Loading...
2017 04-20 Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Agenda – Thursday April 20,2017 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 April 20, 2017 at 6:00 p.m. 1. Roll-call Attendance __X__ Treg Bernt __O___ Steven Yearsley __O__ Gregory Wilson __X___ Ryan Fitzgerald ___X_ Jessica Perreault __X___ Bill Cassanelli __X____ Rhonda McCarvel – Chairperson 2. Adoption of the Agenda Approved 3. Consent Agenda Approved A. Approve Minutes of April 6, 2017 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting B. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval for Gyro Shack at Paramount (H-2017-0028) by Jeff Likes Located 5038 N. Linder Road 4. Action Items A. Public Hearing for New Beginnings (H-2017-0026) by Chris Fuhrman Located 780 E. Ustick Road Recommend Approval to City Council – Schedule for City Council May 23, 2017 1. Request: Annexation and Zoning of 1.00 Acre of Land with an R-4 Zoning District B. Public Hearing Continued from 3/16/17 for Goddard Creek (H- 2017-0007) by Brian Porter Located at 2780 W. McMillan Road Recommend Denial to City Council – Schedule for City Council May 23, 2017 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 AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING AGENDA Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Agenda – Thursday April 20,2017 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. 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 C. Public Hearing Continued from April 6, 2017 for Rockbury Subdivision (H-2017-0018) by Rock Harbor Church, Inc. Located 6437 N. Tree Haven Way Recommend Approval to City Council with Modifications – Schedule for City Council May 23, 2017 1. Request: Rezone of 25.06 Acres of Land from R-15 (8.95 Acres) and C-N (16.11 Acres) to R-15 (6.71 Acres) and C- N (18.35 Acres) Zoning Districts 2. Request: Preliminary Plat Approval Consisting of Two (2) Common Lots, One (1) Commercial Lot and One (1) Multi-Family Lot on 23.56 Acres of Land in the Proposed R-15 and C-N Zoning Districts Meeting Adjourned at 9:06 p.m. Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting April 20, 2017 Meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission of April 20, 2017, was called to order at 6:00 p.m. by Chairman Rhonda McCarvel. Members Present: Chairman Rhonda McCarvel, Commissioner Ryan Fitzgerald, Commissioner Treg Bernt, Commissioner Jessica Perreault and Commissioner Bill Cassanelli. Members Absent: Commissioner Steven Yearsley, Commissioner Gregory Wilson. Others Present: Machelle Hill, Andrea Pogue, Bill Parsons, Sonya Allen, Josh Beach and Dean Willis. Item 1: Roll-call Attendance __X___ Treg Bernt ___X___ Steven Yearsley __X___ Gregory Wilson _______ Ryan Fitzgerald __X___ Jessica Perreault ___X___ Bill Cassanelli ___X___ Rhonda McCarvel - Chairman McCarvel: Okay. 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 April 20th, 2017. Let's begin with roll call. Item 2: Adoption of the Agenda McCarvel: The first item on the agenda is the adoption of the agenda . There are no changes, so could I get a motion to adopt the agenda? Fitzgerald: Madam Chair, I move we adopt the agenda as printed. 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 April 6, 2017 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting B. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval for Gyro Shack at Paramount (H-2017-0028) by Jeff Likes Located 5038 N. Linder Road Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission April 20, 2017 Page 2 of 55 McCarvel: The next item on the agenda is the Consent Agenda and we have two items on the Consent Agenda. The approval of the minutes for April 6th, 2017, and the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for H-2017-0028. Can I get a motion to accept the Consent Agenda? Bernt: Madam Chair, I move to approve the Consent Agenda from the meeting of a couple weeks ago. Cassanelli: Second. McCarvel: It has been moved and seconded to approve the Consent Agenda. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries. 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. Staff will report their findings regarding how the item adheres to our Comprehensive Plan and Uniform Development Code with the staff's recommendations. After the staff has made their presentation, the applicant will come forward and present their case for the approval of their application and respond to any staff comments. The applicant will have 15 minutes to do so. After the applicant has finished we will open to public testimony. There is a sign-up sheet in the back as you entered 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. After all testimony has been heard the applicant will be given another ten minutes to have the opportunity to come back and respond if they desire. After that we will close the public hearing and the Commissioners will have the opportunity to discuss and hopefully to be able to make a recommendation to City Council. And with our new system I do just want to point out on the screen at the podium, if you are testifying, there is a timer on that screen, so you can kind of keep track of your comments. Item 4: Action Items A. Public Hearing for New Beginnings (H-2017-0026) by Chris Fuhrman Located 780 E. Ustick Road 1. Request: Annexation and Zoning of 1.00 Acre of Land with an R-4 Zoning District 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 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission April 20, 2017 Page 3 of 55 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 would like to open the public hearing for Item H- 2017-0026, New Beginnings. We will begin with the staff report. Parsons: Thank you, Madam Chair, Members of the Commission. First item on the agenda this evening is the New Beginnings annexation and short plat before you this evening. The property consists of 0.73 acres of land and is currently zoned R-1 in Ada County and the subject property is located at 780 East Ustick Road. To the north we have rural residential properties in Weaver Acres Subdivision, zoned R-1 in Ada County. To the east is rural residential property zoned R-1 in Ada County. South is Ustick Road and single family residential properties in Bedford Place Subdivision, zoned R-8. And to the west is Curt Drive and single family residential properties in the Hollybrook Subdivision, also zoned R-8. There isn't any history on this property since it is currently in the county. The future land use map designation for this property is low density residential. So, the applicant is before you this evening to annex in approximately one acre of land and the reason why it's larger than what they are proposing to plat is because the annexation boundary goes to the center line of the adjacent roadways. So, this property fronts on Curt Drive on the west boundary and, then, Ustick Road on the south boundary. The plat itself will consist of .73 acres and it consists of two residential building lots, which will take access by a common driveway off of Curt Road. So, with the concept plan that the applicant is proposing this evening they are not proposing any direct access to Ustick Road, it's all coming off a local street, which is consistent with the UDC and this common driveway will be a cross-access easement, basically, for the back lot to frontage onto Curt Road. The applicant is proposing to construct two single family homes on the site and you can see here up with the conceptual elevations at this time they are proposed to be single story. The front lot will consist of a home 2,600 square feet and the rear lot will have a home approximately 2,800 square feet. In the R-4 zoning district in which the applicant's requesting for annexation this evening the minimum size for single story homes is 1,400 square feet so you can see that they are in excess of that requirement. The plat that was submitted by the applicant did not include a Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission April 20, 2017 Page 4 of 55 common lot along Ustick Road, which is required by the UDC, so the applicant prior to getting signature on their short plat they will have to depict a 20 foot wide common lot along Ustick Road and that will have to be landscaped and maintained by an HOA as well. You can see here that the applicant does have adequate width in order to meet that requirement. This concept plan also shows you the setbacks of the homes and those also comply with the R-4 dimensional standards as well. So, we have the lot size that comply and they also comply with the setbacks and the minimum home standards. Staff does find that the annexation and the plat does comply with the UDC. We did receive written testimony from the applicant Chris Fuhrman in agreement with all the conditions in the staff report and, then, as of late this afternoon staff did receive two written testimonies -- two requests -- or some written testimony on this application from two separate property owners in -- near this development. The first was from Richard and Alane Holloran and, then, also received an e-mail from Jan Brocket. Staff is recommending approval of the annexation and the short plat and with that I would stand for any questions you may have. McCarvel: Thank you. Are there any questions for staff? Cassanelli: I have got a question. Did you say, Bill, that there is -- there is enough space there so that the common lot that needs to -- the common area between -- the lots in Ustick Road? Parsons: Madam Chair, Members of the Commission, that is correct. They can accommodate the 20 foot wide landscape buffer in that common lot per the UDC. McCarvel: Okay. Would the applicant like to come forward. Please state your name and address for the record. And, please, state your name and address for the record. Teeley: Madam Chairman, my name is Pat Teeley. Office address 12594 Explorer. And I'm representing the applicant Chris Fuhrman. We are doing the engineering and surveying on the project. We have read staff's critique of the project and agree with every -- every point they have brought up. We will revise the plat to show the common area as needed for the landscape strip. I believe the landscape strip can be measured from the back of the sidewalk, as opposed to 20 feet off the lot itself and the way Ustick Road is being built we can accommodate that, to answer your questions. Other than that I would stand for any questions. McCarvel: Any questions for the applicant? Okay. Thank you. No. Questions from the Commissioners, not from the public. We will have public testimony in a moment. And that would be at this time. Do we have -- I'm waiting for the sign- up sheet from our clerk, though. Okay. On the sign-up sheet the first one I have is Jim Brocket. Brocket: First off, my wife and I -- Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission April 20, 2017 Page 5 of 55 McCarvel: Can you pull the microphone down and, please, state your name and address for the record. Brocket: Jim Brocket. 3425 North Curt Drive, Meridian. McCarvel: Uh-huh. Brocket: My wife and I have no objection to the annexation. What we do want to bring to everybody's attention is that as we find out the proposed use of these two homes will be for the housing of abused women and children and the -- some of our concerns are that this is a very public location and easily accessed by anybody looking for somebody that is being housed there. We want to know what the plan for security is for this piece of -- or for this development. The women and children housed there will be needing social services. I don't know if Meridian has the social services required for something like this. Also there are no public transportations in the area . We are also concerned about the parking situation with multiple tenants in that house or in the houses. How many cars are going to be there and what kind of cars are going to be there . Also there are adjoining parcels that we understand are owned by the same person in Seattle and we want to know whether or not those parcels are going to be group homes. Are we going to have a subdivision full of group homes? And -- okay. Yeah. New Beginnings is the name of the organization that's going to be running these homes. Questions? McCarvel: All right. Thank you. The next person who has signed up wishing to testify is Carol Evans. Evans: I agree I think -- McCarvel: Please state your name and address for the record. Evans: I'm Carol K. Evans and I live at 3465 North Curt Drive. McCarvel: Okay. Evans: I agree that I think that there should not be this type of a building put in . These people bring in refugees. They bring in husband's that are angry and I've seen this happen before and, then, when they don't get enough money for these type of people they turn to alcoholics and addicts and, then, they turn to probations -- people on probation and out of prison and I just don't think it's a very good idea. I think it should be a single house residence only period. There is a bus stop right there. Children get out and they are unloaded and loaded right there and you're just putting a lot more traffic in there. Too many people. And if you have got refugees they don't know the laws of our state, so you're just creating a problem with children. I just don't think it's a very good idea. I don't -- I don't know how many. I think he needs to tell us how many people he's going to put in these houses. I think the social services is another thing that needs to Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission April 20, 2017 Page 6 of 55 be looked at, too. I guess that's about all. Parking is -- was another one of my concerns, but -- McCarvel: Thank you. Next on the list wishing to testify is Justin Laurendeau. Did I say that right? And, please, state your name and address for the record. Laurendeau: My name is Justin Laurendeau. McCarvel: Yeah. Pull the mikes back up now. Sorry. Laurendeau: My name is Justin Laurendeau. My address is 730 East Edgar Street. Our backyard is directly across from this zone. I just agree with the last lady that was just speaking. I don't agree with the -- the spot that they are picking. I think this is for single family residences and I'm also interested in all the questions that were previously brought up. McCarvel: Okay. Thank you. Michael Morrison. Morrison: Michael Morrison. 3405 North Curt Drive, Meridian, Idaho. I oppose the facility because I think they are doing a bait and switch on you. They listed it as a single family. We have been led to believe that there will be other uses for the facility. If you have ever lived in a neighborhood with one of these facilities they are not pleasant. I have dealt with the officers and stuff involved with houses like this. I don't think it's a good idea, especially with a school bus stop there. There is no public transportation and stuff in the area. There is no buses. Multiple issues with property. Okay? Thank you for your time. McCarvel: Thank you. Is there anyone else wishing to testify on this issue? Come forward. Gerosin: My name is Matt Gerosin. I live at 3280 Curt Drive. I am the house directly facing it. A fence will be along the driveway. First of all, Chris Fuhrman is a liar. He met me out in the street and talked to me and told me his plans were for him to live in the larger house and he was going to rent the house to his son who was going to Boise State in the other house. None of this -- we actually came here -- my wife and I came here to approve it, because that's exactly what he told me out in the street. So, we thought he was building two houses, going to be great for the neighborhood, it was going to work great for their -- and that's not actually what's going in there at all. It's going to lower my property value. I have one acre with a nice shop and everything like that. That's not going to work for me. I think -- I think this is the wrong use for that area. It's -- it's great residential. You can drive down Ustick and it's all residential. This is not -- they weren't going to allow commercial in there. It also kind of -- it seems to me to be a little after the fact, because as you guys have already allowed him to pull water and sewer to the property for two lots, so I don't know what -- you already approved that because I sit there and I can see water and sewer there. Electric. So, I strongly disapprove of this. Thank you. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission April 20, 2017 Page 7 of 55 McCarvel: Thank you. Anyone else? Please. Anyone else wishing to testify? Certainly. And, please, state your name and address for the record. Amy: It's Mary Jane Amy. I live at 3479 Curt Drive. I wholeheartedly agree with Matt. First off, this plat that you are seeing does not in any way, shape, or form show the entire neighborhood. There is nothing but single family residential houses. Okay. Now, you're bringing it up. As you can see, we are all -- on Curt Drive we are all on acre lots and as Mike has stated and Carol has stated, school children, not only from our neighborhood, but the surrounding neighborhoods get off and on the bus right there. The other thing I'd like to mention is for these people there are no amenities within a good mile of this location. Are they going to walk? The closest amenity -- and I mean like food, gas, whatever, is Fast Eddie's, which is on the other side of Settlers Park. So, once again, this is not a good fit for this area. Sure, let's put in a couple nice residential houses in that area. I have no problem with this particular person buying this property, annexing it into the City of Meridian and building a property that is blending in with the surrounding area. There are no apartments. There are no multi-family residences within a radius of two miles of this property and the other thing that really concerns me, as Matt has mentioned, my property value -- I have lived in that property over 30 years, so have a lot of these other people that live on Curt Drive. We are a well-established area. We are currently county. I live in Ada county and I'm proud of it. The reason I'm proud of it -- first off is my tax base. Second off, we are all on wells and septic systems. We are all self-sustained housing, with the exception of Idaho Power. And the problem that I have there, with this annexation how soon down the road is it going to be before the City of Meridian decides to come in and an annex us, because we are surrounded by the City of Meridian. The only properties that are considered Ada county right now are down a stretch of Ustick Road from just west of Locust Grove and Curt Drive and that's -- and the properties back behind. So, that's -- those are my concerns. McCarvel: All right. Thank you. Let's not do the clapping. Anyone else wishing to testify? All right. Spirk: Good evening. My name is Paul Spirk. I live at 3534 Curt Drive and the point I wanted to bring up was the fact that a lot of you may not know what New Beginnings really is. New Beginnings is a worldwide national organization primarily working with churches, immigrants, and women that have domestic problems and they receive money from all over the world. I don't think you, as this Commission, has actually done any homework in regard or background on exactly what New Beginnings does. And I apprec iate if you would check in on it and find out exactly the reasons why New Beginnings wants to be in Meridian, Idaho. Thank you. McCarvel: Thank you. Okay. Any other public testimony? Okay. Would the applicant like to come forward, please. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission April 20, 2017 Page 8 of 55 Teeley: Well, I have got to say this is all news to me. I -- I knew nothing of this. It's always been presented to me by the owner of the property that it was two single family homes. I don't know where the information is coming from for this that the people are getting, but as far as what's been represented to the city, what's been represented to me, is there are two single family homes. I'm not -- what I was asking Bill earlier is whether even the use would be allowed in that zone. He indicated there may -- may or may not be regulations on it. I guess I would suggest to you that, you know, as part of the rezone application there is a development agreement associated with it. Maybe you could work with that and either place the restrictions that you need to to assure yourself that if, in fact, that you don't want that to happen -- but, again, I don't know where this information is coming from. This is the first I ever heard it and I'm amazed. But maybe the development application -- or agreement is the place to work with it. I think the only thing that has been represented to staff is two residential single family homes. So, I would guess if through the development agreement you could restrict it to that, then, the owner will get what he applied for. McCarvel: Okay. Thank you. Teeley: Thank you. McCarvel: Okay. At this time could I get a motion to close the public hearing for Item No. H-2017-0026, New Beginnings. Fitzgerald: So moved. Bernt: Second. McCarvel: It has been moved and seconded to close the public hearing on Item H-2017-0026. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. TWO ABSENT. McCarvel: Thoughts? I guess could we start with -- Bill. Parsons: Madam Chair, Members of the Commission, a couple things we need to address tonight -- or at least get some clarification on. The narrative presented with his application said it's for two single family homes and that's what we based our analysis on. The other item -- to address the other citizens' concerns was the fact that we are going to come in an annex this subdivision. The city doesn't do that. The property owners out there would have to request annexation into the city. Just because the city -- they are surrounded by city limits, the city doesn't go and annex -- force annex people in. That's something that will happen if and when those property owners want our services or need our services. At that time we will work with them to come up with a plan and annex them in -- have them annex -- request annexation into the city and extend city utilities. Now, as far as some of the testimony that we heard tonight regarding a counseling center for battered women, those types of things are Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission April 20, 2017 Page 9 of 55 allowed to happen in these residential zoning districts, but they are limited to the number of people that can occupy that space. So, under our code we do have a definition of a family and under that definition up to ten persons can live in a home that need not be related by marriage and so if this person -- or whoever develops this property wants to operate that type of business -- and, again, it's -- we are not approving it for a commercial development tonight, we are looking at it solely as a residential development. If they came in and pulled a single-family residential home permit, they would get an occupancy permit for a single-family residence. What they did with that after they receive the city's approval, if it was ten or fewer persons living there, they would still be considered a single family home, a resident under our code. They would not need another approval from the City of Meridian and that's how it's defined in our code and it's defined that way in state statute as well, if I -- correct me if I'm wrong, city attorney, but that's how we regulate these. So, again, that's not out of the question for that to happen there. And, again, everything that we have in the application submittal does not indicate that's what these are going to be used for. Fitzgerald: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Fitzgerald. Fitzgerald: Andrea or Bill. Yeah. I mean I think -- and for the audience, the job of Planning and Zoning is to make sure we are following code and what is presented to us is what we have to go on and so -- and you go -- you can probably answer the question for us. If the Council wants to make a determination on something else, that's their prerogative, but we work on code and what's presented to us tonight is two single family residences on a short plat. Correct? Am I missing something? Okay. McCarvel: So, you're saying there wouldn't be a conditional use permit or anything that would be required for them -- if it did change after the permit is pulled? Parsons: Madam Chair, Members of the Commission, if they did not meet that definition of the family that use could not be allowed to operate in the zoning district. It's not allowed. That would move them up to a commercial designation under our code to fit them -- that would be almost like an out-patient clinic, which would be a nursing care -- similar to a nursing care facility, which is not allowed in the R-4 zoning district. So, at this point in time putting something in a development -- we can't put something in a DA that is already prohibited by code. Can't restrict a certain class from living in a home , so it's not possible. Right now it's -- right now the DA says you're subject to this concept plan and the elevations. Well, they are showing two single family homes on two residential lots. Therefore, they are held to what they are showing before you this evening, two single family homes on two single family lots with an R-4 zone. McCarvel: Okay. Commissioners, thoughts? Nobody thinking out loud tonight? Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission April 20, 2017 Page 10 of 55 Bernt: I think it's pretty straight f orward really. McCarvel: Yeah. I think what's -- what's in our purview and what we have to go on for code, it's -- I agree, so -- so, at this time could I get a motion? Fitzgerald: Are you handing it to me? McCarvel: You're closest. Nobody else wants to do a motion. Fitzgerald: Madam Chair -- McCarvel: I can't. Fitzgerald: I know. After considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move to recommend approval to City Council of file number H-2017-0026, as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of April 27th, 2017. Bernt: Second. McCarvel: It has been moved and seconded to approve Item No. H -2017-0026. