't put them on an illegal lot, which is what
the lot currently is, so the open space needs to be provided on a lot that I guess
is legal and so if they can find a way to do that, but the way that their plat is
currently configured, the majority of the open space is on the lot that they can
build on right now, because it's -- the final plat hasn't been recorded. Once that
happens you have a legal lot, but there is -- this gets really complicated as we try
to move forward with a project that is trying to get some early building permits for
that we require open space for, but that it's not provided anywhere that we can
work with and so I think we have -- I have spoken with the applicant a couple of
times on things that they have concerns on and it gets a little complicated as far
as the open space goes. Typically with projects like this, if we are going to build
half of it and this is up to the Commission to decide -- again, code doesn't --
doesn't state anything about amenities, but typically if you're going to build half
the units you want half the amenities to be provided , because we don't know
when the other half is going to happen and it may never happ en. If no amenities
are there, then, there is no amenities. That's -- that's my take as staff on how
that should happen. But the code speaks specifically to open space.
Parsons: Madam Chair, Members of the Commission, I'm going to elaborate on
that a little bit more, because the lines are a little bit blurred with this application.
We have a new conditional use permit, but we have an approved preliminary -- or
approved final plat for a portion of it. So, it's hard for us to kind of connect those
Meridian Planning & Zoning
January 19, 2017
Page 7 of 16
dots together. One thing that Josh didn't allude to -- one thing -- and one of the
requirements that we have as a condition is -- as part of this conditional use
tonight is that they need to modify their final plat that was approved by City
Council, so that it mimics this configuration. So, really, that's the appropriate
mechanism for the applicant to request getting started on a building -- on those
amenities and some of those improvements ahead of the plat being recorded.
But I certainly want to bring to your attention that half -- five acres of this site is
an illegal lot and it needs to be legal and so certainly it's within your purview , if
you want to support that, that you can allow them to get started on some of the
structures, particularly the ones on Pennwood prior to occupancy of the first
structure. You have that authority. But currently the way we have it structured in
our staff report this evening is we won't even let them get a building permit until
at least the utility easements are vacated and the right of way is vacated and,
again, that's going to take four to six months process. So, the applicant needed
to get started on that in a hurry if they think they are going to start breaking
ground here this summer. Ada County Highway -- in the -- in the case of
vacating right of way, the city is only a recommending body, so they have to
come to the city, get Council's blessing, approval to vacate the right of way and,
then, ACHD's commission makes the final decision. So, the city only sends a
letter to ACHD saying that we approve the vacation. ACHD is the ultimate
authority on that application. So, that's -- that's what you have to decide, whether
not you -- you want to put timing on those amenities. If they -- do you want them
built with the first building or give them the latitude to get going under
construction prior to occupancy of the first structure and with the caveat that they
need to get their final plat approved and their conditions amended with City
Council. That's probably cleaner for us to amend the final plat than try to come
up with a bunch of conditions on this conditional use permit.
McCarvel: Any other questions?
Bernt: Madam Chair. How much longer until final plat is approved?
Parsons: Madam Chair, Members, Commissioner, it just got approved. It's going
to take the county three or four months to -- there is a couple ways to get a final
plat approved -- or final recorded. One you either volunteer the improvements
and put up the money for those improvements and get them to sign off or you do
the improvements and get them finalized and comply with your conditions and all
your requirements for constructing that. So, that's not going to happen. So, the
quickest way for them to record a plat is to bond for it, which is going to take the
money for the roads and the money for the sidewalks, the money for the street --
the money for the street buffer, so, really, that's -- again, it's a timing issue. And,
then, the vacations are another four to six months. So, you can see here it's --
timing on this is critical and I don't know how quickly the applicants have moved
with their construction documents and their approvals for the other agencies.
Typically we have ACHD and Central District Health sign the plat before the
Meridian Planning & Zoning
January 19, 2017
Page 8 of 16
applicant can even return their plat to us for signature and allow them to bond for
those improvements. So, it takes quite a while.
Bernt: Madam Chair, as someone that's new, is it normal for us to approve a
project like this without getting final plat approved? That's a real complicated
question.
