2017 03-16
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Agenda – Thursday, March 16, 2017 Page 1 of 2
All materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian.
Anyone desiring accommodation for disabilities related to documents and/or hearing,
please contact the City Clerk’s Office at 888-4433 at least 48 hours prior to the public meeting.
City Council Chambers
33 E. Broadway Avenue, Meridian, Idaho
Thursday, March 16, 2017 at 6:00 p.m.
1. Roll-call Attendance
__X_ Treg Bernt __O__ Steven Yearsley
__X__ Gregory Wilson __O___ Ryan Fitzgerald
__X__ Jessica Perreault ___O__ Bill Cassanelli
___X__ Rhonda McCarvel – Chairperson
2. Adoption of the Agenda Approved
3. Consent Agenda Approved
A. Approve Minutes of March 2, 2017 Planning and Zoning
Commission Meeting
B. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval:
Rainier Villas (H-2016-0129) by Shannon Robnett Located West
of N. Meridian Road, Between W. Corporate Drive and W.
Pennwood Street
4. Action Items
A. Public Hearing for Meridian Meadows Senior Community (H-
2017-0011) by Giza Development/Michael Wright Located 2662
E. Magic View Drive Recommend Approval to City Council
with Modifications – Schedule for City Council April 18, 2017
1. Request: Annexation and Zoning of 5.28 Acres of Land
with an L-O Zoning District
2. Request: Conditional Use Permit for a
Nursing/Residential Care Facility in an L-O Zoning
District
MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING
COMMISSION MEETING
AGENDA
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Agenda – Thursday, March 16, 2017 Page 2 of 2
All materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian.
Anyone desiring accommodation for disabilities related to documents and/or hearing,
please contact the City Clerk’s Office at 888-4433 at least 48 hours prior to the public meeting.
B. Public Hearing for Melissa’s Daycare (H-2017-0015) by Laurie
Gallia Located 523 E. Brown Bear Approve with Modifications
– Prepare Findings of Fact for April 6, 2017
1. Request: Conditional Use Permit Approval of a Daycare
Group for up to Twelve (12) Children in an R-8 Zoning
District
C. Public Hearing for Goddard Creek (H-2017-0007) by Brian
Porter Located at 2780 W. McMillan Road Continued Public
Hearing to April 20, 2017 Planning and Zoning Commission
Meeting
1. Request: Rezone of 12.38 Acres of Land from R-4 to the
R-40 (5 Acres) and the C-C (7.38 Acres) Zoning Districts
2. Request: Amendment to the Comprehensive Plan
Future Land Use Map to Change the Land Use
Designation on 12.38 Acres of Land from Office and
High Density Residential to Mixed-Use Community
3. Request: Conditional Use Permit for a Self-Storage
Facility Consisting of Ten (10 Buildings on
Approximately 7.38 Acres of Land in the Proposed C-C
Zoning District
4. Request: Conditional Use Permit for a Multi-Family
Development Consisting of Eight-Two (82) Dwelling
Units in the Proposed R-40 Zoning District on Five (5)
Acres of Land
5. Request: Preliminary Plat Approval Consisting of
Twenty-Two (22) Building Lots and Five (5) Common
Lots on 12.38 Acres of Land in the Proposed C-C and R-
40 Zoning Districts
Meeting Adjourned at 9:35 p.m.
Changes to Agenda: None
Item #4A: Meridian Meadows Senior Community (H-2017-0011)
Application(s):
Annexation & Zoning
Conditional Use Permit
Size of property, existing zoning, and location: This site consists of 5.28 acres of land, zoned RUT in Ada County, located at 2662
E. Magic View Drive.
Adjacent Land Use & Zoning:
North: Rural residential homes in Greenhill Estates, zoned R1 in Ada County
East: Rural residential property with a home, zoned RUT in Ada County
South: E. Magic View Drive & 2 rural residential properties, zoned RUT in Ada County
West: Single-family attached homes in the development process (Waverly Place), zoned R-8
History: This property is platted as Lot 5 in the Amended Magic View Subdivision. In 2016, a multi-family development was proposed
to develop on this site and was denied by City Council (i.e. Pope’s Garden).
Comprehensive Plan FLUM Designation: Office
Summary of Request: Request for annexation & zoning of 5.28 acres of land with an L-O zoning district consistent with the FLUM
designation of Office for this property. The proposed zoning will provide a transition in zoning and uses from adjacent residences to the
west, north & east and future commercial uses to the south & east. A DA is recommended as a provision of annexation with the
provisions noted in the staff report.
A CUP is requested for a nursing/residential care facility in the proposed L-O district. The site plan submitted with the application
depicts two buildings; one consisting of 37,800 s.f. with 50 skilled nursing/residential units and one consisting of 43,400 s.f. containing
30 assisted living and 30 memory care units.
Two driveway accesses are proposed via E. Magic View Drive, classified as a local street on the west end and as a collector street on
the east end. The UDC requires access to be provided from a local street when one exists and restricts access to collector streets
unless otherwise waived by Council; the applicant is requesting a waiver from Council for the access via the collector street. Right-of-
way for Hickory Way is stubbed to this site at the NWC from Greenhill Estates Subdivision; however, the ROW has never been opened
or the stub constructed. Extension of the stub is not proposed but a gated emergency access is proposed.
The Comp Plan supports stub streets being extended for vehicular connections between developments and better traffic flow. In this
case, traffic currently flows east to Eagle Road and west through Woodbridge Subdivision to Locust Grove Road. Extension of Hickory
Way south to Magic View Drive will provide a means of access in this area via Franklin Road to the north, which will improve traffic flow
and better disperse traffic in this area. Therefore, staff recommends that Hickory Way is extended along the west boundary of this site
with development. Staff further recommends that the Commission continue this project in order to allow the applicant time to revise the
site/landscape plan to include the extension of Hickory Way.
Note: When ACHD reviewed the previous development plan for this site (Pope’s Garden), the off -site portion of unopened right-of-way
(Hickory Way) at the NWC of the site was required to be improved as a pedestrian, bicycle and emergency access only; the ROW for
the future extension of Hickory Way from the north property line to Magic View Drive was not to be dedicated as right -of-way to ACHD
but as an easement to the City. Their position on this matter has not changed.
Where access to a local street is not available, the property owner is required to grant a cross -access/ingress-egress easement to
adjoining properties. Because access isn’t available via a local street for the adjacent property to the east, staff recommen ds a cross-
access/ingress-egress easement is provided to the property to the east.
Two conceptual perspective drawings of the entrances of the future structures were submitted with this application as shown. Building
materials are proposed to consist of horizontal & vertical board and batten style hardie board siding of multiple colors, stone veneer
columns and accent walls at the entrance with asphalt shingles. The architectural character of the structures is required to comply with
the standards listed in UDC 11-3A-19 and the Architectural Standards Manual.
Written Testimony: Kent Brown, Applicant’s Representative (response to the staff report)
Staff Recommendation: Approval w/conditions in Exhibit B of the staff report
Notes:
Possible Motions:
Continuance
I move to continue File Number H-2017-0011 to the hearing date of (insert continued hearing date here) for the following
reason(s): (You should state specific reason(s) for continuance.)
Approval
After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to recommend approval to the City Council of File Number H-
2017-0011, as presented during the hearing on March 16, 2017, with the following modifications: (Add any proposed
modifications).
Denial
After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to recommend denial to the City Council of File Number H-2017-
0011, as presented during the hearing on March 16, 2017, for the following reasons: (You should state specific reasons for denial)
Item #4B: Melissa’s Daycare – H-2017-0015
Application(s):
Conditional Use Permit
Size of property, existing zoning, and location: The subject property consists of 0.192 of an acre, zoned R-8 , located at
523 E. Brown Bear.
Adjacent Land Use & Zoning: The property is located in the Fothergille Pointe Sub and is surrounded by single family
residential homes.
History:
• In 1993, the property was annexed and zoned R-8 and preliminary platted as part of Fothergille Heights Subdivision.
• In 1999, the property was granted an accessory use permit (AUP 99-007) for a family daycare for up to 6 children at
any one time.
Comprehensive Plan FLUM Designation: MDR
Summary of Request: The request is for a conditional use permit to operate of a 1,549 square foot daycare group for up
to 12 children in an R-8 zoning district. The UDC allows for up to 6 children in a “daycare family” with an accessory use
permit in the R-8 zoning district. To allow up to 12 children in a “daycare group”, the R-8 zoning district requires a
conditional use permit. One of the main reasons for this distinction is the increased number of vehicle trips for the
“daycare group.”
There are specific use standards listed in UDC 11-4-3-9 that apply to daycare facilities that the applicant shall comply
with. The applicant shall pave the 3 stalls as shown on the site plan.
Certificate of Zoning Compliance: Due to the fact that the proposed daycare center use is within an existing building
and no site or exterior building modifications are proposed a Certificate of Zoning Compliance application will not be
required to commence the proposed use on this site. All interior modifications (tenant improvements) associated with the
daycare center use must receive all required permits and inspections from the Building Division of the Community
Development Department prior to operation of the daycare center.
NOTE: The City has adopted a local amendment to the international building code (IBC) that does not require a change in
occupancy of the home if it is to operate as a daycare facilities for twelve or fewer children. Because the occupancy of the
home is not changing from residential to non-residential, the parking for non-residential uses doesn’t apply. However,
staff has concerns with the limited parking on the site and is recommending that the applicant pave the gravel area on the
east side the driveway in accord with UDC standards. The applicant anticipates that the arrival of the children will be
staggered so that the provided parking both on the driveway and the additional off-street stall will be sufficient.
The applicant shall pave the current gravel parking space in order to use it as one of the three required spaces.
Staff recommends approval of the proposed CUP with the conditions listed in Exhibit B.
Written Testimony: None
Staff Recommendation: Approval w/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-2017-0015, as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of March 16, 2017, 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-2017-0015, as presented during the hearing on March 16, 2017, for the following reasons: (You should
state specific reasons for denial)
Continuance
I move to continue File Number H-2017-0015 to the hearing date of (insert continued hearing date here) for the
following reason(s): (You should state specific reason(s) for continuance)
Item #4C: Goddard Creek – H-2017-0007
Application(s):
Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment
Conditional Use Permit for a multi-family development in an R-40 zoning district.
Conditional Use Permit for a self-storage facility in a C-C zoning district.
Rezone
Preliminary Plat
Development Agreement Modification
Size of property, existing zoning, and location: The subject property consists of 12.38 acres of land zoned R-4 at 2780
W. McMillan Road.
Adjacent Land Use & Zoning:
1. North: Selway Apartments, zoned R-4
2. East: Residential property with a home, zoned L-O
3. South: W. McMillan Road and single-family homes in the R-4 and R-8 zoning districts
4. West: Vacant commercial property, zoned L-O
History: This property was granted annexation, preliminary plat, and a conditional use permit as part of the Lochsa Falls
Subdivision in 2002 (AZ-02-010, PP-02-009, CUP 02-012) and has a development agreement (Instrument #102012598).
The conditional use permit allowed for 11 office buildings to be built within the R-4 zoning district. The subject property
was one such property selected to have office uses.
Comprehensive Plan FLUM Designation: HDR, Office
A. Summary of Request: Rezone (RZ):
The applicant requests approval to rezone 12.38 acres of land from R-4 to R-40 (5 acres) and C-C (7.38 acres)
zoning districts consistent with the proposed FLUM designation of MU-C.
The applicant has submitted a site plan that depicts (82) attached structures. The proposed R-40 zoning district
will accommodate the proposed multi-family development with a gross density of 16.40 dwelling units per acre.
The proposed self-storage facility with a total square footage of 143,964 will accommodate the entire project on
site.
The legal description submitted with the application, included in Exhibit C, shows the boundaries of the property
proposed to be annexed and zoned. The property is contiguous to land that has been annexed into the City and is
within the Area of City Impact boundary.
B. DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT MODIFICATION (MDA): A modification to the existing development agreement
(DA) (Instrument No. 103012598) is requested to remove this property from the existing development agreement
and to enter into a new development agreement with the associated concept plan and elevations (see Exhibits A.4
and A.5).
The existing DA approved for the property does not reflect the current owner’s desires for the property’s
development. In order to accommodate the proposed development, the applicant’s request (and staff’s
recommendation) is that the proposed development be placed in a new development agreement with the
associated zoning designations, elevations, and concept plan.
The proposed conceptual development plan depicts an 82-unit multi-family attached housing development and a
143,964 square foot self-storage complex.
C. Preliminary Plat (PP):
The applicant proposes a new preliminary plat consisting of 22 residential building lots, one (1) commercial lot,
and 5 common area lots on 12.38 acres of land in the proposed C-C and R-40 zoning districts.
Access: Access to streets is required to comply with the standards listed in UDC 11-3A-3. The UDC (11-3A-3)
requires access to be taken from a local street when available. The applicant is requesting a Council waiver to
allow for direct access to W. McMillan Road. ACHD has approved the proposed access points.
The proposed plat depicts access for the multi-family portion of the project via W. Apgar Creek Lane (Private
Street), at the north boundary of the site. Direct access to the storage portion is provided through an access to W.
McMillan Road and emergency access is provided at N. Three Links Lane. Staff recommends that the applicant
provide a gated access to the vacant office parcel to facilitate another emergency access when the office park
develops. An emergency access to the multi-family portion of the project is also proposed from W. McMillan
Road.
Traffic Impact Study (TIS): A TIS was not required by ACHD for this development.
Landscaping: Street buffer landscaping is required to be provided along collector streets as set forth in UDC
Table 11-2A-7 per the standards listed in UDC 11-3B-7C; buffers are not required along local streets in the R-15
zone. A 25 foot landscape buffer is required along W. McMillan Road.
Open Space: A minimum of 10% of the multi-family portion of the site is required to consist of qualified open
space in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3G-3B in addition to that required by UDC 11-4-3-27 for
multi-family developments (see CUP analysis below).
A total of 1.56 acres of qualified open space is proposed consisting of half of the landscape buffer along W.
McMillan Road, stormwater detention facilities, a 50’ X 100’ area that is also called out as a stormwater detention
area and internal micropaths consistent with UDC standards (see Exhibit A.4). Stormwater detention facilities
must comply with the design standards listed in UDC 11-3B-11.
Site Amenities: A minimum of one qualified site amenity that meets the requirements listed in UDC 11-3G-3C is
required to be provided within this development in addition those required by UDC 11-4-3-27 for multi-family
developments (see CUP analysis below).
A tot lot and a public art piece are proposed as amenities. The applicant shall provide details of both amenities
prior to the Commission hearing to ensure that the amenities meet the requirements in UDC 11-3G-3C.
Fencing: A 6-foot tall fence is depicted on the landscape plan along the west boundary of the storage portion of
the project. All fencing should comply with the standards listed in UDC 11-3A-7. The applicant shall provide
fencing around the 25-foot landscape buffer along the north boundary. Staff is concerned that this area is screened
from view from the adjacent streets and could be a potential nuisance area.
The site plan indicates a number of paths to connect to the existing landscape buffer and sidewalk along N.
Goddard Creek Way. This is a common lot for the Kelly Creek Subdivision. The applicant will need to work with
the Kelly Creek HOA in order to coordinate those improvements.
Sidewalks: Sidewalks are required to be provided with development in accord with the standards listed in UDC
11-3A-17. Staff is also recommending that the applicant provide a sidewalk from the north boundary of the site to
connect to the existing sidewalk along the south side of W. Apgar Creek Lane and continue south within the
proposed landscape easement to connect to the proposed sidewalk along W. McMillan Road.
Micropaths shall be placed in common lots or an easement needs to be in place indicating who is
responsible for maintenance of those areas.
D. Conditional Use Permit(s) (CUP) Multi-family:
A CUP is requested for a multi-family development in the proposed R-40 zoning district as required by UDC
Table 11-2A-2.
The proposed multi-family development consists of 82 dwelling units consisting of (12) townhouse buildings,
each unit containing 2-3-bedrooms.
Specific Use Standards: The specific use standards for multi-family developments listed in UDC 11-4-3-27
apply to development of this site
An on-site property management office is proposed within one of the units; the site plan submitted with
the Certificate of Zoning Compliance application should depict the exact location of the maintenance
storage area and directory map of the development.
The applicant shall be required to provide one (1) additional amenity on the multi-family portion of the
project to meet the requirements of Both UDC 11-3G-3 and 11-4-3-27, for a total of five (5) amenities.
Because homes on lots that back up to W. McMillan Road, W. Apgar Creek Lane, N. Goddard Creek
Way and the required pedestrian pathway within the landscape easement as indicated by the
preliminary plat, will be highly visible, staff recommends the rear or sides of structures on lots that face
these streets/common open spaces incorporate articulation through changes in materials, color,
modulation, and architectural elements (horizontal and vertical) to break up monotonous wall planes
and roof lines.
Administrative design review and Certificate of Zoning Compliance application(s) are required for both
uses to ensure final design of structures comply with this requirement and the City of Meridian
Architectural Standards Manual. See Building Elevations section below for more information.
The landscape plan submitted with the Certificate of Zoning Compliance should comply with this
requirement for the sides of the structures that face W. McMillan and N. Goddard Creek Way.
The applicant should submit documentation of compliance with this requirement with the Certificate of
Zoning Compliance application or prior to issuance of Certificate of Occupancy at the latest.
E. Conditional Use Permit(s) (CUP) Self-service Storage:
A second CUP is requested for a self-storage facility in the C-C zoning district as required by UDC Table 11-2B-
2. The storage units consist of 143,964 square feet of storage space on 5 acres of land.
Self-Service Storage Facilities: The specific use standards for the self-service storage facility listed in UDC 11-
4-3-34 apply to development of this site.
A secondary emergency only access is proposed via N. Three Links Lane, along the northern boundary of
the site. Staff recommends that the applicant connect to the existing 30’ cross access easement on the
west boundary of the site that was approved with Verona Subdivision No.4.
The secondary access for the proposed multi-family project is near the southeast corner of the multi-
family project and is an access to W. McMillan Road.
Self-Service Uses: The proposed use of the property is for a self-service storage facility. The project is required to
comply with UDC 11-3A-16.
Parking: For multi-family developments, off-street parking is required in accord with the standards listed in UDC
Table 11-3C-6. Based on (82) 2-3 bedroom units, a total of 164 parking spaces are required for the multi -family
development – 82 of which are required to be in a covered carport or garage. The site plan depicts a total of 205
parking spaces – 94 in enclosed garages, 94 on parking pads in front the garages, 4 ADA parking stalls, and 13
other stalls located throughout the development.
For non-residential uses such as the property management office, a minimum of one space is required to be
provided for every 500 square feet of gross floor area in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11 -3C-6B.
Based on roughly 100 square feet, a minimum of one parking space is required to be provided for the office.
Parking: Per UDC 11-3C-6B, in commercial districts, one off-street parking space is required per 500 square feet
of gross floor area. Based on the total square footage of the office structure on the site of roughly 1,500 square
feet, the applicant would be required to install three (3) parking stalls and one (1) ADA stall. The site plan shows
4 stalls and 1 ADA stall. This appears to be in compliance with the UDC.
Additionally, per UDC 11-3C-6G, one bicycle parking space is required to be provided for every 25 vehicle
spaces, in compliance with the standards listed in UDC 11-3C-5C. The submitted site plan shall include the one
(1) required bike rack.
Landscaping: Parking lot landscaping is required to be provided in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-
3B-8C as proposed.
Mitigation: There are existing trees on this site. The applicant is required to comply with the mitigation standards
listed in UDC 11-3B-10C.5 for any existing trees 4-inch caliper or greater that are removed from the site. Contact
Elroy Huff, City Arborist (208-371-1755), prior to removal of any existing trees from the site. Tree mitigation plan
should be located on the revised landscape plan submitted with the first CZC application.
Building Elevations: The architectural character of the structures shall comply with the standards listed in UDC
11-4-3-27E as noted above, and the City of Meridian Architectural Standards Manual.
Building elevations and floor plans were submitted for the proposed multi-family structures within this
development as shown in Exhibit A.5. Building materials consist of vertical board and batten siding, stone veneer
accents, and architectural shingles.
Staff recommends that with submittal of the CZC, that the applicant provide revised elevations that include
additional materials on the rear and side elevations for the multi-family development.
The proposed development is required to comply with the design review standards set forth in UDC 11-3A-19 and
the Meridian Design Manual. The applicant has submitted renderings that demonstrate how the site will be
viewed from the public streets and the future pathway. In the narrative, the proposed building materials for these
structures appear to include split face CMU block and stucco. Further review of the structures will take place with
the administrative design review application.
