Loading...
2017 06-22 spc mtgMeridian Planning and Zoning Meeting June 22, 2017. Meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission of June 22, 2017, was called to order at 6:00 p.m. by Chairman Rhonda McCarvel. Members Present: Chairman Rhonda McCarvel, Commissioner Steven Yearsley, Commissioner Ryan Fitzgerald, Commissioner Treg Bernt and Commissioner Jessica Perreault. Members Absent: Commissioner Gregory Wilson and Commissioner Bill Cassanelli. Others Present: Machelle Hill, Andrea Pogue, Bill Parson, Josh Beach and Dean Willis. Item 1: Roll-call Attendance __X___ Treg Bernt ___X___ Steven Yearsley ______ Gregory Wilson ___X___ Ryan Fitzgerald __X___ Jessica Perreault _______ Bill Cassanelli ___X____ Rhonda McCarvel - Chairman McCarvel: Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. At this time I'd like to call to order the specially scheduled meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission on June 22nd, 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. I believe we do have one item that we will open that has asked to be continued. That is the public hearing for Kingsbridge North Subdivision, H-2017-0065. Fitzgerald: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Yes, sir. Fitzgerald: Could I make a motion to adopt the agenda as amended. Bernt: Second. McCarvel: It has been moved and seconded to adopt the agenda as amended. Everybody in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. TWO ABSENT. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission June 22, 2017 Page 2 of 55 Item 3: Consent Agenda A. Approve Minutes of June 1, 2017 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting B. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval for Meridian Meats (H-2017-0052) by Meridian Meat and Sausage, Inc. Located 119 E. Bower Street McCarvel: The next item on the agenda is the Consent Agenda and we have two items on the Consent Agenda. We have the approval of minutes for June 1 and Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Meridian Meats. Could I get a motion to adopt the Consent Agenda? Bernt: So moved. Yearsley: Second. McCarvel: It has been moved and seconded to adopt the Consent Agenda. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIES: FIVE AYES. TWO ABSENT. McCarvel: Okay. At this time I would like to briefly explain the public hearing process for this evening. We will open each item individually and, then, start with the staff report. The staff will report their findings regarding how the item adheres to our Comprehensive Plan and Uniform Development Code with the staff's recommendations. After the staff has made their presentation, the applicant will come forward to present their case for the approval of their application and respond to any staff comments. The applicant will have 15 minutes to do so. After the applicant has finished we will open to public testimony. There is a sign- up sheet in the back as you enter for anyone wishing to testifying. Any person testifying will come forward and be allowed three minutes. If they are speaking for a larger group, like an HOA, and there is a show of hands to represent the group, they will be given up to ten minutes. After all testimony has been heard, then, the applicant will be given another ten minutes to have the opportunity to come back and respond if they desire . After that we will close the public hearing and the Commissioners will have the opportunity to discuss and, hopefully, be able to make a recommendation to City Council. Item 4: Action Items F. Public Hearing for Kingsbridge North Subdivision (H- 2017- 0065) by Jarron Langston Located 3475 E. Falcon Drive Public Hearing Continued to 7/6 1. Request: Annexation and Zoning of 5.07 Acres of Land with an R- 4 (Medium Low -Density Residential) Zoning District 2. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission June 22, 2017 Page 3 of 55 Request: Preliminary Plat Approval Consisting of Ten (10) Residential Building Lots and Two (2) Common Area Lots on 5.05 Acres of Land in a Proposed R-4 Zoning District McCarvel: So, at this time I'd like to jump down to Item F on the agenda and open the public hearing for Item H-2017-0065 to be continued to July 9th. Fitzgerald: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Fitzgerald. Or -- yeah. Sorry. July 6th. Fitzgerald: I move to continue file number H-2017-0065, Kingsbridge North, to July 6th. Bernt: Second. McCarvel: It has been moved and seconded to continue Item H-2017-0065 to July 6th. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. TWO ABSENT. A. Continued Public Hearing from June 1, 2017 for Speedy Quick (H-2017-0031) by Blood, LLC Located 2560 S. Meridian Road Approved with Modifications – Prepare Findings for 7/6 1. Request: Conditional Use Permit Approval of a Dispatch Center for Mobile Services in an L-O Zoning District McCarvel: Okay. We will now open the public hearing for Item H-2017-0031, Speedy Quick. We will start with the staff report. Beach: Thank you, Madam Chair, Members of the Commission. As you said, this is an application for Speedy Quick. It is for a conditional use permit. This site consists of approximately 1.06 acres with land, which is zoned L-O, located at 2560 South Meridian Road. To the north of this property is vacant residential property that is currently zoned RUT within Ada county. To the east is the Larkspur Subdivision No. 5, which is zoned R-8. To the south is a veterinary hospital, zoned L-O and to the west is South Meridian Road and a church zoned C-G. History on this property. This property was previously platted in 1985 as Lot 1, Block 1, of the Volkman Subdivision. The property was annexed and zoned in 2005. A development agreement was required -- was required with annexation. The Comprehensive Plan future land is map designation for this property is low density residential. The applicant has submitted an application for a conditional use permit for a dispatch center for a mobile services business in the L-O zoning district. A CUP is required per the UDC and the recorded development agreement. A site plan depicts how the site is proposed to develop with an approximately 4,290 square foot building -- a building addition Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission June 22, 2017 Page 4 of 55 to the existing 1,800 square foot home. This would bring the total square footage to approximately 5,800 square feet. As you see on the site plan here, the applicant is indicating that there is potential for some additional structures on the property. So, their current proposal, as I said, is just for the one building for a total of 5,800 square feet for their business. The applicant will be required to comply with the specific use standards for this type of use and more specifically for the outdoor storage. The site plan shows a fairly substantial outdoor storage area on the east side as indicated by my mouse here, proposed to be fenced around this area and that is where the applicant has indicated they will be storing their fleet vehicles. Like I said, the applicant indicated that this area will be for the sole use of storing fleet vehicles and staff 's condition is that no other equipment be stored in that area. I believe the applicant would like to discuss that this evening. Access to this property is granted -- in fact, without getting into too many of the complexities, there is an existing access onto Meridian Road. The applicant has been working with the adjacent property owner to the south to get a cross-access agreement, because staff and ITD would like the access on Meridian Road to go away, they were not able to come to a conclusion with that. So, staff's condition now, as it reads, the applicant will be allowed to utilize this access to Meridian Road, assuming ITD will give them permission to do so, until there -- until there is access either to the north through this currently undeveloped property or access to the south once the Treasure Valley Vet Clinic is required to provide a cross-access. Their -- their development agreement had tied to the Treasure Valley Vet Clinic does not require them to provide cross-access until they develop the entirety of their property and there is a portion of their property that they have chosen not to develop. So, they were not able to come to a conclusion. So, the best we could do in providing access to that property is giving them a temporary access until such time as there is another way to do it. Under landscaping -- a 20 foot landscape buffer is also required on the north and east property lines to buffer against adjacent residential and future residential property. The applicant's plan does not include the required 20 feet of width on both the north and the east and it does not show the required landscaping on the east side . Additionally, there is a 35 foot landscape buffer required along Meridian Road . It's considered an entryway corridor. The applicant has provided that with the inclusion of some right of way that ITD is not intending to use. They are working with them in utilizing that and landscaping it to meet the intent of the code. The applicant is proposing to share a trash enclosure with the Treasure Valley Vet Clinic just to the south. Staff is in agreement with that. The hours of operation for the business as indicated by the applicant are 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m., Monday through Saturday. The property currently does not have direct access to sanitary sewer. Conditions in the staff report indicated that they are required to construct an eight inch sewer main along South Meridian Road frontage to their parcel from the existing sewer in South Edmunds Drive. Work with the property owner to the -- or work with the property owner to the north to bring an eight inch sewer main across that parcel. There is another option available to them, as indicated by Public Works. They are -- and we would like to modify that condition. I think the applicant is going to discuss that as well. The third option would be to bore under Meridian Road to access a sewer line -- I believe either Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission June 22, 2017 Page 5 of 55 on the other side or in Meridian Road. I'm unclear as to the location. But Public Works has indicated that that is an option for them as well. Elevations as proposed by the applicant are here. There