McCarvel: Yeah. And -- yeah. That's what we will have to discuss is are we
ready to move forward with it or do we want to continue it until some of this stuff
is resolved, taken care of? I do have a question as well and I'm not sure that the
applicant or staff can answer it. As far as -- what is it, Corporate Drive versus
Pennwood, they are wanting to build -- start the high-density building. What was
-- what does Pennwood look like extended out? Is that -- is that somewhere
where we would want the high density without corporate being built out or --
Robinette: We don't plan on beginning any of the other phases without beginning
corporate. So -- so, the plan on -- on the three structures is to have 60 units
available. So with -- with this first phase on the Pennwood side, there will only be
60 available units.
McCarvel: Okay. And so -- and, then, without the amenities and without
corporate being --
Robinette: Corporate -- corporate will be started before we begin any of the --
McCarvel: Okay.
Robinette: -- structures on that side.
McCarvel: Okay.
Cassanelli: Madam Chair. Question for the applicant. You indicated -- I think
you indicated that you were going to also start on the clubhouse. That would be
the intent? But isn't that -- isn't that on the lot that needs to still be platted?
Robinette: It is on the lot that still needs to be platted, but if we are able to go
through all of the process and get the final plat redesigned and redeveloped , we
-- we don't anticipate that we will be able to finish any of our buildings and
actually lease them out before all of this process is done. So, we do believe that
we would be able to pick up on the clubhouse in the middle of finishing all of our
structures on a Pennwood side, so I don't believe we would have any residents in
there before we were able to start the clubhouse.
Fitzgerald: Madam Chair?
McCarvel: Commissioner Fitzgerald.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
January 19, 2017
Page 9 of 16
Fitzgerald: So, how did you guys intend on getting the final plat? Was it to bond
for it? Was that the plan?
Robinette: I believe so, yes.
McCarvel: At this time -- come up. Go ahead.
Elton: My name is Aaron Elton. Address is 2610 East Mercutio Drive, Meridian.
83642. I'm the applicant as well and a couple of the questions -- you asked if
there was a phasing, Commissioner Fitzgerald. Yes. What -- if I could back up
and explain what happened previously with the previous plat, which my
understanding is we are going to work through the vacation of 3rd. There is still
some -- some issues to work through, but they have, essentially, approved it on a
preliminary basis on that same --
Beach: On an application for a vacation.
Elton: Okay. Well, on the previous Rainier Villas that we did last year, that's
been in process. I'm not saying that it's done, but it's -- that process has begun.
So, previously we were looking at starting from the south. So, that -- we needed
Corporate Drive to punch through to the -- into the project itself. Pennwood is
complete. Pennwood has -- it's more ready for lots. We weren't planning on
using -- you know, that -- that wasn't part of our plan for use, because we didn't
own the land. Now we feel like this is a much better project. It's more dense, it's
better for the city, because we are coming from Pennwood from the north south.
So, that’s why we are asking can we mobilize -- really, this is -- I think what
clarifies this is we are asking for mobilization sooner. There is no expectation to
build this thing out and not do Corporate. You asked if there is a phasing plan.
Devin mentioned three buildings. I would ask for five buildings prior to going
down to building out Corporate. So, something in that realm we would like to go
into the current Rainier Villas plat, the five acres that's currently there and -- and
have the capacity to start on a couple of buildings as part of that phase one prior
to having to punch Corporate through. If we have to bond we can. It's not
preferred, of course, but we certainly want to show the city and everybody else
involved that we are not going to not do Corporate and I think Commissioner
McCarvel asked about what Pennwood goes to, you know, if you're extending it
out, there are just tract utilities on the west side of the storage units -- of the mini
storage -- or, sorry, the -- yeah, the mini storage that's on the south. So, it really
-- there is nothing else built out out there. We will allow -- I think it's called
Troutner Business Park to have a full circle -- or a, you know, continuation
through, but, really, it's not that useful -- it's most useful for our development,
because that's our lighted section -- intersection with Meridian Road. We want
Corporate there, because that's where the light is going to be for our residents.
So, for now this is a way to get started on it, but by no means do we have the
intention of not building out amenities and Corporate Drive.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
January 19, 2017
Page 10 of 16
McCarvel: I did have one more question. Where is the anticipated covered
parking on this? I know that's part of the minimum requirements.