Certificate of Zoning Compliance: The applicant is required to obtain approval of a Certificate of Zoning
Compliance application for establishment of the new uses and to ensure all site improvements comply with the
provisions of the UDC and the conditions in this report prior to construction, 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. The site and building design is
required to be generally consistent with the elevations and site plan submitted with this application and the
standards listed in UDC 11-3A-19 and the City of Meridian Architectural Standards Manual.
In summary, Staff recommends approval of the proposed RZ, CPAM, PP, CUP and MDA applications with the
conditions included in Exhibit B and approval of the proposed RZ application with a development agreement that
includes the provisions listed in Exhibit B of this report in accord with the findings contained in Exhibit D. \
Written Testimony:
None
Staff Recommendation: Approval w/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-2017-0007, as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of March 16, 2017, 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-2017-0007, as presented during the hearing on March 16, 2017, for the following reasons: (You should
state specific reasons for denial)
Continuance
I move to continue File Number H-2017-0007 to the hearing date of (insert continued hearing date here) for the
following reason(s): (You should state specific reason(s) for continuance)
Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting March 16, 2017
Meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission of March 16, 2017,
was called to order at 6:00 p.m. by Chairman Rhonda McCarvel.
Members Present: Chairman Rhonda McCarvel, Commissioner Gregory Wilson,
Commissioner Treg Bernt, Commissioner Jessica Perreault and Commissioner
Bill Cassanelli.
Members Absent: Commissioner Steven Yearsley, Commissioner Ryan
Fitzgerald.
Others Present: Machelle Hill, Andrea Pogue, Bill Parsons, Sonya Allen, Josh
Beach and Dean Willis.
Item 1: Roll-call Attendance
__X___ Treg Bernt _______ Steven Yearsley
__X___ Gregory Wilson _______ Ryan Fitzgerald
__X___ Jessica Perreault ___X___ Bill Cassanelli
___X___ Rhonda McCarvel - Chairman
McCarvel: Apologize for the delay. We had a little bit of technical difficulty up
here tonight. 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 on March 16th. Let's begin with roll call.
Item 2: Adoption of the Agenda
McCarvel: Thank you. Okay. The first item on the agenda is the adoption of the
agenda. I understand we have no changes to the agenda . So, could I get a
motion to adopt the agenda?
Wilson: So moved.
Bernt: Second.
McCarvel: It has been moved and seconded to adopt the agenda. All in favor
say aye. Opposed? Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. TWO ABSENT.
Item 3: Consent Agenda
A. Approve Minutes of March 2, 2017 Planning and Zoning
Commission Meeting
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
March 16, 2017
Page 2 of 71
B. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval:
Rainier Villas (H-2016-0129) by Shannon Robnett
Located West of N. Meridian Road, Between W.
Corporate Drive and W. Pennwood Street
McCarvel: The next item on the agenda is the Consent Agenda and we have two
items on the Consent Agenda. We have approval of minutes for the March 2nd,
2017, P&Z meeting and the Findings of Fact and Approval of Law for Reiner
Village H-2016-0129. Could I get a motion to accept the Consent Agenda as
presented?
Bernt: So moved.
Wilson: Second.
McCarvel: It has been moved and seconded to adopt the Consent Agenda. All
in favor say aye. Opposed. Motion carried.
MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. TWO ABSENT.
McCarvel: Okay. At this time I would 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 approval of their application and to
respond to any staff comments. The applicant will have 15 minutes to do so.
After the applicant has finished we will open to 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 that
group, they will be given up to ten minutes and there is a timer on that screen
there, so you can watch your time. After all testimony has been heard the
applicant will be given another ten minutes to have the o pportunity 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 Meridian Meadows Senior Community
(H- 2017-0011) by Giza Development/Michael Wright
Located 2662 E. Magic View Drive
1. Request: Annexation and Zoning of 5.28 Acres of
Land with an L-O Zoning District
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
March 16, 2017
Page 3 of 71
2. Request: Conditional Use Permit for a
Nursing/Residential Care Facility in an L-O Zoning
District
McCarvel: At this time I'd like to open the public hearing for Item H-2017- 0011,
Meridian Meadows Senior Community. We will begin with the staff report.
Allen: Thank you. Chairman, Members of the Commission. The first item before
you tonight is a request for an annexation and zoning and conditional use permit.
This site consists of 5.28 acres of land. It's zoned RUT in Ada county and
located at 2662 East Magic View Drive. Adjacent land use and zoning. To the
north are rural residential homes in Greenhill Estates, zoned R-1 in Ada county.
To the east is a rural residential property with homes, zoned RUT in Ada county.
To the south is East Magic View Drive and two rural residential properties, also
zoned RUT in Ada county. And to the west are single family attached homes in
the development process in Waverly Place Subdivision, zoned R-8 this property
is platted as Lot 5 in the amended Magic View Subdivision. Last year a multi-
family development named Pope's Garden was proposed to develop on this site
and was denied by City Council. The comprehensive plan future land use map
designation for this property is office. The applicant is requesting annexation and
Zoning of 5.28 acres of land with an L-O zoning district consistent with the future
land use map designation of office for this property. The proposed zoning will
provided a transition and zoning and uses from adjacent residences to the west ,
north and east and future commercial uses to the south and the east. A
development agreement is recommended as a provision of annexation with the
provisions noted in the staff report in Exhibit B. A conditional use permit is
requested for a nursing and residential care facility in the proposed L-O zoning
district. The site plan submitted with the application as shown on the left depicts
two buildings, one consisting of 37,800 square feet, with 50 skilled nursing
residential units, and one consisting of 43,400 square feet, containing 30
assisted living and 30 memory care units. Actually, excuse me. The memory
care units are in the left structure and the residential care facilities is in the right
structure shown on the site plan there. Two driveway accesses are proposed
via East Magic View Drive, classified as a local street on the west end and as a
collector street on the east end. The Unified Development Code requires access
to be provided from a local street when one exists and restricts access to
collector streets, unless otherwise waived by City Council. The applicant is
requesting a waiver from Council for the access via the collector street on the
east end of the property here. If you can see my little arrow there. A right of way
for Hickory Way is stubbed to the site at the northwest corner from Greenhill
Estates Subdivision and you can see that right up here where my arrow is .
However, the right of way has never been opened or the stub street constructed.
Extension of the stub is not proposed, but a gated emergency access is
proposed with this development. The Comprehensive Plan supports stub streets
being extended for vehicular connections between developments and better
traffic flow. In this case traffic currently flows east to Eagle Road and west
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
March 16, 2017
Page 4 of 71
through Woodbridge Subdivision to Locust Grove Road. Extension of Hickory
Way south to Magic View Drive will provide a means of access in this area via
Franklin Road to the north, which will improve traffic flow and better disperse
traffic in this area. Therefore, staff is recommending that Hickory Way is
extended along the west boundary of the site with development. Staff further
recommends that the Commission continue this project in order to allow the
applicant time to revise the site and landscape plan to include the extension of
Hickory Way. ACHD did issue a staff report on this project. When they reviewed
the previous development plan for this site, Pope's Garden, the off-site portion of
the unopened right-of-way, Hickory Way at the northwest corner of the site was
required to be improved as a pedestrian, bicycle and emergency access only.
The right of way for the future extension of Hickory Way from the property line of
Magic View is not dedicated as right-of-way to ACHD, but as an easement to the
city. Their position on this matter has not changed. ACHD is not requiring the
right of way to be extended from Hickory to Magic View. Where access is --
access to a local street is not available, the property owner is required to grant a
cross-access ingress-egress easement to adjoining properties. Because access
is not available via local street for the adjacent property to the east, staff is
recommending a cross-access ingress- egress easement is provided to the
property to the east. I will just flip back there to that aerial map and that is this
property right here. Two conceptual perspective drawings of the entrances of the
future structures were submitted with this application as shown. Building
materials are proposed to consist of horizontal and vertical board and batten
style Hardie board siding of multiple colors, stone veneer columns and accent
walls at the entrance, with asphalt shingles. The architectural character of their
structures is required to comply with the standards listed in UDC 11-3A-19 and
the architectural standards manual. Written testimony has been received from
Kent Brown, the applicant's representative, in response to the staff report. Staff
is recommending approval with conditions in Exhibit B of the staff report. Staff
will stand for any questions.
McCarvel: Any questions for staff? Okay. Thank you. Would the applicant like
to come forward. And please state your name and address for the record.
Wright: Thank you, Madam Chair, Commissioners. My name is Michael Wright.
I'm with Giza Development, one of the developers of the project. My address is
801 North 500 West, Suite 300, in Bountiful, Utah. We come here tonight before
you to ask for approval of our recommendations and -- and our application. I
want to take just a few minutes and explain a little bit about our project and a little
bit about our history. This project is -- was stated by Sonya very distinctly as a
senior care facility. A campus, so to speak. We have fifty beds proposed for
skilled nursing. That would consist of physical rehabilitation of those residents
after surgery. For example, a knee replacement. They would be -- do a physical
rehabilitation. We would get them better and so they could return home to their
families. In the -- in the assisted living and memory care building, which is on the
left, those are for residents that need some assisted care with their daily
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
March 16, 2017
Page 5 of 71
activities. The -- we would provide, you know, a normal three day -- three meals
per day for our residents. Some of the care may include, you know, bathing or
help with just general hygiene for residents that struggle with that with their age.
We also have 30 beds of the memory care that are also planned. That would be
more of a dementia unit. People with Alzheimer's or dementia would be in a
lockdown safe environment where they can be cared for and they would not have
access to the public without being, excuse me, accompanied by a staff member.
Our operator partner is TanaBell Health Services. They have been recognized
by the state of Idaho as one of the premier caregivers in skilled nursing and also
they -- they run assisted living facilities as well in the state of Idaho. We feel very
confident about their ability to operate this facility in a good, clean manner and be
a good neighbor to the neighbors that surround the -- our senior community. At
this time we would -- I just want to ask if there are any questions that I can
answer, if there is any questions of commission members.
McCarvel: Okay. Any questions so far?
Perreault: I'm sorry, could you -- Madam Chair. Mr. Wright, could you state the
name of that operating facility again?
Wright: TanaBell Health Services.
Perreault: Okay. Thank you.
Wright: You bet.
McCarvel: I do have a question. I was wondering if you could speak a little -- it
seems -- in the staff report we heard a lot about the stub street going to the north
with the -- was it Hickory? Could you speak a little bit to your thoughts and plans
for that, if that's required?
Wright: We don't want to extend Hickory. That would kill our project, so to
speak, because we wouldn't have room to take care of both buildings and that's
what we need for the site. If you have further questions I'd like to ask Kent
Brown to come up --
McCarvel: Okay.
Wright: -- and address some of those as well.
McCarvel: Sure.
Brown: For the record Kent Brown. 3161 Springwood -- East Springwood.
When we were in a year ago there was a lot of discussion -- we came before the
Planning and Zoning Commission and were denied and, then, we went to the
highway district and, then, they removed the requirement of the street and ask
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
March 16, 2017
Page 6 of 71
that there only be an emergency access paved all the way to Autumn Way and
we, then, went to the City Council and the project was denied, but this room was
filled when we were remanded back, because we changed the site plan to
remove the -- the parking along the lines of what this project is like now and we
came back before Planning and Zoning and there were people sitting out in the
foyer and everybody really didn't want that road to go in. You heard hours of
testimony with regards to that. And, I don't know, two of you, maybe, were here
before that heard that testimony. But this room was filled with people in
opposition to us. So, when we met with the staff in our pre-application meeting,
we knew that this was kind of a problem and we tried to address that up front, so
that we didn't antagonize our neighbors by going back and forth and changing
the site over and over again and we came away from that meeting -- and the
notes that were in that pre-application meeting with the understanding that staff
wanted the connection, but that we were to follow what the highway district's
done. The highway district has acted. Their staff report is an action and they are
not requiring that Hickory be constructed from the end of Hickory to Magic View,
which is what the staff is asking you to continue this meeting and for us to
change our site plan and put that -- that roadway in. We are intending to put a
gated access on the unimproved and build as it was originally designed and
that's what's a part of our application. Does that answer your question?
McCarvel: Okay. Yeah.
Brown: Are there any other questions?
McCarvel: Any other questions?
Brown: Thank you.
McCarvel: Okay. All right. Thank you.
Wright: Any further questions for me?
McCarvel: Not at this time. We will go ahead and take public testimony and
then --
Wright: Thank you.
McCarvel: -- another opportunity. Okay. So, at this time we will take the public
testimony. I have David Ballard. Would you like to come forward? Please state
your name and address for the record.
Ballard: Madam Chair Person, my name is David Ballard. I reside at 2482 East
Springwood in Meridian. It's on the north end of the Greenhill Subdivision.
Hickory -- I'm at the corner of Hickory and Springwood . Across the subdivision is
the right of way that they are talking about. Three times last year staff
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
March 16, 2017
Page 7 of 71
recommended that the right of way be opened and three times they were denied
that. Staff was also instructed -- or, excuse me, City Council, at the end of their
meeting, made an instruction to study some alternatives. We have not heard
tonight how any of the facts changed. We have not heard why a stub street is
necessary for this development. What we have heard is they want the stub
street -- staff and no one else. Staff wants a stub street to allow further
commercial development south of the subdivision. They simply want to flush
traffic through the subdivision. There is no facts to support that. There is no
facts to support the change that was here a year ago . No facts for this to be
reconsidered. We have precedent that it is not necessary for that street to be
there for this project to be put in place. I do not oppose Mr. Brown's project. I do
oppose the attempt to re-bring -- or, excuse me, bring this issue back before this
Commission when it's been summarily rejected three times and there has been
no change of facts. There is no basis to put that stub street in, other than staff
wants to see other development -- not this development, other development. I
will stand for any questions.
McCarvel: Any questions? Thank you.
Ballard: Thank you.
McCarvel: Next person who wishes to speak is Ron Vance.
Vance: Hi. I'm Ronald Vance. 2621 East Autumn Way, Meridian. 83642. I'm
the -- I'm the house directly above the center of that property that is in question at
the moment and I, quite honestly, don't have a problem with the -- with what they
want to put in there. What was my concern and still is -- is the addition of the -- a
street from Autumn Way through to -- through the development on Hickory. I
bought the property with the intent of raising my granddaughters and other great
grandkids in there and it was a nice, quiet neighborhood. If they put that street in
there it's going to be a much less quiet, much more traffic'd area. It isn't needed
and the original plan they showed us was not including that extension . It
included the previously agreed-upon walkway, bicycle path. That's not a problem
and assuming that continues to be the case there wouldn't be a problem in my
opinion. There was a question we had in our meeting about a fence along the
north side of that property. Just something to -- to be a sight and sound barrier
and I haven't heard that discussed at all today. I don't know that that's still part of
the developers plan, but it should be considered if it's not and, again, my only
concern is the extension of Hickory through up to Autumn Way. That's going to
create a great deal more traffic through the neighborhood and right by my house.
Questions?
McCarvel: No. Thank you.
Vance: You're welcome.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
March 16, 2017
Page 8 of 71
McCarvel: Okay. Next on the list who wishes to testify is Celeste Fox.
Fox: Good evening, Commissioners. I'm Celeste Fox. 582 South Woodhaven
Avenue, Meridian. I live in Woodbridge. Not very long ago I stood before you
requesting that that apartment project be denied. We were really concerned
about the negative -- the negative of -- excuse me -- that it would -- it would have
for Woodbridge. The traffic is, as you know, really a cut-through issue. Now I'm
standing before you telling you that we want this to be approved . This is about
as good of a project as we think we could find in this particular location . Traffic is
such an issue and this project would least impact us that we could figure. We
also really do not approve of that road being cut through from Magic View into
Greenhill Estates. We really believe that that road would increase traffic through
Woodbridge, because they could just cut through and, then, get to Locust Grove.
We are just trying to do the best we can to keep that traffic at a minimum .
Anyway, we feel this is a really good project. This is the type of thing that we
kind of expected when we bought our houses. So, we respectfully request that
you recommend approval. Thank you.
McCarvel: Thank you. Rich Howell.
Howell: Good evening. My name is Rich Howell. I live at 2750 East Magic View
Drive and we farm the five acres to the east of this property and I think that this is
probably a good project. These will be good neighbors and I want to be a good
neighbor and I would like to see a berm and a solid fence put along between us
to shield them from our work in our fields. We -- sometimes we have to work in
the middle of the night. We have equipment, lights, and also I irrigate during the
night and I'd like to see us see them as shielded from our activities as much as
possible and I think a berm and a fence would do it and that's the only thing I
have to say on the thing.
McCarvel: Thank you.
Howell: Thank you.
McCarvel: Rene Fox? Rene, do you wish to testify? No? Gene? Oh, I'm sorry.
I thought that was an R. Gene Fox. I apologize. It looks just like my dad makes
his R's.
G.Fox: Yeah. My name is Gene Fox. I live at 582 South Woodhaven in
Meridian and I would like to ask this question. Who wrote this requirement
benefit? Certainly not going to benefit Woodhaven, us, because we have already
been through this before several times trying to discuss and argue against
increased traffic. The last time I was here we were discussing a 90 -- I think was
a 90 or 102 unit program on this same property. Staff did not require that Hickory
be punched through at that point, but they did approve the plan. Now we are
discussing a road which could very possibly destroy the project that's before us
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
March 16, 2017
Page 9 of 71
and it's a good project. It has the lowest possible impact on Meridian and the
lowest possible impact on Greenhaven as well. So, please, please don't require
this.
McCarvel: Okay.
G.Fox: Thank you.
McCarvel: Thank you. Lorrie Somazzi. Did you still wish to testify? Okay.
Please wait until you get to the microphone and, please, state your name and
address for the record first.
Somazzi: Laurie Somazzi. 1896 East Bowstring Street. And I guess I have
questions almost more for the Planning and Zoning, because when we ran into
this before -- you drive through this -- we go from a very wide road to a narrow
country road. I'm not opposed to the development and my understanding -- are
you guys having vent beds? Is that what I heard? No, you're not going to have
vent beds? We need vent beds. Because I'm a discharge planner from the
hospital, so I know the need for nursing homes in the area. There are days
where we hold people waiting for beds. But part of my concern -- even if we let
this project go through is that I really think that the Meridian City Council,
Planning and Zoning need to work with ACHD to fix the road, because as more
and more development comes through this area -- that road is a country road
that is paved. It is not a developed city road to be holding traffic coming in and
out -- in and out. One of my other questions for the developers is knowing
assisted living, people still drive, so how are you guys accommodating for those
seniors who are in an assisted living facility -- what type of parking are you
setting aside for those still have their car and are driving?
McCarvel: Okay. We will have to sa ve your answer for when you come back up
to the microphone. So, yeah, please, present your questions and, then, he can
answer them.
Somazzi: Okay. So, that's one of the things, because my concern is with the
way the road is, if they don't develop enough parking people will be parking on
this country road where there really isn't any parking. I like the idea of having a
skilled nursing facility and assisted living. Like everyone else has said I think the
traffic impact will be less than a lot of other things that we could consider. But I
think those things need to be factored in as this is being developed. This past
Christmas we had -- or winter with how bad the roads were, ACHD has now put a
turn sign on that off of Magic View Drive so people know. One night I know of
four people that hit the ditch coming off of Magic View and turning onto Adams --
no, it's not Adams. Wells. Thank you. Onto Wells. So, that road is in really bad
shape. It was a skating rink. And when I left the next morning for work there was
another person in the ditch. So, the road I don't think we can completely improve
and I get that, but I think there really has to be some very thoughtful
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
March 16, 2017
Page 10 of 71
considerations -- even if we approve this project, that we look forward before we
start doing a whole bunch of developing in this area to fix the road off of Adams
and Magic View Drive.
McCarvel: Okay. Thank you.
Bernt: Madam Chair, I got a question.
McCarvel: Oh.
Bernt: So, what are -- are you concerned on Bowstring?
Somazzi: I'm concerned with the road off of Magic View going onto Wells that
curves.
Bernt: Okay. Got it.
Somazzi: Or Wells. Sorry. Onto Wells.
Bernt: Right.
Somazzi: When you come that curve -- because the trees are in that area and
stuff, it's frequently very icy. I grew up in Canada and one day I came home and
if I -- anyone else would have been there I either would have had to hit the ditch
or I would have hit someone. There would have been no escaping. It was a
skating rink. And it's not -- but, fortunately, no one was around, so I just took my
foot off the brake and I just steered myself, because I know if I was hitting the
brake I couldn't steer.