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. TWO ABSENT. McCarvel: Okay. So, at this time we would like to continue the public hearing for Item No. H-2017-0007, Goddard Creek, and I will give just a minute for the room to clear. And we will begin with the staff report. Beach: Very good, Madam Chair, Members of the Commission. As you said, this is a public hearing that was continued from the March 16th Planning and Zoning hearing -- or, excuse me, Planning and Zoning meeting. There are several applications I have associated with this project. A Comprehensive Plan map amendment, conditional use permit for multi-family development in a proposed R-15 zoning district, conditional use permit for a multi-family development in an R -- in a proposed R-15 zoning district, conditional use permit for a self-storage facility in a proposed C-C zoning district, a rezone, a preliminary plat and a development agreement modification. If you recall back on the 16th of March we -- excuse me -- the Commission requested that the applicant address four items that were the -- the items to be discussed this evening. Staff has written a memo kind of outlining the changes to the project by the applicant in regard to those four items and I will go ahead and read my memo -- portions of it to you this evening. We are asked to decrease the residential density. The applicant reduced the number of building units from 82 units to 74 units and the number of residential lots has been decreased from 22 residential lots to 21 residential lots. The proposed gross density was reduced from 16.5 dwelling units per acre to 14.8 dwelling units per acre. With a reduction in the density the applicant provided revised legal descriptions and is now requesting that the multi-family portion of the project that you see here on Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission April 20, 2017 Page 11 of 55 your screen be zoned R-15 instead of the originally proposed R-40 zoning district. The loss in units has also resulted in an increase of open space to 1.36 acres or approximately 27.2 percent. The next item that they were asked to address were to increase parking for the project. The applicant has increased the number of spaces from 202 to 205 total spaces, keeping in mind that with the reduction in the number of the units it's not just an increase of three, because they have also reduced the required number for the units, they have also -- so, they have increased units by about -- parking spaces by about 15 or 20 overall in a little more analysis of that. So, as a result, the number of spaces per unit will increase from 2.5 to 2.77. It doesn't seem like a lot, but with the number of units there it's -- it's enough to accommodate a lot more visitor parking. The project now provides 33 stalls for guest parking dispersed throughout the development. The parking stalls have been eliminated from the landscape buffer on the west boundary. So, if you recall from the previous site plan they had some parking stalls that would have been in this required landscape buffer between the residential component and the commercial component to the west and they have reduced -- or they have eliminated those. The next item was to modify the amenity package. The applicant has modified the proposed amenities for the development and now proposes to include enclosed bike storage, a 50-by-100 foot play field, a community garden with raised beds, internal walking trails, a playground facility and a plaza with covered seating. The next item was to improve vehicular access to the multi- family project. If you recall there was concerns that the vehicular access in the location here indicated by my mouse was -- was too close to Goddard Creek Way. The applicant has, instead, kept that drive aisle, but kind of dead ended it there and put their trash enclosure in that location and moved the access further west on Apgar Creek to accommodate the additional stacking to get out to go north or south on Goddard Creek. The previous site plan had a distance from the proposed entrance on Apgar Creek Lane to Goddard Creek Way measuring approximately 80 feet. With the proposed changes to the site plan the distance will increased to approximately 220 feet. As I said, the change will result in a greater ability for cars to stack there. With that those are the four -- the four items that the applicant was requested to address. With that staff is still recommending approval of the project and I will stand for any questions you have. McCarvel: Any questions from the Commissioners? Perreault: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Perreault. Perreault: Josh, can you go over the Comprehensive Plan map amendment again, the specifics of that. Beach: Sure. So, they are requesting to change from a combination of high density residential and office to -- I believe it was mixed use. Let me pull that back up. That wasn't one of the things that we were looking at this evening, but Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission April 20, 2017 Page 12 of 55 I can definitely answer that question for you. Yeah. They have requested to change the -- the overall site to mixed-use community to accommodate both those uses. Perreault: Thank you. McCarvel: Any other questions? Okay. Beach: I will also add that the mixed-use community designation gives a density guideline for residential for between -- and the range is from six to 15. So, again, with -- with the change by the applicant now better falls within that guideline that -- it's the higher end, but it still falls in with the 14.8 dwelling units per acre that staff still -- still with the previous project felt that it met that, but this is a -- is a better fit. McCarvel: Okay. Okay. Would the applicant like to come forward? Parks: Good evening. Shon Parks with TO Engineers. 2471 North Titanium Way in Meridian, Idaho. Josh, if you would load our slide presentation. Beach: I will. Parks: I can kind of go through that. Thank you for the opportunity to continue our conversation and to continue to discuss the ways we are amending our plan to address some of the issues that we talked about in our last -- in our last meeting. You're seeing here, as Josh had indicated, the entire site, including both the multi-family and the storage facility site located here on the project location. But most of the questions that had -- that you had last time and comments address, really, the multi-family component and so we are really going to concentrate on that element. The first item that we addressed was the density item that you all wanted us to decrease . We have gone from 82 units, as Josh had mentioned, down to 74 units, which is about a ten percent reduction in units. And that brings us down to that R-15 zoning, which is much, much easier to take than the R-40, which is the next step up in the zoning. It also increases our open space just because of the reduction in density to 3.6 acres of open space provided overall. The other item that was kind of contentious was the parking and mostly the guest parking. As you can see, we have added parking on the central island to both sides and that has given us the ability to increase the percentage of parking from 2.8 -- or 2.5 to 2.8 parking spaces per unit. But, more importantly, it takes our guest parking from 17 spaces up to 33 spaces, which is a really big increase in -- in parking and those are all centrally located. So, easily accessed to all of the units as well. And, then, as we mentioned we have removed parking spaces from that landscape buffer, which - - which helps us out as well. The other item that -- that was discussed that -- that we had addressed is this -- is the issue of traffic and roads. Increasing the distance to -- of our entrance away from Goddard Creek Way to 250 feet to the center line of our entrance to -- to the curb line of Goddard Creek, which really does almost more than double our stacking distance and in addition to that we Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission April 20, 2017 Page 13 of 55 have also added -- or we are adding five feet of width to Apgar from our entrance down to Goddard, just to -- again, to increase the opportunities for a wider, safer entrance experience as you come into that -- to the Selway Apartments, as well as our -- our own community here. We are not only adding some width to Apgar in that first section, but also adding width to McMillan -- or McMillan Road and in addition to that we are adding right of way width to allow ACHD to -- when they come through with their improvements in the coming years, which is in their current CIP, that that can be widened with the addition of that right of way. There was some concern about a stacking -- particularly in traffic from Goddard Creek Way onto McMillan from some of the residents and -- and one of the things that we wanted to do was take a look at exactly what -- what that problem was and so we just randomly sent somebody out one Thursday morning to take a look at exactly what those conditions were, how much stacking was taking place, what the problem -- what the traffic problems were in that particular location and the -- what we saw was that there was -- there was a little bit of stacking. Most -- most of it was just a single car. At the worst case there was one instance where there was four cars stacked and this was just in the morning rush hour time. We didn't get an opportunity to go back out in the evening, but we just wanted to take a look and see , again, in that morning rush hour exactly how bad it was and so the average wait time was -- as you can see here was about 60 second -- or 60 to 20 seconds or less. And so that's just -- was just our observation during one particular morning. There was also some concern about the amenities and we have addressed that by adding some additional amenities, namely, a shelter and a community garden. The other amenities remain as -- as they were before. The large playground. The 50-by-100 play space. The bike parking. And in addition to that we have added some nice amenities, including this -- a community garden that you see that has some fencing and some raised beds for community members to rent out plots and have their own garden space and also update shelter -- picnic plaza region that will be located right next to the playground for some sha ding and picnicking opportunities. And just to revisit some of the architecture that we looked at before, we think we have -- we have got a very attractive set of facades here on the two-story, three-story combination buildings. The all three story combination buildings -- and just as a highlight, we just think that that provides a really strong architectural facade. As we mentioned last time, we have really highly planted landscape buffers, which is a strong element. Walkable connections. We have provided this connection along the west side from Selway Apartments that takes -- would take members of Selway down to McMillan Road and we have got a well-placed vehicular access now and good land use transition from office -- from Selway Apartments to the north with a similar density all the way down to McMillan and a good amount of open space . We hope we have addressed your questions, but I will stand for any questions you might have for me now. McCarvel: Any questions for the applicant at this time? Okay. Thank you. Parks: You're very welcome. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission April 20, 2017 Page 14 of 55 McCarvel: Okay. At this time we will take public testimony and the first person I have on the list -- check you off. Don Fletch. Okay. I will let you say it. Fleck: Hi. My name is Don Fleck. I live at 5197 North Black Sand Avenue, which is in the community that this affects. I'm basically about a block and a half from this. I regularly access Goddard Creek and sadly the statistics that the good gentleman stated before I think are -- have no basis in documentation. I think it -- I've been there many times and it's been much, much longer and much greater wait. In the morning there is a school bus stop there. Parents wait for their children out there, so that's a very congested area right outside of where this -- these apartments are going to go. Also stated that, you know, they are going to increase parking, well, that's a good thing, because the Selway Apartments is sadly lacking. Theirs seems to be a little bit better, but, unfortunately, I'm wondering with the density of cars that's going to be there, how much additional traffic is going to be included onto Goddard Creek, Ten Mile, and McMillan. As it currently is now McMillan is a very busy street, especially in the evening and the mornings. Sometimes it's difficult to get out there. Haven't seen any accidents there, but, then, I'm not out there all the time either, so -- that's an uncontrolled intersection there at the stop sign, but there is no traffic light. Previously the zoning for the Selway Apartments that -- there was -- when that went in there was an agreement struck apparently with the city and the developers of this section that 171 units could be built on that section of land. Well, Selway Apartments fulfilled that with their -- their annexation or their variance to build on that R-4 designated plot of land and I would ask that the commitment to the community that was made then be held up , because we have lived in this residence -- I have been there for over ten years and we don't need to see anymore apartments in that section, it's already crowded enough, and if you -- if you still consider that this is a good thing to do , I would ask that the building standards of this particular apartment section at least meet the minimum standards of Kelly Creek, which is the next adjacent apartments, with architectural shingles, stone or stucco facades, and minimal planting. No vinyl sidings be put into that -- that particular section. And that's -- that's all I have. Thank you. McCarvel: Thank you. Next person I have signed up for testimony is Jamie Ross. Not sure -- Jamie or Janey? No? Okay. Dan and Penny Fisher. Fisher: Good evening. Dan Fisher. 2382 West Apgar Creek Drive. First of all, thank you for taking the time to hear our concerns about this high -density housing project. As you're probably most aware. Our city has developed a very detailed Comprehensive Plan, which clearly outlines the manner in which our city intends to grow. The plan was most recently updated October 11th, 2016, by Resolution 16-1173. As you know, the subject property is currently zoned R- 4 and the current land use plan calls for suburban office buildings to be built on the property and I do realize that there is a section of high-density residential on the -- on the north side of the property, but the predominance of the property is -- is land use planned for suburban office. Our city planners put much effort and thought into the types of development that would make our community in Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission April 20, 2017 Page 15 of 55 general and our neighborhood in particular most livable . In the currently adopted land use plan suburban office fits well within the needs of our community. Suburban office space absorption rates were extremely high though out the Treasure Valley, so this would be an excellent use for this land. The planned use also allows the neighborhood to be free from the overcrowding, which is our -- our main concern. Mr. Porter's proposed use of the property does not meet the guidelines established by the City of Meridian Comprehensive Plan. It's a change to the Comprehensive Plan. While there may be some overlay in the land use map, as I stated before, simply put it doesn't meet the plan. I urge you to stick to the plan that was adopted by our City Council as a de facto contract between the City of Meridian and the citizens, particularly the members of our neighborhood. I'm not opposed to the development of the subject property in any way, but we must grow responsibility -- responsibly and I think that the impact of this high density housing project will have in our neighborhood is extremely negative . Again, I urge you not to throw out the city's Comprehensive Plan and allow for irresponsible growth and overcrowding in our neighborhood. Thank you very much. McCarvel: Bill Weed? Weddy? Wade: Hello. Thanks for having us out this evening. My name is Bill Wade. My address is 2244 West Apgar Creek Drive. I first want to thank Dan and second his comments. As a resident of Apgar Creek since 2009 we have seen development of the Selway Apartments. I originally lived here in Idaho in 2007 on West -- on Wapoot Drive and my realtor had the savvy to understand what might potentially come in behind that and as I look out that backyard where we would have purchased you have three story buildings call ed the Selway Apartments. Understand that we need to have all types of housing come into our communities, but with that being stated I don't know their original plans for the Selway, but I can tell you every day when I drive home -- not on a one day basis, to see traffic and to see how many people are now parking on the street on Apgar Creek that are guests of the Selway Apartments. I can only imagine what's going to happen four or five years down the road when that parking is no longer sufficient for the proposed complex coming in. What I would like to urge is that that company do more research by an independent firm that comes out and actually does a survey and understand the traffic flow, understand what we would potentially see within our neighborhood . I have a 12 year old daughter that was four when I moved into that house and I see people race down Apgar Creek. It's like a racetrack on this street. We have kids. We are a kid oriented community. We have a large park within our community right on Apgar Creek and the Selway has come in it's become a thorough way -- a thoroughfare for those residents to, then, go over to now Sonic, go over to Walgreens, and so we see increased -- particularly on Apgar Creek a much higher flow of people coming through. We do have a bus stop at the end of that street and so I think these factors need to be resubmitted to and before any decisions or proposals are made on approving this project, that we really have some outside input on what the true impact is by an independent firm, not by someone coming out one morning on a Thursday. I understand that effort, but none of us in this room Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission April 20, 2017 Page 16 of 55 would allow that to happen within our own community and take that to be the sufficient amount of time and effort put into understanding traffic flow and what the impact would be to the residents. So, I would urge that we -- before we move forward and approve this particular project that we reconsider what it was originally zoned for. There was a reason that the planning committee had that plan of mind and as a parent, as someone that watches people drive down that street every day at 60 miles per hour and it's very frustrating -- 40 -- I have seen people -- I wouldn't say 60. Maybe once. But on a consistent basis in a 25 mile per hour zone doing 40 with kids playing out to where your kids can't play in the street, which is fine, but it's a little disconcerting to know that we are going to add that much more and to think that Apgar would not become the way for people to get out to Linder Road verses trying to get onto McMillan, I just think that more said and needs to be done and go back and see what actually has happened with the Selway Apartments and how that was planned and how that has impacted our community before adding more apartments. Thank you for your time. McCarvel: Thank you. I don't have anybody else on the sign-up sheet that said they wanted to testify, but is there anyone else who would like testify? Certainly, ma'am. In the front. Pullman: Good evening. My name is Jamie Pollmann. You had a Jamie, but you said the last name wrong, so maybe that's where our mistake was. McCarvel: Yeah. Okay. You have a very lovely P on the front. Pollmann: I live at 5030 North Goddard Creek Way. I'm one of four houses that actually live on Goddard Creek and my house is oriented where my backyard and my kitchen window actually looks out on that intersection of McMillan and Goddard Creek. So, I'm sorry, but Shon's half an hour metering of the traffic is not even close to what's happening and my concern is not the apartments , my concern is the traffic and I have the ACHD's report and they metered the traffic at that intersection on McMillan in October 8th, 2014, and the last time they metered the traffic at Goddard Creek and McMillan was January 28th, 2015, and anybody that lives in Meridian, especially this north end, knows of the growth that we have had, not only in residential, but commercial, retail. Where we are at we are happy to have the businesses come in, but it's drawing cars from all over that north area. It's not just the residents that use those streets anymore. Residents from all over that attend Rocky Mountain are coming up and cutting through up Goddard Creek, because it's a shortcut over to the high school, so they don't have to deal with Linder Road and it's -- I think they said we -- up capital improvements ACHD says are not -- we are not -- that intersection that everybody here is concerned about, Goddard Creek and McMillan, is not even on the five year plan for ACHD to improve the intersection, which I think is extremely dangerous, there is no shoulders and on the one side where it's a T intersection is that big old giant canal and there is very -- it's very poorly marked. The center medium I guess is what I'm trying to say. The exit from Goddard Creek does not have a designated turning lane, so traffic -- if someone coming Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission April 20, 2017 Page 17 of 55 out of our neighborhood onto McMillan doesn't get all the way over immediately after that planter that's there that you can see how the roads V's out, then, the person trying to turn onto McMillan left -- if he doesn't immediately get over there everybody else is stacked up behind him and so, then, we lose our ability to have somebody to turn left and someone to turn right. It's a very congested intersection. I was not aware of what Dan Fisher said that in the year 2016 that Meridian city actually had updated their Comprehensive Plan and I just am -- I think it's not compatible at this time for this much additional traffic to be put out on those roads. We are not the only road in Meridian that's suffering. We realize that. The growth has just overtaken the roads. It's -- it's everywhere. It's not just us. But -- I'm done. McCarvel: Thank you for your time. Pollmann: Thank you. McCarvel: Okay. Is there anyone else wishing to testify in this? Okay. Fisher: I promise I'm not trying to become famous. Dan Fisher. 2382 West Apgar Creek Drive. The HOA has put together a few points that they would like to also consider. One of the key points that -- was a letter that we received from the school district with a very high level of concern about what they are going to do with the school children that are going to be generated by 74 housing units. Willow Creek Elementary School is already at capacity and there is a lot of concern about what they are going to do with those students. So, if we were to put office space in that -- our office in that -- on that property, obviously, that would be a concern also if it was single family homes , that wouldn't be a concern. There is also a concern about the signage. During the hearing that there were -- a requirement for two signs, but only one sign was actually posted and a photograph was taken of the sign from two different spots. And the other part was about the -- it was just about managing growth to achieve a high quality development, two very dissimilar types of development on a single piece of property. What type of quality of life are we providing for the residents of the multi-family by having it right next to a storage facility, rather than having that being more compatible use -- a commercial use such as offices. Those are the other additional concerns that we had. Thank you. McCarvel: Thank you. And I thought I saw one more hand back there. Okay. Sir. Stillwell: Thank you. My name is Rick Stillwell and I'm at 5117 North Dove Ridge Place in the Kelly Creek Subdivision and I will be brief. There were two things -- two points that I wanted to make. There has been a number of discussions -- a lot of discussion about traffic and part of what -- where the traffic is going is through the development. I actually live on the east side of the subdivision by Linder, which is on the exact opposite end and what's happening is that a lot of people can't make that left turn or it's troublesome or timely to make that left turn onto West McMillan. So, what they are doing is they are Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission April 20, 2017 Page 18 of 55 driving through the development and turning right onto Linder to get -- to go onto work and their businesses and that's -- I was out petitioning or -- or passing out petitions on the east side of the neighborhood and I heard the same comments that the gentleman previously talked about was the amount of traffic that's being funneled through the subdivision, as well as speed, and I have heard the same kind of stories of 50 miles an hour and whatnot. I don't know if that's -- if it's 50 or 45, but human nature being what it is, when people are on their way to work, some are going to go faster because they are late or whatever. The only other comment I wanted to make was I think there was a letter submitted by the school and it was some concern about proper sidewalks. Apparently there was a child that was killed near the Selway Apartments and there was some concern expressed about making sure that there was proper sidewalks or a way that these kids could walk to school and I think that's something that's very important that should be addressed in this plan. Thank you. McCarvel: Okay. Thank you. Okay. Would the applicant -- anybody else? Okay. All right. One more. Blasko: My name is Jennifer Blasko. I own a home at 2257 West Wapoot Drive and although I agree with my neighbors wholeheartedly about the traffic in Kelly Creek, I also wanted to point out that it's also an issue for traffic for the rest of Meridian that travels on McMillan Road. The amount of traffic turning right onto Goddard Creek going towards Ten Mile, that backs traffic up that way, as well as the central third lane, such as it is, when you're traveling towards Linder to turn left onto Goddard Creek, it's only the -- that's where the third line begins and there is only room for two, maybe three cars to actually pull off out of the flow of traffic and it regularly backs McMillan up when you're traveling towards Linder when people are trying to turn left into -- onto Goddard Creek. I would highly recommend that an engineering firm do a study of the traffic patterns to possibly refute the numbers that were presented here, especially since the traffic there does begin at 7:00 o'clock when I leave for work, as well as beginning as early as 4:00 o'clock when I return home. So, anyway, it does impact more than just Kelly Creek is my concern. Thank you. McCarvel: Thank you. Okay. Is that it? Okay. Would the applicant like to come forward? Doolin: Madam Chair, Members of the Commission, my name is James Doolin. I'm with the developer. My address is 4685 South Highland Drive, Salt Lake City, Utah. First of all, I appreciate your guys' time, appreciate the feedback we received tonight. A lot of the same feedback that we have heard in our neighborhood meetings that we have tried to address and, then, we also tried to address the -- the items you guys mentioned that were concerns in our last meeting. Those -- without repeating everything, but decreasing the density from 82 units to 74 units, which is roughly a ten percent reduction in units. Increasing parking from 2.5 to roughly 2.8. Where the city requires two spaces per unit, we are at 2.8, with 33 guest parking spaces. And modifying the amenity package and, then, moving the entrance. Beyond that I don't have much to say, other Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission April 20, 2017 Page 19 of 55 than to address a few of the concerns. I believe our changes that we have made for add value to our development and to the community. It's important for us to be responsible developers and make sure our impact is not above and beyond unnecessary impact to the neighbors and the neighboring community. As was mentioned, the future land use map shows high density and mixed use -- or, sorry, light office. I think it's important to note that the total site is 12 acres and we are proposing 74 residential units over 12 acres. The -- the storage unit takes up seven acres and so the traffic should be looked at as the impact over the entire 12 acre development, because another development that comes in would likely have a 12 acre impact of development of if it's mixed of -- or anything outside of -- of what we are proposing. So, I just want to make note of that. Somebody made reference or note to the buildings. We will not be putting vinyl on our buildings. It will be stucco and stone. And then -- I guess it the tricky part is undeveloped land when it gets develop ed causes impact. Again, we are doing our best to be responsible. We are trying to make this a win-win. Unfortunately, with the residents I don't necessarily think this is a win for them, but we are proposing something that we feel would be valuable to the community and its impact to the community is as least as possible. Lastly, I'm going to have John Carpenter of TO Engineers come up and address the traffic study conversation. I want it to be known we are not trying to provide misinformation regarding traffic, we heard traffic was an issue. We went out when it seemed like a reasonable time to go out and count traffic. It sounds like many neighbors disagree with the data. We are not presenting it as if it's a complete study, but it's -- we are trying to bring facts into the conversation, instead of subjective conversation. But I will have John address the -- the traffic -- or the -- the roads and other than that if there is any questions -- I will turn the time over to John. Fitzgerald: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Mr. Fitzgerald. Fitzgerald: So, I apologize, I was not here for the original discussion on the storage unit side. Do you guys have a wall between the north side separating that? Doolin: There is a wall and, then, on the -- the paneled side of that wall there is a trail that connects the Selway Apartments to provide access -- pedestrian access through our development out onto McMillan. Fitzgerald: Okay. And, then, the north boundary as well, is there a wall on there as well? What's Selway looking at? Doolin: Selway -- yes, that is a wall. Fitzgerald: Okay. Thank you. Doolin: Any other questions? Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission April 20, 2017 Page 20 of 55 McCarvel: Any questions? Okay. Thank you. Doolin: I appreciate your time. I will turn it over to John. McCarvel: Okay. Thank you. Carpenter: Good evening. John Carpenter with TO Engineers. Happy to be here tonight. McCarvel: Address, please. Carpenter: My address is 332 North Broadmoor in Nampa. McCarvel: Okay. Carpenter: And I will actually address Mr. Fitzgerald's question a little bit more. If you can back up, Josh. The overall site plan if you would. So, adjacent to the -- to the multi-family there is -- there is a wall there, but there is also a large common area. So, there is landscaping and there is trees through there and, then, on the north boundary there is a very large landscape buffer there as well. So, there is a nice looking wall and, then, there is shrubs, trees, and quite a bit of grass. So, there is a good buffer. On the traffic, I wanted to point out first just a couple things. Josh, can you go over to the overall site plan? Kind of the history how -- how we got to where we are today. We actually started this project with having access with the multi-family out to -- out to McMillan and the storage units up to McMillan. We spent quite a bit of time with Meridian staff and quite a bit of time with ACHD. ACHD controls the roads, obviously. Has quite a bit of input. Their suggestion -- strong suggestion was to have our access off of Apgar. They were concerned about the spacing out on McMillan Road and so we would -- we listened to staff -- again both from ACHD and Meridian and moved it over to Apgar. One of the comments we had from the last meeting was to move our access a little further from Goddard Way. I think that helps a bunch. One of the concerns that we have on the -- or one of the problems the neighbors have on Apgar -- on the apartment side is just the parking as they said. With the widening they were doing, even if people are parking there there is still enough room for cars getting back -- back and forth through there. One of the things that the city might look at his putting no parking signs on Apgar. That would be a really easy solution for it. We -- we asked ACHD if a traffic study was needed. ACHD does not require traffic study for this size of project. It was a question that we had early on and once we had heard the concerns for the neighbors we simply wanted understand it, so I had a couple of our employees go out and just sit -- sit at the property, observe. We took a bunch of video. They brought it back to me. There really is very limited traffic during the rush hour. Traffic is something that increases when the -- when the city develops. Meridian has grown strongly over the years. Meridian has a lot of good growth in the area and the traffic increases with it . ACHD has plans to widen McMillan and they are going to widen it once there is a traffic Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission April 20, 2017 Page 21 of 55 concern that warrants that widening. If you call ACHD right today and ask them what it's going to be, they have it out there a ways, but as properties develop more and more they will speed that up. There was a -- there was a comment on the -- on the canal on the south side of McMillan. ACHD asked us to dedicate additional right of way so they can fit their whole road and have the safety separation from the canal. We have actually given up more right of way than was typically required, just to have the space there for ACHD to build that road in the future. We are trying to do our part with -- with McMillan. We are trying to do our part with Goddard. We don't think there is a traffic concern there. And when asked to move our approach over we slid it over as far as we could. There is a lot of stacking space now available on Apgar. Let me see what else I have. As far as the Comprehensive Plan goes, the Comprehensive Plan as a guide. I think we are familiar with the Comprehensive Plan and the intent. It's -- if you look around the city, how it's grown, it doesn't match the Comprehensive -- Comprehensive Plan exactly. It's -- it is a guide. There is two uses on there. Office and multi-family -- high-density multi-family. We are similar to that. I think it was James that mentioned the storage units actually helps out on the traffic. Most of the people going to the storage units are going there at a different time than rush hour. Typically during the day to drop off miscellaneous stuff. So, that actually helps. If this was all offices you would see quite a bit of congestion for people going out -- depending on the use, obviously, but there is as likely to have more traffic going in and out to that office than you with the storage units and the housing that we have planned. As far as the school goes, I think that school letter is a good one. If you look at our site plan we have sidewalks -- probably more sidewalks on this project per acre than I have ever done. There is sidewalks along McMillan. There is sidewalks -- additional sidewalk along Goddard. Now, there are two sidewalks on Goddard. We have a sidewalk that's going from the Selway Apartments down to McMillan, which is a really good thing, actually. Now the people in Selway have to walk all the way out to Goddard, down Goddard, and over to McMillan. We are giving them a direct route. The community itself has sidewalks in front of each of the units. And, then, that sidewalk that I mentioned along McMillan, continues on across the storage units. So, as far is the school letter goes and the -- and the sidewalks, we have -- we have addressed that. We have taken care of that and we think we have a very walkable, very usable plan. And, then, the schools -- you guys know how the schools are, they -- they build as there is a need. They don't build them in advance. Taxpayers aren't going to do that. So, that the schools are always a little bit behind the curve. The school -- Meridian is building new schools today. I mean it's kind of an ongoing thing as development happens. And that is it. I will stand for any questions that you might have. McCarvel: Any questions from the Commissioners? Cassanelli: One of the things I know that was discussed last time was that play field. Yeah. Is that play field -- is it -- is it recessed? Is it a retention pond? Carpenter: You know, I'm glad you brought that up. Our storm drainage on this site has been thought out very well. We have all of our storm drainage going to Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission April 20, 2017 Page 22 of 55 the subsurface. So, even though we show several boxes in there for storm drainage, what's happening is the water is going in the curb -- into a catch basin, sand and grease trap, and, then, it's piped subsurface underneath those fields. So, it's a great dual purpose function. We have got that open space. It's not a -- there is not a depression there. So, there is not water backing up into that play field, it's all to the subsurface. Cassanelli: So, that play field will be level? Carpenter: That -- that -- yes. Yeah. It's going to be a functioning, usable -- kids are going to run around, throw a frisbee, play field. It's not going to be a pit that you're going to walk into and have wet. We are putting a lot of time into the grading plan for this site, with the sidewalks, with the units that we have. It's -- it's actually a little complicated to get the drainage to work. This year we have had a lot of rain. Still getting a lot of rain. This is going to be a graded out very nicely and it's going to be attractive for the users. All of the -- the fronts of the units face out to that green space for the renters to have attractive front yard. It's got a -- it's got to be graded and it's got to drain correctly. Perreault: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Perreault. Perreault: What's the capacity for -- sorry, Josh. Could you print up the slide that shows these in color. What's that capacity for that -- the patio -- covered patio area? And what was shown -- looked to me like there were several tables, but that's not actually -- that's just a photo representation, it's not actually what's going to go in? Carpenter: They are getting to a slide that's got a good color -- Beach: Bear with me. Perreault: Sorry. Beach: Multiple slide shows going on here. Perreault: So, is that -- is that photo there of the multiple tables what -- is the intention or is that just an example? Because it seems to me like a 12-by-12 picnic shelters is fairly small. Carpenter: I'm going to -- I'm going to look over my shoulder to Shon. It's one of those. Parks: The plat as mentioned -- it's a 17-by-17 foot plat -- Perreault: Uncovered? Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission April 20, 2017 Page 23 of 55 Parks: That table is -- that table is a 12-by-12 picnic shelter. So, it's a table with -- four-sided table with a shelter above it. Due to the size of the area we are dealing with a 17-by-17 plaza, we couldn't fit more than one of those shelter coverings into it. Perreault: Okay. But the plaza is uncovered? It's -- Parks: Yes. So, you will have a covering over the -- Perreault: Okay. Parks: -- the picnic area. Perreault: Thank you. McCarvel: Anything else? Thank you. Okay. At this time I'd like to get a motion to close the public hearing for Item No. H-2017-0007, Goddard Creek. Bernt: So moved. Perreault: Second. McCarvel: It has been moved and seconded to close the public hearing for Item No. H-2017-0007. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIES: FIVE AYES. TWO ABSENT. Fitzgerald: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Fitzgerald. Fitzgerald: Bill, could I ask you a quick question? Mr. Fleck brought up a question about the agreement by the City of Meridian to only have a certain amount of -- I guess density or house -- or roof tops on that whole square. Was there a master plan that we should be aware of or are we -- that confused me a little bit, since it hadn't been brought in before. Parsons: Madam Chair, Members of the Commission, this property was always part of the Lochsa Falls -- Lochsa Falls development. It was planned to be -- it's zoned R-4 currently, so it's in the city, but through that planned unit development process it was slated for office uses . As part of that PUD Selway was part of that as well and it was entitled to a certain number of units. So, what the applicant is doing this evening is removing this property from that agreement and having themselves enter into a new agreement subject to the plan that you see before you, the storage units and a multi-family. So, they are unraveling one approval to gain another approval. Fitzgerald: Madam Chair, can I have a f ollow up for a second question? Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission April 20, 2017 Page 24 of 55 McCarvel: Absolutely. Fitzgerald: Bill, is the stucco, stone, and the -- can we add that in the -- in the play field, making sure that's not a drainage area into the DA, that discussion, if we go that direction? Parsons: Madam Chair, Members of the Commission, absolutely. If you want it level and subsurface drainage, I think -- I believe Josh and I have that covered for you in there, but we can surely make it clear that it needs to be level surface and have some of those elements in there for you . Fitzgerald: Thank you. Bernt: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Bernt. Bernt: Question for Josh or Bill. How -- do we know how many units are in Selway? A hundred seventy-one? Is that what I heard? All right. So, if we add the -- the units that will be made in the proposed development that would probably put near 250 units. If you multiply that by the average amount of people that will be living just in this -- in that vicinity, it's quite a few people. I actually like -- it's my opinion -- I love the development. I think the development -- the look of it -- I think you have done a good job with it. I think that you list -- you listen to us before and you made the proper changes that -- that we have had concerns with. I just don't like personally where it's located. My -- my personal feeling on this development is it's just too dense. It's too dense and there is too many units in that -- in that area. I do believe there is going to be a massive problem with traffic that will bring multiple problems into that area . I do -- we are very aware that there is massive development going on in Meridian. We are very aware that -- that traffic is a problem, not only in the north, but even creeping into the south parts of Meridian as well, something that we are dealing with and something that ACHD is very aware of, but for right now it's my opinion that -- I think that there could be better use of that property than apartments. Although the apartments look beautiful, I think their design is fantastic. I don't think you could have done a better job with how they look. I think -- I -- I can't think of one negative thing about the proposed development , other than the location. I just -- I can't approve this this evening and those are my thoughts. Thank you. McCarvel: Thank you. Perreault: Madam Chair? Commissioners? McCarvel: Commissioner Perreault. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission April 20, 2017 Page 25 of 55 Perreault: I agree with Commissioner Bernt regarding the traffic. I think that if there was a plan -- specifically there is a plan to have a right turn lane off of McMillan into Goddard, if there were dedicated lanes on Goddard Creek Way -- still not convinced that the entrance to the residential area is far enough to the west for -- I'm guessing you're averaging about three people per unit, which is another 240 plus individuals. Let's say there is -- that half of them are -- a little less than half of them are leaving during normal business hours , got another hundred cars that are coming out of there -- in and out of there in a 45 minute time. So, I would have liked to have seen some dedicated lanes on Goddard Creek. I don't know about Apgar. I'm not exactly sure what the width is on Apgar, but that's my main concern with it. I agree with -- with Commissioner Bernt that the development is designed well, but the traffic is just still too much of a concern for me. Fitzgerald: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Fitzgerald. Fitzgerald: This one's hard for me, because I -- I think the developer has done their job in responding to both us and the community a little bit and I think -- we are putting a storage unit on the majority of the -- that it literally has no impact and so are we are going to replace that with offices that will have an impact and so I'm having a challenge balancing those two. It's -- it's challenging to me. I think the -- there is no impact with traffic at all with the storage units. So, you're taking 12 acres, seven of which is a storage unit, and, then, five of which is being put in with a little bit higher density, which is in the future land use map designated for higher -- a higher density. So, I'm having challenges, because the development is done well. I think the amenities are nice. And so I -- I'm not sure where to go yet. But I think that we are -- we are making an exchange for this -- basically an equal thing. Because we are going to get traffic and it's going to be the same time people are coming out, going to an office, same time people are going into their houses -- or leaving their houses to go to their jobs, too. So -- and it is -- this is -- come out to the road and this is a walkable community. This is the kind of place you want to have density, but I agree -- I understand where you're going and it's -- where it's located is very difficult with apartments right behind it. So, that's my -- so, for me it helped me with that, because I'm -- I'm having trouble. They have done a good job of laying it out, making it less dense. The product is nice. The MEW and the -- the amenities are nice. I'm -- but I understand what you're saying. Bernt: Would you -- Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Bernt. Bernt: Would you agree that -- Commissioner Fitzpatrick, would you agree that -- or would you disapprove of the notion that this high-density housing would bring in equal to or more or less people to that area, as opposed to like office space? Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission April 20, 2017 Page 26 of 55 Fitzgerald: I think it's sixes. That's my challenge. That's my challenge in my head. Because if we literally -- if someone -- developer come out and says -- is it possible that 12 acres, how many -- I mean we have seen that situation happen. I don't know. Bernt: But that would be office space of like five acres if they were to, you know, even leave -- maybe we can -- you know, I don't know if these two developments -- and correct me if I'm wrong. Do these two developments have to be approved together? Are they married? So -- Beach: Madam Chair, Members of the Commission. To answer that questio n, as -- as presented to staff and as applied right now it's one -- all these applications are under one umbrella. Right? So, the way that we are presenting it to you is there is -- however many it was -- six different application types and so you have got options, you know, if you're feeling like you -- you want to -- correct me if I’m wrong, Bill. If you want to approve everything but the conditional use permit for the multi-family project, I believe you have the ability to do that. If -- if that's what you're asking. Bernt: Madam Chairman. If it is a -- it is a tough decision, because I think it's a beautiful -- I think it's a beautiful development. I really like how it looks. I don't have any -- I don't have any -- I feel like I'm repeating myself now, but I don't have any negative, you know, thoughts about the development itself. So, maybe -- so, I just -- I don't -- I don't want to feel like I'm talking you into -- Fitzgerald: No, I -- Bernt: I'm a salesman. I love to hear the sales stuff all day long. I don't -- and I don't feel like right now is a proper time to use my sales expertise. Fitzgerald: Madam Chair and Commissioner Cassanelli, do you have thoughts tonight? I would love to hear you opinions. Cassanelli: My thoughts just from last time, I -- I was opposed last time. One of the -- one of the big issues for me was the density. They brought it down. I like the project. I like the looks of the project. I have got a few concerns over the amenities. I think -- and that was the top conversation last time. I think kind of - - maybe cutting corners a little bit on -- on some of the amenities. The overall look of the project, I really like those. The walking -- you know, the walking -- the walkability of it. I like a lot of the things about the layout. I personally have a problem with -- Commissioner Bernt summed it up well. When you combine Selway and this project I think -- I think if Selway were -- were in this plot of land I don't think -- you know -- and to the north where Selway is now were R-4, I don't -- I don't think we would be increasing density if it were -- if Selway were built out onto McMillan, if that makes sense. So, that's the -- that's the way I stand. I still -- while I like the project. I think this project would be great in -- in places where we are already zoned high density and I might just want a couple Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission April 20, 2017 Page 27 of 55 of tweaks is all. I don't like it in this -- in this location. I just -- office, people come and go I think at a slower pace. It's also -- you know, have to 5:00 o'clock it's done. There isn't a problem on the weekends. Whereas, you know, a project like this it's 24/7. Fitzgerald: Okay. Parsons: Madam Chair, Members of the Commission, let me just elaborate on what Josh was saying. McCarvel: Uh-huh. Parsons: We specifically bifurcated -- or required two different conditional use permits for this particular reason to give you flexibility, but keep in mind we are -- the applicant is still requesting a comp plan change and that comp plan change calls for a mix of uses and we kind of justified some of the comp plan change based on the fact that we have commercial near the corner of Ten Mile. We have office next to this property already that hasn't developed. So, in our mind it made the logical sense to transition to a less intense commercial use, which is storage, and, then, have that higher density. For us that isn't really a higher density type development for us. We are six to 15. That's what the comp plan that they are -- the comp plan change that they are applying for. So, to deny just the multi-family portion of it, what else do we envision there and why are we moving forward with the comp plan change? I guess that's the question I have for you. We have met with the applicant, we have told him what to do, we said we need some residential component to go with the vacant commercial at the corners and provide that transition and that's typically how it's done. We -- if you look at our mixed use standards in our Comprehensive Plan, we transition from residential -- lower density residential to higher density residential or office to more intense commercial. That's exactly what we have here before you. The other idea is just -- is what the applicant presented to you. We as staff -- meaning planning and ACHD -- felt it was more appropriate for that multi-family to be near that corner of that intersection to help disperse traffic through that community easier. If that -- if you were to flip flop that plan and have that multi- family going out onto McMillan, now they have two ways to go. You either have to go right or left, there is no other way to move traffic through there. They are stuck with one roadway. So, that's really why we set them up that way. Our mixed use standards require that they have connectivity to adjacent neighborhoods, they have pedestrian connectivity, that's what we have before you this evening. So, I'm not trying to sway you in any -- one way or the other, but I'm trying to explain to you what the mixed use is meant to be and why the plan is the way it's presented to you this evening and why we have required -- or encourage the applicant to submit the higher -- the R-15 zoning this evening. Perreault: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner -- Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission April 20, 2017 Page 28 of 55 Perreault: Question for staff. McCarvel: -- Perreault. Perreault: Are we permitted to request the applicant to make some changes to how traffic will flow through there or is that not in our -- Beach: Madam Chair, Members of the Commission, I guess to answer your question, Commissioner Perreault, is -- is yes -- just like last time when this was continued there were certain things that the applicant was requested by the Commission to address. I guess in general for staff's sake and for the applicant, the more specific you can be as to what changes you would like to see the better for -- for both of us. Having said that -- and just -- just for everyone's knowledge and I guess interest, there were some discussions with applicant and with ACHD as to whether or not the entrances for both of the projects would be directly to McMillan, that they would potentially combine an access point onto McMillan Road, so that both -- both projects would take that access and ACHD was not in favor of that for -- for various reasons. One is -- as you see likely in their staff report, McMillan is -- it's a -- it's a major arterial roadway. We want to limit the number of accesses to those roadways, so that they can move traffic. The more entrances you put on there, traffic gets slowed down, so -- we did consider that, but that was something that ACHD did not -- did not recommend approval of and so this is why