Elton: Yeah. That's -- it certainly will be -- we want to make it most convenient
for the residents closest to doors. So, it's not built out on the site plan that you
see, but, of course, we will be in compliance and we will have those there, which
we have done some very preliminary drawings of that, but we don't -- we haven't
placed them specifically yet. We will be in compliance -- my understanding is
that will come in design review and we will be compliance.
McCarvel: Okay. Okay. Any other questions?
Fitzgerald: Madam Chair?
McCarvel: Commissioner Fitzgerald.
Fitzgerald: And, Aaron, is there -- is there curb, gutter and sidewalk on
Pennwood now?
Elton: There is.
Fitzgerald: Is it both sides or just one?
Elton: The side that's on Pennwood and coming around -- I think it stops where
-- where 3rd is.
Fitzgerald: Okay.
Elton: There might be sidewalks there. But it's fully curb, gutter, sidewalk.
Fitzgerald: Okay. Thank you. Thanks, Josh.
Cassanelli: Madam Chair?
McCarvel: Mr. Cassanelli.
Cassanelli: Question for staff maybe. Do -- with those three buildings that would
front Pennwood, is there enough open space on this diagram that was handed to
us above that red line? So, that first row there, is there enough open space to
meet requirements for those three units that would be proposed first?
Beach: So, the short answer is not likely. I haven't done the analysis
specifically, but just based on what I'm seeing here and the fact that they have
called that 2,400 square feet of open space up there, that's -- that's not going to
meet -- that's not going to meet code. It's 250 square feet per -- per unit. So, it
Meridian Planning & Zoning
January 19, 2017
Page 11 of 16
gets just the rough math, about 15,000 square feet of open space would be
required.
Elton: Which is another reason why we would like to go into that and build out
some amenities with these three to five buildings in the beginning , what we are
calling phase one. We want it to be a nice project.
Cassanelli: Sure.
Elton: This is not going to be, you know, half baked at the beginning, we really
want to see this thing look nice for the first residents.
Fitzgerald: Madam Chair?
McCarvel: Commissioner Fitzgerald.
Fitzgerald: And I appreciate it. I appreciate you going out and getting additional
lots to make it the full -- I mean a useful subdivision. I think it's good. The
challenge --
Elton: It was not our idea. The way it was presented before it was not ideal.
Fitzgerald: I think -- I like the idea of the layout. The challenge I have is the
illegal lot situation. I mean we are put in a rough spot regards timingwise, to
recommend to -- as a recommending body to the City Council on having you
guys build on an illegal lot, that's the challenge of putting this forward and having
you -- especially we were talking about five buildings instead of three, that
becomes a very difficult situation without having one thing done in the middle.
So, we have to put a whole lot of conditions on -- on the approval or -- or have
you bond for that additional open space. I mean that's the challenge.
Elton: We will make sure we have the amenities. This will all be in compliance.
We are not asking for that type of a compliance variance. We will be in
compliance for sure. But the illegal lot issue -- and I apologize that maybe this
should be a private conversation with staff, but I thought we weren't il legal
anymore, because of the -- the approval of Rainer Villas previously.
Beach: The final plat has not been recorded.
Elton: Okay. So, I will say, Commissioner Fitzgerald, just -- just -- just to clarify
something that you said. In this case you're not a recommending body. This is a
conditional use permit, so you're making the decision tonight.
Fitzgerald: Thank you.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
January 19, 2017
Page 12 of 16
Beach: So, with that -- and I think I have discussed this with the applicant as well
-- not to go too far down this road, but we can't just rely specifically on the
certificate of zoning compliance to meet some of these things and I have worked
to try to discuss that with -- with Shannon, one of the applicants, that it did need
to be further well nail down at this point. We need to -- we need to have the
amenities that we are going to have. We need to have buildings where they are
going to be. Having this be technically an illegal lot until it records doesn't allow a
whole lot of leeway in building the number of buildings they want to build prior to
that being recorded. So, that -- and not even have it be so much code, but it's
not a legal lot. So, we can't let them put anything on that lot until it's an actual lot.