McCarvel: Okay. Thank you, Lorrie. Kevin Amar. Amar. I'm sorry.
Amar: Good evening, Madam Chair. Kevin Amar. 1548 West Cayuse Creek
Drive in Meridian, Idaho. I am the owner of the property and partnering with Giza
Development for this project. We are also the people that brought before you
Pope's Gardens. It's really nice to have -- last time I was here I was worried
about the neighbors in the back. Now, I'm not. So, it's nice to have them here in
support. We -- we did listen to the neighbors and we did try to find a use that it is
compatible with the neighborhood. It's definitely compatible with the
Comprehensive Plan. We are not asking for a change in the Comprehensive
Plan and simply asking for zoning that is compatible with the Comprehensive
Plan and is compatible with the neighborhood. As far as the development and
the improvements to the area, this road will be developed in front of the property
with this development. To curb, gutter, sidewalk, road widening on both Magic
View, I guess a small portion of Wells to the corner and, then, through -- through
the project down to our western property line. So, that -- that road will be
improved. The road will be widened. Obviously, there will be curb, gutter and
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
March 16, 2017
Page 11 of 71
sidewalk and we take this road from what it is currently to a -- to a developed
road. The other benefit with this project is it has minimal impact with traffic
compared to other office uses or certainly what we had before with the apartment
project. An office use -- a strict office use will be much more intense traffic than -
- than assisted living and skilled nursing facility and, obviously, it's also a quiet
project. I don't -- I haven't seen a lot of raging parties in assisted living facilities.
So, that will help -- be helpful for the neighbors also. We look forward to the
development of this project. We know it brings a need -- fills a need in Meridian
that's currently needed. It brings more jobs to Meridian that are high paying jobs
and that's a -- that's a benefit to the city. So, we are really happy to be able to be
partnered with Gisa Development and bring this to you this evening and we ask
for your approval.
McCarvel: Okay. Thank you, Kevin.
Amar: Thank you.
McCarvel: Shaun Parks. Oh, I'm sorry. Okay. Never mind. Sorry. There we
go. Mary Rockrohr. Did you still wish to speak?
Rockrohr: First of all, thank you, Commissioners and folks, for letting us have the
opportunity --
McCarvel: Please state your name and address.
Rockrohr: Oh. Mary Rockrohr. 2715 East Autumn Way. Just to the north of the
project.
McCarvel: Okay.
Rockrohr: Thank you very much for letting us have the opportunity to voice some
opinions. I do myself love the project. I think it will be very low impact, which is
what we were looking for. They have considered most all of our needs as far as
a vinyl fence along the east side and the north side was wonderful. My volleyball
tournaments that happen -- they occur in my yard sometimes get a little noisy
and rowdy, so it would be nice if we could have that barrier between the new
neighbors and us. Definitely for this project, provided they do not extend Hickory
Way. I can see that as being a total disaster for the project and definitely for our
neighborhood for the safety of everybody involved, since we do not have the
same issues that we addressed previously, we don't have street lights, we don't
have sidewalks. You put a road through there you're going to make a disaster
happen. With just the emergency access, same as what Weatherby has down
the road, it would be wonderful. That's all I'm saying. Thank you.
McCarvel: Thank you. I'm just going to take a moment here and -- just to let the
other Commissioners -- and we have at least 21 more people who have signed
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
March 16, 2017
Page 12 of 71
up here who have made notes that say, yes, they are for the project, but no for
the development of the road and it -- does anyone want to speak more to that or
are you okay with -- that we know that you're all yes to the project and no for the
road? Okay. Does anyone else wish to speak? Okay. Oh. Come on forward.
Mundt: My name is John Mundt and I live at 7 160 Tiburon Avenue in
Woodbridge Subdivision. 83642. I was here at the zoning meeting -- at the City
Council when it was turned down finally, the other project, the previous project
and at that time the City Council made a motion and maybe you addressed this
already -- to ACHD that a real thorough study be made for the property that is in
that area in and around this development. There is no real easy access, nor safe
access to that property and I don't know -- has ACHD really looked at this as to
an alternative way to get out to Locust Grove, out by a stoplight, a frontage road
along the freeway? Because this is only a step in the direction for development.
There will be more applications and -- and we will continue to have road and
access that is not safe, nor -- nor is it desirable and can it handle the traffic and
that's my question I guess, is that somehow or another there needs to be better
access into that whole area back there, so it can, indeed, be developed and have
safe traffic away from residential area.
McCarvel: I think the current ACHD report -- and staff, please, correct me if I'm
wrong here. They just addressed that stub street going north in the current
report. But I do remember that hearing -- yes, the hearing that everything -- this
whole area was needed to be looked at.
Mundt: Because I would suggest that the Commission follow up with the City
Council, too, and the city -- and ACHD to study that, because this is -- this
problem is not going to go away. There will be someone else that will want to
develop and put some development in that property back there -- maybe not this
particular project, but other pieces of property and we will still have the same
problem. We will have access, safety and traffic issues and the roads right now
really are not designed to handle that, so --
McCarvel: Okay. All right. Thank you. Any other public testimony? Okay.
Would the applicant like to come forward?
Wright: I believe there was just one question that probably was not answered
and that was parking for our assisted living residents. Historically in our other
facilities we find that less than five percent of our residents actually do have --
still have a car and drive. In this case we have 30 -- 30 of those residents. So,
we estimate probably somewhere between one and three, would still have cars
and we have ample parking for that. Just wanted to draw that --
McCarvel: Okay. I think some of the other issues were landscaping and fence
along the back and, then, the berm and fence along the east.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
March 16, 2017
Page 13 of 71
Wright: And we did hear that and we do have a fence and a berm planned for
those -- those sides.
McCarvel: Okay. Okay. Any questions from the Commissioners?
Wright: Thank you.
McCarvel: All right. Thank you. Okay. At this time could I get a motion to close
the public hearing for --
Wilson: Mr. Chair -- or Madam Chair. I'm used to Steven, I guess. I move we
close the -- I move we close the public hearing.
Bernt: Second.
McCarvel: It has been moved and seconded that we close the public hearing for
Item No. H-2017-0011. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. TWO ABSENT.
McCarvel: Okay. I think at this point the topic of discussion first needs to be the
stub street. Well, because if -- if we are going to require the stub street it
probably -- the project needs -- the hearing needs to probably be continued, so
we can see a plan or something else.
Bernt: Madam Chair?
McCarvel: Yes, Commissioner Bernt.
Bernt: Before we continue, I would like to make a note on the record that I
actually live in Woodbridge Subdivision. However, I feel like I have an unbiased
opinion toward this matter, nor do I have an interest in the -- in the proposed
development.
McCarvel: Okay.
Bernt: I wanted to make it clear that I do live in the Woodbridge Subdivision and
prior to opinions being made I just wanted to get the feel from the -- the
commission and staff as to -- if I should recuse myself from -- from this
discussion or not. So, I stand for comments. I probably should have said that at
the beginning.
Wilson: Madam Chair?
McCarvel: Commissioner Wilson.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
March 16, 2017
Page 14 of 71
Wilson: I was in your predicament a mere four or five months ago and I'm glad I
stuck around and I was kind of able to provide a prospective that might have
angered my neighbors. I don't know. Some of them maybe. But I think -- I think
I don't -- I don't have an issue, because I was in your position.
McCarvel: Okay. I'm okay with it. Anybody else? Okay.
Perreault: Okay. Yeah.
Cassanelli: I'm fine.
McCarvel: I think we are okay to move forward.
Bernt: Thank you.
McCarvel: Okay. Comments? I think it's -- you know, it's -- I do think it's a great
project for the area, being around -- right close to the hospital and that's kind of
what this area was wanting to be was kind of a medical corridor and I think we
have, obviously, heard that most of the -- all of the neighbors are in favor of it, but
I think where we have to take some consideration tonight and work out is we
know going north is not the preferred way out of here, but we have had many
discussions and if there is a problem -- traffic problem leaving from Magic View
and going through Woodbridge and at these development times is when we have
the opportunity relieve this, because, you know, going through Woodbridge there
maybe should have been some sort of collector street -- or larger street or
pathway through there that did not, you know, create such -- the curves and
everything in the subdivision that's so locked -- you know, it's -- as well as locked
in. There is really nothing going north or south out of it. So, we don't want to
create the same problems and there is a lot of land there left to be developed .
So, this would be -- I think as staff mentioned probably the last shot to go north.
But we also had a lot of discussion at the other hearings that we don't necessarily
know that going north is the answer through that established neighborhood on
roads that don't have curb and gutter and all that kind of stuff. So, opinion.
Wilson: I think where I land is, obviously, I'm listening to the neighbors and I'm --
we know we had a lot of opposition, but I'm kind of leaning to kind of -- or I'm very
clearly seeing a perspective of staff that -- that it maybe would make sense to
have that connectivity, so we, you know, could move north. I think because this
is -- and I'm quoting the testimony. Because this is more of a low-impact kind of
a thing, I'm not completely persuaded this would adversely affect traffic in the
neighborhood. I think it's more about connectivity. Some of the things that the
staff talked about. So, I'd love to hear from my fellow Commissioners, but I think
I'm -- I'm leaning where you are, Madam Chair.
McCarvel: Yeah. I'm not -- I'm still --
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
March 16, 2017
Page 15 of 71
Wilson: Okay.
McCarvel: -- I can see going both ways. I don't know that going north is the
answer, but, unfortunately, this piece of property is probably the last stab at going
north. So, the decision of -- we either need to make a decision tonight or
continue it and get more information or approve it and let it go to City Council.
Perreault: Madam Chair, I -- Madam Chair?
McCarvel: Yes.
Perreault: Staff, do you have anything else to share with us -- to add? I mean
we just touched briefly on it during the report, but if you have anything else you
would like to elaborate about the necessity to -- to take Hickory up through to the
northerly subdivision --
Allen: Madam Chair, Commissioners, it's basically what we have already
covered. It's a connectivity thing. There is -- there is only one other stub street
to the north and that was provided with Woodbridge. However, it was never
connected and I don't know that the right of way was ever opened here. If you
can see where my arrow is. That is the only other opportunity on this property to
go north. There was some discussion at the previous meeting about working
with ACHD to see what we could do in this area . I know that has been
addressed with them. I have not heard anything back from them . As it sits
currently this residential area to the north and south is already developed out and
unless some of that area redevelops in the future, there isn't really an opportunity
to take any other roads west or north . So, that is the policies in the
Comprehensive Plan that support the connectivity. That is something that the
Commission and Council will have to determine is appropriate or not with this
development.
McCarvel: Okay.
Cassanelli: Madam Chair?
McCarvel: Yes. Commissioner --
Cassanelli: Question for the staff. What -- can you give me an idea, again, of
ACHD's thinking in terms of their -- their perspectives with just emergency access
and pedestrian path; correct?
Allen: That is correct, sir.
Cassanelli: What was -- what was -- what's their overall thinking of this entire
area? Did they give you any of that kind of indication?
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
March 16, 2017
Page 16 of 71
Allen: Chairman McCarvel, Commissioners, none more than was stated. They --
they reviewed the project -- the last project, Pope's Garden in which connectivity
was an issue them, they just -- they just recommended an emergency access
only, pedestrian pathway, and they fell back on that decision with this application.
Parsons: Madam Chair, if I could --
McCarvel: Yes.
Parsons: -- chime in.
McCarvel: Sure.
Parsons: At least elaborate a little bit more on that, because I was at ACHD's
hearing when Pope's Garden was before them on this issue and let's make it
clear, this -- ACHD staff did recommend the road to be constructed to the
property. Their commission is the one that said they wanted the emergency
access and the bike-ped connection and so we did reach out to ACHD on this. I
did myself. And they had spoke to me and they indicated that they would stay
with their commission's recommendation. As they -- as their decision with the
Pope's Gardens project and that's why they kind of fell silent on this road being
connected through. If you look at -- as Sonya mention, if you look at the
surrounding area there really isn't any other way to get connected. Someone --
the property is going to have to be condemned or redevelopment is going to have
to occur in order to get more connectivity in there. When Snorting Bull first came
through the city there was a collector envisioned. Somehow through that public
hearing process the Council at that time elected not to require that connectivity.
It's a pedestrian connectivity. And now with that overchange -- the overpass
going -- getting constructed, going over Overland Road -- or Locust Grove, that's
-- that's contributing to a lot of these factors that -- with the traffic that they are
experiencing today. So, I'm not necessarily sure if we don't get this -- and that's
why we are pushing so hard for this now. We understand -- we are very
sympathetic to the neighbors, but we have the Comprehensive Plan and we have
to be able -- we are the ones that are tasked with making sure that you can make
an informed decision as to whether or not these roads are being constructed .
Sonya did an excellent job of pulling out some of those policies and putting that
in her staff report to help you make that decision. Again, when we met with the
applicant it was detailed in their pre-app notes that we would be pushing for that
road extension and so they knew that going into this, with the understanding that
ACHD wouldn't be pushing for it. So, yes, we are putting the applicant between
two agencies. You have the -- the neighborhood that doesn't want it, you have
an applicant that doesn't want it. You have ACHD staff that's backing with what
their commission recommendation was -- or their -- their approval was not to
require the road. So, really, it's going to come down to whether or not the city's
test -- meaning staff -- and it's a political issue. In other words, this body and the
City Council feel that that stub street is viable to provide connectivity in this area
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
March 16, 2017
Page 17 of 71
and that's why we leave it in your hands this evening, of course, public testimony
always comes into play when you make some of those decisions as well. But I at
least wanted to give you some of that context that it wasn't ACHD staff on that
previous application not requiring a road, it was ACHD's commission that didn't
require the road.
McCarvel: Okay.
Perreault: Madam Chair, I have another question for staff.
McCarvel: Sure. Commissioner.
Perreault: What's the zoning of the property to the south across -- across Magic
View Drive?
Beach: That property as you see on the map here -- there is various colors. If
there is not a color associated with that, that property is zoned RUT, which is
rural urban transition within Ada county.
Perreault: Okay.
McCarvel: So, I think where we are at on the -- the difficulty in making this
decision at this point is -- like I said, unfortunately, this is the property owner
that's come forward at this time and he is -- this property is the last shot at going
north, but we ought to look at what is around here and where -- where is all that
going to go. I mean that was our problem the last time we looked at this. I mean
we got that awkward corner. We have got people trying to get out to the west
that there is really no logical way to get out. They have to wind through
Woodbridge and to get out to the east there is that one stop light and that's it and
the likelihood of there being more access along Eagle Road between that point
and the interstate is not much. I mean you have got the one on the other side of
McDonald's, but there is no light or anything there. You've got the Magic View.
So, it's a difficult decision. I mean -- because we understand -- I mean the
neighbors, obviously, to the north would like to keep their enclosed little area, but
the reality is they are locked in by some very major traffic roads right now and
access -- and getting access to those roads is very limited in this little square
from Franklin to the interstate and Locust Grove to Eagle.
Allen: Chairman McCarvel?
McCarvel: Uh-huh.
Allen: May I add something?
McCarvel: Yes.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
March 16, 2017
Page 18 of 71
Allen: Another option, depending on which way the decision -- Commission
chooses to go on this, if you all feel that it's appropriate for that road to be
extended, an option may be to recommend approval of staff's recommendation to
the Council and, then, Council determine which way they feel would be
appropriate to go. If they feel that the extension of Hickory is in the best interest
of the city, then, they could, then, remand it back to Commission for them -- the
applicant to submit a revised plan --
McCarvel: Right.
Allen: -- for your review. So, that's another option to continuing it tonight for the
applicant to review the plan and come back to Commission.
Bernt: Madam Chair?
McCarvel: Yes, Commissioner Bernt.
Bernt: I believe I heard earlier by the applicant that if -- right now with the
proposed development making -- or approving or having the stub on Hickory to
the proposed development off of Autumn Way, as it's -- as it's proposed would
make it very difficult in order for this proposed development to continue; am I
correct?
McCarvel: Yeah. I think there would, obviously, be no room for that one -- that
building. I mean that road is going to take up a good portion of their property, so
they would have to wait and acquire more property to do that particular --
particular layout. Anybody want to think out loud?
Cassanelli: Madam Chair, I will think out loud.
McCarvel: Commissioner Cassanelli.
Cassanelli: I think -- I think this area is -- it's going to wind up being a mess in
the long run with -- if that all gets developed and that road punches through --
either going through Woodbridge or -- or the neighborhood to the north there,
Greenhill Estates, that's a lot of traffic in residential areas that was never
designed to -- to hold that I think and, obviously, the -- the roads that make the
most sense are the St. Luke's at the light there. Next to McDonald's, but you
only -- there is only a right-hand turn coming out of there. I mean I -- you know, I
completely understand either one of the neighborhoods not wanting a whole lot
of additional traffic through there, but -- I wish there was an easy way to kick it
back -- you want me to think out loud, I wish there was an easy way to kick it
back to ACHD and figure out a better -- a better way in and out of that --
McCarvel: Yeah.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
March 16, 2017
Page 19 of 71
Cassanelli: -- than what they have.
McCarvel: Yeah. I mean Woodbridge is catching the most, because there is a
way out of there and people have, obviously, figured that out. So, it's just a
matter of with the rest of what is on that southeast quadrant there to be
developed in the future, what, you got to -- well, do we live with what we have got
or do we take this opportunity to punch through to the north and I think, you
know, I went back and I remembered these projects from before and I went back
and re-read those minutes and those notes from the other commissioners and I
do remember kind of at that time being in agreement that, you know, that road to
the north was just never designed to be the way it stands now. It was not
designed to take on more traffic. But the growing pains of the city being what
they are -- because as we have heard here tonight I mean that was, you know,
what the opposition was the last time was so much residential adding more traffic
to this area, which I think the project itself would -- is a good answer to that and
it's -- it was so landlocked and didn't have a lot of room for parks and all that kind
of good stuff and so that's why we rejected the project, but at the same token we
weren't real thrilled about punching to the north.
Perreault: Madam Chair, I think not having that road go through definitely limits
the options for the surrounding properties for future development with what can
be put in there, because it's going to be a question about traffic for everything to
the south. If -- if there happens to be any development on that eastern property
it's going to be the same conversation every time one of these pieces is
developed.
Bernt: Madam Chair?
McCarvel: Yes, Commissioner Bernt.
Bernt: Can an argument be made that allowing that stub on Hickory alleviate
traffic -- actually alleviate -- alleviate traffic through Woodbridge and on Magic
View Drive to a certain degree?
McCarvel: To a certain degree, but then -- I mean you're adding traffic to another
neighborhood that -- I mean if I remember correctly, those roads are not curbed
and guttered and no sidewalk -- I mean it's just a paved road, but it's not
designed to handle a lot of traffic. I mean -- I think --
Perreault: So much so that it would create an unsafe situation?
McCarvel: I believe -- yes. Yeah. There is your answer. Yeah. I mean that was
the discussions the last time it was presented to us is those -- those roads were
not -- I mean those roads are used for walking and bike riding and they weren't
meant -- the way they are currently designed -- I mean so to punch through on
Hickory Way there have to be -- you would know that there would be more
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
March 16, 2017
Page 20 of 71
development of those roads before anything went forward . But, unfortunately,
that piece of property is here before us tonight wanting to be developed .
Wilson: I guess I would ask other Commissioners -- oh, Madam Chair. Sorry.
McCarvel: Yeah.
Wilson: I guess I would ask -- I mean in order to make a decision I mean what
else do we -- would we need to know? Are we at a point where we can make a
decision? I mean -- well --
McCarvel: I guess if -- I don't think we have ever had a point where we have
been unable to make a -- to come to -- I mean -- I think everybody just -- you
know, it's kind of one of those damned-if-you-do, damned-if-you-don't situations.
I mean there is -- Sonya, what was your suggestion on --
Allen: Chairman --
McCarvel: We put it off to City Council?
Allen: The applicant suggested that if you -- the Commissioners felt that the road
should be extended, that they recommend approval of staff's recommendation to
Council. If Council felt that staff's recommendation was appropriate and that the
road should be extended, then, they could remand the project back to the
Commission with submittal of a revised site plan that would reflect the road
extended. So, the Commission would still be able to review the plan, but it would
give Council the opportunity to weigh in before it was revised.
McCarvel: Okay.