the applicant has done what they have done. Those are really their only two options. They don't own property up to Goddard Creek Way. There is a common lot for the Kelly Creek Subdivision on their -- on their east side of the project against Goddard Creek. So, they don't have direct access to that road. So, it's either Apgar Creek Lane and as part of the -- part for the Selway Apartments project that Bill here worked, there was a cross- access provided for this very reason, so that when this property did develop -- and this was back in 2002 -- that that would be -- that would be used as an access point for this project or any project that would be developed on this parcel. So, the applicant did mention that we had talked to them originally and, then, they were -- they were flip-flopped, right? The apartments were on the west side and storage was on the east side, but that -- that didn't make sense as far as traffic goes and, then, getting those folks -- especially not to McMillan Road. There is -- there is not another way to do it if they put the project on the other side of the parcel. So, that's kind of where we are. I did just want to mention that I pulled up the development agreement for the Lochsa Falls Subdivision and one of the neighbors did mention that as part of that development -- and it was a very large annexation. If you look here on the screen -- do I have that up there, the development agreement -- okay. McCarvel: Yes. Beach: It does mention that the 171 multi-family dwellings was part of this project -- as part of that entire annexation and I believe that's -- that's the Selway Apartments and so we are -- they are asking in this project to -- for a development agreement modification that would remove this specific parcel from Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission April 20, 2017 Page 29 of 55 that development agreement, which would allow them, then, to create some additional apartments. Again, that -- that's something that yourselves and City Council have to look at, but I think that that's -- that's valid to note that as -- when this came in originally they were granted approval for a certain number of apartments, which is why they -- that reason and because this parcel was slated as office and not wanting to do office there anymore -- are a couple reasons why they are wanting to amend their development agreement . Parson: Madam -- Madam Chair, Members of the Commission, if I can go back to -- we got off tangent just a little bit there for you, but, yes, you can require some changes, but ACHD is not requiring changes of the applicant. The other thing is the HOA for Lochsa Falls would have to be -- I don't know how their license agreement with ACHD addresses that center median that's built in the roadway. Under today's world we don't even plat those as common lots anymore. Those are just part of the right of way. You enter into a license agreement and when ACHD deems necessary that that intersection needs to be rebuilt a certain way, the landscaping goes away and they add those turn lanes. That's something that the applicant would have to pursue with ACHD. I can't give you direction on that tonight. But keep in mind that we were here tonight to talk about the four items that we addressed in our memo. If they have addressed that plan the way you have directed them, then, that's what you're acting on. I know all those other applications are there, but we specifically continued this item to address that -- that plan. So, we need to look at that, too, and make sure that they have addressed your concerns as part of modifications to that portion that I believe from the last part of the hearing you guys were good with the storage, you were, again, concerned with the items that we listened in the memo. If -- if that meets the intent that you were looking for as part of your motion -- and I will let you get to it and let you deliberate, but I just wanted to just remind you of what was on the table this evening. Fitzgerald: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Mr. Fitzgerald. Fitzgerald: I think following -- and, Josh, thank you for bringing up the development agreement. I think we have to go back to somewhat of a certainty and I think a lot of us discuss that in the discussions and certainty says that there is 171 units that are already taken in regards to multi-family in my opinion, so -- the neighbors were expecting that was it in regards to 171 multi-family units and now we are adding another 76 -- or -- sorry. Yeah. Seventy-four. So, I think I'm going to agree with Commissioner Bernt and Commissioner Perrault and say that this is not allowing certainty for the -- for the community in regards to what they bought and so I don't think -- I would not want to move forward -- leave it as a clean slate not approve anything. I would probably move towards a denial in that direction, to allow whoever takes the next step with this property can start with a clean slate not have to deal with a jumbled-up mess. That would be my opinion. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission April 20, 2017 Page 30 of 55 McCarvel: Okay. Thank you. Any other comments? Anybody ready to make a motion? Fitzgerald: You haven't commented. You're not commenting? McCarvel: I -- I think they are -- I do, I think they are beautiful. I think it's exactly -- I think they have addressed the concerns as good as they can be addressed, but I don't know -- I'm kind of with you is I don't know that it's enough -- I mean I go back and forth. With the storage units taking up that much space where there is literally no activity and, then, these that are -- yes, they are multi-family, but they are not your typical apartment. They are I would say more of a townhome. They have their own garage. They have their own driveway for parking and all these others are just guest parking, because of the need for not having those parking -- guest parking being out on the street, so that every -- I'm going to use the word townhome, because that's what they look like to me -- has its own two spaces assigned. I somewhat see it as a good mix between your typical apartment and single family residential. It's certainly not the R-4 in that condensed little area, but over the entire space is that traffic kind of a wash, having that much space taken up by the storage units. Fitzgerald: Yes, ma'am. McCarvel: So, I guess in the technical terms is it what everybody -- what was expected with it being labeled an R-4, in reality is it over the entire quad? Is that -- are we still getting to the same impact? Fitzgerald: Rough. McCarvel: Yeah. So, that -- that's my thought. I mean I normally would never be -- almost never be in favor of something from an R-4 to an R-15. I mean the -- I mean the R-40 I think pushed -- was an absolute no go in my mind. But they did bring it down and make some changes and I guess I just needed to see it to see if it still -- if it made sense at all and I'm -- I guess I'm still on the fence with it. Cassanelli: Madam Chair? Question for staff. Josh, the -- the original DA for this -- that includes the Selway, that was -- that's that whole -- that includes this parcel, too? Beach: Correct. So, the parcel that this applicant is asking to develop was part of Lochsa Falls and they are asking to take it out of that development agreement. Cassanelli: And when I look back at that, yeah, you're taking that from 171 now to 250 and for everybody that bought in Lochsa Falls and Kelly Creek this was what -- this is what they bought into. So, based on that, Madam Chair, I'm going to go ahead and make a motion. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission April 20, 2017 Page 31 of 55 McCarvel: Commissioner Cassanelli. Cassanelli: I'm going to -- I'm going to move that after considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony I move to recommended denial to City Council on file number H-2017-0007 as presented during the hearing on April 20th for the following reason, that it does not fit the original development agreement for 171 units and the rest of that on 4.1 on the original agreement back -- I think that was in August of 2002 -- July and August of 2002. Bernt: Second. McCarvel: It has been moved and seconded to deny file number H-2017-0007, Goddard Creek. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion fails. MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. TWO ABSENT. McCarvel: Okay. Would the Commissioners like a five minute break before we move on to the church? Okay. (Recess: 9:08 p.m. to 9:14 p.m.) McCarvel: Okay. Do we have everybody? Fitzgerald: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Fitzgerald. Fitzgerald: Before we get started I have the Commissioners -- so, I live in the neighborhood for the next application, so I -- I don't feel like I have a conflict, but I will leave it up to my fellow Commissioners that -- whether you guys think I have a problem. I feel like I can be unbiased, so -- but I want to make sure I declare that. Bernt: No issues here. C. Public Hearing Continued from April 6, 2017 for Rockbury Subdivision (H-2017-0018) by Rock Harbor Church, Inc. Located 6437 N. Tree Haven Way 1. Request: Rezone of 25.06 Acres of Land from R- 15 (8.95 Acres) and C-N (16.11 Acres) to R-15 (6.71 Acres) and CN (18.35 Acres) Zoning Districts 2. Request: Preliminary Plat Approval Consisting of Two (2) Common Lots, One (1) Commercial Lot and One (1) Multi-Family Lot on 23.56 Acres of Land in the Proposed R-15 and C-N Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission April 20, 2017 Page 32 of 55 Zoning Districts McCarvel: No issue. Okay. All right. So, at this time we would like to open the public hearing for Item No. H-2017-0018, Rockbury Subdivision and we will begin with the staff report. Beach: Madam Chair, Member of the Commission, as you said, this is the Rockbury Subdivision. It's an application both for a rezone and for a preliminary plat. The site as you see here consists of 20 -- approximately 25.06 acres of land, which is zoned R-15 and C-N, which is located at 6437 North Tree Haven Way. Some adjacent land use and zoning. As you see here on the map to the north are single-family residential homes in the Spurwing Greens Subdivision, zoned R-8 and R-15. To the south is West Chinden Boulevard and a rural residential home and vacant residential and office property, which is zoned R-8 and L-O. Technical issues. Bear with me here. Is that better? McCarvel: There we go. Beach: Awesome. All right. Sorry about that. I'm talking to the wall. To the east are single family residential homes, again, in the Spurwing Greens Subdivision, zoned R -- zoned R-15. Some history on this. In 2006 the property received annexation and conceptual approval to develop a mixed -use community, consisting of single family residential, townhomes, multi-family and a neighborhood commercial known as the Tree Farm development. A development agreement was required with the annexation of the property and several addendums to the original DA have been approved that govern the property. In 2015 a different project was proposed for the site. They consist of - - they consisted of a rezone of 26.09 acres of land from R-15 and C-N to R-15 and C-C, to operate a self-service storage facility. That product did not -- obviously did not be -- get constructed. So, the Comprehensive Plan future land use map designation for this property is medium density residential . The applicant, as I said, is looking for two separate application types. One is for a rezone. The applicant is requesting to rezone the property from R-15 and C-N to slightly modify it and go back to R-15 and C-N. So, they are asking to reduce the size of the R-15 and increase the size of the C-N zoning district to accommodate their two -- two parcels. As I said, the property is governed by three development agreements at the time of -- of annexation approval. The approved concept plan envisioned a mix of residential and neighborhood commercial uses for the property now that the specific development plans are proposed. The applicant is requesting all of the subject property, approximately 25.06 acres, be excluded from the -- the approved development agreement, so a new DA can be approved to govern development of this property. So -- excuse me. There is a rezone and a preliminary plat and a development agreement modification associated with this. There are some existing structures on the property. The city is made aware that the existing buildings on the site are occupied by multiple tenants without the approval of the city. The city requires that any businesses operating within the city limits must obtain a certificate of occupancy for the -- from the building division. Further, the existing Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission April 20, 2017 Page 33 of 55 buildings on future Lot 2, Block 1 are not connected to city water and sewer and the building must connect to the city services within 60 days of development approval. Per the UDC site development and establishing a commercial use requires approval from the planning d ivision. To further complicate the matter, there are two mobile service businesses currently operating on the site. These require the procurement of a conditional use permit prior to operating in a proposed C-N zoning district. So, in discussions with the applicant they have indicated that those buildings will -- those tenants will be out fairly soon. If you would like you are able to add a condition that they be restricted to a certain time frame when those -- those businesses need to be removed or -- and/or the buildings removed from the property. Having said that, again, the -- the applicant his proposing to plat one residential lot, which is the property here to the north. The R-15. So, this would be the one residential lot. The applicant indicated that if -- when this develops in the -- in the future this would be further subdivided to accommodate multiple lots, but that's not part of this application. So, as I said, one residential lot, two common lots, and one commercial lot on the acreage, both in the R-15 and C-N zoning district. So, the property to the south where you see the conceptual church would be the C-N parcel and the property in the north would be the R-15 or residential property. The residential lot is being platted as a single 5.83 acre parcel and maybe further subdivided in the future as I had indicated. Staff has reviewed the proposed plat for compliance with the applicable standards listed in the UDC. The C-N zone is not required to meet a minimum lot size . A requirement of the UDC requires a 35 foot landscape buffer along Chinden Boulevard. A 20 foot wide landscape buffer is required along North Tree Farm Way and a ten foot wide landscape buffer is required adjacent to North Tree Haven Way and a 20 foot wide landscape buffer is required along the north and west boundaries of the C-N zoning -- zoned property. The submitted plat does not depict the required ten foot wide landscape buffer along North Tree Haven Way or the 20 foot wide landscape buffer adjacent to North Tree Haven Way in accord with the UDC -- with the UDC. With the final submittal the applicant shall depict the required buffer widths on the plat. There is an irrigation lateral that crosses the property. As mentioned earlier, the Simpson Lateral has been tiled on the site and is contained within a 40 foot wide irrigation easement. Both the submitted concept plan and preliminary plat depict the easement. The applicant is required to provide pressurized irrigation for the property. Access at this time -- the property has a primary access into the development from North Tree Haven up to Tree Farm Way via Chinden Boulevard. With earlier residential developments this roadway was required to be constructed at the half mile mark in accord with the UDC. Tree Haven Way was also constructed during the same time frame and provides a local street access to the proposed development and further north Tree Farm Way is designed as a collector street and is meant to serve as a backage road to Chinden Boulevard. The remaining portion of North Tree Farm Way is currently under construction to the west boundary of the development and so approximately from the intersection of Tree Haven and Tree Farm to the west is being constructed now as part of a separate project that was approved here to the northwest. The applicant is proposing a right-in, right-out access to Chinden Boulevard. The proposed Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission April 20, 2017 Page 34 of 55 access is located on the shared property line with the adjacent property owner. So, as you see here on the site plan this is the location where they are requesting a variance to have direct access to Chinden Boulevard. That's an application and request to City Council and it's on the shared property line. It's in the parcel to the west, which is currently a nursery or tree farm. There are some specific conditions for development along state highways. The UDC requires specific standards, as I said, for this project. Use of the existing approaches shall be allowed to continue provided that all the following conditions are met. The existing use is lawful and property permitted effective September 15th, 2005. The subject property is partially developed and previously used for agricultural purposes. The nature of the use does not change. The applicant is proposing a substantial change of use of this site from agricultural to a commercial and residential use. So, the long and short of it is there is some significant changes that are items that are required for projects that are developed along the 20-26 corridor and this -- this project definitely falls within that. Something that we did not catch in the staff report that I wanted to bring to your attention was the applicant is required per the UDC to construct a - - a berm along the entire frontage of Chinden Boulevard, which is -- code requires that it be measured -- the ten feet be measured from the center line of Chinden Boulevard and they need to do a ten foot wide landscape berm or a combination berm-wall. The intent is to mitigate noise coming from Chinden Boulevard to the surrounding neighborhoods. The code does not require it for commercial purposes, but it does require it for churches and schools that are at times considered commercial uses. So, this -- this project would be subject to that -- that condition. A 35 foot wide landscape buffer is required along Chinden Boulevard. It's considered an entryway corridor. On the submitted landscape plan the applicant does comply with that -- with that condition. I believe the applicant has -- have proposed a 45 foot wide landscape buffer adjacent to Chinden Boulevard. There are some existing trees that would need to be mitigated. This project is essentially not approving the church, the church would have to come back through Planning and Zoning to receive certificate of zoning compliance and design review approval prio r to establishing the use. With that staff did receive written testimony from a number of residents in the area. Robert Ebert, an adjacent neighbor. David Turnbull, who I believe is the HOA president for the Spurwing Greens HOA. And Drew Eggers, which is the property owner to the west. Their concerns were, as I said, screening and berming. Some of the residents that -- that we received comments from live in this area here, so their concerns that they be screened from the proposed church, as well as from the Chinden Boulevard and with that staff is recommending approval. Some outstanding issues, as I mentioned, were the existing buildings on the property that either need to be removed immediately or based on your recommendation. There are -- there is currently no right-of-way shown on the plans for the acceleration or deceleration lane for the proposed direct access, which is a variance the applicant is looking for. I had mentioned that we had not received comments from ITD. That's incorrect. We have a -- we have a letter from ITD dated March 30th -- and I will switch my screen back here, so you can see what I'm looking at. We have indicated several conditions. One, ITD does not object to the construction of the church on the property at this Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission April 20, 2017 Page 35 of 55 location. Two, the access point shown as a right-in, right-out on the preliminary plat application was required to be removed under a previous development application. It says this access is no longer a permitted approach. The applicant would need to work with the city and ITD to determine availability of access. If determination is made that access would be available, the applicant would need to submit a completed access permit application with supporting document to ITD for review. So, just to clarify on that point, they are asking -- the applicant is asking City Council to approve a direct access to Chinden Boulevard. Council granting that access does not necessarily mean that ITD will grant that access, but that's -- that's a requirement in our code that they get approval from -- from Council to have that access. Just wanted to make that clear. That's why they are applying for a variance. Moving on to three. Due to the anticipated traffic impacts that this development will have on the US 20 -26 or Chinden Boulevard at full build-out, a traffic impact study may be required and would need to include the intersections of US 20-26 and Black Cat Road and US 20-26 and Tree Farm Way at a minimum. A larger study area may be required. The applicant has indicated to us that they are -- they are aware that they may need to do a traffic impact study. Number four. ITD has completed the corridor study of US 20-26. The future corridor width in this area has been determined to be -- it says 150 feet. As Bill and I were looking here we actually looked at the document and it's -- it says 150 feet each side of the central line. That's incorrect. It's -- it's a hundred feet on each side of the center line. We looked at the study. So, it was incorrect. I just wanted to clarify that. The city has reminded us that US 20-26 corridor is already congested. The project will increase the number of vehicle trips in the corridor. ITD has no current funding assigned to mitigate traffic impacts on US 20-26 in this area. With that, as I said, staff is recommending approval and I will stand for any questions you have of staff. McCarvel: Okay. Any questions for staff? Okay. Fitzgerald: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Fitzgerald. Fitzgerald: Josh, the during the conversation, the right-in, right-out concept, was there ever a discussion with the Fire Department about using that as an emergency access or -- because I understand the reasoning for not having it from ITD's perspective, but was there a -- could you bollard that and make it an emergency access? Or is it -- I mean that -- I'm just looking for additional -- Beach: Sure. Madam Chair, Commissioner Fitzgerald, that's not the intent here. And I guess just to -- just to add a little bit more context to this, if you recall the -- kind of going back to the Tree Farm Subdivision that was approved just kind of to the northwestern here, there is concerns that the number of trips coming to the intersection of Tree Farm Way and Chinden will be significant, because if you recall the Tree Farm -- part of that project there is a requirement for ACHD that they build the Black Cat intersection with the -- the phase of that Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission April 20, 2017 Page 36 of 55 project that contains the 90th, I believe, lot. We have received a phase one final plat application, actually, for that, but it doesn't contain the 90th. So, there is -- feasibly there could be two, potentially three phases for a while anyway, taking access to the Tree Farm Way and so there is concerns from the neighbors that with all that traffic going to Tree Farm Way, and the inclusion of this -- this church and the traffic that it will have arguably mostly on the weekends , that it will be fairly congested. So, going back to your question, they were hoping that this right-in, right-out would help with some of the congestion, A, for the neighborhood and, B, for the church on the weekends. Putting the bollards there and having it be strictly emergency access doesn't really help with anything. I don't believe the Fire Department needs an emergency access right there. And, again, they are asking for Council's approval to get this access. Long -- long range when Black Cat gets built, I don't know that this is going to be -- it will still be used, but it won't be quite as beneficial as it would be in the interim and we don't know how long the time frame is for when the Black Cat intersection gets build and folks can have a couple of ways out of this -- this area. I hope that answers your question. Fitzgerald: Tree Farm is a collector, though. I mean we have got access to down the hill off -- I mean off the -- I guess I mean off the ridge and it's designed to collect the traffic from down the hill. I mean -- so I -- okay. And we are going to have -- we will have access on Tree Farm Way to Black Cat; correct? I mean that's -- that road will run over and connect to that property. Beach: Correct. So, that's part of that agreement with the Tree Farm Subdivision. As I mentioned, they are building part of that -- most of you probably know they are building that Tree Farm Way further west right now to go to that west property line, but I don't have a date certain as to when Tree Farm Way or the intersection of Black Cat and Tree Farm will be constructed. Fitzgerald: You're likely to have two -- either controlled -- two lights or one stop sign and a light. Beach: My understanding is Black Cat will be -- Fitzgerald: A lighted intersection. Beach: -- signaled intersection. Correct. Fitzgerald: Thank you. McCarvel: Josh, do you have an overview -- a map that extends out over to Black Cat? Beach: I do. Bear with me just a second here. McCarvel: There we go. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission April 20, 2017 Page 37 of 55 Beach: So, this is the parcel here and, as you said, Tree Farm Way is being constructed as we speak, kind of where my hand is there -- McCarvel: Uh-huh. Beach: -- and will be constructed at down to the intersection here . No, we don't -- we don't know for sure when that will take place. But relatively short term in my understanding. McCarvel: Okay. Perreault: Madam Chair, I have a question for staff. McCarvel: Sure. Commissioner Perreault. Perreault: Josh, you said there is residences there in -- in that -- can you bring the plat up again, please? So, there is residences between Tree Haven Way and Tree Farm Way currently? Beach: There are. So, if I can go back to the map here I can show you where those are, that might be easier. Perreault: Is that what is existing now or is that -- Beach: Right. Correct. Perreault: Okay. And there is intention for there to be additional homes in that location? Beach: In this location here? Perreault: No. I'm sorry. In -- yes, that area. Beach: I do not believe they are building further homes in this area. Perreault: Okay. So, none of those homes have direct access out of those roads? Beach: Correct. Perreault: Okay. Thank you. McCarvel: Okay. Any other questions for staff? Okay. Would the applicant like to come forward. Can you, please, state your name and address for the record. Wonder: Good evening, Madam Chair, Commissioners. My name is Scott Wonders with JUB. 250 South Beechwood Avenue in Boise. Here representing the applicant. I also have Scott Harrop, who is a senior pastor with Rock Harbor Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission April 20, 2017 Page 38 of 55 Church, also here to answer any questions that you may have in regards to that. So, what we have before you that Josh has gone over is an application for a little over 23 and a half acres to be slightly modified in zoning. One of the conditions from Meridian is to make sure that zoning matches the property boundaries and with the new development of this property we are just merely adjusting the R-15 and the C-N to match property boundaries. So, we are really going from eight -- just a little under nine acres of R-15 that was originally approved to 6.7 acres and, then, on the C-N we are going from a little over 16 acres to 18.35 acres. So, just some slight modification from the original plan that was approved in 2006. So, it has the kind of purpose for the rezone application and, then, also for the preliminary plat to basically parcelize the two zones from C-N and R-15. The church purchased this property in January and so they are, obviously, not residential developers, they are more interested in the commercial -- or, excuse me, the commercial property for the church property themselves. So, we are basically just leaving R-15 as it was originally approved in its basic form for someone else to bring in and submit a preliminary application -- preliminary plat application to bring in whatever they may have. To kind of go over the site access a little bit. We have two accesses off of Tree Haven Way. One of them is actually an existing stub, which is the main access, which is kind of due south of the existing pond on the north side and, then, we'd like to add a second access kind of across from their clubhouse pool area and, then, obviously, they purchased his property in January. We have actually been working with the neighborhood association since October -- September, October, when they knew they were looking at this property and so in working with the HOA we, obviously, knew that traffic was a huge concern for this neighborhood. Obviously with the previous application there was a lot of concern brought up and so what they opted to do was to add the right-in, right- out along Chinden and have that as a shared access with the future commercial property to the west. It is exactly a quarter mile between Tree Farm to the access and a quarter mile from that access to Black Cat. I did have a conversation with ITD in regards to this application -- or this -- this use and the separation does meet their criteria. However, we will need to come back and provide a traffic study to show that if it can or cannot work with the traffic on Chinden, as well as determine what the decal and acceleration lanes will need to be as far as length and taper width, et cetera. So, considering that this has to be a variance that is approved by City Council, we are just merely waiting to find out if that seems acceptable to the city and, then, at that time we will go to ITD with a traffic study and the application for the right of way permit. And, then, a final access point that we have added in the very northwest corner and this is, hopefully, an access that can also go to the future Tree Farm Way that also when it gets over to Black Cat and, then, back down to Chinden. So, it's just another -- obviously another opportunity for people to go other directions from the church property. And, then, for the R-15, we -- the original access was proposed pretty much in the same location and the thought process there, which is on Tree Farm Way in the very northwest corner, is that, obviously, you try to encourage traffic to go west on Tree Farm Way and, then, south on Black Cat Road and coming back on Tree Farm to the intersection of Chinden, which, again, is -- seems to be a condition -- or a contention for traffic as it is right now Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission April 20, 2017 Page 39 of 55 with limited connectivity. The church has -- this is a concept plan. Again they will have to come back for a certificate of zoning compliance. A church is an allowed use in the C-N zone, so this is the concept plan that we have submitted with the application. It's roughly, in its ultimate form, would be a 73,000 square foot church facility with offices for church staff, classrooms for student age children, and, then, the worship center. Going on that -- I'm trying to figure out -- okay. So, Rock Harbor is currently a church that utilizes Rocky Mountain High School for services on Sunday. They have three services currently and have been doing that so far for five years and they are, obviously, looking for a permanent home, because things have been growing and growing and the congregation has been growing. So, this is the -- hopefully, the future home for their church. Let's see. Covering the buffers. So, on the buffers -- the preliminary plat we had left off a few buffer widths by accident. It wasn't intentionally. We are providing buffers along Chinden as a -- I guess mitigations of parking fields, we had added an additional ten feet of buffer along Chinden from 35 to 45 feet and I will come back on a few items with the berming. Along Tree Farm Way, basically from -- between the section between Chinden and Tree Haven Way they are actually providing 60 feet on average, where 20 is required. On North Tree Haven Way where the two entrances are, we are actually providing a minimum of 20 feet where ten feet is required. And, then, along the remaining portion of Tree Haven Way on the R-15 and along Tree Farm Way on the north side of the R-15, those are going to be ten feet and 20 feet respectively, at least for this time, which is the required buffer width until someone comes back with a development application. So, getting back to the buffers along Chinden and the condition for the berming. This was brought up to our attention yesterday and so we -- and we met with staff yesterday to kind of get the intention and try to figure out where the code came from. Because it's a commercial zone we weren't aware that we would be required to have berming. I can understand it on a residential development that -- from a commercial zone and from an exposure standpoint for the church. They were ultimately just proposing the additional ten feet to the 45 foot buffer and, then, having low intermittent burning. So, it wasn't just going to be a flat landscape look, but they are going to actually have some berming with, obviously, not to the ten foot in height. Josh, can you go to that -- that other slide that I had? So, Josh had mentioned that we have a lot of irrigation easements that are on this property and so what I did -- they are hard to see on the normal map, so what I did is highlighted them in red and so this is the 40 foot irrigation easement as it winds through this parcel. And, then, you will notice along Chinden we have, you know, a 200 to 250 foot section that falls within that landscape area before it heads north across the parking lot and, then, what really is devising between the R-15 and the C-N zone on the north end and across Tree Farm Way. Obviously with irrigation pipes and manholes, et cetera, the irrigation district is not going to allow us to have, you know, a ten foot berm over the top of that and so we have some significant concerns with how that's going to transition and how we can meet that. Again, we would really like to just stick with the additional ten foot of buffer width that we propose with the intermittent berming. I know in code under the noise abatement that Josh had referenced at the bottom there is -- you can go for alternative compliance and, basically, allow for an acoustical engineer to Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission April 20, 2017 Page 40 of 55 do an analysis for the noise abatement and the church is willing to go ahead and do that with the noise abatement in requesting the alternative compliance for that. So, we have some -- a little bit of constraints and you will, obviously, see how things are organized across the site because of the irrigation . We are, for the most part, in agreement with the conditions of approval. I just had a couple clarifications. Josh brought up that required right of way width along Chinden and -- of which is a hundred feet. If it requires -- the hundred feet north of centerline also includes the ten foot multi-use pathway within that right of way. ITD also gives you the opportunity to reduce that right of way if you provide that ten foot buffer -- or that ten foot multi-use pathway within your buffer, which is what we have shown here on the plan and that's what we will be pursuing with ITD. So, I just wanted to leave that open or clarified that we could provide the ITD approval letter once we have that to determine that buffer width and that right of way that they require for that section of Chinden. And, then, on -- so, when the church purchased the property in January they inherited those leases that are currently for the operations that are currently happening on the property. There was a landscape company, a photographer, and a pest control company that were utilizing that property. As of the end of this month I believe the landscape company is moving their complete operation out of there into Star. So, they will no longer be operating there. The photographer and the pest control have leases that they were granted that extend through December of this year and so the church would like to request that they just honor those leases until the end of the December and, then, at that time they would cease in any use of that property that isn't authorized by city code . The two buildings that are out there will be removed at the time of construction of the chur ch itself. So, just a little clarification on that. And I think I have addressed everything. So, if you had any questions I'm here to answer any. McCarvel: Any questions for the applicant? Okay. Thank you. Wonders: Thank you. McCarvel: Okay. So, at this time we will take public testimony and we have signed up wishing to testify Robert Ebert. Please state your name and address for the record. Ebert: Good evening all. McCarvel: And you will probably have to pull that mike down. Ebert: My name is Robert Ebert and I live at 6600 Tree Haven Way. I live in the little neighborhood just across the street from the project . So, we are the neighborhood that will be greatest impact -- have the greatest impact on all of our homes. Although all of Spurwing will have an impact -- be impacted by this project, we have two major concerns and -- or problems that we have with the project and we are going -- I'd like to suggest or recommend ways of overcoming these concerns. The first concern has to do with -- we would like to propose an improved landscaping buffer to separate two different land uses. On Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission April 20, 2017 Page 41 of 55 the one side we have the lush landscaping of Spurwing. On the other side in a different zone we have the large asphalt parking lot with tall lights. And so we would like to be able to have the Planning Commission add to what's already available here and to berm the area along Tree Haven Way between the main entrance and the secondary entrance to a height of six feet and this would adequately be tapered at the -- the exits for a safety -- for safety expert -- the exits for Rock Harbor Church. On this berm we would also propose significant number of pine trees and shrubs to soften the harsh look of the blacktop pa rking lot with the lights. Now, if you take a look -- I was also going to mention -- we prepared for you a handout of this area with our proposals and Bill mentioned he would have it in your packet. Do you have a packet with that diagram? McCarvel: Yes. Ebert: Oh, good. That's great. Okay. If you'd look -- take a look at that diagram for just a second -- and this is what -- I would like to point out how this development, without the berms, will really impact all of Spurwing. Take a look at the entrance to Spurwing. Cars going in and cars coming out. Without the berm when they look to the west they will see acreages -- many acres of asphalt parking lot with high lights. Lights that will be on many nights of the week. So, that's what all of the folks going in and out of Spurwing will see without the berms. It's like looking at the Walmart parking lot. And just as big. Acreages of acreage of parking. So, that's a big impact on all people going in and out of Spurwing and the six foot berms with the appropriate landscaping would take care of that. It's not a difficult problem to overcome. So, that's what we would like and it's indicated there on your -- on your diagram, the new proposed berm areas to reduce noise and to block the parking lot and the lights therein. McCarvel: Mr. Ebert, your three minutes are up. So, if you could wrap up your comments. Ebert: Yes. One last thing that we are concerned about. If you will take a look at the -- the main entrance. We would like to have that moved at an angle, probably to the right, to prevent the cars from exiting, shining their bright lights right through the windows of the houses that are there. Houses one, two, three, four, five and six. So, that's a fairly small change that can take place by just angling that exit a little bit I think to the right. McCarvel: Okay. Ebert: So, those are our two concerns. The -- the berm situation and the exit. McCarvel: Okay. Thank you. Scott Harrop. Tom McNeill. McNeill: Hi. I'm Tom McNeill. I live at 4221 West Greenspire in Spurwing Greens. I am immediately across from the R-15 proposal area on the corner of Tree Haven and Tree Farm. We -- we have thought about this project for a long time and I have to commend the church and their staff, the way they have Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission April 20, 2017 Page 42 of 55 addressed us as a homeowners association. They have come in, they have made their proposal. The only thing that I would like to state tonight is the idea of -- of the berms. I'm not so certain about Tree Haven. I'm not opposed to that. But I understand that might be pretty expensive. But -- but on Chinden I really recommend that that -- that goes forward and that the Planning and Zoning committee endorse that part of the plan, because that area -- there is -- it just -- there is so much noise from Chinden and the fact that this will be the only area along there that -- that doesn't have a berm would mean that noise would not be mitigated in any fashion. So, I'm for their proposal, the zoning change as it stands now. Their -- their idea of not doing berms. I'm not for that. Thank you. McCarvel: Thank you. Okay. Which brings us back to Scott. Unless there is anybody else wanting -- okay. There is nobody else? Okay. Go ahead. Koozie: Good evening. I'm Jamie Koozie. I live at 3948 Magic Moon Court, which is just to the northeast of the proposed development. So, I am impacted by this as well. But when I think about other alternatives that could be used for this property I actually can't think of a better use for this property. I think the development looks really nice. I have looked at the plans and the landscape plans. I think they look really nice. So, I'm definitely in favor of this rezoning proposal and moving forward with this. I would not put any additional restrictions as far as berming. I think that makes sense for residential developments. This is not that. And, then, with some concerns about traffic onto Chinden, that makes sense on a week day, but on the weekend Chinden is -- there is very minimal traffic. So, I don't think there is any concerns to -- to be concerned about there. So, that's all I have. Thank you. McCarvel: Okay. Thank you. Anyone else? Okay. Madam Chair, Members of Commission, I apologize, because I did sign up -- McCarvel: Please state your name and address for the record. Neufeld: Sorry. My name is Robert Neufeld. I reside at 3756 West Snow Cherry Court in the Spurwing Greens development and I did sign up on the sheet that was on the table back there. I have no idea what happened to that sign-up sheet. But my name and several other people who were, obviously, removed or there was a new sheet that was put out there -- were not called upon to speak. So, that's a matter for the Commission and the staff to take a look at. I'd like to identify myself a little bit further by stating that as of March 15th of this year I am the new president Spurwing Greens-Orchard Grove Subdivision Homeowners Association. On March 15th and on March -- I believe it was the 13th, two days prior, the Brighton Corporation relinquished control of the HOA to the estates homeowners association and to the Orchard Grove Subdivisions of the Spurwing Greens group. That -- those two groups we report to the master association and just a couple weeks ago we elected a new president to be the head of the master association for Spurwing Greens. In the previous comments that we made before this Commission and before the City Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission April 20, 2017 Page 43 of 55 Council regarding other developments in the area, we had worked under the guise of the homeowners advisory committee and I happened to serve as the chairman of that particular committee as well, so I have got a depth of knowledge regarding what's been going on in the projects in the past and the efforts of our community to support or to help deny those particular projects. The people from the Spurwing -- I mean from the Rock Harbor Church have been very, very forthcoming with us and the majority of the people within t he HOA support the development of the church. There is no problem there. We are gravely concerned because of the issues that have risen in the past regarding traffic, the fact Tree Haven is a collector. It already exceeds the maximum number of daily trips allowed by ACHD and ACHD overrode the provisions of their staff in their decision previously regarding the Tree Farm Subdivision and the ability for them to use Tree Farm Way as the main entrance in and out and this leads to the question regarding the d evelopment of when Black Cat will happen. The developer stood before the City Council and told them that when they had reached an agreement with the city that when they got to 91 units that they would, then, but the improvements in on Black Cat. But there is absolutely no understanding -- clear understanding of when that will take place. We are also -- and, Josh, real quickly, because my time is going to expire. Can you put up the map that Mr. Ebert provided? I want to make a point regarding the construction of the berms within the development. Okay. If you will work immediately to the westside of Tree Farm coming in off of Chinden, the green area there where he is proposing the development of a berm is common area for the HOA and nothing can be constructed in that area in the way of a berm or anything else without the approval of the boards of the sub associations of the HOA and we want to make sure that that is clear in the record and that we support the Rock Harbor Church and we are looking forward to working with them in a continued good neighbor basis as we have in the past. I thank you for your time. McCarvel: Okay. Thank you. And I know I had one more hand back there. LeFevre: I'm Denise Hanson LeFevre and I live in Spurwing Greens and I think the church is really great. I'm not opposed to the church at all. My only concern is, like everybody else, is the traffic moving in and out, especially on Tree Farm. I would like to see some way to push that traffic to the Black Cat extension. You know, in addition to the right turn in and right turn out maybe taking a look at pushing that back over towards Black Cat and moving that Black Cat extension up. But overall I think the church is a really good addition and I have seen the plans on it and it looks really nice. That's all I have to say. McCarvel: Great. Thank you. Anybody else? Okay. Would the applicant like to come forward. Wonders: Again Scott Wonders with JUB for the record. I just was going to make a brief comment about the berming as it relates of irrigation, since I guess I'm the engineer here, so -- the Tree Farm Way just north of Chinden where it's in green, that -- if you went back to my original exhibit that had the red irrigation Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission April 20, 2017 Page 44 of 55 easement line, it, basically, goes right through that area, which you're going to have restrictions for -- from Settlers Irrigation for what you can put in -- put inside that easement. So, you know, if there was an ability to do something outside of that, I'm sure they would be willing to work with the HOA on landscaping, but I don't think a six foot berm would be allowed by Settlers in that area. And, then, again, to reiterate the similar thing along Chinden where that easement turns and, basically, running parallel with Chinden on the north side. I'm going to let Scott Harrop with the Rock Harbor Church come up and say a few things. Thank you. Harrop: Hi. Scott Harrop. 2949 South Fox Run Avenue, Eagle, Idaho. 83616. And I am one of the pastors at -- at Rock Harbor Church, the executive pastor, and we are so thankful to be here tonight and be able to kind of share with you our vision for what a church might look like in particular area of town and that's - - we thank you for your time tonight and everybody coming out that has and we have been -- had a great time working with everyone from the planning committee to the HOA. It actually started back on September the 15th. We actually sat down with the HOA with Bob Neufeld and also Mrs. Philman and kind of talked through what this might look like and the purpose of that was -- was we wanted to have a relationship. Our hope is -- we know what happened before. I think everybody knows what happened before with -- with the storage units and that didn't go as planned and when we met Mr. Carnahan about the purchases we said, hey, let's make sure that we do everything in our power to make sure we have a great relationship and that's what we have tried to do. One of the reasons that we loved this piece of property is because it's on Chinden. Having frontage on Chinden is very important to us and being viable -- or being seen in this particular area, that's -- that's important just for visibility and that's one of the reasons this piece of property itself was very, very appealing and so as we started talking through that we thought it was a commercial neighborhood development, you didn't have to have any berming up front and, then, we learned this week that it might be a different case and so we started thinking, well, man, that's -- that's not really what our intention would have been for sure. It's interesting that if this was commercial, if this was a restaurant or anything else, you wouldn't have any berming across there, which it would get a lot more use, this particular area, and each night of the week and we don't really meet at night. We meet very few nights. Mr. Ebert talked about headlights shining into his particular house. That would happen very, very seldom, because we meet on Sunday mornings. We meet from about 8:15 until about 1:00 o'clock on Sunday afternoons and that's the main time that we meet. We don't have lots of classes at night, we don't h ave a daycare, we don't have a school, we don't have all those things. Have no intention to have those at this point and so I think it would be very low impact, actually, on this particular piece of dirt and when you look at what could go there, right, th ere is a lot of different options that could actually happen. Also, the berming concerns -- a couple different things. I know light pollution is something that concerns all of us and -- and so one of the things that was shared with us is don't want the l ights. Well, a six foot berm is not going to cover lights anyway and, actually, it kind of secludes what the parking lot would look like and our intention wouldn't have to Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission April 20, 2017 Page 45 of 55 be to leave our lights on all night long. That's not something we would desire to do. We want it to be a safe neighborhood, a safe area, but if it's secluded and has berms all the way around it, there is a good chance that unsavory people could actually be in that particular parking lot doing things we wouldn't want them to do all night long and there is a really good chance we will leave parking lot lights on. It's not something we want to do, but we don't want to pay for it, number one, but we don't want to create an environment or a place where people could go and kind of hideout, you know, and kids are kids, we understand that. I have been part of a church in another place that had that exact situation and we just had to leave lights on because graffiti, people hanging out, loitering in the parking lot, just wasn't something we wanted to have going on and it actually solved the problem. And so we are excited to see what's going to -- going to go forward with and we are happy to answer any questions. We have met with Spurwing HOA a couple different times now and with Bob and Sue. It's been a great relationship. So, happy to answer any questions that you have today. McCarvel: Commissioners, any questions? Fitzgerald: I got a question for staff, Madam Chair. McCarvel: Okay. Fitzgerald: And it may relate to you, but, Josh, do we have -- because we are not doing the actual building right now, do we have light pollution request -- I mean are we going to do a DA that is shading and those kinds of things at this juncture or is that for later? Beach: So, Commissioner Fitzgerald, the code -- UDC requires that any light not escape the property line -- or the property line. So, we already require the lights be shielded. With a certificate of zoning compliance application we require that they submitted a photometric plan to us indicating to us where the light is, whether or not it goes over the property line. So, that's not -- not a concern at this point. I will also mention that we have a -- we do a project review meeting with the various departments in the city and to get any -- any preliminary comments from them and one of the comments was from the Police Department. They had indicated that -- any kind of in line will the applicants be indicating that we -- we -- we definitely don't want berming all the way around the property for the reasons that are indicated . They want to be able to see what's going on in the parking lot as they drive by, which is kind of -- kind of in line with why we have wrought iron fences or semi-transparent fencing on pathways and things like that, so that the -- the Police Department can keep eyes on those areas that are a little more difficult to see. So, you know, as far as what the applicant indicated that they would like to do alternative compliance with some -- something along Chinden Boulevard specifically they would have to get some sort of approval from staff and do some pretty significant studies to make certain that what they are proposing still meets the requirements of the Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission April 20, 2017 Page 46 of 55 UDC with it as far as the -- the noise coming from Chinden Boulevard. But we are not in favor of putting a big berm along Tree Haven. Fitzgerald: Scott, do you -- would you guys be willing to put some elevation -- not -- maybe not full on -- we are talking 20 foot berms, but I mean is there a discussion point on where we could get some idea as to what kind of that -- that elevation would look like for the -- Harrop: Yeah. A couple things. So, we spoke with a sound -- acoustical engineer yesterday and talked about the distances where the church building is set back, which is over 200 feet, and the residences about 500 feet and he said a berm there will be negligible -- less than five percent in decibels. He said it's not even worth it. He said moneywise what it would cost to construct a berm there versus based off of what the -- it's not going to change anything for the residents 500 feet back, they are not going to -- it's going to go up and over, be experiencing no difference at all. Will we have some berming out front? Yes. Absolutely. We don't want it to just be flat, so -- and, actually, the landscape plan currently is varied. It goes from anywhere from flat to six feet. It's -- it varies throughout it, just so there is some texture there and speaking of landscape plans, you know, we want it to match the neighborhood. We didn't buy in Spurwing to do something and go, oh, let's make it look, you know, like this over here, we want to match the neighborhood and make sure of the property values and generally property values from hospitals, churches, typically property values actually go up. Actually, if you did som ething for the community and it's a good positive thing for the community and that's why those are great options for this piece of land. Fitzgerald: Thank you. McCarvel: Thank you. Perreault: Madam Chair, I have a question for the applicant. A couple questions, actually. Is the -- is there any intention of the community using this church for community purposes? Harrop: Yeah. We have -- we have not been approached yet, because we have no building. Obviously, since we used Rocky Mount High School for five years, we would love to have a place where the community could use the facility and that's something that we desire to do. Currently we have what we call our office space, the HUB at 1608 North Meridian and we have -- various groups use that from time to time and so we are open to that, obviously. Now, if somebody needs to use that space we would love to have them use it, because we are community-based and we want to be -- Perreault: Would that, then, lead into potential use during the evening? Harrop: At times. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission April 20, 2017 Page 47 of 55 Perreault: At times. Okay. Harrop: But it's now a lot and it's very seldom. Perreault: And, then, what is the distance between main entrance in Tree Farm? It just doesn’t -- do you know with the feet -- maybe Mr. Wonders has an answer to that. Harrop: How many feet Tree Farm Way is going down Tree Haven where the -- any entrance? Perreault: Sorry. Yes. Tree Haven. Wonder: Scott Wonders. JUB. For the record. Can you repeat your question, please? Perreault: Yes. What's the distance between the main access and -- Wonders: Tree Farm Way? Perreault: -- and Tree Farm Way? Wonder: It's about 150 feet, approximately. It's actually an existing approach, so it was put in originally when Tree Haven -- or, yeah, excuse me, when Tree Haven Way was put in that actually exists today. Perreault: My thought is -- and I, actually, attend a very large church that has a lot of traffic issues that's off of State Street -- off of a state highway and constant backup on that road. So, I'm just thinking that -- my understanding of the size of Rock Harber is pretty significant. They have a lot of backup coming in, you know, from -- from Tree Farm Way Turning left onto Tree Haven in that main access. Any thoughts on that? Wonder: Yeah. So, one of the ideas for the secondary access on our side was that -- the circular nature of that parking in the -- so, really the main access as we see would be an egress, so after service, where people are leaving and utilizing that main access that we just talked about and, then, ultimately, coming in on Tree Farm Way to come to service, you would be going down Tree Haven Way and possibly entering in on that secondary access further to the north -- Perreault: And they will be directed in that manner? Wonder: Yeah. I think, you know, we are still in the preliminary stages that -- is that going to be a possibility for traffic flow or people realize that you go to the north entrance for entering and, then, maybe the main access -- or main access for exiting and try to eliminate stacking onto public roadways. That was kind of the original thought process for that. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission April 20, 2017 Page 48 of 55 Perreault: Thank you. Wonder: Yeah. Can I add one thing to that? And that's also the reason why we are asking for right-in, right-out variance at the west edge of the property, just because we want to help with that. People who are approaching, you know, from that way can actually get in and not have to go down Tree Farm Way and onto Tree Haven Way and get there. McCarvel: Okay. Any other questions? Okay. Thank you. Okay. At this time could I get a motion to close the public hearing for item H-2017-0018, Rockbury Subdivision. Fitzgerald: Madam Chair, so moved. Bernt: Second. McCarvel: It has been moved and seconded to close the public hearing on Item No. H-2017-0018. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. TWO ABSENT. McCarvel: Any additional comments? Cassanelli: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Cassanelli. Cassanelli: Question for staff on -- on the berms along Chinden, is that an ITD requirement? I mean it -- does that have to be approved and whatnot by ITD and not -- Beach: No. To answer your question it's a -- it's a requirement of our code. It would go outside of their right of way. So, it does not have an approval from ITD, no. It's a city requirement. Cassanelli: Okay. McCarvel: So, they would -- it would just go under the variance if they wanted to apply for alternative compliance or -- Beach: No. The variance that they have asked for is for the access. McCarvel: Right. Beach: They would have to apply for alternative compliance, which is an administrative application just to the planning department. So, the director makes that determination. Our code lays out exactly what they have to do in this specific case -- Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission April 20, 2017 Page 49 of 55 McCarvel: Right. Beach: -- to get alternative compliance as indicated by the applicant. They have to do a sound study, essentially, to make the case that, you know, either they need it or they don't. McCarvel: Right. So, it's really not our concern this evening? Beach: Right. McCarvel: Right. Okay. Fitzgerald: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Fitzgerald. Fitzgerald: And, Josh, can -- I mean I think that my thought would be before -- whether we move this thing forward or not, before they go to Council I'd like to see them -- probably bring them a horizontal view of what that landscape is going to look like would be my suggestion and thought, because I think that gives them perspective on what they are going to deal with. Beach: Sure. And just for your information, I -- you probably saw me highlighting some items in the staff report that had indicated that might be modified a little bit. So, I will bring that up, but one of those things is we can -- if you're comfortable doing it -- making a condition that the applicant, you know, construct the berms as required by code or receive alternative compliance. That might be a way to address the concerns of both the residents and of the applicant. I will pull that staff report up as you're talking, so you can look at it. Fitzgerald: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Fitzgerald. Fitzgerald: And I think -- I'm just -- as we started talking about this is where -- I don't have a problem with the concept of leaving the berms along the frontage. Maybe we could help the -- the rest of the neighborhood out by putting a berm in -- along Tree Haven. I'm just thinking about how to balance that. Because we are definitely not going to be able to put something across Settlers' easement. I'm not sure -- 40 feet seems wide for that thing, but is that -- pipe and tiled, I mean is that what it is, 40 feet? Beach: Typically, depending on the size of the lateral -- in this case it is a 40 foot wide -- Fitzgerald: Okay. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission April 20, 2017 Page 50 of 55 Beach: They tile it and they keep their -- they maintain their easement on the top of it for various reasons. One, they don't -- they don't want anybody building on the top of it and they don't want a whole lot of landscaping. So, the applicant is right, they likely will not approve a large berm over the top of it, just because of the ease of -- or the difficulty I should say of removing all that material if they need to access to their -- their pipe. McCarvel: Yeah. I agree. I think the -- all that -- a whole lot of berming just encloses that and invites a safety issue and I think -- I mean for my two cents for City Council that, you know, I think the berming is required at residential and this is kind of somewhere in between a residential and commercial use some , so maybe some sort of undulation and, you know, some berming and some not, but -- so, they have some visibility, but still get some the buffering they need. I think the added ten foot is kind of nice out there along Chinden. Fitzgerald: Yeah. McCarvel: Because I'm sure they will do wonderful landscaping and I think that will probably almost do more than, you know, the berm, so -- but what's in our -- what we need to consider tonight I think is fairly simple, it's just the rezoning, cleaning up those couple of zoning areas and, then, in general, that these are the two common lots, this preliminary plat and so -- and that would modify the development agreement and I think we would need some comments, too, on -- you know, on the variance for Chinden. I mean it's -- it's just our suggestion, but I think, you know, something like that you -- ultimately the traffic study needs to be done and is it safe and all that kind of -- I think as long as they determine that it's safe I -- I think it's somewhat of a good idea to mitigate some of that traffic going in and out of Tree Farm, because it is just going to be stack traffic at just very short intermittent times. You know it's not going to be an every morning at 8:00 o'clock kind of thing, so -- any comments? Fitzgerald: Madam Chair? So, we are dealing with alternative compliance, comment on the variance, and, then -- McCarvel: Yeah. I think we have to -- Josh, am I right we need to make a comment on the variance on Chinden or just give our two cents and that's ITD and Council; right? Beach: Yeah. So, just to address that. The variance is specifically a Council -- McCarvel: Okay. Beach: -- approval. You can comment if you feel so inclined, but it doesn't necessarily come before the Planning and Zoning Commission. McCarvel: Okay. So, alls we are really after is just the rezone and the preliminary plat. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission April 20, 2017 Page 51 of 55 Beach: So, as you see here on the staff -- just to interject really quick, there is likely a couple of conditions that you're going to want to modify I have indicated here, so -- and discussing this with Bill, it might make some sense to remove the dimensions from the requirements for Chinden Boulevard and just indicating that the applicant shall preserve the required amount of right of way as required by ITD, just because we are -- as you said, the -- the letter from ITD indicates that the 150 foot from the center -- we looked at the corridor study and it said it's a hundred, not 150. So, I guess just leaving that open so that in case there is something that comes up or over a document that we didn't look at, we are not in conflict with what's required by -- by ITD. So, that would be Condition 1.1.1E -- or sorry. C. 1.1.1C. And, then, to scroll down 1.2.1B. Also it indicated that -- I guess staff indicated there is a couple of buildings with tenants and the applicant indicated that they'd like to stay there until the end of the year. The applicant also indicated that their -- their construction plans are out a ways. Likely at least -- at least a year before they break ground. So, I don't know that - - at least from staff''s perspective we have too much heartburn over those uses staying there for a little while, but that there be a condition that they are removed at a date certain or prior to getting a building permit. McCarvel: Right. And that their leases not be renewed and that they are gone before the building -- Beach: And, then, third, you have a condition in there that you would say the applicant shall construct berms as required by code or -- alternate -- receive alternate compliance. McCarvel: Or alternative compliance. Okay. You got all that, Chairman Fitzgerald? Bernt: I think he has it. He's over there -- Cassanelli: Madam Chair, are we -- in that -- McCarvel: Yes. Cassanelli: -- have we figured out -- or have we stated -- addressed the right-in, right-out? Fitzgerald: We don't have to talk about it. McCarvel: We don’t -- Fitzgerald: It's a Council variance request, so we -- we could comment if we want -- McCarvel: Yeah. Fitzgerald: -- but we don't have to make -- Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission April 20, 2017 Page 52 of 55 McCarvel: You can certainly give you opinion, but it's not our -- our doing tonight. It doesn't have to be part of our motion. Put it that way. Beach: Interject one more thing. The applicant is looking for some flexibility. In our staff report and on their original landscape plan they had indicated that they -- as you can -- scroll back over here so you can see what I'm talking about. Their landscape plan -- and as indicated on their plan here, they are showing a 45 foot landscape setback. McCarvel: Uh-huh. Beach: They are hoping -- we have tied them to that. We have said you do the 45 foot as proposed. They are -- they are hoping it will be -- the Commission will be a little bit flexible and just allow them to do what's required would be the 35, so they can get the ten foot back. So, I will leave that up to you, but that's -- that's what the applicant has indicated that they would like to do is just do the required 35 foot, instead of the 45. McCarvel: So, they don't want that 45 foot up on Chinden, they just want the 35? Beach: Correct. McCarvel: Okay. Parsons: Madam Chair -- McCarvel: But since it's on the plat before -- Beach: You got it. We required it because it -- McCarvel: Okay. Parsons: Yeah. Madam Chair, Members of the Commission, the applicant proposed 45. You heard in the discussions tonight there is some flexibility with ITD on the right of way width. So, for example, if ITD does want the hundred feet of right of way, then, they are going to lose ten feet and we don't want to give them a condition that they can't comply with or have to come back and modify. So, I think our discussions with the applicant is let's just tie them at 35 feet for now and -- McCarvel: Right. Parsons: -- and figure out what ITD is going to do. McCarvel: Okay. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission April 20, 2017 Page 53 of 55 Parsons: It's going to be easier for us in the long run. McCarvel: Okay. Fitzgerald: Hey, Josh, can you bring all that information back up, please. Beach: Absolutely. Going back and forth wi th monitors here. I just can't keep track of what you're looking at, so I apologize. Fitzgerald: Could you scroll up a little bit from there? Beach: Yes. Fitzgerald: Keep going. There is 1.1.1B. Beach: Or 1.1.1C is the right of way. Fitzgerald: Got that one. Beach: B is the buildings -- potentially letting them stay until the end of the year or -- with building permit and, then, 1.2.1B is the other that deals with right of way. I think those can be, essentially, the ones -- they are worded one and the same, both those right of way conditions. Fitzgerald: Okay. Madam Chair? McCarvel: Mr. Fitzgerald. Fitzgerald: Okay. After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to recommend approval to the City Council of file number H-2017-0018, as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of April 20th, 2017, with the following modifications: For -- that we first require that the applicant bring a horizontal elevated landscape plan to City Council for their -- for their presentation. That all leases on the property not be renewed and they will end January 1st, 2018. That we reserve -- or we allow the correct right of way or hold them to 35 feet when working with I TD. So, that's 1.1.1C and 1.2.1B. And there is one more. 1.1.1D. No. That's the structures. Is that it? Beach: And, then, there is -- there is one more condition that would be the -- the berming in the alternative compliance -- Fitzgerald: Oh. Beach: -- that we don't have in there, so you have to make it 1.1.1E I guess. In the DA that is. Fitzgerald: That the applicant follow code for -- on 1.1.1E or apply for alternative compliance. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission April 20, 2017 Page 54 of 55 Bernt: Second. McCarvel: It has been moved and seconded to approve file number H-2017- 0018. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. TWO ABSENT. McCarvel: And before we have our one more motion, I think -- I do want to say when I closed Goddard Creek I think I said motion fails and it was actually -- I think the motion was correct. The motion carried. The motion for denial carried. Fitzgerald: Yes. McCarvel: I think I misspoke on that. So -- Parsons: Madam -- McCarvel: Yes. Parsons: Madam Chair, Members of the Commission, before we convene for the evening, I did have one request. Our company picnic is in -- on that week that we were going to have our second hearing in June and so the planning manager wanted me to ask you if you guys were comfortable maybe pushing -- postponing that meeting to the following week, just in case -- have it as a placeholder just in case we get a rush of applications coming in, we will move to have a special meeting on -- I think it's June 22nd or 23rd. Okay. So, I wanted to put that out in front of you this evening before we convene this evening and get your take on that to see if that would work for your guys' schedule. McCarvel: Okay. So, we would be having first and fourth Thursday of June, instead of first and third. Okay. Perreault: Only if we are invited. McCarvel: Okay. Cassanelli: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Cassanelli. Cassanelli: I make a motion to adjourn. Bernt: Second. McCarvel: It has been motioned and seconded to adjourn t oday's meeting. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? It carries? Changes to Agenda: None Item #4A: New Beginnings (H-2017-0026) Application(s):  Annexation & Zoning Size of property, existing zoning, and location: This site consists of 0.73 of an acre of land, zoned R-4, located at 780 E. Ustick Road at the northeast corner of E. Ustick Road and N. Curt Drive. Adjacent Land Use & Zoning: North: Rural residential properties in Weaver Acres Subdivision, zoned R1 in Ada County East: Rural residential properties, zoned R1 in Ada County South: E. Ustick Road and single-family residential properties in Bedford Place Subdivision, zoned R-8 West: N. Curt Drive and single-family residential properties in Hollybrook Subdivision, zoned R-8 History: None Comprehensive Plan FLUM Designation: LDR Summary of Request: The applicant has applied for annexation and zoning of 1.00 acre of land with an R-4 zoning district consistent with the corresponding FLUM designation of LDR and the policies in the Comprehensive Plan as noted in the staff report. A conceptual development plan was submitted that depicts how the site is proposed to develop with 2 building lots for 2 single-family residential homes and a common driveway for access to the homes via Curt Drive; access via Ustick Rd. is prohibited. As a provision of annexation, staff recommends a development agreement is required that includes provisions for access and development consistent with the proposed concept plan. Written Testimony: Chris Fuhrman, Applicant (in agreement w/staff report) Staff Recommendation: Approval 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- 2017-0026, as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of April 20, 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- 0026, as presented during the hearing on April 20, 2017, for the following reasons: (You should state specific reasons for denial) Continuance I move to continue File Number H-2017-0026 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-15 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. S 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 April 20, 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 April 20, 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) Item #4C: Rockbury Subdivision (H-2017-0018) Application(s):  Rezone  Preliminary Plat Size of property, existing zoning, and location: This site consists of 25.06 acres of land, zoned R-15 and C-N, located at 6437 N. Tree Haven Way. Adjacent Land Use & Zoning: North: Single-family residential homes in the Spurwing Green Subdivision, zoned R-8 and R-15 South: W. Chinden Blvd rural residential home and vacant residential and office property, zoned RUT in Ada County, R-8, and L-O East: Single-family residential homes in the Spurwing Green Subdivision, zoned R-8 West: Jayker Nursery, zoned R-15 and C-C History: In 2006, the property received annexation (AZ-06-004) and conceptual approval to develop a mixed use community consisting of single family residential, townhomes, multi-family and neighborhood commercial known as the Tree Farm. A development agreement (DA) was required with the annexation of the property (Instrument #106151218) and several addendums to the original DA (Instrument # 107002555 and 107141993) have been approved that govern the property. In 2015, a different project was proposed for the site that consisted of a rezone of 26.09 acres of land from the R-15 and C-N zoning districts to the R-15 (8.48 acres) and C-C (17.61 acres) zoning districts; a preliminary plat (PP) consisting of 1 residential lot, 3 commercial lots and 3 common lots; a conditional use permit (CUP) to construct and operate a self-service storage facility; a development agreement modification (MDA); and alternative compliance (ALT) to deviate from the landscape buffer requirements adjacent to streets set forth in UDC 11-3B-7C and the parking standards for the proposed self- service storage facility set forth in UDC 11-3C-6B. Comprehensive Plan FLUM Designation: MDR Summary of Request: Rezone (RZ): The applicant is requesting to rezone 25.06 acres of land from the R-15 (8.95 acres) and C-N (16.11 acres) to R-15 (6.71 acres) and C-N (18.35 acres). The requested zoning is consistent with the MU-C and the MDR land use designations. The property currently contains both zoning designations which were approved with the Tree Farm (AZ-06-004 and AZ-06-050) annexation. Now that a new development plan is proposed, the approved R-15 and C-N designations do not coincide with the proposed preliminary plat, thus the reason for the rezone. Development Agreement Modification (MDA): As mentioned above, this property is governed by three (3) development agreements. At the time of annexation approval, the approved concept plan envisioned a mix of residential and neighborhood commercial uses for this property (see Exhibit A.2). Now that specific development plans are proposed, the applicant is requesting all of the subject property (approximately 25.06 acres) be excluded from the approved development agreements, so a new DA can be approved to govern development of the property. The applicant has submitted a new concept plan for Lot 2, Block 1. The submitted plan depicts a 73,000 square foot church and associated site improvements to be developed in multiple phases (see Exhibit A.4). In general staff is supportive of the submitted concept plan however, UDC 11-3A-19A.2. limits the amount of parking (50%) that is to be located between the building facades and the abutting streets. If the applicant desires to keep the design as proposed, the applicant may request alternative compliance (ALT) concurrent with the certificate of zoning compliance (CZC) application. NOTE: The applicant has incorporated several design features (wider buffer, berms, plazas etc.) to mitigate the location of the parking area. Official approval of these design concepts will be reviewed with a future ALT application. To ensure the C-N portion of the site develops as proposed, staff recommends limiting Lot 2, Block 1 to the church use. At this time, the R-15 portion of the site (Lot 3, Block 1) is not proposed to develop. In keeping with the integrity of the approved concept plan, the R-15 portion of the site was to develop with village housing (apartments, condominiums and townhomes). To ensure housing diversity within the development, Staff recommends the R-15 portion of the development be restricted to the aforementioned residential uses as previously approved. Staff’s recommended DA provisions are in Exhibit B. Existing Structures: With a previous application for this site, the City was made aware of that the existing buildings on the site are occupied by multiple tenants without the approval from the City. The City requires that any business operating within the City limits must obtain a certificate of occupancy from the Building Division. Further, the existing buildings on future Lot 2, Block 1 are not connected to City sewer or water service; buildings must connect to City