So, if they want to entertain putting open space along the road -- it gets a little bit
complicated in figuring out how to do it so that it's attractive, so that they don't
have open space that's there for a little while and , then, they remove it, put a
building there and we will be open space somewhere else. You know what I'm
saying? So, we are just trying to make sure that the timing for everything fits
where it needs to fit and that they can move forward and I think -- I think we can
get there. I think getting the final plat recorded is going to help a lot and having
that -- you know, in our conditions we tried to kind of make that point that it -- a
lot of this is contingent on getting that final plat recorded and once that happens
things will start to fall into place, so --
Baird: Madam Chair, if I could add, I have a concern that under consideration is
the idea of bonding for the amenities on a lot that you're not even approving
construction for. What happens -- and this is possibly a question for you to ask
the applicant. What happens if they build -- get the building permits, build the
buildings, and there is some impossibility that prevents that lot? The city's been
in this situation too many times where building permits have been issued and,
then, leasing agents sign contracts and there is one or two things remaining and
we got people who have already given notice and I want to move in and there is
just a lot of pressure, so I'm just saying I would caution you against setting up a
situation where you have got approved apartments without proper open space for
amenities.
McCarvel: Uh-huh. Thank you. Any other questions for the applicant? Thank
you. At this time we would like to take public testimony and I'm assuming --
Devin, you have signed up to speak. But you have said your peace? Okay. So,
I don't think we need to have the applicant come back forward. At this time could
I get a motion to close the public hearing for --
Fitzgerald: There is one more gentleman back there.
McCarvel: Okay.
Fitzgerald: Madam Chair, I'd move we close the public hearing.
Bernt: Second.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
January 19, 2017
Page 13 of 16
McCarvel: All right. All those in favor? All those opposed? Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. TWO ABSENT.
McCarvel: Okay. Thoughts? Comments?
Fitzgerald: Madam Chair?
McCarvel: Commissioner Fitzgerald.
Fitzgerald: First, Josh, thank you for pointing out the CUP thing. That's a big --
and it was floating around my brain initially when I was reading through
packages, but that's a big deal. Because we are moving this thing forward in a
permanent way, so -- and, Ted, thank you for your guidance, because I think
that's -- that's my biggest hang up is we don't have -- we don't have any teeth to
base our decision on without making it very difficult, so --
Baird: Madam Chair and Mr. Fitzgerald, I want you to urge the applicant if they
have a solution that we haven't thought of to propose it . I just -- haven't seen that
certainty yet that you usually would require.
McCarvel: Thank you. Any other comments? I agree with Commissioner
Fitzgerald. I just think there is still a lot of balls up in the air and I don't -- I don't
feel comfortable moving forward. I don't -- I don't oppose the idea of the
increased density. I think it's the place for it. But I just think to move the project
forward at this point -- I think some things definitely need to be ironed out.
Fitzgerald: Madam Chair? And I would tend to agree. I -- and to the applicant
and -- I think you guys have a good project. I think it's a better project than you
had before with the additional lots. I think we are in a position that it's just difficult
to move it forward without having one of the pieces finalized and so we need the
lot that's already in for a final plat to be finished. But I think that's -- it makes it
very difficult to have the open space you would have to remove to build a building
on and, then, it's a waste of your money, it's -- it's a challenge. And so I'd rather
continue it until we have some surety somewhere on one side or the other.
McCarvel: Probably continue it until, you know, the easements are clear and --
yeah.
Fitzgerald: The vacations are complete and they have a final plat. And/or.
McCarvel: Right.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
January 19, 2017
Page 14 of 16
Cassanelli: Madam Chair, I'm in a hundred agreement on that. I just said -- I
think without that final approval on that plat it's -- too many things could go
wrong.
McCarvel: Yeah.
Perreault: I agree. Madam Chair, with -- with Bill and Commissioner Fitzgerald
in that regard.
McCarvel: Okay.
Cassanelli: I do want to add that I -- that I like the -- I didn't see the -- the project
from -- the previous project, but I like the project. It's a great looking project.
Parsons: Madam Chair, Members of the Commission, just some clarification. As
I pointed out to you, the applicant has an approved final plat and they do have a
condition to modify their final plat. So, it's certainly within your purview to
continue this out and have the applicant process their final plat modification in
front of Council and see what they will allow them to do ahead of the plat
recording. Certainly the final plat modification does not require a public hearing -
- it's not a public hearing, so it doesn't require neighborhood meeting or posting
of the site. It is an application to our department that we could process in two to
three weeks to get it in front of Council. The applicant could get his -- get -- see
where the Council's blessing -- whether or not they support moving forward on
that prior to recording the plat. Talk to them about that condition for constructing
corporate with the first phase. That's -- again, that's the appropriate mechanism.