Allen: Basically I think -- so, the intent is they wouldn't have to revise the plan if
Council didn't feel it was appropriate.
McCarvel: Uh-huh.
Perreault: Madam Chair, I think if we proceed with that option I would guess that
City Council would want to see something from the applicant that would be an
attempt to try to -- to add that rode in and still make the project work, if it's even
possible.
McCarvel: I don't know. I don't know -- I mean from what I heard from the
applicant I don't know that they will, so -- yeah. Unfortunately -- ideally you would
want to go ahead and put -- I don't know.
Cassanelli: Madam Chair?
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
March 16, 2017
Page 21 of 71
McCarvel: Yes.
Cassanelli: Another thinking out loud.
McCarvel: Yes.
Cassanelli: If we -- if we approve -- if we approve it as -- as it stands and don't
take the staff's recommendations and just go with ACHD, their recommendations
or what they have before us anyway, that's -- that's -- the roads are what they are
from this point forward. That is correct. I mean that's the -- the alternative. We
approve it as it -- as it stands without -- and don't punch that road through.
McCarvel: Yeah. This is pretty much --
Cassanelli: The folks in Woodbridge are going out to the light out there on Eagle
Road.
McCarvel: Right. You have got east-west options only for that whole
development, which it's survived on to this point and you have got a few more
parcels down there to be developed and it's -- I know it -- at the last hearing on
this piece of property this whole area is kind of wanting to be a , you know, a
medical corridor. You have got, you know, eye doctors and other stuff and a little
bit of retail out there closer to Eagle, but who knows what developers will do. It's
-- it's -- it's rural ground right now, so I -- I'm just going back and forth. It's like,
yeah, I know that's the last chance to punch to the north, but I don't know that
those streets as they are is -- safety-wise if that's the right place to go. But, on
the other hand, once you build those buildings, then, you're pretty much done.
Wilson: I mean I think I've at least -- Madam Chair -- have come kind of full circle
to kind of my original position where I think -- I mean I think you want to take this
opportunity and I think -- I have been on the Commission now for about a year
and a half, two years and I'm kind of seeing these scenarios and I kind of know
where we land and with the idea that, yeah, the way that's going to develop --
kind of like this area, they are going to be, you know, more low impact in terms of
traffic. They are not going to be -- I mean multi-family residential, that's a little
different when it comes to impact -- traffic impact, whereas, you know, we are
thinking that this is a medical corridor and this specifically is going to be, you
know, retirement, assisted living, the traffic impacts are going to be different and
so I think -- I think I'm, again, back to where I was. I think we need to have that
northern -- northern access, again, knowing that ACHD is going to have to come
in and make those roads, -- you know, improve those roads, but I mean, you
know, we have -- we have recommended the development and, you know, some
of that infrastructure isn't necessarily there. I mean that's just how this works,
particularly in Meridian where things are just growing very, very quickly. So, I
think -- I think that's where I'm at.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
March 16, 2017
Page 22 of 71
McCarvel: Okay. Any other thoughts?
Perreault: Madam Chair, I'm -- I'm also concerned about the -- the safety of that
-- of the development to the north and I completely understand the concerns of
the neighbors in Woodbridge. I have driven through there many, many times and
-- however, their streets are set up in such a way that they can -- can handle that
to some extent, you know, they are developed -- the streets are developed is
what I'm trying to say and so -- not that I would want any increased traffic through
there, but I think if we -- if we are going to create additional traffic in the stub to
the north that it could cause some additional concerns that that neighborhood
may not be ready to -- may not be prepared to handle.
McCarvel: Right. I think what we do -- please don't. I just think it will limit -- if
we don't punch that road through I think it will limit what can be developed in the
future. I mean I think you're looking at just more commercial type stuff and no --
no more high-density -- no nothing down in there to really limit the traffic,
because it just can't handle it. I don't know if you're ready to make a motion to
continue or make a motion to move it to -- approve it with the staff
recommendations to City Council or make alterations. Please don't shout out.
Wilson: I guess it's -- Madam Chair? I guess if I were to make a motion to
recommend approval to City Council, some of the stuff Sonya was talking about,
I mean in terms of language, what would we -- is there anything I would have to,
you know, state in that motion?
Allen: Chairman McCarvel?
McCarvel: Yes.
Allen: Commissioner. The staff report is written condition wise for the street to
be extended. So, you could just simply recommend approval to City Council per
the staff report.
McCarvel: If you want the street extended.
Wilson: Okay.
Allen: If you don't, then, there would be changes to be made to the staff report.
McCarvel: Or move to continue it and think about it some more and get more
information. Although I mean -- I feel like we are between two agencies as well,
because ACHD has kind of just stepped back from it. They have offered -- you
know, they are not requiring -- their recommendation at this point is not to have to
punch that through. It be pedestrian and emergency access only.
Wilson: Madam Chair?
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
March 16, 2017
Page 23 of 71
McCarvel: Yes.
Wilson: I will go -- well, maybe I will revise my opinion. I mean as a
recommending body if we don't feel like we have the information to make a , you
know, sound recommendation to City Council, then, perhaps we might want to
continue this. I mean that's the -- what I'm getting from other folks.
McCarvel: Continue it to what? I mean do --
Wilson: Yeah.
McCarvel: -- we need more time to think -- I don't think you're going to --
Cassanelli: What I would like, Madam Chair --
McCarvel: Yes, Commissioner Cassanelli.
Cassanelli: I would like to see ACHD come up with a -- with a plan to get -- I go
back to what I -- what I was saying earlier. Neither one of those subdivisions
were designed to handle what's -- what's coming through there and I don't think
it's -- I don't think it's -- you know to have a lot of commercial flowing through
there. I mean can we continue it to kind of -- is there a way to kick it back to
ACHD and say figure out a better -- better plan to handle the traffic in this area?
McCarvel: I think that's what we tried to do last year and here we are. That was
exactly what we put on the record is that we wanted a plan for -- you know, either
going out through -- over to Locust Grove or how is this going to come out. But I
think they are living with -- you know, if we do punch to the north I don't think they
are -- I don't think there is any plan on the books to improve those roads, so --
Cassanelli: To the north.
McCarvel: Right. So, you leave them as is and inflict that neighborhood with --
you know.
Bernt: Madam Chair?
McCarvel: Yes, Commissioner.
Bernt: Just a thought that I have been thinking about, looking at this -- the
proposed development map that we are looking at. I mean is it -- you know, is it
a -- is it a terrible idea, you know, or -- that we -- you know, for future
development in another parcel along Wells and Magic View and have them be,
you know, commercial type development in situations, as opposed to -- because
it sounds to me like one of the reasons why we want to punch that Hickory Road
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
March 16, 2017
Page 24 of 71
through this proposed development is to , you know, maybe plan for future high
density options, may be different, you know, residential options, but if -- if -- if we
-- but if the future of this -- of this -- of this area is -- is commercial, with the
exception of the one parcel that is directly east of the proposed development , is
that -- is that a terrible thing, you know, to have it -- you know, have it -- to just,
you know, maybe plan for -- for it to be commercial instead of having it be
residential and just keep the -- and not approve the road going through.
McCarvel: Yeah. I guess the issue with that -- it would be, you know, when will
those parcels get developed. It could be -- you know, be next year, it could be
ten years from now. It could be, you know, long after we are all gone. So, I
guess that's --
Bernt: Because it sort of has turned into like a little medical area . There is a lot
of medical office buildings in that area. So, it's almost sort of gone that direction
living in that area. I don't think that's a terrible thing for it to continue to go. Am I
opposed to -- I don't know. I'm not discussing that right now, but if it were to go --
if you were to not approve the road going through the proposed development, I
wouldn't be -- you know, I don't think that would be a terrible thing for future
commercial development. I don't think -- I don't think punching that road through
would definitely -- I don't think it would affect, you know, commercial development
in the future. I think they would probably be about the same.
McCarvel: Yeah. It's just -- it's where the traffic is going to find its way out of -- I
mean Woodbridge has experienced the problem of what happens when you don't
plan for things to go through properly and now we are talking about, you know,
punching through to another established neighborhood that the roads were never
designed to do that with. So, do we just let this go forward and let the
development happen and live with the access that we have got?
Perreault: Madam Chair?
McCarvel: Yes.
Perreault: So, this is -- might be a silly question. Has there ever been a scenario
where the commissioners have continued and actually physically gone together
to look at the property and whatever happens -- a possibility?
McCarvel: Not in my tenure, but --
Perreault: Okay.
McCarvel: Is that --
Perreault: Just curious.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
March 16, 2017
Page 25 of 71
McCarvel: Do you think it would help you make a decision?
Perreault: What do the other Commissioners think.
Pogue: It would have to be noticed up as a public meeting, because you would
have quorums and you would go and the public would be invited. You could do
that for a meeting, but it, as the chair has said, hasn't happened.
Bernt: Madam Chair?
McCarvel: Commissioner Bernt.
Bernt: I have a final thought.
McCarvel: Okay.
Bernt: Thankfully for everyone in this. But I honestly feel like I am in favor of this
-- of this development and -- and if it can be done with not having the road go
through and I'm -- I look at the developers over there and they are saying it can't
happen, but, you know, we got to make it happen. You have got to find a way to
do it, you know, because I -- I don't -- I don't feel like opening that road will really
necessarily affect -- but I don't think it will affect, you know, future commercial
development and -- and I don't see -- because of how this area has been poorly
planned in the past, how it can withstand any type of residential, you know, high-
density mixed-use developments. It's just never going to happen. Just -- there is
just no way to get in and out and so I don't -- whether this property is approved or
not, I don't ever see high density developments in this area just because of the
lack of in and out.
McCarvel: Right.
Bernt: And so I like the development. I think it's a fantastic development. I think
it's a great plan. I guess I would be in favor of not having that road go through .
The property to the north is not suitable and future development I believe is going
to be commercial anyways and so that's where I stand.
McCarvel: Okay.
Perreault: Madam Chair, I agree with Commissioner Bernt.
McCarvel: Okay.
Cassanelli: Madam Chair, before I say I agree, can you clarify? So, you're
saying approve it without punching the road through?
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
March 16, 2017
Page 26 of 71
Bernt: Yeah. I mean I -- I like -- I like the development. I like the -- I like
everything you've done about it. I have zero problems with the development. I
just think that stronger minds need to prevail -- need to figure it out and -- and get
it done. If it works it works. If it doesn't it doesn't. But I -- I have faith that you
guys can put some -- you know, some greater thought into this and figured out a
way in which we can have that development there without the road going
through.
McCarvel: Okay.
Wilson: Make a motion.
McCarvel: Yeah. I have gone round on this so many times.
Cassanelli: My other thoughts are --
McCarvel: Yes.
Cassanelli: This should have been -- this is a discussion that should have been
made years ago. I mean there is nothing that we can do right now to fix this
problem. It's already been done. I mean, really, I don't really think a road going
north-south is going to affect the -- the traffic in that area at all -- if any at all,
McCarvel: I think it's more towards -- it's -- the traffic is part of it, but I think
towards our own Comprehensive Plan, you know --
Cassanelli: Connectivity.
McCarvel: It's the connectivity, being able to get from one place to the other
without having to get out on those major roads. But here we are. I mean we
have got to acknowledge that parts of our city developed without the thought of
us ever being 90,000 people in this valley -- right here in this town, so -- and I
don't know that at this point it's the right time to inflict that on them. I don't know.
Wilson: Well, Madam Chair?
McCarvel: Commissioner.
Wilson: I mean it adheres to the Comprehensive Plan, obviously, it matters, but I
mean this Commission exists in order to -- I mean development is not on
autopilot. I mean we are here to make decisions. We are maybe belaboring this
one maybe -- you know, we are going through a discussion, so -- I mean I would
say that, you know, if we in our best judgment think that that's -- you know -- that
punched -- that going north doesn't make sense because of the way things have
developed not how it was envisioned or planned, then, that's where we should
land.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
March 16, 2017
Page 27 of 71
McCarvel: Okay. All right. So, is anyone ready to make a motion?
Bernt: Madam Chair?
McCarvel: Commissioner Bernt.
Bernt: After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to
recommend approval to the City Council of file number H-2017- 0011 as
presented during the hearing on March 16th , 2000 -- 2017, with the following
modifications: Number one being that not allowing -- or not approving the -- the
through street of Hickory Way from Autumn to Magic View.
Wilson: Second.
McCarvel: Okay. It has been moved and seconded to approve file number H-
2017-0011 with modifications. All those in favor say aye. All those against?
Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. TWO ABSENT.
B. Public Hearing for Melissa’s Daycare (H-2017-0015) by
Laurie Gallia Located 523 E. Brown Bear
1. Request: Conditional Use Permit Approval of a
Daycare Group for up to Twelve (12) Children in
an R-8 Zoning District
McCarvel: Moving on. All right. Okay. We still have several other things on our
agenda, so if you would like -- if you could, please, take your conversations
outside. Okay. Okay. At -- I'm going to wait just a minute. At this time I'd like to
continue -- to open the public hearing for Item No. H-2017-0017, Melissa's
Daycare. We will begin with the staff report.
Beach: Very good, Madam Chair, Commissioners.
McCarvel: Excuse me. Could you take your conversations out through the
door? Thank you.
Beach: As you said, this is an application for a conditional use permit for
Melissa's Daycare. The subject property consists of approximately 0.192 of an
acre, which is zoned R-8, located at 523 East Brown Bear, as you see here on
the vicinity map. The property located in the Fothergill Point Subdivision and is
surrounded by single family residential homes. There is a little history on this.
The most recent item I want to point out is in 1999 the property was granted an
accessory use permit for a family daycare, which in our definition allows up to six
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
March 16, 2017
Page 28 of 71
children at any time -- at any one time. The Comprehensive Plan future land use
map designation is medium density residential. The applicant's request is for a
conditional use permit to operate a -- a daycare group as defined by our code,
with up to 12 children in an R-8 zoning district. The UDC allows for up to six
children in a daycare family with an accessory use permit in the R-8 zoning
district and to allow up to 12 children, a daycare group in the R-8 zoning district,
requires a conditional use permit. So, that's the reason we are here before you
tonight with this application. There are some specific use standards listed in the
UDC that apply to daycare facilities that the applicant shall comply with. Really,
the main -- the condition that staff has on this application is in regards to parking.
I will note that the city has adopted a local amendment to the International
Building Code that does not require a change in occupancy of the home if it is to
operate as a daycare facility for up to 12 or fewer children. Because the
occupancy of the home is not changing from residential to nonresidential , the
parking for nonresidential, use does not apply. So, staff can't trigger those
commercial parking requirements. However, there are some concerns with the
limited parking on the site and staff has recommended that the applicant pave
the gravel area on the east side here where this truck is located to accommodate
an additional parking stall for the use. With that staff is recommending approval
of the conditional use permit for up to 12 children and I will stand for any
questions you have.
McCarvel: Okay. Any questions for staff at this time? Okay. Would the
applicant like to come forward. Please state your name and address for the
record.
Smith: Allyssa Smith. 523 East Brown Bear Street.
McCarvel: Okay. And you have -- is it 15 minutes? Okay. Sorry. Yeah. You
have 15 and your timer is on the screen, so go ahead.
Smith: I was actually -- so, this side parking where this truck is --
McCarvel: Uh-huh.
Smith: -- that's where that vehicle is. It's not additional parking for my daycare
parents. So, paving it -- I don't really understand that making sense. But if that's
what they want, that's what they want. I just don't really see the -- the point in
that. And I'm not -- I'm only caring for six families. I'm not adding -- I'm not going
to care for 12 children. The City of Meridian, as well as the state of Idaho, says
that I cannot have more than six children on my property at a time. Therefore,
my own child cannot have play dates, my -- and before and after school kids, I
have had a hard time accommodating their schedules as well. So, I'm -- that's all
I have on that. So, I guess my point is I have been here for 18 years operating a
home daycare. Nobody's ever had a problem with my parking. Nobody's ever
had a problem with -- none of my neighbors have ever complained about -- I
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
March 16, 2017
Page 29 of 71
have staggered -- my parents all drop off at different times. I don't have
everybody coming at 7:00 -- 7:00 a.m. I have one person at 7:00 a.m., one at
7:30, one at 8:00, one at 8:30, one at 9:00 and, then, it -- same with pick up. I
have a parent come at 3:30, a parent come at 4:00, a parent come at 5:00 and
two parents come at 5:30.
McCarvel: Okay.
Smith: So, I don't -- yeah, that --
McCarvel: Okay. So, any -- any questions?
Cassanelli: Madam Chair?
McCarvel: Commissioner Cassanelli.
Cassanelli: You mentioned the state has a regulation with the occupancy.
Smith: Right. Right. I'm licensed with the state for six children. I have to have
this conditional use permit from you for them to give me a license for 12 , so --
Cassanelli: Is that the next step up?
Smith: Yeah. Yeah. So, there is no in-between. I actually -- I applied for this
and choose to this, because of a parent having a baby and so I was put in a
position where I had to in order to keep providing care for that child -- that family I
needed to do this. I also participate with a government food program, so I have
food program reviewers come in my house three times a year and so it -- they
said that if they showed up and I had more than six children they would report me
to the state being over my licensing limit. So, then, I went back to the Idaho
Stars, the state licensing agency, and said, hey, is this going to be a problem if I
have over six children because I'm allowed 12 points. I'm not sure if you're
familiar with the point system that the state of Idaho has for children. But they
said, oh, yeah, you're allowed 12 points and, then, they said, well wait, no, you're
only licensed for six, so you cannot have more than six children on your -- in your
premises -- on your property. So, anyway, it's --
McCarvel: Is there a square footage that comes with that jump up to 12 or just --
okay.
Perreault: Madam Chair?
McCarvel: Yes, Commissioner Perrault.
Perreault: Will you have any other staff or daycare workers -- licensed daycare
workers on site or just --
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
March 16, 2017
Page 30 of 71
Smith: It's just me.
Perreault: Okay. And staff had recommended, as you know, that there be four
parking spots. So, there is the two that are in your driveway and where are the
other two going to be?
Smith: I didn't know -- staff didn't recommend -- staff was only recommending
that the gravel area be paved to provide three.
Perreault: Did I misread that in the staff report?
Beach: That is correct.
Perreault: Okay.
McCarvel: So, staff wants three actual parking spots for the business and that's
why they want this -- even though you will probably always have your residential
vehicle there.
Smith: Yeah.
McCarvel: Okay. Any other questions for the applicant? Okay. Okay. You can
go ahead and sit down and I will take public testimony if there is any. We have --
oh, no. Cross it off. Okay. Is there anyone else that wanted to speak on this?
Good. Come forward, sir. And, please, state your name and address for the
record.
Tebo: My name is Roger Tebo and I have at 2731 South Marypost Place in
Eagle. We own a house kind of across the street from the applicant. It's up a
couple of doors and I don't have a problem at all with what she's doing. I haven't
noticed any undue traffic there. We rent that house out that we own there. But
kind of a question that came up in this R-8 zoning kind of indicates on the little
card I got that the house that we own may be included in the R -8 zoning for 488
East Brown Bear on the corner -- or, I don't know, maybe all -- maybe those that
are --
Beach: Is that on the -- the corner of Brown Bear and Arrowwood?
Tebo: Yes. Uh-huh.
Beach: It's zoned R-8.
Tebo: So, that would be a possibility of adding another unit on that property,
then, under that zoning?
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
March 16, 2017
Page 31 of 71
Beach: I'm not sure what you're asking.
McCarvel: He wants to divide his lot --
Beach: I can get with you after to answer some of those questions for you if you
would like.
Tebo: Yeah. Okay.
McCarvel: It already has the R-8 zone --
Beach: Or you can give us a call. I don't think that's specifically applicable to
this application. But we can answer that for you. Sure.
Tebo: Okay. Thank you.
McCarvel: Okay. Thank you. And I don't think we need the applicant to come
back over -- at this time could I get a motion to close the public hearing for Item
number 2017-0015.
Bernt: So moved.
Wilson: Second.
McCarvel: It has been moved and seconded to close the public hearing on H-
2017-0015. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. TWO ABSENT.
McCarvel: Comments? Discussion? Crickets tonight.
Perreault: Madam Chair?
McCarvel: Commissioner Perreault.