services within 60 days of development approval. Per the UDC, site development and establishing a commercial use requires approval from the Planning Division. To further complicate the matter, there are two (2) mobile service businesses currently operating on the site. This type of use requires a procurement of conditional use permit prior to operating in the proposed C-N zoning district. In order for the site to come into compliance with the UDC staff recommends the following: 1) The applicant shall obtain approval of a CZC and DES application to install the site improvements (paved parking, landscaping, etc.) for the existing commercial businesses on Lot 2, Block 1 within 90 days of the approval of the Findings by City Council; 2) The applicant must connect the existing buildings to the public water and sewer system within the timeframe noted in item #1 above; 3) The applicant must submit CUP application for the mobile service uses or cease operation; and 4) All current tenants must obtain final certificate of occupancy permits from the City within 90 days of the approval of the Findings by City Council. At the public hearing, the applicant should clarify for the Commission the intended use of the existing structures. Preliminary Plat (PP) application: The applicant is proposing to plat one (1) residential lot, 2 common lots and one (1) commercial lot on 23.56 acres of land in the R-15 and C-N zoning districts. The proposed C-N (Lot 2, Block 1) lot will consist of the proposed church and associated site improvements. The residential lot (Lot 3, Block 1) is being platted as a single 5.83 acre parcel and may be further subdivided in the future. Dimensional Standards: Staff has reviewed the proposed plat for compliance with the applicable standards listed in UDC Table 11-2A-7 and UDC 11-2B-3 for the R-15 and C-N zoning districts. The C-N zone is not required to meet a minimum lot size. Per UDC Table 11-2B-3, a 35-foot wide landscape buffer is required adjacent to Chinden Boulevard, a 20-foot wide landscape buffer is required along N. Tree Farm Way and a 10-foot wide landscape buffer is required adjacent to N. Tree Haven Way and a 20-foot wide landscape buffer is required along the north and west boundary of the C-N zoned property. The submitted plat does not depict the require 10-foot wide landscape buffer along N. tree Haven Way or the 20-foot wide landscape buffer adjacent N. tree Farm Way in accord with UDC 11-3B-7C2.b. With the final plat submittal the applicant shall depict the required buffer widths on the plat. The future development of the residential lot (Lot 3, Block 1) must comply with the dimensional standards set forth in UDC Table 11-2A-7. The R-15 zone requires a minimum lot size of 2,000 square feet with no street frontage requirement. Compliance with the R-15 dimensional standards will be addressed with a future preliminary plat application, if further platting is desired. However, the applicant is required to install a 20-foot wide landscape buffer adjacent to the collector road (N. Tree Farm Way) with the subject plat in accord with the UDC Table 11-2A-7. This landscape buffer must be on a common lot, maintained by a homeowners’ association. Open Space and Amenities: Future development of Lot 3, Block 1 will have to comply with the requirements for qualified open space and the site amenity standards set forth in UDC 11-3G-3. Waterways: As per UDC 11-3A-6, all irrigation ditches, laterals or canals, exclusive of natural waterways and waterways being used as amenities, which intersect, cross or lie within the area being subdivided shall be covered. As mentioned earlier, the Simpson Lateral has been tiled on the site and is contained within a 40-foot wide irrigation easement. Both he submitted concept plan and preliminary plat depict this easement. The site design as proposed depicts no structures encroaching within the easement; only associated site improvements (landscaping and parking). Further, to ensure the required trees can still be provided along the north boundary of the C-N property, the applicant is proposing to install an additional 5-foot buffer. The applicant will responsible for entering into a license agreement with the irrigation district prior to commencing with construction on the site. Pressure Irrigation: The City of Meridian requires that pressurized irrigation systems be supplied by a year-round source of water. The applicant should be required to utilize any existing surface or well water for the primary source. If a surface or well source is not available, a single-point connection to the culinary water system shall be required. If a single-point connection is utilized, the developer will be responsible for the payment of assessments for the common areas prior to signature on the final plat by the City Engineer. An underground, pressurized irrigation system should be installed to all landscape areas per the approved specifications and in accordance with UDC 11-3A-15 and MCC 9-1-28. Sidewalk: A portion of the internal street network and 5-foot wide detached sidewalks were constructed with previous development. A 5-foot detached sidewalk is proposed along the new segment N. Tree Farm Way in accord with UDC 11-3A- 17. Access: At this time, the primary access into the development is N. Tree Farm Way, via Chinden Boulevard. With earlier residential development this roadway was required to be constructed at the half mile mark in accord with UDC 11-3H-4. N. Tree Haven Way was also constructed during the same time frame and provides the local street access to the proposed development in accord with UDC 11-3A-3. Further, N. Tree Farm Way is designated a collector street, and is meant to serve as a backage road to Chinden Boulevard. The remaining portion of N. Tree Farm Way is currently under construction to the west boundary of the development. This roadway will eventually be extended through the adjacent property and intersect with Black Cat Road. In the interim, the primary access from Chinden Boulevard is N. Tree Farm Way. UDC 11-3A-3 requires Council waiver for the two (2) access points currently proposed to N. Tree Farm Way. Variance: The applicant is proposing a right-in/right-out access to Chinden Boulevard. The proposed access is located on the shared property line with the adjacent property owner. With the application submittal, the applicant submitted a letter from the property owner granting use of his property for the access. If the variance is approved, the applicant and the adjacent property owner will have to record a reciprocal cross access agreement for the shared access. The recorded cross access agreement must be submitted with the certificate of zoning compliance for the development of the church property (Lot 2, Block 1) or the first final plat application whichever is submitted first. Development Along State Highways (UDC 11-3H-4): The UDC requires specific standards for developments along state highways. This property abuts highway 20/26 and is subject to these regulations. Staff has addressed the pertinent standards as they relate to this project: Access to State Highway 20-26 is as follows: 1. Use of existing approaches shall be allowed to continue provided that all of the following conditions are met: a. The existing use is lawful and properly permitted effective September 15, 2005. The subject property is partially developed and previously used for agricultural purposes (Tree Farm) As noted above there are unlawful uses currently operating from the existing structures that either need to cease or obtain approval from the City. Further, the there was a previous access granted to residence (Lot 4, Block 1) along the rim and that access was terminated with the development of the Oak Leaf Subdivision. Because a lawful use has not been established through the City’s process, staff is of the opinion the property should not be granted an access to Chinden Boulevard. b. The nature of the use does not change (for example a residential use to a commercial use). The applicant is proposing a substantial change of use of this site from agricultural to a commercial and residential uses (e.g. church, townhomes, condos and/or multi-family).Staff finds the nature of the use is dramatically different than the current use of the property. c. The intensity of the use does not increase (for example an increase in the number of residential dwelling units or an increase in the square footage of commercial space). The use on the site will significantly increase from agricultural and partial developed property to developing the property with a 73,000 square foot church and future residential densities. 2. If an applicant proposes a change or increase in intensity of use, the owner shall develop or otherwise acquire access to a street other than the state highway. The use of the existing approach shall cease and the appro ach shall be abandoned and removed. a. No new approaches directly accessing a state highway shall be allowed. Because new and higher intense uses are proposed for the property and the use of the existing approach was terminated with a previous application, staff is not in favor of the access to Chinden Boulevard. Other means of access have been provided to the subject property via, N. Tree Haven Way and n. Tree Farm Way. Although not constructed, N. Tree Farm Way is expected to be extended with development of the Tree Farm Subdivision to the west which will ultimately connect into future N. Black Cat Road. The right-of-way for this road has already been dedicated and accepted by ACHD however; construction of this future roadway is predicated on development of those properties that benefit from the roadway. b. Public street connections to the state highway shall only be allowed at: i. The section line road; and With the approval of Tree Farm annexation, the City approved public street connections to Chinden Boulevard. N. Black Road is planned to be extended when the adjacent parcels develop consistent with the approved concept plan. ii. The half-mile mark between section line roads. These half-mile connecting streets shall be collector roads. N. Tree Farm Way intersects with Chinden Boulevard at the half-mile mark consistent with this section of code and the approved concept plan. 3. The applicant shall construct a street, generally paralleling the state highway, to provide future connectivity and access to all properties fronting the state highway that lie between the applicant’s property and the nearest section line road and/or half-mile collector road. A segment of N. Tree Farm Way is currently under construction and parallels the state highway. With the development of the Tree Farm Subdivision to the west this roadway will be extended and ultimately connect into N. Black Cat Road. In summary, the preservation of the SH 20/26 Corridor is one of the City’s top priorities. In U.S. 20/26 Corridor Preservation Study, (ITD and Compass, ongoing,) there are preferred roadway configurations and recommend safety improvements to these high-volume and high-speed facilities. The City supports access management, congestion mitigation improvements and the beautification of the corridor called for in the study therefore, staff cannot make the Findings to support the right- in/right-out access to Chinden Boulevard. To support the applicant’s variance request, the Spurwing Greens HOA and the Developer of the subdivision have submitted written testimony in support of the proposed Chinden access. In addition to access management, the UDC requires the following: 1) The UDC requires the construction of a 10-foot pathway adjacent to highway 20/26. On the submitted plans the applicant has not provided the required pathway in accord with the UDC. 2) The UDC also requires the applicant to reserve the necessary right-of-way for ITD. ITD has indicate this development should dedicate a total of 100-ft of right-of-way, approximately 50 additional feet. Staff recommends the applicant reserve the additional 50 feet of right of way. Reservation of right-of-way should be depicted on the plat submitted with the final plat application. The applicant should coordinate with ITD on the right -of-way needed for preservation along Chinden Boulevard. Staff has not received official comments from ITD. 3) The applicant shall construct a 10-foot berm/wall adjacent to 20/26, but outside of the required 35 foot landscape buffer. UDC 11-3H-4 requires that a 10 foot berm/wall be constructed along 20/26 to mitigate vehicle noise. Landscaping Requirements Entry Way Corridors: UDC Table 11-2B-3 requires a 35-foot wide street buffer along Chinden Boulevard. On the submitted landscape plan, the applicant complies with the aforementioned buffer width along this roadway. Said buffers must be constructed in accord with UDC 11-3B-7C. The applicant is proposing to construct a 45-foot wide landscape buffer along the frontage of Lot 2, Block 1. Any unimproved right-of-way that is 10 feet or greater from the edge of pavement to edge of sidewalk or property line, the applicant shall maintain a 10 foot compacted shoulder meeting the construction standards of the transportation authority and landscape the remainder with lawn or other vegetative groundcover. Currently, Lot 1, Block 1 is developed with the required buffer width and landscaping but, lacks the required 10-foot multi-use pathway. Staff recommends the pathway along Lot 1, Block 1 be constructed in conjunction with the construction of the pathway on Lot 2, Block 1. Collector Streets: UDC Table 11-2A-7 and UDC Table 11-2B-3 requires a 20-foot wide street buffer along N. Tree Farm Way. On the submitted landscape plan, the applicant is depicting a 60-foot wide landscape buffer in excess of the UDC for the C-N portion of the development. The R-15 portion of the site does not depict the required 20-foot wide landscape buffer. Said buffers shall be constructed in accord with the standards outlined in UDC 11 -3A-7C and must be included as a common lot with a future final plat application. Local Streets: A UDC Table 11-2B-3 requires a 10-foot wide street buffer along N. Tree Haven Way for the C-N portion of the site. On the submitted landscape plan, the applicant is depicting approximately a 32-foot wide landscape buffer in excess of the UDC. Landscape Buffers to Adjoining Uses: UDC Table 11-2B-3 requires a 20-foot wide landscape buffer when C-N zone property abuts residential uses. The submitted concept plan depicts a 25-foot wide landscape buffer along the north boundary in accord with these standards. A 20-foot wide landscape buffer is not depicted along the west boundary. Instead the applicant is proposing to construct a shared driveway with the property to the west. NOTE: A 20-foot wide landscape buffer will not be required along the west boundary of Lot 2, Block 1 if the variance is approved granting the right-in/right-out access to Chinden Boulevard. If the access is not granted the applicant will have to redesign the site plan and incorporate the required 20-foot wide landscape buffer in accord with UDC 11-2B- 3. Existing Trees: There are existing trees on the site however, the submitted plans do not address if these tree are to remain or be removed with development of the subject property. The applicant is responsible to mitigate all existing healthy trees 4-inch caliper or greater that are removed from the site with equal replacement of the total calipers lost on site up to an amount of 100% replacement in accord with UDC 11-3B-10. With the submittal of the final plat, the applicant must submit a revised landscape plan that details the mitigation plan outlined by the developer and the City Arborist. Conceptual Building Elevations: The applicant has submitted sample elevations to depict the design of the church proposed for Lot 2, Block 1 of the subdivision (see exhibit A.5). As mentioned earlier, there are two existing buildings on Lot 2 that may remain with the development of the property. The church elevations incorporate glass, metal awnings, stucco, two variations in metal siding, and translucent wall panels. In general, staff is supportive of the proposed building elevations. Further, refinement of the church elevations proposed on Lot 2, Block 1 should comply with the submitted conceptual elevations and comply with the design standards set forth in UDC 11-3A-19 and the Architectural Standards Manual. Certificate of Zoning Compliance (CZC) and Design Review (DES): A CZC application is required to be submitted prior to issuance of building permits. The applicant is required to obtain approval of a design review application for the proposed structures and site design for the church site (Lot 2, Block 1). This application may be submitted concurrently with the CZC application. The applicant must comply with the design standards listed in UDC 11 -3A-19 and the guidelines contained in the Architectural Standards Manual. Written Testimony: Robert Ebert, David Turnbull (Spruwing Greens HOA), Drew Eggers – Screening/Berming, access to Chinden Staff Recommendation: Approval w/Conditions Outstanding Issues: Existing buildings, No right-of-way shown on plans (we have not received any comments from ITD) 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- 2017-0018, as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of April 20, 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- 0018, as presented during the hearing on April 20, 2017, for the following reasons: (You should state specific reasons for denial) Continuance I move to continue File Number H-2017-0018 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 Zoning Commission Meeting DATE: April 20, 2017 ITEM NUMBER: 3A ITEM TITLE: Approve Minutes of 4/6 PZ Mtg PROJECT NUMBER: MEETING NOTES Awr� V64 �Fs� t� CLERKS OFFICE FINAL ACTION DATE: E-MAILED TO STAFF SENT TO AGENCY SENT TO APPLICANT NOTES INITIALS Meridian Planning & Zoning April 6, 2017 Page 18 of 18 McCarvel: -- enthusiastic on making a motion. Bernt: I would love to. After considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move to recommend approval to the City Council of file number H-2017-0019 as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of April 6th, 2017. Wilson: Second enthusiastically. McCarvel: It has been moved and enthusiastically seconded to approve item number H-2017-0019. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: SIX AYES. ONE ABSENT. McCarvel: Can I get one more motion? Yearsley: Madam Chair, I -- oh, go ahead. McCarvel: Commissioner Cassanelli. Cassanelli: Madam Chair, I move to adjourn. Yearsley: Second. McCarvel: It has been moved and seconded to adjourn. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: SIX AYES. ONE ABSENT. MEETING ADJOURNED AT 6:44 P.M. (AUDIO RECORDING ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS.) APPROVED d"'., /t,( e 6, -Q 1 21) R O. DA McCARVEL - CHAIRMAN DATE APPROVED ATTEST: j � 4�pRpTED q IICC!� C. JAY COLES - CITY CLEIRK �p city . pW '✓}i� IDIA N* --- y IDAHO �F SEMI, TF�o(r4e TRGA5UP� !�� Meridian Planning Zoning Commission Meeting DATE: April 20, 2017 ITEM TITLE: Gyro Shack ITEM NUMBER: 3B PROJECT NUMBER: H-2017-0028 FFCL for Aprpoval - Conditional Use Permit for a drive-thru establishment within 300' of another drive-thru establishment by Jeff Likes - 5038 N. Linder Road MEETING NOTES S -a CLERKS OFFICE FINAL ACTION DATE: E-MAILED TO STAFF SENT TO AGENCY SENT TO APPLICANT NOTES INITIALS CITY OF MERIDIAN C+( L+ IDIAN 7 FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW �i j AND 90 DECISION & ORDER In the Matter of the Request for Conditional Use Permit for a for a drive-through establishment within 300 feet of another drive-thru on 0.493 of an acre of Land in the C -G Zoning District for Gyro Shack at Paramount, by Jeff Likes. Case No(s). H-2017-0028 For the Planning & Zoning Commission Hearing Date of: April 6, 2017 (Findings on April 20, 2017) A. Findings of Fact 1. Hearing Facts (see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of April 6, 2017, incorporated by reference) 2. Process Facts (see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of April 6, 2017, incorporated by reference) 3. Application and Property Facts (see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of April 6, 2017, incorporated by reference) 4. Required Findings per the Unified Development Code (see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of April 6, 2017, incorporated by reference) B. Conclusions of Law 1. The City of Meridian shall exercise the powers conferred upon it by the "Local Land Use Planning Act of 1975," codified at Chapter 65, Title 67, Idaho Code (I.C. §67-6503). 2. The Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission takes judicial notice of its Unified Development Code codified at Title 11 Meridian City Code, and all current zoning maps thereof. The City of Meridian has, by ordinance, established the Impact Area and the Amended Comprehensive Plan of the City of Meridian, which was adopted April 19, 2011, Resolution No. 11-784 and Maps. 3. The conditions shall be reviewable by the City Council pursuant to Meridian City Code § 11-5A. 4. Due consideration has been given to the comment(s) received from the governmental subdivisions providing services in the City of Meridian planning jurisdiction. 5. It is found public facilities and services required by the proposed development will not impose expense upon the public if the attached conditions of approval are imposed. 6. That the City has granted an order of approval in accordance with this decision, which shall be signed by the Chairman of the Commission and City Clerk and then a copy served by the Clerk CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION & ORDER CASE NO(S). H-2017-0028 Page 1 upon the applicant, the Planning Department, the Public Works Department and any affected party requesting notice. 7. That this approval is subject to the conditions of approval in the attached staff report for the hearing date of April 6, 2017, incorporated by reference. The conditions are concluded to be reasonable and the applicant shall meet such requirements as a condition of approval of the application. C. Decision and Order Pursuant to the Planning & Zoning Commission's authority as provided in Meridian City Code § 1I - 5A and based upon the above and foregoing Findings of Fact which are herein adopted, it is hereby ordered that: 1. The applicant's request for conditional use permit is hereby approved in accord with the conditions of approval in the staff report for the hearing date of April 6, 2017, attached as Exhibit A. D. Notice of Applicable Time Limits Notice of Two (2) Year Conditional Use Permit Duration Please take notice that the conditional use permit, when granted, shall be valid for a maximum period of two (2) years unless otherwise approved by the City in accord with UDC 11 -5B -6F.1. During this time, the applicant shall commence the use as permitted in accord with the conditions of approval, satisfy the requirements set forth in the conditions of approval, and acquire building permits and commence construction of permanent footings or structures on or in the ground. For conditional use permits that also require platting, the final plat must be signed by the City Engineer within this two (2) year period in accord with UDC 11-513-617.2. Upon written request and filed by the applicant prior to the termination of the period in accord with 11-513-6.17.1, the Director may authorize a single extension of the time to commence the use not to exceed one (1) two (2) year period. Additional time extensions up to two (2) years as determined and approved by the Commission may be granted. With all extensions, the Director or Commission may require the conditional use comply with the current provisions of Meridian City Code Title 11. E. Notice of Final Action and Right to Regulatory Takings Analysis 1. The Applicant is hereby notified that pursuant to Idaho Code 67-8003, a denial of a conditional use permit entitles the Owner to request a regulatory taking analysis. Such request must be in writing, and must be filed with the City Clerk not more than twenty-eight (28) days after the final decision concerning the matter at issue. A request for a regulatory takings analysis will toll the time period within which a Petition for Judicial Review may be filed. 2. Please take notice that this is a final action of the governing body of the City of Meridian. When applicable and pursuant to Idaho Code § 67-6521, any affected person being a person who has an interest in real property which may be adversely affected by the final action of the governing board may within twenty-eight (28) days after the date of this decision and order seek a judicial review as provided by Chapter 52, Title 67, Idaho Code. F. Attached: Staff report for the hearing date of April 6, 2017 CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION & ORDER CASE NO(S). H-2017-0028 Page 2 By ction of the Planning & Zoning Commission at its regular meeting held on the day of 2017. COMMISSIONER RHONDA MCCARVEL, CHAIRMAN COMMISSIONER RYAN FITZGERALD, VICE CHAIRMAN COMMISSIONER STEVEN YEARSLEY COMMISSIONER GREGORY WILSON COMMISSIONER TREG BERNT COMMISSIONER WILLIAM CASSINELLI COMMISSIONER JESSICA PERREAULT Rho da McCarvel, Chairman VOTED VOTED VOTED VOTED P\- b Sit VOTED C VOTED�� VOTED ye� Attest: eF510 0 41W,- bpwc4h,n l z o y C.Jay Coles, City Clerk c 6(f14tER of Olt" Copy served upon the Applicant, the Planning and Development Services Divisions o unit Development Department, the Public Works Department and the City Attorney. By:XSLI121q Dated: Zl City Clerk's Office CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION & ORDER CASE NO(S). H-2017-0028 Page 3 EXHIBIT A Gyro Shack at Paramount – CUP H-2017-0028 PAGE 1 STAFF REPORT Hearing Date: April 6, 2017 TO: Planning & Zoning Commission FROM: Josh Beach, Associate City Planner 208-884-5533 SUBJECT: Gyro Shack at Paramount – CUP (H-2017-0028) I. SUMMARY DESCRIPTION OF APPLICANT’S REQUEST The applicant, Jeff Likes, ALC Architecture, has applied for a conditional use permit for a drive- through establishment within 300 feet of another drive thru on 0.493 of an acre of land in the C-G zoning district. See Section IX Analysis for more information. II. SUMMARY RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the proposed CUP with the conditions listed in Exhibit B, based on the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law in Exhibit C of the Staff Report. The Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission heard this item on April 6, 2017. At the public hearing, the Commission moved to approve the subject CUP request. a. Summary of Commission Public Hearing: i. In favor: Richard Wilmot ii. In opposition: None iii. Commenting: None iv. Written testimony: None v. Staff presenting application: Josh Beach, Bill Parsons vi. Other staff commenting on application: None b. Key Issues of Discussion by Commission: i. The requirement of a 25-foot landscape buffer along the adjacent multi-family development on the east boundary. ii. The process for approving a reduction to the required 25-foot landscape buffer. iii. Questions about the layout of the drive-thru lanes, etc. iv. Questions about sufficient parking on the site. v. Questions about overall design of the building and whether or not the applicant would have to include some additional architectural features. c. Key Commission Changes to Staff Recommendation: i. Remove condition 1.10A III. PROPOSED MOTION Approval After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to approve File Number H-2017- 0028 as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of April 6, 2017, with the following modifications: (Add any proposed modifications.) Denial After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to deny File Number H-2017-0028 as presented during the hearing on April 6, 2017, for the following reasons: (You should state specific reasons for denial and what the applicant could do to gain your approval with another application.) EXHIBIT A Gyro Shack at Paramount – CUP H-2017-0028 PAGE 2 Continuance I move to continue File Number H-2017-0028 to the hearing date of (insert continued hearing date here) for the following reason(s): (You should state specific reason(s) for continuance.) IV. APPLICATION AND PROPERTY FACTS A. Site Address/Location: The subject property is located at 5038 N. Linder Road, in the SW¼ of Section 25, Township 4 North, Range 1 West B. Owner(s): Brighton Investments, LLC 12601 W. Explorer Drive Boise, ID 83713 C. Applicant: ALC Architecture Jeff Likes 325 E. Shore Drive #110 Eagle, ID 83616 D. Applicant's Statement/Justification: Please see applicant’s narrative for this information. V. PROCESS FACTS A. The subject application is for a conditional use permit. A public hearing is required before the Planning & Zoning Commission on this matter, consistent with Meridian City Code Title 11, Chapter 5. B. Newspaper notifications published on: March 17, 2017 C. Radius notices mailed to properties within 300 feet on: March 9, 2017 D. Applicant posted notice on site by: March 24, 2017 VI. LAND USE A. Existing Land Use(s) and Zoning: This site consists of vacant/undeveloped land, zoned C-G. B. Character of Surrounding Area and Adjacent Land Use and Zoning: North: Dutch Bros. Coffee, zoned C-G East: Linder Springs Townhomes, zoned C-G South: Kelson Orthodontics, zoned C-G West: Kelly Creek Subdivision, zoned C-G C. History of Previous Actions:  In 2004, this property was annexed as part of Paramount Subdivision (AZ-03-006) with a Development Agreement, recorded as Instrument No. 103137116.  