likely will be some additional things needed to -- to the building in order for it to meet the requirements of the UDC, but we can get there with some -- we did receive written testimony against the project from Larry Molnar who lives in the Larkspur Subdivision directly east. Staff is recommending approval of the application and I will stand for any questions you have. McCarvel: Any questions for staff? Fitzgerald: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Mr. Fitzgerald. Fitzgerald: Josh, just so we are clear, there is -- this is not discussing the pole and tower; correct? Even though it's in the notes that's the -- that's on the table right now; correct? Beach: Correct. We asked the applicant to provide that information for them. He's intending to do that, but that is an approved use in the zone, so it doesn't -- that specific item did not require a CUP. Fitzgerald: Thank you. McCarvel: Okay. Anybody else? Okay. Would the applicant like to come forward. Please state your name and address for the record. Blood: David Blood. 629 East Lake Creek Street, Meridian, Idaho. And I have -- we have worked a lot with staff and agree with staff on almost all of the conditions. There is just a few changes that we propose and I have a -- is this better? There we go. The -- two of the items on there Josh already mentioned that we are in agreement on. That's the condition four about sharing the trash enclosure and Condition 2.1 for access to sewer on the other side of Meridian Road. The other items that we need to discuss are the landscape buffer to the north and east. Josh, do you have that file I pulled up? Can you -- all right. Thank you. On the east border is the homeowners association -- if you will scroll down there. That is that -- we are looking in the middle of the screen there. That's the homeowners association lot and keep scrolling down -- actually, zoom out so we can see the whole lot a little bit . Our lot is in the middle there. The Treasure Valley Vet is the parking lot you see there to the south. North is to the left of that screen. Does this make -- Meridian Road is on the bottom of this picture. There we go. There is -- north is up now for us. The homeowners association is the lot down east. The -- Planning has the ability to identify what use that is. Because there are no homes, but, rather, a park, planning can use its discretion on whether the homeowners association lot is a residential use and needs a landscape buffer. We have a letter from the president of that HOA that states they believe their open space that they already Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission June 22, 2017 Page 6 of 55 have there, that park, is an adequate buffer. The planning commission can decide that open space is not a residential use and thus doesn't require an additional buffer on that eastern edge. On the north edge of the property we believe that we are within the code with an 11 foot buffer to the north . Staff is referring to Code 11-3B-9C -- and, Josh, if you will scroll down past the next page. This is that letter from the -- we are going to have to rotate -- Beach: Yeah. Blood: Rotate it back. Beach: Probably a couple times here. Blood: Three times. Yeah. This is the code in red -- is the one that references it. This section, basically, says we need to go to the table of dimensional standards for each district in accord with Chapter 2 to establish the minimum buffer size and, then, if you scroll down we will see that the table for the commercial zone. In this table we see the landscape buffer for an L-O zone is 20 feet slash ten, with a footnote which says a site with reuse of existing structure is required a buffer of ten feet. Even if we added additional buildings, the code still says ten feet is allowed with reuse, which we are proposing. It should be noted that the property to the north is shown to have a future residential use. The city also believes that it could go commercial as noted in our development agreement, in which case no buffer would be required at all. How the property to the north will develop is unknown at this time . Every other property on this side of Meridian Road has for the past 20 years developed as commercial. A ten foot buffer is allowed by the code. The last item we have is the equipment storage. We wanted to make sure that trailers, snowmobiles, ATVs, lifts, other equipment are allowed. The no equipment requirement is extremely broad. I believe the requirement to not be a contractor's yard, which is in the code there, is sufficient. We use items like towable lifts, trenchers, bucket truck, post hole diggers, some of which might be considered equipment, not vehicles. All of which, though, are similar size to vehicles. It isn't -- I couldn't possibly list every item that we might possibly use in our business , but it's, you know, normal stuff. A screened -- or a solid six foot fence would be around this -- the whole enclosure. So, I will stand for any questions. McCarvel: Any questions for the applicant? Yearsley: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Yes, Commissioner Yearsley: Yearsley: What type of trucks are you looking to put back there? What size type -- type trucks? Blood: So, currently all of our trucks -- we have three pickup trucks, two small vans -- city vans, Ram Promaster Cities. We occasionally rent a -- those items I Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission June 22, 2017 Page 7 of 55 listed, like a towable lift or a trencher. I mean at some point we could own those things. But these are -- and we have some enclosed and flatbed trailers that haul those ATVs, snowmobiles, that we use to access towers. Yearsley: Okay. Thank you. Fitzgerald: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Fitzgerald. Fitzgerald: I have a question for Josh mostly. Can you scroll back up to the -- the ten foot landscape buffer discussion? Scroll to the -- Beach: The code section, not the photo? Fitzgerald: The actual -- keep going down. Where it talks about the ten foot with the footnote. We are talking about a -- a reuse of an existing residential structure. We are not redoing this residential structure, that's being scraped; correct? Beach: So -- Fitzgerald: Can you explain that so we are on record about -- this is not reusing residential -- at least in my understanding. This is a commercial use? Beach: Commissioner Fitzgerald. So, I guess for additional information, we -- we have met with the applicant, his attorney, and the city attorney and came to the conclusion that with his -- what he is proposing to do here does not meet the -- does not meet the intent here for ten foot. It's -- he is using a portion of the home -- the existing home. He's adding onto that. But it's -- Fitzgerald: Commercial use; correct? I mean we are -- this is not a reuse of a -- Beach: The interpretation by legal is because he's adding onto the home and intensifying the use, it doesn't -- it doesn't meet this requirement. So, this is -- the 20 foot would come into effect. Fitzgerald: Thank you. That was kind of my thought. McCarvel: Okay. Blood: I can only add that the -- the ten -- this is the commercial zone. So, everything on this table applies to commercial use . It's not -- it doesn't say if you use the commercial in a light office district as a residential. It's when it is a commercial use in a light office, if you reuse the existing structure. So, that's our interpretation now. Thank you. McCarvel: Okay. Any other questions? Okay. Thank you. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission June 22, 2017 Page 8 of 55 Blood: Thank you. Beach: I would like to add actually one -- one more thing that I neglected to mention right off the bat on this. We received a phone call from one of the neighbors indicating that their -- their public hearing sign for this project was no longer on the property and we went back and forth with Legal in trying to determine what -- what to do about that. I was sent an e-mail from the city attorney that he wanted me to advise the Commission on -- I can do this or Andrea can do this, but he sent me this e-mail, so I will just go through it really quick. There is a couple of points he wanted me to point out. He says advise the Commission of the concerns regarding notice and sign removal. So, technically, our code says the sign is supposed to be up ten days prior to public hearing. Essentially what that says. There is a separate section that says the sign needs to be removed three days after -- no later than three days after the public hearing. So, it does not, however, say that the sign explicitly needs to stay up for three months, if that's how long it takes from when the applicant originally put the sign up to when the hearing actually takes place . This is kind of an unusual scenario. March -- March 16th was the first application hearing that this was scheduled for. In the meantime the sign has come down. It says advise that the UDC only requires the sign be present prior to the first hearing and it was. It says that we -- that we don't know of any interested parties that would not have received mailed notice or have seen the sign prior to the first hearing. It says that the UDC does grant the Commission the discretion on whether another hearing and additional noticing should be required , but the code does not obligate them to do that. So, I wanted to make sure that that was at least read to you before we get too far down -- down the road with the hearing. Fitzgerald: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Fitzgerald. Fitzgerald: Josh, is there -- just so I'm clear, the hearing -- which it's been continued twice I believe -- it doesn't have to be -- the date doesn't have to be changed to renotice it? That's my understanding; correct? Beach: Good question. So, we don't send new notices out to the surrounding neighbors when its continued and we do not require the applicant to change the date on the sign. So, the sign could still say March 16th and the hearing could be June 22nd. Fitzgerald: Okay. Can I ask the applicant to come back up to explain why it was removed? Blood: Before the -- when we planned for this we hired a sign company that said we will get it up there ten days before. We will remove it three days after and before we continued that first meeting I said, hey, if we continue we are Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission June 22, 2017 Page 9 of 55 going to have to resign and the answer was you won't have to resign, because everyone who comes to that meetin g will be notified that -- when it's continued and so when -- after that meeting we let the sign company do what they had been hired to do, which was take it down when it was -- after the date had past. We were unaware that there was any ongoing reason. We had specifically asked if we would have to repost and the answer was , no, you don't have to re- sign. McCarvel: So, it's been down for a month. Approximately. Blood: At least. Yeah. McCarvel: Okay. Blood: Any other questions? Beach: I think there was a little bit of confusion on the signage and when it's supposed to come down and whether or not that was act ually the hearing in the definition for the code. So, I don't blame the applicant for that. We just wanted to make sure that we were covered, checked with Legal to make sure that they were comfortable with moving forward this evening with that scenario a nd they are leaving it up to the Commission to decide whether or not they want to do that. Bernt: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Bernt. Bernt: Any -- any feedback from residents in that -- in that area about -- any confusion from them at all, any complaints about the sign not being there? Beach: One individual called is the individual who told us that the sign was not there. That's the -- otherwise we would have not known. Bernt: Just that -- just to -- just to let you guys know -- let staff know -- Beach: Yeah. Bernt: -- is that the reason for the call? Okay. McCarvel: Okay. Any other questions? All right. We will move forward with public testimony. I have one person signed up to speak, Lawrence Molnar. And as you approach the mic, please, state your name and address for the record. And, please, speak right into that microphone. We are having trouble with them. Molnar: You are? McCarvel: Yeah. Yeah. You're on. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission June 22, 2017 Page 10 of 55 Molnar: You can hear me? McCarvel: Yeah. We can hear you. Molnar: Because if you can I will put it down and, then, you will hear me anyway. McCarvel: We are good. Molnar: But, anyway, I have prepared notes. Can I submit those? McCarvel: Sure. Yeah. Because you will have just the three minutes to speak. So, if you have notes -- Molnar: There is one for everybody. McCarvel: Perfect. Molnar: I'm Lawrence Molnar here to protest the request you have under consideration with Mr. Blood. I am a retired Air Force colonel who served for 30 years. I did have many opportunities to excel during my career. As a matter of fact, one of my examples is in 1973 through 1976 I was one of the first three salesman for GPS. Somebody always starts what becomes significant as achieves -- as achievements, then, somebody else is proclaimed heroes and they pop up later. I moved to Idaho four years ago, because my wife and I are age now at 88 and my daughter, God bless her, volunteered to dedicate full time to care for us. The next paragraph I just would let you read it. On the proposal, I say we should all agree this matter got off to a very rough , inconsiderate, unneighborly manner on Mr. Blood's part. An outdoor meeting, a few close by neighbors on a very cold day and during the working hours of 3:00 p.m. -- undoubtedly to restrict the attendance . I do not understand the use of a relatively small wooden board as an announcer of something of interest mainly for those very close by on a roadway with a 55 mile an hour speed limit . There was no board for notification of his board meeting and you did discuss that. Now, what Mr. Blood had intended all along was setting up a lodging for a few false personnel, but a building large enough to have an indoor garage probably or garages for repair or required maintenance of his business vehicles outfitted to have ladders overhead. Then on weekends he intended to park these vehicles so the top side is viewable by all homeowners on East Whitespur Street using this roadway as an exit. The vehicles are well conditioned, I agree with that, but no matter the ladders are a spectacle and to any shrewd real estate agent they will be a matter to challenge the value of the houses on sale or to simply give an agent an opportunity to disregard them in favor of other options. I suggest the vehicles should be parked so they are not visible to Whitespur residents at any time. Also Mr. Blood should not have -- other than his Speedy Quick vehicles and personal cars at this location. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission June 22, 2017 Page 11 of 55 McCarvel: Mr. Molnar? Molnar: Yes. McCarvel: Your three minutes are up. Do you want to sit? We can read the rest of this if you would like to -- Molnar: I would like to give it. McCarvel: I'm sorry, your three minutes are up. Molnar: Gee, I thought I did this in three. Okay. Thanks. McCarvel: Okay. Thank you. Okay. Anybody else in the audience wishing to speak? Okay. Would the applicant like to come forward and respond at all? Blood: I didn't see the rest of that, so if there is anything you guys have -- McCarvel: There was just a couple -- he was down to right there. Down to there. Blood: Okay. Any questions for me? I guess I -- the only thing I would add -- the ladders are horizontal. They are on top of trucks. This is not crazy. I mean they look like vehicles with ladders on the top of trucks that aren't terribly high. I mean I think -- or high enough that guys can reach them. You know, six or seven feet tall, so -- on most of those. I would maybe only add that the question on the code on the buffer. This is a -- if it was a residential use in a commercial area you wouldn't need a buffer at all, because you wouldn't have to buffer a residential use to. So, that I think the code is considering this exact thing. We are not scraping the house. We are -- we are adding onto it. We are remodeling. Adjusting the roof. Bringing the house up to our current architectural standards, so it looks nice. It doesn't look like a 1950, '60s flat roof, old house. We are going to bring it up to look really nice and sort of match what's next door at Treasure Valley, that hospital and something I think would be a nice addition to the area. So, if there is any questions I will -- McCarvel: Any questions? Yearsley: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Yearsley. Yearsley: Why not build a building to put this stuff in? Screen it a little bit better. Blood: Yeah. If money grew on trees that would be awesome. I guess -- we are trying to fit within the code that's -- that's there. Yearsley: Okay. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission June 22, 2017 Page 12 of 55 Blood: The code allows for a mobile dispatch center in a light office . That's -- we haven't asked for the code to be changed at all. We are -- we are within the allowed use for the area. It's expected that some type of business -- we are not crazy. A lot of vehicles or traffic. We are fairly light. I mean there is seven employees currently in our offices. This is I think a nice addition to the -- the area. Yearsley: Okay. Thank you. McCarvel: Okay. Fitzgerald: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Fitzgerald. Fitzgerald: You are intending to put a tower up; correct? Haven't depicted it anywhere for anybody to take a look at, where that's going to be? Blood: It's on the plot plan there shown at this -- originally we showed it near the back of the property. We intended to put a different building, but based on feedback from staff we have adjusted our plans to -- to only remodel the house at this time and use that for our offices, rather than a larger building on the back and the -- and so we have moved where that tower -- based on -- we also understood that we need a 150 buffer to locate that tower and so we have moved it to the front corner of that property. It needs to be 60 feet back from the front edge of the property and 150 feet -- I think I got those number right, but -- Fitzgerald: I guess my only other concern is when you start talking about snowmobiles and ATVs and not screening those at all or putting them inside , it starts talking about kind of a storage area and not really a service truck related to your business. Especially to the neighbors and the surrounding community I would guess it starts looking more of a storage unit -- or storage lay down yard than it does a business. Because I think that's so me of the concern. I think maybe Commissioner Yearsley was mentioning and that -- that kind of becomes a concern for me. Blood: Right. I understand. You know, generally you think of snowmobiles and ATVs as just sitting there, but we have towers up on Squaw Butte and Wilson and Packer John. These are -- this is equipment we use for our business. It's not just toys that -- Fitzgerald: And I understand. I'm just letting you know that's my initial concern is that it starts looking like a laydown yard and just -- and it becomes a non- screened outdoor storage unit, instead of a -- Blood: I totally agree and that's why we think we have addressed that concern with a six foot screened fence that should -- you know, that's what the code calls Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission June 22, 2017 Page 13 of 55 for in these types of situations, so you're not looking at a bunch of stuff laying on the ground. Fitzgerald: Thank you, ma'am. McCarvel: Okay. Okay. Thank you. Parsons: Madam Chair, Members of the Commission -- McCarvel: Oh. Sure. Parsons: If I could just -- looking at the definition -- I think Mr. Blood's done a great job, but I was part of the -- I was one of the planners that was instrumental in trying to get what a mobile service was supposed to be envisioned for and it really is meant for your service type repair facilities. Just down the road off of Meridian Road we had Wire Guys, which is almost what -- how Mr. Blood operates. They are contracted by CableOne, they go out and install those types of -- you know, the internet -- Blood: Antennas. Parsons: Antennas. Exactly. The Dish Network guys. That's what that's intended for. And that's why when we wrote this code we made it clear that it's not a contractor's yard. That outdoor storage is meant for fleet vehicles. It is meant for not necessarily equipment, but the fleet vehicles, so