Perreault: In my profession as a real estate agent I actually have been involved
in buying and selling and leasing with daycares and parking and traffic and
everything in that regard with having children -- having that many children in the
small residents is -- is a concern. It's -- I wouldn't be comfortable -- even if she
doesn't currently -- even if the applicant doesn't currently have 12 children, the
possibility that there could be in the future or that she might have -- her
schedules might change with her parents that would mean that several parents
are coming at one time. That allows that to happen, even if it's not currently
happening.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
March 16, 2017
Page 32 of 71
McCarvel: I agree. That was my concern is that, okay, they are doing this just to
get one more child in there, but once she gets the miscellaneous permit it's there
and sets a precedent. So, I think what we do --
Cassanelli: Madam Chair?
McCarvel: Yes, Commissioner Cassanelli.
Cassanelli: I think the applicant is going from six to 12 because of the state.
McCarvel: Right.
Cassanelli: Can we change that number? Can we go from six to eight or six to
nine or six to ten for the -- as far as the CUP is concerned?
McCarvel: Bill or --
Beach: So, to answer your question, this is a conditional use permit, so you have
the ability to have conditions that you think are appropriate for this application,
which -- which could be a number of things, but that is one of those things that
you can -- you can limit the number of children to potentially not 12, but some
other number if that's what you feel appropriate.
McCarvel: So, even though the state jumps all the way up to 12, we can say in --
in this residential district with these -- that it makes more sense to be an eight
or --
Beach: You can be more restrictive. I'm going to lean on Andrea a little bit to
make sure that we understand maybe why we are restricting it and maybe stating
a reason for that.
Pogue: Picking a number out of air, you don't want to appear arbitrary, so if you
can reason, as Josh said, you know, for the number limit, give reasons for that,
that would be suitable.
McCarvel: And it looked like Bill wanted to say something.
Parsons: Yeah. I lost my train of thought, so I won't speak up on it, but -- a
couple things that we should take into consideration here. First of all, she's
operating within an accessory use permit already, which allows six -- that six
includes her -- includes her own. So -- what I wanted to say -- as Josh
mentioned, in our code we define daycare facilities . We have family, daycare
group, daycare center and each of that has a range of the number of children
that you can watch. Well, that's what the state's code -- their definitions mimic
primarily our definition and I have looked into this. So, just becau se with a
daycare group that range is set in 12. That's that number. So, you can have up
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
March 16, 2017
Page 33 of 71
to 12, but that doesn't mean you can't land somewhere in between seven and 12
and still be considered a daycare group and still get approval from the state. So,
the state is not going to say you need to watch the kids. If she is willing to watch
less than 12 and she's willing to concede to that number of children based on
your concerns if she's willing to limit herself to eight children, then, she can get a
license that says eight children and still meet the definition of daycare group. So
-- again, that's still within your purview this evening. Our concern is, yes, it's
operating with six, but now you're doubling the amount of trips to the -- to the
subdivision, because there is more kids being dropped off if she was to operate
at that 12. So, in our -- in our ordinance there are specific use standards for
each one of these and they apply the same to a daycare family, same to a
daycare group and a daycare facility would require a change of occupancy with
the building department. If she was to increase the number of children from over
12, then, she would be considered a daycare center and she would be a
commercial use. She would no longer be able to live in that home, it would have
to be -- operate as a commercial business. So, that's -- that's what we tried to
explain to you as far as she would not trigger anything with our building
department or a change of use on her site, it still would be considered a single
family home. Therefore, parking -- her current residents meets the parking
requirements for a single family home and that's what she would continue to be if
she was to increase the number of children on this site.
McCarvel: Okay.
Parsons: So, that's really how we wanted to convey that. Just because she
meets code doesn't mean that there isn't going to be an impact to that
neighborhood. So, that's why we had concerns that if there was an opportunity
to add some parking she has an area to do that. If you feel that she could still
operate and maintain the level of service with eight children , if you limit her
children, and not required the additional parking --
McCarvel: That's what I was thinking. It's -- yeah.
Parsons: And that's -- and that's where we were landing on it.
McCarvel: Yeah.
Parsons: So, again, that's within your purview tonight.
McCarvel: Yeah. Okay. Yeah. That's exactly what was going through my head,
that it is -- the applicant is not wanting to -- I mean the staff to get this up to 12
children wants paved driveway and stuff and we are really talking about the
reason behind the request is one of her existing car trips is already -- is going to
have a child. It's not adding. So, we -- you know, still limit it to say eight children
and not increase the parking, not have -- you wouldn't have to pave that spot.
But if you did want to jump up to the R-12 -- or not the R-12, but the -- having 12
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
March 16, 2017
Page 34 of 71
children, then, it would require additional parking. Does that make sense? I --
okay. So --
Beach: If I may. Have we closed the public hearing?
McCarvel: Yes. So, I think if we need -- if we want to ask the applicant a
question we got to open the public hearing again. So, I don't -- is that what we
want to do or you just want to move forward give her the okay for the 12?
Wilson: Madam Chair?
McCarvel: Okay. Commissioner Wilson.
Wilson: Madam Chair. I move we reopen the public hearing for 2017 -0015.
Bernt: Second.
McCarvel: It has been moved and seconded that we reopen the public hearing
for H-2017-0015. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. TWO ABSENT.
McCarvel: So, we have reopened. Would the applicant, please, come forward.
So, you have heard our discussion. Is that something you're open to if we -- for
the conditional use permit limit it to say eight children, that you wouldn't have to
pave that spot and create more parking for your business? Is that something
you're open to or what is your feeling on that?
Smith: Yes. I'm open to that. I will -- I -- I'm, unfortunately, very honest and I will
tell you that if I receive a conditional use permit from you, the state doesn't have
a gray area, so they will issue me a license for 12. So -- and the state is who --
they are my boss right now, so -- but you can -- the city can give me those
guidelines, of course, and -- and I can follow it.
McCarvel: When somebody comes and checks on you they're going to check for
12.
Smith: Right.
McCarvel: Right?
Smith: Exactly. Well, they will check for 12 points.
McCarvel: Right.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
March 16, 2017
Page 35 of 71
Smith: So, I -- and I don't know that you need to know all that, but -- but yes. So,
it's -- it's however you wish. Like I said, unfortunately, that's a recreational
vehicle that isn't driven on a daily basis and so that's where we park it to allow
the stalls to -- in and out of the garage to be open for our -- our daily drivers. So,
I'm not sure -- like I said, paving -- that was my only issue is paving it seems a
non-issue, because it's not going to be used for daycare parking. I mean --
McCarvel: Because you will always have something parked there.
Smith: Correct.
McCarvel: Right.
Smith: Yes. I mean I -- I mean I wouldn't think that my neighbors would want me
to put that -- my big Powerstroke truck out --
McCarvel: Right.
Smith: -- on the drive --
McCarvel: Right.
Smith: -- the roads and let it sit there all the time.
McCarvel: Right.
Smith: So, I'm just thinking in -- in those regards. You know, yeah, I could open
up a stall for parking for my -- my business, but that would put that truck out on --
on my -- on the street.
McCarvel: Right. Okay. Any other questions for the applicant? Okay. All right.
Thank you.
Wilson: Madam Chair?
McCarvel: Commissioner Wilson.
McCarvel: I move we close 2017-0015.
Cassanelli: Second.
McCarvel: It has been moved and seconded that we closed the public hearing
for H-2017-0015. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. TWO ABSENT.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
March 16, 2017
Page 36 of 71
McCarvel: Further comments?
Wilson: Madam Chair?
McCarvel: Commissioner Wilson.
Wilson: I think -- I mean I think -- I think the route we have gone will give us
peace of mind and kind of take care of some of those concerns we had , you
know, at least from our vantage point where we -- you know, what we can
control, which is, namely, the conditions in that conditional use permit. So, I think
I know where I'm at and where my other commissioners are at. I don't know if
there is any more thoughts.
McCarvel: Okay. All right. Do we have a motion?
Wilson: Madam Chair?
McCarvel: Commissioner Wilson.
Wilson: After considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move to
recommend approval to City Council of file number H-2017-0015, as presented in
the staff report for the hearing date of March 16th, 2017, with the modification
that as a component of this conditional use permit that they limited it to eight
children. Did I get that right?
Beach: I'm fine with the condition, but this is not a recommendation of approval,
because this is a conditional use permit. So, you're --
McCarvel: And this is final.
Wilson: Yeah. And that's right. And I misspoke when I --
Beach: Yeah. You move to approve or deny on this one.
McCarvel: Unless they want to pave the drive way. Okay. Do you want that on
the motion? I'm sorry.
Beach: You said recommend to City Council.
Wilson: Yeah. I -- that's on the notes. That's why.
Beach: So, I apologize. That was -- that was a slip up on my end.
Wilson: And that's okay. But I also misspoke my -- so --
McCarvel: Start over.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
March 16, 2017
Page 37 of 71
Wilson: After considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony I move the
recommend -- or I move to approve file number H-2017-0015, as presented in
the staff report with the modification that only eight children -- as a component of
this conditional use permit that only eight children be cared for on the premises.
McCarvel: Unless she wants to pave the --
Wilson: Unless she wants to pave the driveway.
McCarvel: All right.
Cassanelli: Second.
McCarvel: It has been moved and seconded to approve H-2017-0015 with
modification. All those in favor say aye.
Wilson: Aye.
Cassanelli: Aye.
McCarvel: All those opposed?
Bernt: Nay.
Perreault: Nay.
Wilson: I like this. I don't like unanimity. I like this.
McCarvel: Well, then, let's go back and -- so -- well, quite honestly, I would like
to hear why the nays if -- if we are going to have nays I'd like to -- so, do we go
back -- we are just still in discussion then. Okay. Who was the other nay?
Commissioner Cassanelli? Mr. Bernt, could you give your reasons?
Bernt: So, the reason why I -- I said -- I think that we should stay uniform with
the -- the state code. I think that by us moving -- and only allowing eight with the
condition if she goes more, then, she will have to pave -- it seems like she can
have 12 anyways, if I'm not mistaken, and so there is that component of it and,
number two, you know, I'm -- I'm trying to put my shoes -- or I'm trying to figure
out how I would feel if I were in her shoes and I don't know if I would want
someone to tell me that I needed to pave my driveway and I get the reasons why ,
but I don't know, I just feel personally that I don't think that paying a driveway is
going to make a difference in -- in parking in -- for a third stall. If she needed a
third stall I guess she could get rid of her truck and she could make the decision
of whether or not that truck is that important to her to --
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
March 16, 2017
Page 38 of 71
McCarvel: Right.
Bernt: -- to keep it there and so if -- if -- if she -- my concerns were forcing her to,
you know, pave a portion of her driveway when I don't know if that is such a big
deal. You know, if she needs a third driveway, then, she should just get rid of her
truck.
McCarvel: Yeah. I think it was just -- it was just -- it was a staff recommendation
and we are trying to consider that, so -- but in a business allowed in a residential
area that there be sufficient parking not to disrupt the neighbors is --
Bernt: Right.
McCarvel: So --
Bernt: And I think there is sufficient parking, except there is a truck parked there
and so if she --
McCarvel: Right.
Bernt: -- if she wants to get -- if she -- if she needs the third -- if she needs a
third bay, then -- then we should say currently that that third bay is taken by a
white truck, you know. If -- it sounds like if -- even if we make her -- the third bay
be paved there is still going to be a white truck there and so --
Beach: So, I guess just -- from staff's perspective -- I wasn't aware that that was
going to be the case permanently. That the white truck was going to be there.
So, we wrote the condition anticipating that based on the square footage of the
home -- typically for commercial buildings we require one parking stall for every
500 square feet, which is where we kind of came up with approximate three
parking stalls and, technically, it's over 1,500, so we could have thrown in a
fourth. I understand where she's coming from with the business that she's trying
to run there. So, the thought from staff was that this one stall being how she
staggers drop-offs and pick-ups would be sufficient to get the cars not stopping in
front of the house, but pulling into the driveway to either pick up or drop off the
kids, to have less impact on the surrounding neighborhood . And I can read this
condition to you and you can -- you guys can modify that if you wish, however
you want to. It says: The applicant shall pave the current gravel parking space
in order to use it as one of the three required spaces . So, if that's something you
feel like you want to modify, you can definitely do that. But that's how staff have
written that. And just -- so, now you know why the -- the thought behind why we -
- why we conditioned that.
McCarvel: Okay.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
March 16, 2017
Page 39 of 71
Perreault: Madam Chair? If I heard the applicant correctly, it sounds like that the
state allows her to have 12 and you will have 12, because we don't regulate it --
the conditional use permit --
McCarvel: Right.
Perreault: -- after that and so my concern is that there would be 12 at some point
in time and -- and I just don't -- I think that's too large of a facility for a residential
area and also to some extent maybe sets a precedent for other homeowners --
there is a lot of home owned daycares in this area, so that's my thought.
Beach: And just one other thing, as far as the conditional use permit is
concerned, we can hold them to the eight and if it's found that they have more
than that they are permitted for, code enforcement can go out there and revoke
their conditional use permit. So, there is -- there is that authority there. So, just
because the state allows her to have 12 doesn't mean we can't limit that in the
conditional use permit and have that be the -- the authority.
McCarvel: And does that condition, then, go on to the state? Do they know that
when they go on? So, who -- who would regulate that?
Beach: Again, the city -- city code enforcement would. If it's found --
McCarvel: Okay.
Beach: -- that there is a complaint that there is more than 12 -- or more than the
number that you allow --
McCarvel: Okay.
Beach: -- code enforcement can go investigate --
McCarvel: Right.
Beach: -- and determine what that number is.
McCarvel: Yes, Andrea.
Pogue: Madam Chair, the UDC states that violating conditions of a CUP
constitutes violation of the UDC. Josh is correct, code enforcement would go out
and inspect and the conditional use permit may be revoked or modified by City
Council upon notice and hearing for a breach or violation of any condition of
approval or limitation on the -- on the permit.
McCarvel: Then I would agree, I think we could put the eight on there, because I
agree with the size of the home and in the R-8 district there is already people
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
March 16, 2017
Page 40 of 71
coming and going and the lack of additional parking -- because once we give the
12th she can have 12 -- or, I'm sorry, the application could have 12. So, I would
think without additional parking I think the highest -- I don't know. Commissioner
Perreault, what -- what number are you willing to assign to this, if any?
Perreault: Madam Chair, I'm still comfortable with the six, but eight -- eight would
be an okay compromise.
McCarvel: Okay. Mr. Bernt.
Bernt: I still don't understand why we have to pave it when there is already
gravel --
McCarvel: I think we are letting the paving go.
Bernt: Oh. Well, I'm fine, then. I'm good.
McCarvel: Yeah. Because I think we just -- at this point we want to say leave it
as eight children in the home, instead of 12, because of the limited parking --
Bernt: Then I agree.
McCarvel: -- and the effect on the neighbors.
Beach: So, there's a couple of conditions that you would need to modify and --
McCarvel: Okay.
Beach: -- they have changed this computer system, so I can't -- it's difficult to
have you see what I'm showing here, so bear with me. Maybe I can figure out
what we are doing.
McCarvel: Which number is it, Josh?
Beach: 1.1 is the condition that requires the parking space to be paved. If you
want to strike that one you can.
McCarvel: Okay.
Beach: 1.7 says the number of children on the property shall not exceed 12 at
any one time. So, if you're wanting to modify 1.7 to whichever number -- if it is
eight --
McCarvel: Right.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
March 16, 2017
Page 41 of 71
Beach: -- you could modify that one. I think those are the only ones that need to
be addressed.
Wilson: Madam Chair?
McCarvel: Commissioner Wilson.
Wilson: So, I will be more specific if I were to make a motion, but it sounds like,
just based on what I'm hearing -- I mean that -- that was, essentially, the motion
that I made, that the paved -- the paving of that would be triggered if --
McCarvel: No. I think what the other Commissioners are saying is they don't
want the 12 period and that we have got clarification that we can have the eight
and if she's just going to have the eight that's not going to generate more trips,
because it's from the same family. So, we are striking 1.1 and modifying 1.7 to
be eight -- eight children on the premises.
Wilson: Madam Chair?
McCarvel: Commissioner Wilson.
Wilson: After considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move to
approve file number H-2017-0015 as presented in the staff report for the hearing
date of March 16th, 2017, with the following modification: Striking Condition 1.1
and revising Condition 1.7 from 12 to eight.
Cassanelli: Second.
McCarvel: It's been moved and seconded to approve file number 2017-0015 with
modifications. All those in favor say aye. All those opposed? Motion carries.
Congratulations.
MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. TWO ABSENT.
McCarvel: Okay. At this time -- does anybody need a break? I was going to say
Commissioner Yearsley is gone, so -- okay. We will take a break before we hear
Goddard Creek. Five minutes.
(Recess: 7:59 p.m. to 8:06 p.m.)
C. Public Hearing for Goddard Creek (H-2017-0007) by
Brian Porter Located at 2780 W. McMillan Road
1. Request: Rezone of 12.38 Acres of Land from R-4
to the R-40 (5 Acres) and the C-C (7.38 Acres)
Zoning Districts
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
March 16, 2017
Page 42 of 71
2. Request: Amendment to the Comprehensive Plan
Future Land Use Map to Change the Land Use
Designation on 12.38 Acres of Land from Office
and High Density Residential to Mixed-Use
Community
3. Request: Conditional Use Permit for a Self-
Storage Facility Consisting of Ten (10 Buildings
on Approximately 7.38 Acres of Land in the
Proposed C-C Zoning District
4. Request: Conditional Use Permit for a Multi-
Family Development Consisting of Eight-Two (82)
Dwelling Units in the Proposed R-40 Zoning
District on Five (5) Acres of Land
5. Request: Preliminary Plat Approval Consisting of
Twenty-Two (22) Building Lots and Five (5)
Common Lots on 12.38 Acres of Land in the
Proposed C-C and R- 40 Zoning Districts
McCarvel: Okay. At this time I'd like to open the -- or I'm sorry. Please. At this
time I'd like to open the public hearing for Item H-2017-0007, Goddard Creek.
We will begin with the staff report.