So, if -- if it's in your purview, if you want to give them a little bit of flexibility
without having a recorded plat, but at least have them get a final plat modification
approved from City Council to give you some assurances to make a decision, we
can certainly expedite some of that for you and come back in a month or six
weeks and let you know what the City Council did on that final plat modification
and, then, we can put some conditions that they don't get occupancy of any
structures until that plat records. That's probably the cleanest way to do it.
McCarvel: Uh-huh.
Fitzgerald: Madam Chair?
McCarvel: Mr. Fitzgerald.
Fitzgerald: And I -- Bill, I appreciate you bringing that up, because I don't want to
delay you guys any more than you can. So, when the ground thaws and I would
love to be able to move this thing forward. I think that's wise counsel. I think it --
let this take -- let the plat be amended and that gives us the ability to know a little
bit more about where the Council goes. I think that's wise counsel, so --
Meridian Planning & Zoning
January 19, 2017
Page 15 of 16
McCarvel: And just make sure everything is in place. Okay. I do have one
question. If the motion is going to be to continue it, do we want -- do we need to
have a specific date on it or --
Baird: Madam Chair, Members of the Commission, it's our recommendation that
you do identify a date certain, so that renoticing wouldn't be required.
McCarvel: Okay.
Baird: You can always -- and when you get to that date if the applicant doesn’t
feel they have the information that they think -- that you think that you need, they
can request another continuance.
McCarvel: Okay.
Baird: Which would also be made on the record, so --
McCarvel: Okay. So, question for staff and the applicant. Do we need -- you
said three, four weeks? What do you think? Or -- five to six? What do you think
is --
Parsons: Madam Chair, Members of the Commission, the soonest we could get
it on the agenda would be probably the third hearing in February, just based on
we are falling at now for this time.
McCarvel: So, it would be February 16th or March 2nd.
Parsons: Yeah. February 16th is when we could get the -- because we don't --
the second Tuesday of February is not a City Council hearing, so it would be that
third Tuesday and then -- so, maybe --
McCarvel: It would be March 2nd.
Parsons: Would probably be -- give them enough time and to get -- and in your
continuance if you want any issues resolved on the site plan that you want to
discuss, you can, please, include that in your motion as well, so we can get those
modifications in front of you as well.
McCarvel: Okay.
Fitzgerald: And I would urge the applicant to -- if you guys have a different
solution that you can bring the Council -- or I mean to staff in the meantime,
please, let us know what it is, because I think that's -- I think we can figure out --
we have a great staff that seems to solve problems out of thin air, which I am
amazed by. So, that would be great.
Item #4A: Rainier Villas (H-2016-0129)
Application(s):
Conditional Use Permit
Preliminary Plat
Size of property, existing zoning, and location: This site consists of 7.52 acres of land, zoned C-G, located west of N. Meridian
Road between W. Corporate Drive and W. Penwood Street.
Adjacent Land Use & Zoning:
North: Vacant commercial property, zoned C-G
South: Self-storage facility, zoned C-G
East: Trade Plaza Subdivision, zoned C-G
West: Vacant and developed commercial property, zoned C-G
History: In 2008, this property was platted as part of the Trade Plaza preliminary plat (PP-08-011). The previous plat has since expired
and this is a remnant parcel that must be subdivided in order to be eligible for a building permit.
In 2016 a preliminary plat was approved consisting of fifteen (15) multi-family residential lots and five (5) common lots; a
conditional use permit was also concurrently approved for the property to have 90 multi-family units (H-2016-0041).
Also in 2016, a final plat was approved consisting of fifteen (15) multi-family residential lots and five (5) common lots (H-2016-
0107).
Comprehensive Plan FLUM Designation: Commercial
Summary of Request:
In 2016, a preliminary and final plat were approved on this property (H-2016-0041, H-2016-0107). The plat as proposed as
part of this application is not consistent with what was approved as part of the previous applications. The applicant will be
required to apply for a final plat modification due to the extent of the requested changes.
Conditional Use Permit (CUP): In June of 2016, a conditional use permit was approved for this property to allow for 88 multi-
family units.
The applicant has acquired additional property bringing the total acreage from 5.35 to 7.52 acres and is requesting a new CUP
to increase the acreage and to increase the number of units from the approved 88 up to the requested 180. This new CUP
request will replace the previously approved CUP on this property (H-2016-0041).