In 2003, a preliminary plat (PP-03-004) and conditional use permit/planned development (CUP-03-008) was approved for Paramount Subdivision which include the subject property. This property was designated on the conceptual site plan for retail/office uses.  In 2007, this property was included in the following approvals: EXHIBIT A Gyro Shack at Paramount – CUP H-2017-0028 PAGE 3  Preliminary plat (PP-07-011) for 18 commercial building lots on 18.5 acres of land in a C-G zoning district;  Development Agreement modification (MI-07-007) to remove the conditional use permit requirement and require design review approval instead for all commercial development in the C-G and L-O zoning districts, recorded as Instrument No. 107145935.  In 2012, a final plat (FP-12-019) was approved for Commercial Southwest Subdivision No. 2 which includes the subject property as Lot 2, Block 2. D. Utilities: 1. Public Works: a. Location of sewer: Sanitary sewer mains to provide service to this project currently exist. b. Location of water: Water mains to provide service to this project currently exist. c. Issues or concerns: None E. Physical Features: 1. Canals/Ditches Irrigation: There are no canals or ditches on this site. 2. Hazards: Staff is not aware of any hazards that exist on this site. 3. Flood Plain: This site is not within a flood plain. VII. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN This property is designated “Commercial” on the Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map. Per the Comprehensive Plan, commercial designated areas provide a full range of commercial and retail to serve area residents and visitors. Uses may include retail, wholesale, service and office uses, multi - family residential, as well as appropriate public uses such as government offices. Within this land use category, specific zones may be created to focus commercial activities unique to their locations. These zones may include neighborhood commercial uses focusing on specialized service for residential areas adjacent to that zone. The proposed use of the property as a restaurant with a drive-through is consistent with the uses desired in Commercial designated areas and therefore is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Staff finds the following Comprehensive Plan policies to be applicable to this property and apply to the proposed use (staff analysis in italics):  “Require all commercial and industrial businesses to install and maintain landscaping.” (2.01.03B) There is a 25-foot wide landscaped street buffer on this site along N. Linder Road that was installed with the development of the subdivision in accord with UDC Table 11-2C-3. Additional parking lot and perimeter landscaping will be required with the development of the subject site.  “Locate industrial and commercial uses where adequate water supply and water pressure are available for fire protection.” (3.04.02A) There is adequate water supply and pressure available to the site for fire protection.  “Plan for and encourage services like health care, daycare, grocery stores and recreational areas to be built within walking distance of residential dwellings.” (2.01.01C) The proposed restaurant will be located within walking distance of several near-by EXHIBIT A Gyro Shack at Paramount – CUP H-2017-0028 PAGE 4 residential neighborhoods.  “Reduce the number of existing access points onto arterial streets by using methods such as cross-access agreements, access management, and frontage/backage roads.” (3.03.02O) Direct lot access is not proposed or allowed via N. Linder Road.  “Require all new and reconstructed parking lots to provide landscaping in internal islands and along streets.” Planter islands are proposed in the parking area and will be landscaped in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3B-8C.  “Minimize noise, odor, air pollution, and visual pollution in industrial and commercial development adjacent to residential areas.” (3.06.01B) There is an apartment complex (Linder Springs) to the east of this site. The proposed drive- through is separated from the dwellings by a 35-foot wide driveway.  “Plan for a variety of commercial and retail opportunities within the Area of City Impact.” (3.05.01J) The proposed restaurant with a drive-through will contribute to the variety of services available in the northern portion of the City. For the above-stated reasons, staff believes the proposed use is consistent with the applicable comprehensive plan policies and is appropriate in this location. VIII. UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE A. Purpose Statement of Zone: The purpose of the commercial districts is to provide for the retail and service needs of the community in accordance with the Meridian comprehensive plan. Six (6) districts are designated which differ in the size and scale of commercial structures accommodated in the district, the scale and mix of allowed commercial uses, and the location of the district in proximity to streets and highways. B. Schedule of Use: Unified Development Code (UDC) 11-2B-2 lists the permitted, accessory, conditional, and prohibited uses in the C-G zoning district. A restaurant is a principal permitted use in the C-G zoning district; a drive-thru establishment requires conditional use permit approval when located within 300 feet of a residence, residential use, or another drive-thru establishment. C. Dimensional Standards: The dimensional standards listed in UDC Table 11-2B-3 for the C-G zoning district apply to development of this site. D. Landscaping: Street buffer landscaping: Street buffer landscaping is required in accordance with the standards listed in UDC Table 11-2B-3 for the C-G zoning district and UDC 11-3B-7C. Street buffer landscaping was installed with development of the subdivision. Parking lot landscaping: All parking lot landscaping is required to comply with the standards listed in UDC 11-3B-8C. Landscape buffers to adjoining uses: A buffer to the residential uses at the east property boundary is required in the C-G zoning district per UDC Table 11-2B-3 and should be installed in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3B-9C. E. Off-Street Parking: Off-street parking is required in accord with UDC 11-3C-6B. EXHIBIT A Gyro Shack at Paramount – CUP H-2017-0028 PAGE 5 F. Structure and Site Design Standards: Development of this site must comply with the design standards listed in UDC 11-3A-19 and the guidelines listed in the Meridian Design Manual. IX. ANALYSIS A. Analysis of Facts Leading to Staff Recommendation: H-2017- Staff recommends approval of the proposed CUP with the conditions listed in Exhibit B. X. EXHIBITS A. Drawings 1. Vicinity Map 2. Site Plan (dated: 02/01/2017) 3. Landscape Plan (dated: 02/17/2017) 4. Building Elevations (dated: 02/01/2017 B. Conditions of Approval 1. Planning Department 2. Public Works Department 3. Fire Department 4. Police Department 5. Sanitary Service Company 6. Ada County Highway District 7. Parks Department C. Required Findings from Unified Development Code EXHIBIT A Gyro Shack at Paramount – CUP H-2017-0028 PAGE 6 Exhibit A.1: Vicinity/Zoning Map EXHIBIT A Gyro Shack at Paramount – CUP H-2017-0028 PAGE 7 Exhibit A.2: Site Plan (dated 02/01/2017) EXHIBIT A Gyro Shack at Paramount – CUP H-2017-0028 PAGE 8 Exhibit A.3: Landscape Plan (dated 02/17/2017) EXHIBIT A Gyro Shack at Paramount – CUP H-2017-0028 PAGE 9 Exhibit A.4: Proposed Building Elevations (dated 02/01/2017) EXHIBIT A Gyro Shack at Paramount – CUP H-2017-0028 PAGE 10 B. Conditions of Approval 1. PLANNING DEPARTMENT 1.1 The applicant shall comply with all previous conditions of approval associated with this site (AZ- 03-006; PP-07-011; MI-07-007; FP-12-019). 1.2 The applicant shall comply with the specific use standards listed in UDC 11-4-3-11, Drive- Through Establishment. 1.3 The site and/or landscape plans included in Exhibit A, dated 3/6/15 shall be revised as follows (as applicable): a. Include one tree within the planter island at the south end of the row of parking on the west side of the building and within the planter island at the west end of the row of parking on the north side of the building in accord with UDC 11-3B-8C. b. A 25-foot wide landscape buffer to adjoining residential uses is required along the east side of the site along the backage road adjacent to the apartments in Linder Springs as set forth in UDC Table 11-2B-3, planted in accord with the standards listed in 11-3B-9C. c. Either provide wheel stops within parking stalls that abut street, perimeter landscape buffers and sidewalks, or widen the buffers or sidewalk an additional 2 feet beyond the required width to allow for vehicle overhang in accord with UDC 11-3C-5B.4. d. A bicycle rack capable of holding a minimum of 2 bicycles is required to be provided on the site per UDC 11-3C-6G in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3C-5C. e. A pedestrian walkway is not depicted on the site plan from the perimeter sidewalk along N. Linder Road to the main building entrance. The applicant shall include these items on the site plan at the time of the certificate of zoning compliance. f. The landscape plan should be revised to include one tree within the planter island at the south end of the row of parking on the east side of the building. Additionally, the landscape buffer on the north side requires 1 tree for every 35 feet for a total of 4 required trees. The landscape buffer along the western property line is also required to have 1 tree for every 35 feet for a total of 4 trees. Please revise the landscape plan accordingly. 1.4 All existing landscaping within the street buffer adjacent to N. Linder Road shall be protected during construction in accord with UDC 11-3B-10C. 1.5 The hours of operation for the proposed restaurant and drive-thru are restricted to the hours between 6 am and 11 pm. Extended hours of operation may be requested through a future conditional use permit in accord with UDC 11-2B-3A.4. 1.6 All outdoor equipment areas shall be incorporated into the overall design of buildings and landscaping so that the visual and acoustic impacts of these functions are fully contained and out of view from adjacent properties and public streets per UDC 11-3A-12. 1.7 All lighting on the site shall comply with the standards listed in UDC 11-3A-11. 1.8 The applicant shall submit a Certificate of Zoning Compliance application for establishment of the new use and to ensure all site improvements comply with the provisions of the UDC and the conditions in this report prior to application for building permits, in accord with UDC 11-5B-1. 1.9 The applicant shall submit an application for Administrative 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 comply with the standards listed in UDC 11-3A-19 and the EXHIBIT A Gyro Shack at Paramount – CUP H-2017-0028 PAGE 11 City of Meridian Architectural Standards Manual. 1.10 With submittal of the administrative design review application, the applicant should make several changes to the building elevations to bring the building more in line with the surrounding buildings. The applicant should provide revised elevations which include the following items: a) Provide decorative trim around the all doorways and windows. b)a) Replace the metal wainscot with stone. 2. PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT 2.1 Applicant shall be responsible to install sanitary sewer and water services to the proposed use. 2.2 At the completion of the project, the applicant shall be responsible to submit record drawings per the City of Meridian AutoCAD standards. These record drawings must be received and approved prior to the issuance of a certification of occupancy for any structures within the project. 2.3 Applicant shall be required to pay Public Works development plan review, and construction inspection fees, as determined during the plan review process, prior to the issuance of a plan approval letter. 2.4 The applicant shall provide easement(s) for all public water/sewer mains outside of public right of way (include all water services and hydrants). The easement widths shall be 20-feet wide for a single utility, or 30-feet wide for two. The easements shall dedicated via the City of Meridian’s standard forms. Submit an executed easement (on the form available from Public Works), a legal description prepared by an Idaho Licensed Professional Land Surveyor, which must include the area of the easement (marked EXHIBIT A) and an 81/2” x 11” map with bearings and distances (marked EXHIBIT B) for review. Both exhibits must be sealed, signed and dated by a Professional Land Surveyor. DO NOT RECORD. 3. FIRE DEPARTMENT 3.1 The Fire Department has no concerns with this application. 4. POLICE DEPARTMENT 4.1 The Police Department has no comments related to this application. 5. REPUBLIC SERVICES 5.1 Obtain approval from Republic Services for trash enclosure prior to submittal of Certificate of Zoning Compliance application. 6. ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT 6.1 At the time of the staff report, staff had not yet received a report from ACHD. 7. PARKS DEPARTMENT 7.1 The Parks Department had no comments on this application. EXHIBIT A Gyro Shack at Paramount – CUP H-2017-0028 PAGE 12 C. Required Findings from Unified Development Code 1. Conditional Use Permit (UDC 11-5B-6E) The Commission shall base its determination on the Conditional Use Permit request upon the following: a. That the site is large enough to accommodate the proposed use and meet all the dimensional and development regulations in the district in which the use is located. The Commission finds that the subject property is large enough to accommodate the proposed restaurant with a drive-through and comply with the dimensional & development regulations of the C-G zoning district (see Analysis Section IX for more information). b. That the proposed use will be harmonious with the Meridian Comprehensive Plan and in accord with the requirements of this Title. The Commission finds that the proposed use of the property will be harmonious with the UDC and Comprehensive Plan. c. That the design, construction, operation and maintenance will be compatible with other uses in the general neighborhood and with the existing or intended character of the general vicinity and that such use will not adversely change the essential character of the same area. The Commission finds that if the applicant complies with the conditions outlined in this report, the proposed drive-through establishment should be compatible with residential and commercial uses in the area and should not adversely change the character of the area. d. That the proposed use, if it complies with all conditions of the approval imposed, will not adversely affect other property in the vicinity. The Commission finds that if the applicant complies with the conditions outlined in this report, the proposed use will not adversely affect other property in the area. e. That the proposed use will be served adequately by essential public facilities and services such as highways, streets, schools, parks, police and fire protection, drainage structures, refuse disposal, water, and sewer. The Commission finds that sanitary sewer, domestic water, refuse disposal, and irrigation are currently available to the subject property. The Commission finds that the proposed use will be served adequately by all of the public facilities and services listed above. f. That the proposed use will not create excessive additional costs for public facilities and services and will not be detrimental to the economic welfare of the community. The applicant will be financing any improvements required for development. The Commission finds there will not be excessive additional requirements at public cost and nor will they be detrimental to the community’s economic welfare. g. That the proposed use will not involve activities or processes, materials, equipment and conditions of operation that will be detrimental to any persons, property or the general welfare by reason of excessive production of traffic, noise, smoke, fumes, glare or odors. The Commission finds the proposed use of the site as a restaurant with a drive-through establishment will not be detrimental to any persons, property or the general welfare of the area. EXHIBIT A Gyro Shack at Paramount – CUP H-2017-0028 PAGE 8 h. That the proposed use will not result in the destruction, loss or damage of a natural, scenic or historic feature considered to be of major importance. The Commission finds that there should not be any health, safety or environmental problems associated with the proposed use. Further, the Commission finds that the proposed use will not result in the destruction, loss or damage of any natural, scenic or historic feature of major importance. Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting April 20, 2017 Item #4A: New Beginnings Zoning Map Concept Development Plan & Building Elevation Meridian Planning Zoning Commission Meeting DATE: April 20, 2017 ITEM TITLE: New Beginnings AZ CUP ITEM NUMBER: 4A PROJECT NUMBER: H-2017-0026 A. Public Hearing for New Beginnings (H-2017-0026) by Chris Fuhrman Located 780 E. Ustick Road 1. Request: Annexation and Zoning of 1.00 Acre of Land with an R-4 Zoning District MEETING NOTES App"op-P -7� CLERKS OFFICE FINAL ACTION c/C �•F/�3C 5-Q DATE: E-MAILED TO STAFF SENT TO AGENCY SENT TO APPLICANT NOTES INITIALS CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING PUBLIC HEARING SIGN -IN SHEET Date: April 20, 2017 Item # H-2017-0026 New Beginnings EW Please print your name Do you wish to testify (Y/N) x'05 n &4, T uc( N) NO l Irvl c.l� //0 /! r �,���GV'�v r�ik„ �r�'y�,o� nl� `��v\�-J s��`� Jar _ N6 1 9 emir), ly C7---- �I 2 ej Item #4B: Goddard Creek Subdivision Vicinity/Zoning/Aerial Map Comprehensive Plan Proposal Proposed Preliminary Plat Landscape Plan Landscape Plan Conceptual Building Elevations Meridian Planning Zoning Commission Meeting DATE: April 20, 2017 ITEM NUMBER: 4B PROJECT NUMBER: H-2017-0007 ITEM TITLE: Goddard Creek (CPAM RZ PP CUP PP) Public Hearing Continued 3/16- RZ of 12.38 acres from R-4 to R-40 (5 acres) and the C -C (7.38 acres) zoning districts; COMP Plan to change the future land use map designation on 12.38 acres of land from Office & high density residential to mixed-use community; CUP for a Self -storage on approx 7.38 acres in the proposed C -C zoning district; CUP for a multi -family development of 82 dwelling units in teh proposed R-40 zoning district on 5 acres of land; and PP consisting of 22 building lots & 5 common lots on 12.38 acres of land in the proposed C -C and R-40 zoning districts by Brian Porter - 2780 W. McMillan Road MEETING NOTES �eCOrrirt�e�1� ben,��� -(a 0/C CLERKS OFFICE FINAL ACTION 13�/-19 5-D DATE: E-MAILED TO STAFF SENT TO AGENCY SENT TO APPLICANT NOTES INITIALS CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING PUBLIC HEARING SIGN -IN SHEET Date: April 20, 2017 Item # 413 Project Number: H-2017-0007 Project Name: Goddard Creek Please print your name For Against Neutral Do you wish to testify (Y/N) `X Z5 V\ [< S` x LL4&26 1221f i WA,ie LiAnz T�i� Lo Liatd PIL(VAN L aAl,-- rdzP / "C15- r �J I CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING PUBLIC HEARING SIGN -IN SHEET Date: April 20, 2017 Item # Project Number: Project Name: H-2017-0007 Goddard Creek Please print your name For Against Neutral Do you wish to testify (Y//N) � V -j Item #4C: Rockbury Subdivision Vicinity/Zoning/Aerial Map Approved Concept Plan Proposed Preliminary Plat Landscape Plan Conceptual Building Elevations GODDARD CREEK SUBDIVISION REVISED PLAT OVERVIEW The following revisions were made to the plat to address the Planning Commission’s prior concerns: - Density - Parking - Traffic and Roads - Amenities REVISED PLAT - DENSITY -- The unit count decreased from 82 units to 74 units, which is approximately a 10% reduction in the number of units. -- The proposed density has decreased to 14.75 units/acre. - Now requesting approval of R-15 zoning compared to previous R-40 request. - 1.36 acres of Open Space provided (1.09 required). REVISED PLAT - PARKING -- The number of parking spaces increased from 2.5 to 2.8 parking spaces provided per unit. The City requires 2 spaces per unit with at least one in a covered carport or garaged (11-3C-6). -- Guest parking has been increased from 17 spaces to 33 spaces. - The parking spaces have been removed from the landscape buffer between the storage unit facility and the development. ReDESIGN HIGHLIGHTS Covered Spaces Surface Spaces Spaces Per Unit Bicycle Required 1 per Unit 1 per Unit 2 1 per 25 vehicular stalls Original 95 112 (13 guest + 4 ADA, 95 driveway) 2.5 9 Revision 86 119 (30 guest+ 3 ADA, 86 driveway) 2.84 10 REVISED PLAT – TRAFFIC & ROADS TRAFFIC OBSERVATION Visited site for a random morning commute traffic observation Thursday, 4/06/17 from 7:35 a.m. to 8:05 a.m 23 vehicles from the apartment complex and 53 vehicles from the single family homes. The maximum vehicles queued at the stop sign to turn onto W. McMillan Road from N. Goddard Creek Way was 4 vehicles, and the maximum wait time to turn was 60 seconds with the average being 20 seconds or less. Mostly, only one car queued at any one time. o To eliminate potential stacking of vehicles along Apgar Creek Lane the entrance into the development has been moved farther west away from the Apgar Creek Lane and Goddard Creek Way intersection. o Apgar Creek Lane and McMillan Rd will be widened 5’ and Right-of-way will be provided to allow ACHD to improve McMillan Road to three lanes. o ACHD report states McMillan (Linder to 10 mile) is in the CIP to be widened to 3 lanes. PICTURE 250’ (c.l. to curb) Road widened REVISED PLAT - AMENITIES 5 Amenities (City requires 3 Amenities For Developments Between 20 And 75 Units) Quality of Life Category •Enclosed Bike Storage Recreation Category •Walking Trails •Children’s Play Structure Open Space Category •Open Grassy Area of 50’x100’ •ADDED - Community Garden •ADDED - Shelter/Plaza Storm Drainage in subsurface seepage beds AMENITIES ADDED Community Garden 20’x28’ Fenced & Gated 6) 4’x8’ Plots Plaza 17’x17’ Paver Plaza 12’x12’ Picnic Shelter 4 -PLEX RENDERINGS 2,3,3,2 STORY BLDS 4 -PLEX RENDERINGS 3 ,3,3,3 STORY BLDS COMMUNITY OVERVIEW Design Highlights Strong Architecture Facades Highly Planted Landscape Buffers Walkable Connections Well Placed Vehicular Access Good Land Use Transition 1.36 Acres Of Open Space Trim & Band Color ADDITIONAL INFORMATION AND STORAGE PLAN Trim & Band Color LOCATION AND ADJACENT LAND USE McMillan DEVELOPMENT PLAN SITE ACCESS STYLE STYLE STYLE + 1a� r• a-+�e� ��=_-fin It1�N��.li�\►F�1�" ����I�i�# ilJ7��� .:1 il;� F`M•1-•�r`. �•m a'M ?_.7e 'r" a ^ TI III ITTI� r RAID a 7� Gll Ili ill ill N1 qw) M-4 II14II'1�TI rJ .O� I'II�'+N;tl+li'-H�Hilll �I #� p �fF I� F'I1j" - FAS111z"PROPOSEG RIGHT _ ITLILLIIL"J I11W111' II' I11LI!,,I�II L- I II LLllIIII LLilLl I l I I LI I I•� jam+= F F" t �\L�fT W, Ty ��'� r IN -RIGHT OUT W. CHINDEN BLVD. (HW 20726) - I� �'. ���_.�_..�•. .---#-.. ti.� __ f- y� .. �. _%• j•. � �`: ..rel a. 1 —IttTFA . i4 10 SECONDARY .} ACCESS o m GIRR ElSBd EN - _-.. MAIN ACCESS 02�n a w euaeaR _ dN@,Poe 1 4 P WEN, a .EEa.a P. 1 l Ultttt ��l "� - . � % �IIIIIIIIIII I�HtI I I � I I DIF���' ILLuiiu00 uiil ;ill 40.11 GIRR II EASEMENTI o '� i r -- T - SECONDARY < �� a - ` —— �r.. li - o r ACCESS —' — RIIII GHT IN III IIII(�, II / 1 RIGHT OUT l III ILLI L— 1 LLLLI ILLI I I I I I W. CHINOEN BLVD. (HW 20\26) 0 60 ,20 SCALE � Meridian Planning Zoning Commission Meeting DATE: April 20, 2017 ITEM NUMBER: 4C PROJECT NUMBER: H-2017-0018 ITEM TITLE: Rockbury Subdivision (AZ PP) Public Hearing Continued from 4/6 - Rezone of 25.06 acres of land from R-15 (8.95 acres) and C -N (16.11 acres) to R-15 (6.71 acres) and C -N (18.35 acres) zoning districts and Preliminary Plat approval consisting of 2 common lots, 1 commercial lot and 1 multi -family lot on 23.56 acres of land in the proposed R-15 and C -N zoning districts by Rock Harbor Church - 6437 N. Tree Haven Way MEETING NOTES e,,c- 4P 4-0 1 C_ S chef u.Ce1 -ief el(2 CLERKS OFFICE FINAL ACTION S0 DATE: E-MAILED TO STAFF SENT TO AGENCY SENT TO APPLICANT NOTES INITIALS C_ CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING PUBLIC HEARING SIGN -IN SHEET Date: April 20, 2017 Item # Project Number: Project Name: H-2017-0018 Rockbury Creek M Please print your name For Against Neutral Do you wish to testify (Y/N) 1) %