Beach: Can't get these microphones figured out. So, as you said, this is -- the
applicant is Goddard Creek. It's an application for -- several application types. I
will go through them. Comprehensive Plan map amendment. Conditional use
permit for multi-family development in an R-40 zoning district. Conditional use
permit for a self-storage facility in the proposed C-C zoning district. A rezone. A
preliminary plat. And a development permit modification. So, the subject
property consists approximately 12.38 acres of land, which is currently zoned R-
4, located at 2780 West McMillan Road. To the north we have the Selway
Apartments, which are zoned R-4. To the east is residential property with a
home, which is zoned L-O. To the south is West McMillan Road and single
family homes in the R-4 and R-8 zoning districts. And to the west is vacant
commercial property, which is also zoned L-O. This property was granted
annexation, preliminary plat, and a conditional use permit as part of the Lochsa
Falls Subdivision back in 2002 and has a development agreement. The
conditional use permit allowed for 11 office buildings to be built within the R-4
zoning district and the subject property is one of those properties that was to
have an office use, which is part of the reason why we are before you tonight for
a -- or before Council, but as part of this -- for a development agreement
modification. So, the Comprehensive Plan future land use map designation for
the property is high-density residential and office. So, the applicant -- for the
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
March 16, 2017
Page 43 of 71
rezone the applicant requests approval to rezone 12.38 acres of land from R-4 to
R-40 and I'm going to pull up the site plan, so you can kind of see -- so, it's
Comprehensive Plan here, as I mentioned. It shows high density residential on
the north side and an office and they are wanting to change that to mixed use
community and I'm going to the -- going to the site plan for the landscape plan I
think is probably the best way to go about this. The applicant is proposing to
rezone five acres to R-40 and 7.38 acres to mixed-use community. The
applicant has submitted a site plan that includes 82 attached structures. The
proposed R-40 zoning district will accommodate the proposed multi-family
development, with a gross density of 16.4 dwelling units per acre. The proposed
self-storage facility with a total square footage of 143,964 will accommodate the
entire project on that western portion of the site. The legal description submitted
with the application shows the boundaries of the property proposed to be
annexed and zoned. The property is contiguous to land that has been annexed
into the city and is within the city's area of impact. So, moving down to the
development agreement modification. A modification to the existing development
agreement is requested to remove this property from the existing development
agreement, which is the Lochsa Falls Development Agreement, and enter into a
new development agreement with the associated concept plan, site plan, and,
then, elevations. The existing development agreement approved for the property
does not reflect the current owner's desires for the property's development. In
order to accommodate the proposed development the app licants request and
staff's recommendation is that the proposed development be placed in a new
development agreement, as I said, with the associated zoning designations,
elevations, and concept plan. The preliminary plat. The applicant proposes a
new preliminary plat consisting of 22 residential building lots, one commercial lot,
and five common lots on 12.38 acres of land in a proposed C-C and R-40 zoning
district. Access to the streets is required to comply with the standards listed in
the UDC. The applicant is proposing access off of West Apgar Creek Lane and
which was required to provide cross-access back with the Selway Apartments
and they are also proposing an emergency access in this location here from the
proposed multi-family development down to McMillan Road. ACHD has -- has
approved those access points and, as I said, the multi-family development's
access is proposed off of West McMillan and they have also proposed an
emergency access to a stub street to the Selway Apartments. A traffic impact
study was not required by the highway district for this development. Street buffer
landscaping is required to be provided along collector streets and arterial
roadways. A 20 foot -- 25 foot wide landscape buffer is required along West
McMillan Road. A minimum of ten percent of the multi-family portion of the site is
required to consist of what we call qualified open space . A total of 1.56 acres of
qualified open space is proposed, consisting of half the landscape buffer along
West McMillan Road, storm water retention facilities, a 50 -- 50 by 100 foot area
that is also called out as a storm water retention area and internal micropaths
consistent with the UDC standards. In order for the storm water retention area to
count towards the qualified open space, they must meet the design standards
listed in the UDC. A minimum of one qualified site amenity that meets the
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
March 16, 2017
Page 44 of 71
required -- requirements of the UDC is required to be provided within this
development, in addition to those required. Just -- just to clarify that a little bit,
there were some specific number of amenities required by one section of the
UDC for multi-family developments and there is a separate section that requires
a certain number of amenities based on the acreage for developments . So, in
this case it's -- four are required for the multi-family, in addition to one required by
the subdivision of the property based on that -- that acreage that they are
proposing. So, just to clarify that. So, a tot lot and the public art piece are
proposed as amenities. The applicant shall provide details of both of those
amenities this evening to make sure that they meet the -- the standards set forth
in the UDC. A six foot tall fence is depicted on the landscape plan along the
western boundary of the storage portion of the project. All the fencing should
comply with the standards listed in the UDC and staff's condition that the
applicant provide fencing around the 25 foot northern required landscape buffer
up against the Selway Apartments from the storage facility and the applicant will
discuss some proposals for that. As it currently stands, we were -- there was
some concerns that with the current fence between the Selway Apartments and
the current vacant property, that there would be a narrow area there that would
not be able to be seen and some -- and staff sees issues -- site issues with
having that be a screened area being landscaped, but no one was -- no one had
eyes on, because there is no public street through there and you wouldn't be able
to see anything. So, that's why that condition is in there. Sidewalks are required
to be provided with the development in accord with the standards in the UDC.
Micropaths shall be placed in a common lot or an easement -- need to be in
place, indicating who is responsible for those maintenances. Staff's condition is
that the applicant also provide a sidewalk from the existing W est Apgar Creek
Lane down to West McMillan Road. The landscape plan presented by the
applicant shows a 25 foot landscape easement through this area and so staff felt
it appropriate to provide some greater connectivity to -- to the corner -- to the
west for the Selway Apartments, as well as these residents here, so that folks
don't have to walk all the way out to Apgar Creek and, then, all the way back
west to the corner. So, moving on to the conditional use permit for the multi-
family development. It does require a conditional use permit. There are 82
dwelling units, consisting of 12 townhouse buildings, each unit containing
between two and three bedrooms. As I said, there are some specific use
standards, just -- on some highlights. An on-site property management office is
proposed within one of the units. Site plans submitted with the certificate of
zoning compliance application should depict the exact location of the
maintenance storage area, directory map for the development are two other
requirements in the specific use standard section. Another condition is because
homes on lots that back up to West McMillan Road, West Apgar Creek Lane,
North Goddard Creek Way and the required pedestrian pathway within the
landscape easement, as indicated by the preliminary plat, will be highly visible,
staff recommends the rear or sides of structures on those lots incorporate
articulation through changes in material, color, modulation an architectural
elements. I will show you the elevations proposed by the applicant. Also
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
March 16, 2017
Page 45 of 71
includes some -- some areas that would be internal and that they have increased
the architectural elements in those areas to add some interesting elevations
within the development as well. So, as I said, a secondary emergency access is
proposed via North Three Links Lane, which is north to the Selway Apartments,
was proposed and the staff recommends the applicant connect to the existing 30
foot cross-access easement on the west boundary of the site that was approved
with the Verona Subdivision No. 4 and so the Verona Subdivision -- which you
can kind of see here on the -- this plat here is a 30 foot easement here. Staff
thinks it's appropriate that we maintain that easement by providing an additional
emergency access out to the west for the -- potentially both the storage units and
for Selway Apartments. For the multi-family development, off-street parking is
required in accord with the standards of the UDC based on 82 units, two to three
bedroom -- two to three bedroom units. A total of 164 parking spaces are
required for the development, 82 of which are required to be in covered carports
or garages. The site plan depicts a total of 205 parking spaces, 94 of which are
enclosed garages and 94 in parking pads. This -- to the front of the garages, 88
parking stalls are also required and 13 other stalls located throughout the
development are proposed. For nonresidential uses, such as the property
management office, a minimum of one space is required to be provided for every
500 square feet of gross floor area. Based on the roughly 100 square feet -- 100
square foot office a minimum of one parking space is required to be provided for
that office, which the site plan does comply with. In commercial districts -- let me
see here. In addition to this one bicycle parking stall is required to be provided
for every 25 vehicle spaces in compliance with the standards . The submitted site
plan shall include one -- one bike stall. This is -- I apologize for the multi --
excuse me -- for the storage unit portion of the project that does comply with the
parking standards, but there is concern that they need to comply with the one
additional bicycle parking stall. There are existing trees on the site. The
applicant is required to comply with the mitigation standards of the UDC and they
are required to comply with -- or contact Elroy Huff, the city arborist, prior to
removal of any existing trees from the site and a tree mitigation plan should be
located on the revised landscape plan that was submitted with the first certificate
of zoning compliance application for this project. So, staff recommends that with
submittal of the certificate of compliance the applicant provide the revised
elevations and we will strike that, because the applicant has provided additional
elevations that were revised prior to tonight's hearing. The applicant is required
to obtain approval of a certificate of zoning compliance application for
establishment of both of the new uses and to ensure that all site improvements
comply with the provisions of the UDC and the applicant is also required to
comply with the design review standards set forth in the architectural standards
manual. With that staff is recommending approval of the number of applications.
Apologize for being long-winded, but there was a lot to get through there. As I
said, staff is recommending approval and will stand for any questions you have.
McCarvel: Okay. Thank you, Josh. Are there any questions for staff ? I guess
not. Okay. Would the applicant like to come forward.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
March 16, 2017
Page 46 of 71
Parks: Good evening, Chairman and Commissioners, my name is Shaun Parks
with TO Engineers. And my address -- the TO Engineers address is 2471
Titanium in Meridian. Thank you very much for your consideration for our
application at Goddard Creek here tonight . Josh has done a very good job of
reviewing the applications before you. We -- after receiving really good
comments from staff in two pre-application meetings and also comments from
neighbors in two different neighborhood meetings, we have thoughtfully designed
a project that includes a storage facility on 7.3 acres with access onto West
McMillan. I'm just going to pull up my presentation here.
Beach: Which of the two is there? The lower one?
Parks: It's the lower one. Yes. Goddard Creek. Thank you. And, then, also a
multi-family unit -- element of four-plex -- four-plex townhomes of 82 unit --
residential units on five acres with access from and onto West Apgar Creek. The
design team has worked really hard to create a project that fits well into the
existing surrounding neighborhood. The primary features that are being used to
make this subdivision attractive are well-designed architectural facades with
stone clouding in neutral colors, nice landscape buffers with berms, sidewalks,
and seasonal attractive plants and well-placed access locations and circulation.
We believe that the land uses fit well into -- and I'm just going to jump to the next
slide here if I can. How do I go to the next slide, Josh? Ups and downs?
Beach: Should just be the arrows left and right.
Parks: Left and right.
Beach: Not working for you?
Parks: There we go. Thank you. This just shows the adjacent land uses. We
believe the overall project fits well within these different adjacent land uses.
Moving north into the Selway Apartments, obviously, we have got multi-family
along Goddard Creek, moving towards that higher density and then -- and, then,
moving west from Goddard along with McMillan to the storage units, eventually to
an office use and, then, finally, to the commercial uses on Ten Mile. The
subdivision is fronted by West McMillan Road and it has a 50 foot offset right-of-
way that is planned for three lanes, a center turn lane, plus bike lanes, and we
are widening a portion of this section of roadway and , then, each of the land uses
will have their own access as we -- as mentioned before with the storage access
coming off of McMillan and we are moving the access off of -- for the -- for the
multi-family off of Apgar. I'm going to talk just a little bit about -- in detail about
the multi-family residential units and, then, I'm going to invite Tim Alatorre to talk
about the storage facility. The site proposed for the -- for the residential storage
unit fourplexes sits here on the corner of Goddard Creek Way and McMillan and
one of the strong elements of -- of this particular multi-family feature is its strong
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
March 16, 2017
Page 47 of 71
street presence. All of the units in -- all around the -- the development are
fronting on major streets and so -- and as you will see here when we go to -- if
this will advance for me. Thank you. The street view and the overall plan --
landscape plan for the four-plex units, down at the bottom here you see a view
from Goddard Creek Way into the development and that shows how all of the
units are fronting onto the landscape buffer and into -- onto the street itself. With
an articulation and heights and colors and materials that we believe is -- is very
attractive. That's true also for the frontage onto McMillan, which has a much
wider landscape buffer, and also on Apgar. Internally right off of the entrance
from Apgar is the -- the office and parking would also accommodate some --
some bicycle parking. And a simple circular loop around the site that -- that
accommodates not only the parking for each of the units off of the drives, but we
have provided some additional guest parking. Tried -- tried to be conveniently
located, kind of dispersed throughout the site, for guests in addition to what was
really required by code. One of the things that you will see here on the far -- on
the far west side is our 25 foot landscape buffer, which we are encroaching in
with some -- thank you -- with some parking and also possibly one trash
enclosure element. A couple reasons that we would like your consideration of
that is, one, because of the storage units themselves create -- have -- really
create a solid enclosure between the two uses and so there is really no reason
for a buffer in that case. They are completely buffered by the wall of the storage
units themselves and so there is no use views or smells or noises that are
crossing between one use to another and it still allows for 18 feet of landscape
buffer space, which is plenty to soften the walls and so forth from an internal
perspective. We really do feel that that -- that that parking on that side and also
the storage -- or the trash enclosure facility are -- are necessary to accommodate
that portion of the site. Just to address a couple of the items -- condition --
conditions of approval -- I'm trying to --
Beach: It's not working for you?
Parks: No. It's just -- it's just slow. Trying to come back here. Well, maybe it's
not working.
Beach: What would you like to go to?
Parks: This one is great. That just kind of shows one of the conditions of -- of
this north-south sidewalk that Josh alluded to that was his suggestion to make a
connection from Selway Apartments down to -- to McMillan and we have
provided that -- along that buffer that we just discussed. And I'd like to advance
to the next one if I can. Thank you. This just shows some of the renderings of
the units themselves and Josh already showed you that we have also, as part of
the conditions, made some adjustments to the backs and the sides to increase
articulation and materials for that internal view. We have also changed a little bit
the amenity package from what was earlier stated. We still have the 50 by 100
field that was in there previously and also the playground tot lot, but we have
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
March 16, 2017
Page 48 of 71
changed the art piece to a community garden, which was another accepted use,
and, then, added -- and, then, we have the pathway system that was -- was
always a part of the development and I have added in that fifth element that Josh
suggested as part of the conditions of use that -- that we add some bike lockers,
too, around the office area. So, we have added those as an amenity as well.
And I do have here at the end -- Josh, if we can advance to that. I don't know
why this is -- just an image of the -- the bike lockers that we are suggesting, as
well as the tot lot that is proposed for this particular site. The developers and the
design team, we just would like to request your approval of the subdivision and
rezoning as it's shown. We would also like to request consideration -- for you
would -- that we could apply for an application for building permit prior to final
building permit for these particular units and with that I would like to just open it
up for questions before I maybe bring Tim before you and talk about the storage
units.
McCarvel: Okay. Thank you. Do you have any questions to do you want -- shall
we listen to -- continue on --
Beach: Just to clarify, Shaun --
Parks: Yes.
McCarvel: Hold on. Josh.
Beach: You had -- he had mentioned that you want to building permit prior to
final plat being recorded.
Parks: Final --
Beach: In our draft report.
Parks: That is correct. Final.
McCarvel: Yeah. I thought I heard that slip in there. Yeah. Okay.
Parks: I'm sorry.
Cassanelli: Madam Chair? Do all the -- all the proposed units in the residential
all have garages?
Parks: Yes, that is correct. They all have garages and all have driveways as
well. If we go back to -- obviously, these are all three story units. They all have a
single garage for each unit and a single driveway parking spot. The two -- on this
unit that you're seeing before you now on the two story -- on the ends with the
three story in the middle, those have double garages on the two -story units on
the ends and a two open parking -- open parking stalls on the driveways as well.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
March 16, 2017
Page 49 of 71
McCarvel: Anymore questions? Okay. You said you had more presentation
from --
Parks: Yes.
McCarvel: Okay.
Alatorre: Well, good evening, Madam Chair, Commissioners. Thank you for
your time this evening. It's been -- it's been an eventful -- an eventful night. My
name is Tim Alatorre. I am the architect for the storage facilities. Our company
is Domum. And, unfortunately, I am not a resident of Meridian. I'm from
Rockland, California. But I have family that's been long time residents here in the
town that if they had their way I will be here soon living here. But we had the
privilege of working with city staff and the community in putting together this
proposal for the storage facility project and, as Josh mentioned and also in the
staff report, we are on the western side of the property here and I guess, Josh, I
will just have to give you the thumbs up on when to proceed -- quick again. So,
just to walk you through the -- the project here, if you will click one. We are
proposing to try to develop in two phases. Phase one will be the buildings
highlighted here in orange and the remaining parcels or Buildings D and F will, in
the short-term, be open parking storage and in addition phase one we will also
have a manager's office and onsite residence down there off of the access to
McMillan Road and that will be -- that is that resident has a two car garage for
them and we also have those landscaper buffers that -- that we were talking
about and they are -- we are providing nice screening along McMillan and also to
the east next to the -- the proposed residential and also to the north where we
have the -- the existing multi-family housing and for phase two -- if you will hit
that, Josh -- we will then -- hopefully this fills up quickly and business goes well
and, then, we will build those remaining buildings there, eliminating the majority
of the -- the on-site parking storage. And next slide there. So, we are proposing
our primary access off of McMillan Road and with the storage facility we don't
anticipate a high volume of traffic and it tends to be during the day and -- but we
are proposing additionally, as in the plan, Josh, the emergency access off of the
north -- if you will click on that for me, Josh -- and click again and we are open to
the -- the access off of the west. We don't have a problem with that at all. We
think that enhances connectivity for all the -- the neighborhood. Just to give you
a rundown. The main storage buildings are going to be metal buildings and, you
know, a typical -- a grid as you see here and the manager's office -- downstairs
will have a display area and covered -- covered walkways protecting the entries,
as well as a break room and a public restroom and upstairs we have a two
bedroom apartment for our manager. The architecture, we -- in response to the
neighbor comments, we have really stepped up the articulation and -- and we
have tried to -- to make it appealing from all sides. Click again. You will notice
we have some tower elements and a plan view as those towers wrap the corner
there, those towers will appear as -- as one entity. They are not going to appear
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
March 16, 2017
Page 50 of 71
as some planted on architecture, but it will feel solid and as part of the -- the
entire building. We are proposing metal buildings, as I mentioned, for the main
storage facility and, then, for the two story manager's office and residence that
will be stick frame with the stucco finish. Everything will have a textured feel to it.
We are not going to have metal panels visible from the street. All those -- all that
metal building will have a stucco texture to it to make it feel more solid . Finally,
we have a couple renderings here of what it would look like . This is a view from
the main access point off of McMillan and, again, facing east on McMillan and
this is from the corner of the residential facility and you see the little person there
standing by the tower, that's approximately where the path will, then, continue up
through the residential portion and I'm -- if you have any questions I would be
happy to answer them.
McCarvel: Okay. Any questions for Tim? Okay. Thank you. Oka y. At this time
we will take public testimony. Had several signed up to testify. Oh. Shaun
Parks, you're -- yeah. Okay. It's like that name looks familiar. Okay. And, Tim,
you just spoke. All right. We don't have as many as I thought. All right. I don't
have anybody else signed up to testify, but is there anybody here that would like
to -- oh, I have only got no's on there, so -- it doesn't matter. It just says do you
wish to testify and there is all N's by the rest of them, so -- but you're more than
welcome. And state your name and address for the record, please.
Tolman: Sheryl Tolman. I live at 2695 West McMillan Road, directly south of --
south?
McCarvel: Right.
Tolman: -- of this facility. First of all, I thought we were required to -- they were
required to send out notices for this meeting and we did not receive one. We
didn't receive any. Sorry. Neither did the other couple that was here. So, I am
not sure that people are aware of this meeting, other than if they pulled off
McMillan Road to read the sign. They talked about the neighborhood meeting
and how people were supportive of it. At that time the storage unit was where
the apartments are and they talked about assisted living across the street from
me, which I was great with. The other neighborhood meeting they had was
December 22nd, which was really close to Christmas, wasn't nearby, it was here
and we were trying to get a daughter home from college, so I was unable to
attend, but I tried to call, it was Christmas break, couldn't get a hold of anybody,
tried to look up the plans online, didn't have any luck, and it wasn't until I read the
sign and Googled it that I finally, after hours, found the 97 pages that talked
about these changes that we were unaware of. Traffic is already bad in this
neighborhood. Ten Mile often backs up when people are trying to turn into the
storage unit. I come across that often. There is not enough turn lane to turn into
Goddard Creek as it is, let alone adding 84 or 82 or how many ever more -- more
houses -- apartments to turn in there and I really do not like the fact that the
entrance to the storage unit is directly across the street from my little lane . I have
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
March 16, 2017
Page 51 of 71
major safety concerns with that and I'm also wondering if this emergency access
up there, is it going to be completely gated so pedestrians from the apartments
will be able to go through there to the apartment -- to the storage units onto my
lane. We already have issues with -- there is not supposed to be right of way
across my lane, because there is not sufficient pedestrian view, it's a total blank
corner, and we have had some near misses. Even with my trash can, walking, I
almost hit somebody that came running out and I don't want to see more peo ple
coming through my lane. I don't want more traffic. I don't want the traffic right
there by me. There is my children's bus stop right there. I see that as a major
concern. And I am completely against these changes and this current plan. I
think if people had known about this you would see more people here to also
oppose the change, because assisted living we were okay with. More
apartments, no, we don't need more traffic, we don't need more residents to that
extent. So, I want to go on record as being opposed and I believe my husband
is, too.
McCarvel: Okay. Thank you. Anyone else? Okay. Please state your name and
address for the record.
Fisher: Daniel Fisher. 2382 West Apgar Creek. So, I live right on the corner of
Apgar Creek and Goddard. I also agree we didn't receive any notice that they
were going to change to a multi-family plan. It was supposed to be storage units
on one side and, then, senior living on the other side. So, now all of a sudden we
have 80 some odd apartment units. The part -- let me get my list out here. The
first thing is the parking. We already have on Apgar Creek, because of the
apartments across the street, we already have guests parking Saturday night,
Sunday night across the street is terrible . You get people -- doors opening and
closing all hours of the night. So, if you add another 80 or so units that's only
going to multiply. Go out in the morning, got to pick up all the dog mess. I mean
it's -- I don't think it's a good thing to be adding another 80 or so of housing units
right on that corner. There is a small little road that comes out of the Selway, it's
not very big, and, then, you're going to have an entrance going into the -- the
townhomes right where people are going to -- are trying to get out of Selway onto
Goddard. I just don't think it's a -- it's just not a good plan. I would also second
what was said about the -- the turn lane from McMillan onto Goddard is very
short. You add more housing units right on that corner, because they are going
to be -- they are going to be backing up at the corner of Apgar and Goddard to
turn into those apartments, because they are going to have to turn into those
apartments, but, then, also make a quick left to get into the new townhomes. So,
you're going to get back up on two different sides and it's not going to be a good
plan. One other major concern that I have is a height restriction on three stories.