The UDC (Table 11-2B-2) requires CUP approval for a multi-family development in the C-G zoning district.
The multi-family residential development is proposed to consist of 180 dwelling units within eleven (11) structures. The units
will consist of 2- and 3-bedrooms with a minimum size of 850 sq. ft. The applicant proposes a play structure, a sports court, a
splash pad, a clubhouse and a grassy area 50 feet by 100 feet in size.
Multi-family residential uses are consistent with those desired in Commercial designated areas and are allowed in the C-G
district as a conditional use.
Specific Use Standards: The specific use standards for multi-family developments listed in UDC 11-4-3-27 apply to
development of this site as follows: (Staff’s comments in italics)
• A minimum of 80 square feet (s.f.) of private useable open space is required to be provided for each unit.
Private useable open space in accord with UDC standards is proposed for each unit in the form of private patios and
balconies.
• Developments with 20 units or more shall provide a property management office, a maintenance storage area, a
central mailbox location with provisions for parcel mail that provides safe pedestrian and/or vehicular access and a
directory map of the development at an entrance or convenient location for those entering the development.
The site plan submitted by the applicant appears to meet these requirements as set forth in UDC 11-4-3-27.
• At a minimum, 250 s.f. of common open space is required for each unit containing more than 500 s.f. and up to 1,200
s.f. of living area.
All of the proposed units contain between 500 and 1,200 square feet of living area. Therefore, a minimum of 45,000
s.f. (or 1.03 acres) of common open space is required to be provided for the development.
Common open space is required to be a minimum of 400 sq.ft. of area with a minimum length and width dimension of
20 feet. The calculations table depicts 59,541 sq.ft. of common open space proposed. The applicant is
proposing to use an additional 5,000 sq. ft. as an amenity.
The applicant is also proposing open space adjacent to a collector roadway. UDC section 11-4-3-27C.4 requires
that open space adjacent to a collector roadway be separated from the street by a berm or constructed
barrier at least four feet (4’) in height, with breaks in the berm or barrier to allow pedestrian access.
• For multi-family developments with 75 units or more, 4 site amenities are required to be provided with at least one
from each category listed in UDC 11-4-3-27D.
Because 180 units are proposed, 4 amenities must be provided for the site with at least one from each category (i.e.
quality of life, open space, recreation). The proposed amenities include a clubhouse with a fitness facility, a sports
court, a play structure, a splash pad, a hot tub, an outdoor patio and an open grassy area at least 50 feet by 100 feet.
• The architectural design of the structures shall comply with the standards set forth in the Architectural Standards
Manual.
The conceptual elevations are included in Exhibit A.4. Staff is supportive of the proposed structures as they appear to
generally comply with the standards of the Architectural Standards Manual. The structures should provide variation in
materials and colors as required by the ASM.
• Landscaping is required to comply with UDC 11-4-3-27-F. All street facing elevations shall have landscaping along
their foundation as follows: the landscaped area shall be at least 3-feet wide and have an evergreen shrub with a
minimum mature height of 24 inches for every 3 linear feet of foundation. The remainder of the area shall be
landscaped with ground cover plants.
The landscape plan appears to comply with this requirement.
• The development is required to record legally binding documents that state the maintenance and ownership
responsibilities for the management of the development, including, but not limited to, structures, parking, common
areas, and other development features.
The applicant should submit documentation of compliance with this requirement with the Certificate of
Zoning Compliance application.
Dimensional Standards: The proposed plat is required to comply with the dimensional standards of the C-G zoning district
listed in UDC Tables 11-2B-3. Staff has reviewed the proposed plat and found the plat to comply with the requirements of the
C-G district.
Access: Access to this development is proposed from W. Pennwood Street and W. Corporate Drive. The site plan as
submitted depicts two (2) access points to W. Corporate Drive which is a collector roadway. The access points were approved
with a previous application.
The applicant will have to execute a reciprocal cross access and shared parking agreement between all of the lots to ensure
that they all have local street access in accord with UDC 11-3A-3. The applicant must include a note on the face of the final
plat that details this requirement or provide a separate recorded copy of the agreement prior to signature on the final plat.