We live right across the street. You add a third story in those townhomes you're
going to be looking right down into my daughter's bedroom. So, every other
house in that neighborhood is two stories. The person that's in that third story is
going to be able to look right -- right down into my six year old's bedroom and
there is no way to prevent it. It's right across the street. So, I have a major
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
March 16, 2017
Page 52 of 71
concern with three stories. I would like to see, you know, if we continue on with
the -- the multi-family right on Goddard Creek I'd like to see a height restriction of
a maxim of two stories to fit in with the -- the nature of the neighborhood. Okay.
McCarvel: Thank you. Okay. Anyone else wish to testify? Sure. Twenty
seconds.
Fisher: If it's possible I would really like to see this meeting continued so that we
can have discussions with the neighbors. I, again, agree the neighborhood
meetings were not wonderful discussions of this plan. So, I'd like to see this
meeting continued without the change to the zoning, so that we can get the
neighborhood involved in really coming here and giving you our opinions. Thank
you.
McCarvel: Thank you. Okay. Would the applicant like to come forward.
Alatorre: Hi. Tim Alatorre. Domum. I will just respond to gate access and, then,
Shaun can respond to the other comments. So, for the storage facility, that will
be entirely gated and secured. Those emergency access points to the north and
the west are knocks boxes, so the fire department can get through, but the public
will not have access to those points. Because of the secured nature -- so, the
question was is it going to be a solid gate or is there going to be something
underneath it that kids can crawl under. Because of the nature of the storage
facility and wanting to keep it secure, we will -- those will not be easily accessible
gates, except for an emergency situation.
McCarvel: Okay.
Parks: So, there was a question about emergency access. Those -- those
emergency access locations would be gated into both facilities, so we'd have
bollards or gates to prevent daily traffic from going through those. Also I did want
to address that. Traffic issues, of course, we did mention that we -- that we
would be providing some widening of McMillan Road, so that hopefully will help
out with some -- some turning opportunities providing the center turn lane that is
currently not existing, at least in this section of -- of McMillan. It kind of necks
down through this portion of the property. So, that's one thing that would be
provided. On the height issues, obviously, Selway Apartments to -- just to the
north of us are all three story and we do have --
McCarvel: Please don't shout out.
Parks: So -- and then -- and also we do have significant landscape buffers
around to -- you know, to help screen and buffer views from -- from the -- from
those third story units. And to the most part we have -- what we have tried to do
is place the units that have two stories on the ends also towards the corners and
around places where we really thought that it was a good -- to transition from a
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
March 16, 2017
Page 53 of 71
lower height to a bigger height as well. I also did want to bring up -- there was --
there was an issue and a question from staff about the fencing just north of the
storage facilities and adjacent to Selway Apartments. I think there was originally
a thought that the -- oops. That the -- that the Selway apartments were backing
onto those storage facilities. But, actually, in that case they -- they are fronting
on and there is a small walkway in that location and so we are open to working
with -- with Selway and the HOA in that regards. In some ways it would be better
to actually open those all the way up to the backs of those storage facilities,
because it does provide a wall and it's just a landscaping buffer that would be in
that area and it would -- without the fencing, obviously, we wouldn't have that
kind of, you know, no man zone in between the backs of storage and, then, fence
itself. But, again, we are open to working with the neighborhood in that regard
and the HOA to figure out what -- what exactly their -- their needs and wants are.
So, with that I'd like to open it up for any questions.
McCarvel: The noticing and the community meeting.
Parks: The community meeting.
McCarvel: Uh-huh.
Parks: So, yes, initially we did have -- we started with a plan which we had --
these are for the storage on -- on board and there was some good suggestions
by staff just because of access. We were starting working with different users.
We didn't have a user for the multi-family at the time and we were suggesting
some kind of multi-family use, whether it was assisted living or something else at
that first meeting and we had a great suggestion by staff as we came back later
with an actual user that wanted to do these townhome -- multi-family fourplexes
and staff suggested because of access issues and traffic and other concerns that
we look at actually flipping those two uses and so at that time we decided to
actually have a second neighborhood meeting, although it wasn't required, to just
get the people involved in that decision and giving them an opportunity to voice
any concerns that they might have as well and it did -- it did end up being a bad
time of year. We were trying to work it in at a -- you know, as kind of a last
minute as we were trying to work through plans and get everything approved , so
-- questions?
Perreault: Madam Chair, I have a question for the applicant.
McCarvel: Commissioner Perreault.
Perreault: Can you go over again the -- the turn lanes on McMillan? You said
that there would be a center left turn lane put in at -- at the applicant's expense?
Is that what I'm understanding? And, then, is there going to be a right turn -- turn
lane also into that entrance?
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
March 16, 2017
Page 54 of 71
Parks: We are actually just doing some of the widening and --
Perreault: Okay.
Parks: -- I think that's up to ACHD to -- to finish some of those things off as far
as the lane work.
Perreault: Okay. So --
Parks: And I can have John Carpenter, who does more of the engineering part
of that, come and address that, but we will be widening the road and providing
new shoulder and, obviously, the sidewalk and landscape buffers.
Perreault: Okay.
McCarvel: Josh, can you go back to the layout where it shows how m uch room
is to the storage units and why don't you both come up, so we can ask you both
questions at the same time. How much distance is it from McMillan to the access
gate where people have to stop and go through into the storage units.
Parks: You're talking to access the storage units?
McCarvel: Yeah.
Parks: Seven hundred and fifty feet.
McCarvel: Oh. Okay. Okay. And, then, I also had some questions about
parking at these apartments. I mean it -- it just seems like there is really not
enough parking for guests and I get it that, you know, it's -- the overall parking
complies with code, but usually that overall parking is a flow of parking, I mean
just in my experience with parking in apartments, and these seem to have --
you're going to have two dedicated spots, one inside the garage and one outside,
that nobody else can park in. So, your guests parking is -- it seems really tight. I
mean where are we expecting these people to park?
Parks: Yeah. Well -- and, again, you know, we are really far exceeding the
parking requirement, because also in addition to just the singles, the two -- for
the three storage units, the two-story units have four -- four parking places and
yes -- and it's true that, you know, a lot of the guests are going to have to park on
the driveways themselves. In addition to that, we did also come through and
provide some of those guest parking space s kind of distributed throughout, just
because we just didn't feel that the driveways and the garages were enough,
even though even just that alone exceeds the code issue.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
March 16, 2017
Page 55 of 71
McCarvel: Right. I think -- I mean when they are not so dedicated you have
room for flow and guests come and go and the residents come and go, but where
these spots are already --
Parks: Right.
McCarvel: -- I think a consideration needs to be made that these spots are
already designated for their occupants, where -- where the guests go. I mean --
Parks: That's why we put in those extra spots, you know.
McCarvel: Okay. Were there ten? Nineteen? And several of those are
encroaching on the need to get an exception to put them in the landscape; right?
The landscape buffer?
Beach: That is correct.
McCarvel: Okay.
Perreault: Would you mind -- Madam Chair?
McCarvel: Yeah.
Perreault: Would you mind quickly going over the location of the amenities
again?
Parks: Oh, yes. Josh, if you could get the plan -- yes. That would be wonderful.
Before Josh gets to the plan here, m ost of -- most of those are located in the
central green, in the very central portion of the site. And as soon as we get a
plan up here I can show you. There is a large -- just south of the office there is a
large open space that includes a 50 by 100, you know, play field feature. Right
next to that is the playground itself. Down at the other end where there was an
art piece, now we have changed that out for community gardens and so there will
be four to six plots I think that are rentable and have some fencing and hose bibs
and so forth around that to --
Perreault: If that falls into any kind of disrepair who is going to be overseeing
that?
Parks: Well, again, we do have an office on site, so there is -- there is an HOA
that kind of --
Perreault: So, maintenance --
Parks: So, maintenance will be -- and, then, we also do want to provide some
landscaping and fencing around that, so that even at off times of the year when
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
March 16, 2017
Page 56 of 71
the gardens, you know, are more fallow and there is just not much going on
inside them, at least there is a perimeter landscaped edge around it to make it
look nice. And, then, the -- the bicycle parking itself is going to be right up
adjacent to the office and the cluster mailboxes and all of those other things.
Pathways, of course, are distributed throughout.
McCarvel: Okay. And am I seeing those open fields -- so, you have got nothing
-- it's just grass area and it's also the -- was it drainage area? I can't see.
Beach: Are you referring to these -- that I'm pointing to with my mouse right
now?
McCarvel: We are not seeing --
Beach: What are you seeing? Okay. We are still figuring this computer system
out here. How about now?
McCarvel: There we go.
Beach: Okay. So, you're referring to these areas I'm pointing to with my mouse?
McCarvel: Uh-huh.
Beach: Okay. Their landscape plan indicates those as seepage beds, as well as
open space. And if they are designed a certain way, as I mentioned in my
presentation, they -- they can be included as qualified open space if they are
designed according to the UDC.
Parks: And so that largely all of that work or -- essentially occurs underground.
So, there is -- they are not necessarily heavily recessed so that the -- so that the
surface is seeing a lot of water, it's -- it's all subsurface.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
March 16, 2017
Page 57 of 71
Cassanelli: Madam Chair?
McCarvel: Commissioner Cassanelli.
Cassanelli: Clarification on that. So, that is a -- that will be a level park-like field
that is not a --
Parks: Yeah.
McCarvel: Storm drain.
Cassanelli: It's not a storm drain, it's not --
Parks: There will be a very slight depression in those just to make sure that
water -- all the water is kind of going to the center of that bed, but it's going to be
for the most part flat.
McCarvel: Okay. Any other questions for the applicant? Comm issioner Trent.
Commissioner -- or -- I keep wanting to combine your --
Bernt: Treg Bernt.
McCarvel: I know. I want to combine it all. You're good? Okay. Any more
questions for the applicant? Okay. All right. Thank you.
Parks: You're welcome.
McCarvel: At this time can I get a motion t o close the public hearing on H-2017-
007, Goddard Creek.
Bernt: So moved.
Wilson: Second.
McCarvel: It has been moved and seconded to close the public hearing on item
number H-2017-0007. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. TWO ABSENT.
McCarvel: Comments?
Bernt: I have one right off the bat.
McCarvel: Go for it.
Bernt: Madam Chair?
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
March 16, 2017
Page 58 of 71
McCarvel: Commissioner Bernt.
Bernt: I haven't been doing this very long, a couple months -- two, three months,
but this seems to be a really big development. This is by far the biggest
presentation made to us from staff since I have been a member of this
Commission. I think it's positive. There is only two families sitting out in the -- in
the public. I think that's weird. I mean we have had smaller subdivisions and
smaller proposed, you know, applicants come forward with proposed
subdivisions and this entire chamber has been full of people an d so I -- I have a
huge concern with the big change from this applicant requesting to rezone 12.3
acres of land from R-4 to R-40. That's massive. That's a really, really big
change -- and I'm not saying I'm for or against, I'm just saying that I feel it's just --
something doesn't smell right to me. I'm just being honest.
McCarvel: Commissioner Bernt, I think part of the -- they kind of just flipped
where the density was. I mean they had -- I don't know if -- because it was up
closer to Selway Apartments. It was zoned for the high density and so they --
they are kind of moving that over to the right as far as the zoning . But I still --
and so they can have the storage units in one part and having the apartments
also looking out onto McMillan. So, the total zoning, it's kind of -- on paper looks
like it's a big change, but I think it's kind of just moving it to the right, instead of
having it on the north, but -- you can see the orange is what was high zone --
high-density zone there anyway and so they kind of just taken that acreage and
put it over there, dropped down more into the square on the right and made the
purple all the way up. But be that as it may, I still don't know that what they have
done fits into that space. I mean I agree, I think it's very congested, I think it's --
like I said, the parking to me, having -- and it's been a while since I have had --
that I have parked in apartments, but I know my -- my son does and there is --
the parking spaces are to code, but it's -- there is a flow of those parking spaces
that everybody is pulling in and out of all day. These -- most of them are spoken
for, even though nobody may be parking there and it's like where do the guests
go. I mean -- and you know there is going to be guests. So, I just have an issue
with that. I also have an issue with how close that does come -- I think there is
just -- there needs to be a plan with some -- I just think with some more access
to it, because, I agree, it's just going to -- it's going to pile up there getting out
onto Goddard and, then, having the mailboxes and everything -- when the
mailboxes are right there at the entry as well and even to get the guest parking
spots they are talking about, we have to allow the -- you know, the reduction in
the landscape buffer just to get those -- those in. And I guess for that many
townhomes I'm not overly impressed with the amenities . There is my two cents.
Beach: If I could really -- really quick, just to answer maybe Commissioner
Bernt's question about public hearing notice, when we were -- when the city sent
the notice out and to whom we sent the notice. I have some information here I
can -- I can provide for you to help clarify that. Whether that makes you
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
March 16, 2017
Page 59 of 71
comfortable or not is another question. But bear with me again here. Okay. So,
this is a notice here. It was sent out -- got you. So, the checklist here indicates
when the city sends notices to other agencies for comment, when the vicinity
notices are mailed, which would be the notices sent to the surrounding neighbors
and when we published it in the paper. Okay? So, those -- those are the dates
for those three items there. Moving forward again we also have in this -- if I can
find it -- the property owners list, which are the individuals the notices were
mailed to. Okay. So, both of the individuals that came up here indicated they did
not receive a notice. One was sent to them in the mail. Both of those addresses
are on here. I don't know whether or not the -- one of them specifically was 2393
West Apgar Creek. That one on the corner of Apgar Creek and Goddard Creek.
This is Pamela Lynn Fiscus. That one was meant -- was sent and the other one
was 2695 I think, which is here, and Steven Tolman. So, those two specifically
were sent notices in the mail. We have had issues with folks calling with
concerns that they didn't receive a notice and as far as -- I think Andrea can
speak to this as well -- as far as legal is concerned our responsibility is to make
sure that those get sent in the mail. We don't have control over -- past that
whether the mail gets to those individuals. Our responsibility is to send the
notice out. And so as you can see on the list here we sent to all of the property
owners that we were required to send to and -- quite a while ago.
Bernt: Thank you for that clarification.
McCarvel: Any other comments? Discussion?
Perreault: Madam Chair? I have got some concerns about the -- about the
amenities. The elevations, this -- on these townhouses are beautiful. Look like
they are going to be very tasteful. It looks like the amenities are lacking.
McCarvel: I agree.
Perreault: Both in space and in usability. I don't know that we are going to have
a lot of people biking through here. There isn't a continuous sidewalk along
McMilIan where somebody would be biking along McMillan. So, I don't -- I don't
feel like some of amenities are applicable to the type of development and that
they are really in line with the type of tenant or owner that's going to be in the -- in
the complex.
Wilson: Madam Chair?
McCarvel: Commissioner Wilson.
Wilson: My brief two cents -- because it is 9:00 o'clock -- I agree with you. I
mean I'm -- based on what I see of the process, I mean they were going one
direction, they changed course -- there seems to be a lot of outstanding
questions about whether that fits your question. I think the amenities kind of
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
March 16, 2017
Page 60 of 71
point to that, that this might have, you know, maybe not been thought through
completely or there is some component -- outstanding components that still need
to be hashed out in order for it to fit in that community and I think -- I'm not seeing
us maybe get to a place where we could make conditions in order to get this
where it needs to be in order for us to recommend approval.
Perreault: Madam Chair?
McCarvel: Commissioner Perrault.
Perreault: I also still have concerns about the traffic there on McMillan and
accessing the storage units and I'd like to see more detail on how that's going to
be expanded. How that -- how the applicant intends on widening that and what
ACHD's plans are for that -- for that area in front of the storage units.
McCarvel: Okay.
Beach: I guess to clarify on that, Commissioner Perreault, what's -- I mean just --
it's not clear to me, what about -- what specifically are you looking to find out from
ACHD? We have a staff report from them that included conditions of approval for
the project. We can -- we can kind of go through that if you would like.
Perreault: I did look through it --
Beach: Okay.
Perreault: -- in the packet. I didn't -- and perhaps I missed it. I didn't see
anything that actually showed any kind of drawing or layout of what that's going
to look like. Was there -- was there one in there that I missed?
Beach: I guess to clarify, what are you meaning -- what it looks like. Are you
talking about the shoulder of the road --
Perreault: Specifically my concern is is there a left -- is there going to be a left
turn lane and a right turn lane into that entrance? That's my main concern. A
dedicated left turn lane, so that we are not stopping traffic as somebody's turning
left and so that -- because people are going to be turning right on Goddard Creek
so you're already going to have -- I don't know if there is a dedicated right turn
onto Goddard Creek from McMillan, but if there isn't you're going to have people
slowing down there to turn right into Goddard and, then, slowing down again to
turn right into the access to the storage units. So, maybe I'm not understanding
entirely.
Beach: Sure. Sure. Just trying to clarify.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
March 16, 2017
Page 61 of 71
Parsons: Madam Chair, Members of the Commission, if I can interject here for a
moment. Keep in mind the applicant was not required to do a traffic study. So,
some of the things that you're asking for clarification on ACHD has been silent
on. They are not going to require a turn lane off of Goddard as a traffic mitigation
for this project, because they haven't required a traffic study. What McMillan
Road will be in the future is a two lane road with a center -- center turn lane. So,
there will be at some point in and out. It's -- we have that under construction
currently on Meridian Road -- at the Meridian intersection. I think the developer
there has built out some of that McMillan Road. So, that's what the ultimate build
out is going to be. It's going to be a three lane road, so two ways of traffic and a
center turn lane. So, that will happen. This developer won't be responsible to do
as part of their subdivision. They are required to dedicate additional right of way
for that to happen when it's warranted. I don't have that information in front of
me, but ACHD staff report speaks to when the timing of those improvements are
to be done and maybe Josh can pull up that staff report and we can let you know
when that roadway is expected to be widened to its full potential. But as part of
this development the applicant will be responsible to do the sidewalk. So, you
will get that continuous improvement along that street and, then, also we have
required additional connectivity through that multi-family development. So, per
our mixed use standards we want that interconnectivity between development s,
so that we aren't having people go onto major arterials to get to -- to other
amenities out there. Now, what staff told you when -- and we were doing our
staff report, we did entertain the possibility of having the applicant revise their site
plans, so that the storage facility and the multi-family development would share a
single access point to McMillan Road. That would give them another way in and
out, not to use -- go onto Goddard or go through that other multi-family
development. We didn't necessarily land on that, because typically when you
have a storage facility you have moving truck s, you have trailers, you don't want
those conflicts with one another, but that's certainly within your purview. You can
continue this out, ask for a revised site plan. If you're not happy with the
amenities in your recommendation to City Council you can propose they add a
pool, a clubhouse, a fitness facility. That's within your purview. If you don't like
the multi-family development, they are in for a rezone and a comp plan change,
you can deny that conditional use permit and keep the one -- if you like the
storage facility you can recommend approval on that conditional use permit . So,
there is many options for you this evening as to how you want to deliberate on
this. My recommendation, if you want to see that amenity package, you want to
know how that additional access to McMillan Road could work in conjunction with
the storage facility, you can continue it out, give us some -- in your continuance
give us the specifics you want addressed and we can
bring it back to you to just address those items that you leave us -- you want to
see as part of the continuance. Or you can move it forward as this and see what
Council wants to do with it.
McCarvel: Thank you, Bill. Yeah. I think where I'm at is I'm okay with the
storage unit. I think -- and I'm not opposed to the high density in theory, but I
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
March 16, 2017
Page 62 of 71
think this high density -- I don't know that we have seen enough -- I think that we
are causing a big backup to happen with only that one access into those
apartments. Right there at that corner. That's -- that's my two cents. I'd love to
hear everybody's else's.
Cassanelli: Question for staff. What's the -- what's the zoning on the Selway
Apartments? How many units are there right now? Do you have that --
Parsons: Madam Chair, Members of the Commission, I do. I worked on that
project. One of the first ones I had with the city, so I'm very familiar with it. The
property -- as Josh mentioned in his presentation to you, Lochsa Falls has a
planned unit development. As part of that approval that apartment -- that
property -- that ten acres where Selway is developed was vested with 171
residential multi -- multi-family dwelling units and so I think it's about 17, 18
dwelling units to the acre, if I remember right. Staff had recommend --
recommended that that be rezoned to match what the current density is on that
property and City Council denied that rezone and said, no, we are going to leave
it R-4. This particular piece has the same approval on it. It's R-4 currently today,
but it's allowed to develop with office use s and that was the rules in place at the
time that that came through. They got what's called a use exception. So, you
see residential zoning on the property, but it's allowed to develop with an office
use.
Beach: We don't do that anymore. It's a bad idea.
Parsons: Yeah. And that's -- that can get -- I can tell you from my experience
with Selway it was very contentious and there was at least five or six hundred
neighbors here in opposition of that project, because they did not want that in
that area. So, I'm with you, Commissioner Bernt, it's odd that I don't see the
neighbors out here. I was expecting a lot more this evening. But with that said,
everything that we see in our files, a proper notification, a property sign posting,
everything was done in accordance with our UDC and the law. So, I'm not sure
why neighbors didn't come out. Maybe they -- they liked it or -- I don't have an
answer for that. But I know Selway was very contentious.
McCarvel: Okay. Anybody else?
Cassanelli: Madam Chair?
McCarvel: Commissioner Cassanelli.
Cassanelli: As a thought. Because I haven't shared them. I think the traffic -- it's
a lot of units coming out onto Goddard. I don't -- I think if there was an entrance
to the residential units off of McMillan you have got -- you would have two access
points with Goddard and -- and that too close together along with the -- you
know. And, then, a driveway going into the -- to the -- to the storage units. It's
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
March 16, 2017
Page 63 of 71
currently not McMillan -- it pinches down there right where the entrance to the
units are. There is not a -- McMillan doesn't have a center lane all the way down.
McCarvel: Yeah. I don't know that an entrance onto McMillan is the answer.
Cassanelli: No.
McCarvel: I just -- I mean there is -- it's so close -- that entrance is so close to
Goddard Road. I mean if that -- what's that, Apgar --
Cassanelli: Apgar.
McCarvel: It disappeared on me. That Apgar Road. I mean that comes out so
close there that there is just no room I don't think -- I mean you're going to have
people trying to turn left into that right there from that corner . So, I just don't
know that this layout -- I think we are asking for problems. So, like I said, I'm not
opposed to the storage units and I'm not opposed in theory to the high density, I
just don't know that this is the plan --
Cassanelli: And that's -- that's my gut feel. The units themselves are -- they are
nice looking.
McCarvel: Beautiful. Yeah.
Cassanelli: Nice looking units. I just don't think this is the -- this is the location
that sets those.
McCarvel: Yeah. I mean even if --
Cassanelli: In the current -- you know, everything else that's around it. That's --
that's my feel.
McCarvel: Okay. So, we have four different -- five different parts to this that we
can approve or deny I guess. You have the rezone, which I think was, in theory,
not opposed to, because really all we are doing is taking that zone that's already
high density and just kind of flippin g it to that square area, instead of the long
narrow area, which --
Pogue: Madam Chair?
McCarvel: Yes.
Pogue: If you would move on the Comprehensive Plan map amendment and
recommended denial of that, then, you don't proceed with the -- each individual
item.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
March 16, 2017
Page 64 of 71
McCarvel: Okay. But that would mean -- I mean we are opposed to everything
about it, which I don't think we are, so -- but I don't know how to -- I guess -- and
somebody else is going to have to make the motion, but now we would have to
open the public -- no. I guess we deny the preliminary plat as proposed or just
flat out continue the whole thing and request that they come back with a different
layout? Okay. Well, somebody gets to make that motion then.
Wilson: Madam Chair?
McCarvel: Commissioner Wilson.
Wilson: I move we continue -- let me get on the right page. I move to continue
file number H-2017-0007 to the hearing date of --
McCarvel: March 16th.
Wilson: Well, no, it's --
McCarvel: Oh.
Wilson: I'm continuing it I guess. I looked at the --
Pogue: Madam Chair, point of process. If you're going to move to continue it
you need to reopen it and, then, you need to work with the clerk for a date and
you need to provide reasons for that continuation.
McCarvel: Okay.
Hill: Commissioner, we have April 4th -- or, I'm sorry, April 6th. April 20th.
Wilson: Yeah. I was going to say April 6th. Well, I guess before I make my
motion correctly, what are some of the -- I mean I -- maybe I'm tired. I have
heard a couple of the specifics, but --
McCarvel: I think the issue at hand is the preliminary plat we are not in
agreement with.
Wilson: Okay. That's -- just making sure that I have enough detail there.
McCarvel: I mean that's what we are all hedged on; right? Okay.
Beach: Was it not the conditional use permit that was the issue for the multi-
family? For the multi-family. Had issues with the amenities. Those are all tied to
the conditional use permit. The plat just has to do with the number of lots
associated with the --
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
March 16, 2017
Page 65 of 71
McCarvel: Okay. The conditional use permit. Okay.
Parsons: Yeah. I think -- if I may, Madam Chair, Members of the Commission, I
think you had concerns with the amount of guest parking.
McCarvel: Right.
Parsons: And its proximity to the units. You weren't too keen with the access.
McCarvel: Right.
Parsons: You weren't keen on the amenity package and also -- it sounds like I'm
hearing concerns with the density there. So, you could request th at they bring
back a site plan with less units and more open space.
McCarvel: Yeah. I'm not so sure that an R-15 wouldn't cure a lot of it, because it
would automatically lessen the density, which would give you room or more
parking and maybe a different access, you know, or dual access into the facility.
But I just -- yeah.
Perreault: Madam Chair, I have a question for staff. You mentioned dual access
into the facility. That's one entrance for both the storage unit and how does that
look with the security for the storage units?
Parsons: That's what I mean. They would have to design the site where
basically had a frontage driveway and went on --
Perreault: Come in one entrance and, then, on the right -hand side there is a
gate and what side --
Parsons: Come in with a shared access and, then, turn to the facility and --
Perreault: Off of Apgar Creek.
Parsons: And their apartment -- their office and residential care facility would be
tucked in there.
Perreault: Okay.
Parsons: But, again, ACHD will have to weigh in on that new approach to
support their location if these were to share an access point.
Beach: Which is why I was saying April 6th continuance date, we might not have
enough time to get those comments --
McCarvel: Okay.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
March 16, 2017
Page 66 of 71
Beach: -- from the highway district if that's the direction you're leaning. So, we
want to make sure we are not bringing this back and continuing it again, because
we don't have all the stuff that we need.
McCarvel: Okay.
Parsons: My recommendation is -- for Andrea, the city attorney, let's open it up
and see what the applicant's willing to do that see what dates works for them as
well. See what they think they can do to turn this around and get you something
that you can look at and make a decision on.
McCarvel: Okay. At this time could I get a motion to open the public hearing for
item number H-2017-0007.
Wilson: So moved.
Perreault: Second.
McCarvel: I have a motion and a second to open the public hearing for H -2017-
0007. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. TWO ABSENT.
McCarvel: Would the applicant, please, come forward.
Doolin: Madam Commissioner and Commissioners, my name is James Doolin
with FIG Development. 4685 South Highland Drive, Salt Lake City, Utah. So,
the reason why I wanted clarification just -- if we do continue it, what does the
Commission -- what would the Commission like to see, just so when we come
back here we are addressing your concerns and also addressing t he residents'
concerns.
McCarvel: I think -- I mean -- well, obviously, they were -- from their perspective
it sounds like they were expecting assisted living, but I think, you know, there had
been a neighborhood meeting and we can address that, but I think, you know,
the overall zoning -- you know, we are kind of just flip flopping where that zoning
is, so I think in this area is a good place for the higher density and maybe 15 is all
-- I mean because you're right at 16 --
Doolin: Yeah. Ended up 16 and the problem is you have R-15 or R-40. We are
not going after 40.
McCarvel: Right. And so -- but I think the main issue is that one and only
entrance being so close to Goddard and not much place to back up on Apgar
where you already have other apartment -- a lot of high-density coming out and
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
March 16, 2017
Page 67 of 71
there is really nowhere for these people to back up to get out on it and get down
onto Goddard and stack up there to get onto McMillan.
Doolin: Would you like to see that entrance shifted over to the west some
Apgar?
McCarvel: I think it would help. I don't know that that's the only answer.
Commissioner Perreault.
Perreault: Excuse me. If I'm going to live in a townhouse like that I would -- on
the east side I would much rather not have my third-story look onto a street, but
I'd rather look onto the back of the storage units. At least there is some more
privacy there than have -- than looking out onto a road. So, if you -- if you move
those units onto the west side, have the entrance on the west side -- that's just
my thought.
McCarvel: Yeah. And I -- you know, that's -- for the person who is in there, but I
think the other big issue was the parking and although we -- I think that we like
the parking and the numbers themselves go to co de, like I said, so many of those
are fixed and there is no room for -- I mean there is no room for guests and there
is nowhere -- even if you go outside these apartments there is no room for
people to park. I mean out on those roads. There is not parkin g --
Doolin: Right now we are at about a quarter per outside parking space, not
including the driveway or garage per unit. So, we have 19 for 82, which is just
under a quarter. What would you like to see that, closer to a third or a half a unit
per --
McCarvel: I don't know.
Doolin: I guess I'm just looking for guidance.
McCarvel: I just -- I'm just seeing a problem with the flow. So, I'm -- I'm not the
designer here, but I think what's in front of us -- there is a problem with flow.
There is -- I mean -- and it's kind of where those spaces are at and are they really
accessible for guests or are we just asking for problems.
Doolin: So, one thing that you will notice we have connectivity with sidewalks
throughout and, then, in that middle area, those units all front that common
courtyard area where we have community gardens and paths. So, the parking
along that parallel wall flow right into that common corridor to kind of have access
to those units and there is also sidewalks that access the units on the perimeter.
We could add -- we could remove some units on the end of that island -- from
kind of the west of the island. It will have parallel on both sides of the street, so
we could pick up some parking there and, then, we might be able to -- we have
parking towards the northeast -- or, sorry, the southeast and, then, there is some
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
March 16, 2017
Page 68 of 71
parking in the northeast. Okay. We will work on putting parking -- spreading it
more continuous --
McCarvel: I -- yeah. And maybe it's just reduction of a few units. I mean I'm
seeing those units right there at the entrance. I mean there are times a day
where they are never getting out of their driveway.
Doolin: Yeah. Yeah. I think that's a -- I think that's a good point.
Beach: Is there a specific number of additional parking spaces you would like to
see, just so there is very distinct things you're looking for?
McCarvel: You know, Josh, like I said, I don't know that currently it's the number
of spots, it's how that flow works with so many of them being pre-spoken for.
Perreault: Madam Chair, is what you're saying that you're concerned that guests
are going to use the area that's intended for the office and intended for the
common area?
McCarvel: And out on Apgar and trying -- I mean there is no -- it's going to cause
problems amongst the neighbors I think eventually. Somebody is going to park
in somebody's driveway just because they have to or block the driveways -- I
don't know. And maybe you can speak more to that -- more experience --
Doolin: More two bedroom -- or, I'm sorry, two garage units would probably
resolve a lot of that issue, because with the two garage unit you have two spaces
inside and, then, two spaces on the outside. So, residents can park in their
garage and guests could park outside.
McCarvel: And how many -- yeah.
Doolin: So, we can increase the number of two story units and I think that will
help alleviate some of that parking. The one comment that I heard from the
resident is they are afraid that this three story is going to be looking out into their
backyard. That might be true if these units backed -- if there was a house that
backed these units, but we have large expanse -- or large distance between us
and any other adjacent residential unit. So, those three stories I don't see that
really been concerned looking down into somebody's -- somebody's house with
our large landscape buffer and with the streets. You're 30 feet high -- or I think
we are 32 feet high for those three stories, which means the window is probably
about 26 six feet high, so it's really hard to -- I don't think that that's going to be a
nuisance to the neighbors once built. So, addressing guest parking, we will take
care of that. Number of units, get it below that R-15. It sounds like that will be
helpful. The amenities -- I don't think our renderings showed the amenity
package very well. So, with our tot lot, it's a 60,000 dollar tot lot, which is a very
nice tot lot for the development. We do have -- we meet the requirements -- one
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
March 16, 2017
Page 69 of 71
of this city's requirements is 100 foot by 50 foot wide green space . That's an
entity that you guys called out, the quality of life -- what are the three different
amenities? Quality of life, recreation, and lifestyle or something, but -- so, all of
our amenities meet the city's requirements for those amenities and we could do a
less expensive tot lot, but we figured that families are going to be attracted to this
area. Families generally enjoy park playground equipment, so we try to do a
very nice playground equipment amenity and, then, the city's requirement -- or
the city's points are the -- the city's amenities also include a community garden,
which we thought would be nice as well. So, although a community garden is not
terribly expensive, it's a nice amenity to add and, then, bike parking is also an
amenity that is one of the city's amenities that you can choose from. So, there is
so many that we can choose from. This site probably is not conducive to a pool,
because there is not enough residents to help offset the cost of the pool.
McCarvel: Yeah. I don't think a pool is necessary.
Doolin: And, then, the fitness center typically is not used and we have done over
ten of these developments, over a thousand units, and fitness facilities are rarely
used and it just becomes a nuisance for the manage -- HOA management to take
care and keep clean and keep people from breaking into it. So, we tried to pick
amenities that would be used for the -- by the residents within the -- the
development. So, I guess with that being said, I'm looking for some guidance so
when we do come back I'd like to have a better understanding of exactly what
you're looking for on the amenity side.
Cassanelli: Madam Chair?
McCarvel: Yes, Commissioner Cassanelli.
Cassanelli: Is it -- is it possible -- and question for the developer -- to look and
see what it looks like with the whole project flipped, with the storage units
bordering Goddard?
Doolin: Yeah. So, we initially -- we initially submitted that in our preapplication
meeting and the staff came back and asked us to flip it and, then, once that
happened, we flipped it, and we decided we should have a neighborhood
meeting just to let the neighbors know. So, I think there was some
miscommunication earlier tonight regarding that. That's initially how we did the
layout and, then, staff asked us to --
Cassanelli: So, they did -- the residential units were -- were to the west?
Doolin: Accessed off of McMillan, off the west. So, staff can address that.
Alatorre: Tim Alatorre again. One of the issues -- there were a couple issues
with having it flipped. One was we ended up with two access points off of
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
March 16, 2017
Page 70 of 71
McMillan and ACHD wouldn't support that, they weren't happy about that. And,
then, trying to combine the access points, as Josh alluded to, was very
problematic. We were trying to figure out traffic flows and security issues and it
became quite the challenge and so that's where this was a compromise to satisfy
the access issues off McMillan and also the security concerns . That's -- that's
where we ended up. And if I could just add one more point, it sounds like most of
the concerns -- unless we go with the full site swap, are with the housing portion.
So, I'd respectfully ask that however we phrase the terminology tonight for
continuance, if -- if we can make that contingent on the housing portion, but allow
the self-storage portion to at least proceed past this point.
Doolin: He doesn't want to come back up here.
Perreault: Madam Chair, I need to think about these a little, but one thing I would
like to see is a covered area in the green space, maybe picnic tables. I know that
if I have -- if I'm in an area where I don't have a yard I want a place where I can
go and take the kids and eat or take family.
Doolin: Okay.
Perreault: So, that's an idea for --
Doolin: And that's one amenity you allow. It's called a plaza in your
requirements. We could do a pavilion plaza, which I think would be nice.
McCarvel: Commissioners?
Bernt: Madam Chair, can we strike the -- are we agreement that the bike storage
thing is just sort of -- you know, we could take that off and, then, add the -- you
know, I mean it would be more of a cost, but, yeah, I think it would be a lot more
beneficial for the development than a bike storage. In agreement?
McCarvel: Yeah. I think that's -- yeah, the -- yeah. Okay.
Doolin: Okay. So, the access, I guess is my last question. Would you guys like
us to continue with access off Apgar, just slide it further to the west to kind of
create some distance between the Goddard Creek and Apgar Creek intersection
to allow for more backup and, then, we will move our units away from that
entrance as well, so people aren't trying to back up while people are trying to
leave the development?
McCarvel: Right. I think that would --
Perreault: Yes.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
March 16, 2017
Page 71 of 71
McCarvel: Yeah. Because I -- I mean you can't have multiple accesses onto
McMillan. We get that. But it's just so close to that corner, you're going to have
backed up all over the place.
Doolin: Okay. I appreciate your time.
Alatorre: Can I ask if they have any other comments, so I can address their
comments now or I can just talk to them afterwards. I just want you guys to know
we will work with the neighbors --
McCarvel: Yeah. I think it's probably best as far as the meeting is concerned to
do it afterwards. Yeah.
Alatorre: Okay.
McCarvel: Okay.
Wilson: Madam Chair?
McCarvel: So, we have got a whole lot here, I mean so --
Wilson: Well, let's first close.
McCarvel: Yeah.
Wilson: Madam Chair.
McCarvel: Commissioner Wilson.
McCarvel: I move we close the public hearing on H-2017-0007.
Pogue: Madam Chair, we need to leave it open if we are continuing.
Wilson: Oh, that's right.
McCarvel: Okay.
Wilson: Didn't happen.
McCarvel: Try again, Commissioner Wilson.
Wilson: Madam Chair?
McCarvel: Commissioner Wilson.
Planning & Zoning
Commission Meeting
March 16, 2017
Item #4A: Meridian Meadows
Senior Community
Zoning/Aerial Map
ÚÚd
C-G
R2
C-G
C-G
C-G
I-L
L-O
C2
R-4
R1
C-C
L-O
L-O
R1
RUT
R-40
L-O
RUT
R1
C-N
I-L
RUT
R6
R-15
R-8
RUT
L-O
C2
R1
C-G
L-O
R1
C-G
C-C
R1
I-L
R-15
RUT
R-2
I-L
M1
RUT
C-G
E FRANKLIN RD
S
L
O
C
U
S
T
G
R
O
V
E
R
D
E C E N T R A L D R
S
E
A
G
L
E
R
D
§¨¦84
E WATERTOWER ST
E ST LUKES ST
E PRATT ST
E KALISPELL ST
E BOLLMAN S T E MAGIC VIEW DR
S
B A L T I M O R E
A V E
E BOWSTRING ST
S
R
A
V
E
N
S
W
O
O
D
D
R
E
L A T T I C E D R
E SPRINGWOOD DR
E
B
E
N
T
L
E
Y
D
R
N
N O L A
R D
E MAGIC VIEW DR
N
O L S O N
A V E
N
G
A
U
D
I
A
N
S
A
V
E
S
H
I
C
K
O
R
Y
W
A
Y
EWOODBRIDGEDR
E PEGRAM S T
S
A L L E N
S T
S
T O R I N O
A V E
E PEGRAM ST
E AUTUMN WAY
S
R
A
C
K
H
A
M
W
A
Y
E GREINER ST
E WELLS CIR
E SPRINGWOOD DR
S
W
O
O
D
H
A
V
E
N
D
R
E AUTUMN WAY
E GENTRY WAY
S
H
I
C
K
O
R
Y
W
A
Y
S
W
E
A
T
H
E
R
B
Y
D
R
E PROMENADE ST
S
C
R
O
S
S
T
I
M
B
E
R
P
L
E LOUISE DR
S
B R O O K L Y N
A V E
E CADILLAC DR
E
C
O
N
T
I
N
E
N
T
A
L
D
R
E FR
E
E
W
A
Y
D
R
S
W
E
L
L
S
S
T
S W
E
L
L
S
S
T
S
B E A M
A V E
S
T
R
U
S
S
P
L
S
T
R
U
S
S
LN
S
W O O D H A V E N
A V E
S
T
I
B
U
R
O
N
A
V
E
S
T
O
R
I
N
O
A
V
E
S
T
R
U
N
N
E
L
A
V
E
S
T R U S S
A V E
S
T
H
O
R
N
W
O
O
D
W
A
Y
S T O U C H M A R K
W A Y
S
T
R
U
N
N
E
L
A
V
E
S
T
O
R
I
N
O
A
V
E
S
T
R
U
S
S
A
V
E
S
T
I
B
U
R
O
N
A
V
E
S
T
H
O
R
N
W
O
O
D
D
R
E C L I F T O N
D R
S
M
U
S
T
A
N
G
S
T
Site Plan Landscape Plan
Conceptual Building
Elevations
Item #4B: Melissa’s Daycare
Vicinity/Zoning/Aerial Map
Site Plan
Elevations
Item #4C: Goddard Creek Subdivision
Vicinity/Zoning/Aerial Map
Comprehensive Plan Proposal
Open Space Exhibit
Proposed Preliminary Plat
Landscape Plan
Conceptual Building Elevations