Sidewalks: UDC 11-3A-17 requires detached sidewalks to be constructed along all collector streets. The applicant is
proposing to construct 5-foot wide attached sidewalk adjacent to W. Pennwood Street and along Corporate Drive in accord
with the UDC standards.
Parking: Off-street vehicle parking is required to be provided on the site in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3C-6.
For multi-family developments, parking standards are based on the number of bedrooms per unit – 1-bedroom units require
1.5 spaces per unit with at least one of those in a covered carport or garage and 2-bedroom units require 2 spaces per unit
with at least one of those in a covered carport or garage. For the recommended clubhouse, one space is required for every
500 s.f. of gross floor area. A clubhouse floor plan was submitted with the application with an approximate square footage of
2,400. In accordance with the previously mentioned parking requirement for a clubhouse, the site plan shall provide 5 stalls for
the clubhouse.
All of the units in the proposed development will have 2-3 bedrooms. A total of 353 parking spaces are required, with 180 in
covered spaces. The applicant has provided 370 parking spaces total, but has not shown the required number of covered
spaces. Associated carport structures are required as part of this project. At the time of CZC submittal, the applicant shall
provide a revised site plan showing the required number of covered stalls, as well as an exhibit showing the design
of the structures.
A minimum of one bicycle parking space for every 25 proposed vehicle spaces or portion thereof is required to be provided on
the site per UDC 11-3C-6G in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3C-5C. Based on 370 vehicle spaces proposed to
be provided on the site, a minimum of 15 bicycle spaces are required. The site plan indicates that twenty one (21) bicycle
parking spaces are provided.
Landscaping: Street buffer landscaping along W. Corporate Drive is required as set forth in UDC Table 11-2B-3.
Landscaping is required to be installed within the street buffer in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3B-7C.
Parking lot landscaping is required to be provided in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3B-8C. The landscaping
appears to comply with these standards.
Fencing: Any fencing proposed to be constructed on the site shall comply with the standards listed in UDC 11-3A-7. A 6-foot
tall wrought iron fence is proposed around the tot-lot, basketball court nd splash pad; A 6-foot tall vinyl fence is proposed on
the east and west sides of the development.
Trash Enclosures: Trash enclosures (and other service functions) are required to be incorporated into the overall design of
buildings and landscaping so that the visual and acoustic impacts of these functions are fully contained and out of view from
adjacent properties and public streets. Safe access and adequate lighting should be provided in these areas in accord with
UDC 11-3A-12B.
A detail of the trash enclosures should be submitted with the Certificate of Zoning Compliance application(s).The
enclosures and locations should be approved by Bob Olsen, Republic Services.
Building Elevations: Building elevations were submitted for the multi-family structures. The architectural elevations appear to
generally meet the requirements of the Architectural Standards Manual. No building elevations were submitted for the
carports. These shall be submitted with the Certificate of Zoning Compliance application.
Certificate of Zoning Compliance: The applicant is required to obtain approval of a Certificate of Zoning Compliance
application for establishment of the new use and to ensure all site improvements comply with the provisions of the UDC and
the conditions in this report prior to application for building permits, in accord with UDC 11-5B-1.
Design Review: The applicant is required to submit an application for Design Review concurrent with the Certificate of Zoning
Compliance application in accord with UDC 11-5B-8. All structures built on the site are required to comply with the City’s
design standards and Architectural Standards Manual and obtain design review approval; the proposed elevations
are conceptual only and are not approved.
Staff recommends approval of the proposed CUP application with the recommended conditions of approval in Exhibit B.
Written Testimony: None
Staff Recommendation: Approval with conditions
Notes:
Possible Motions:
Approval
After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to recommend approval to the City Council of File Number H-
2016-0041, as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of May 19, 2016, with the following modifications: (Add any
proposed modifications to conditions)
Denial
After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to recommend denial to the City Council of File Number H-2016-
0041, as presented during the hearing on May 19, 2016, for the following reasons: (You should state specific reasons for denial)
Continuance
I move to continue File Number H-2016-0041 to the hearing date of (insert continued hearing date here) for the following
reason(s): (You should state specific reason(s) for continuance)
Planning & Zoning
Commission Meeting
January 19, 2017
Item #4A: Rainier Villas
Vicinity/Zoning & Aerial Maps
Rainier Villas
Site Plan
Landscape Plan
Conceptual Building Elevations