that it's -- the code itself for mobile service requires that all the materials associated with that business be stored indoors. That's how the code was written. You're not supposed to repair your fleet vehicles on site . That's, again, another requirement of the definition of that use. So, some of the concerns from the neighbors about him repairing his fleet vehicles, it's not allowed -- he's not able to do that there. He needs to take his vehicles elsewhere to do that kind of work. Now, what code isn't very clear on is it talks about equipment -- or it says outdoor storage for fleet vehicles. What it doesn't speak to is what -- what does materials mean. So, I don't envision Mr. Blood having a bunch of cable and spools and all of that, because in my mind that would be considered a contractor's yard and that is not allowed in -- in an L-O zoning district. So, that's why in our condition in our staff report -- Josh was very clear that it was meant to be for storage of his equipment slash fleet vehicles, so that it didn't become a -- or appear to be a contractor's yard and that's already in our staff report. It defines how that storage yard is supposed to be used. The other thing in our code is if -- if it's going to be a screened fence and it does -- and it's going to store fleet vehicles, then, all it needs is a fence and a gravel yard, it doesn't need to be improved as a parking lot. But if you are going to use it as a parking lot or use it and not screen it from the street, as he is explaining that he wants to do, then, you would have to develop that storage yard as a parking lot per the UDC. So, his option at this point is to use it as fleet storage. So, if he meets the screening requirements from Meridian Road as he's indicated on his plans, then, he's good to use it as such. Going back to his buffer requirements, again, Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission June 22, 2017 Page 14 of 55 that's the other reason why staff is asking for some of those buffer requirements along the east -- or, excuse me, along the north and east boundary. Although we do have a common lot there and adjacent fencing, that's still a resident -- it's used for -- and it was approved with a residential development. So, in our minds that does still dictate a 20 foot wide landscape buffer and because the property north of him -- although it may go commercial, right now we have to look at what the Comprehensive Plan dictates that property and right now its low density residential in our comp plan. Until someone comes back and changes that we are going off of that designation and that's, again, why in our code we have to apply and require him to construct a 20 foot wide landscape buffer around those two perimeters. The mechanism for him to do that -- the Commission can't change those -- those things. It requires him -- what will happen -- have to happen is if you stick with staff's recommendation in our staff report, he's conditioned to provide a 20 foot wide landscape buffer along those boundaries. What he will have to do is apply for a City Council review application and go before City Council as part of a public hearing process and see if he can convince them to reduce those buffer widths. And, again, those letters that he eluded to, if the HOA is happy to not require a landscape buffer along the east boundary, those are things that I would encourage him to provide as part of his Council review application as he moves -- if he chooses to move this along to City Council. McCarvel: Okay. Any more questions for the applicant? Okay. Blood: I would just add there that I'm not -- the Commission has the option of -- planning has the option of defining whether something's residential use . They can decide whether that common lot is residential use or not. If it's not, then, they can say it doesn't need a buffer. If it is residential use, then, a buffer would be required. But it's elective. It's not -- you don't have to decide that it is a residential use if there is some -- you have discretion to decide whether that park is a residential use or not. The -- and, then, if it's reuse of a residential structure there is no need to go to the City Council for a ten foot buffer. McCarvel: Okay. Thank you. At this time can I get a motion to close the public hearing for item H-2017-0031, Speedy Quick. Fitzgerald: So moved. Yearsley: Second. McCarvel: It has been moved and seconded to close the Public Hearing on Item No. H-2017-0031, Speedy Quick. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. TWO ABSENT. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission June 22, 2017 Page 15 of 55 McCarvel: My first thought if that is our discretion that -- a residential common lot is residential. I just think that's -- and if there is relief to be had there he needs to take it to City Council -- Fitzgerald: Agreed. McCarvel: -- for -- through the normal process for that. That's my two cents. Bernt: I agree with your two cents. McCarvel: Okay. Bernt: I will up you five cents. McCarvel: All right. Are we comfortable moving forward? I mean with the signing issue? Bernt: That's what I was -- Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Bernt. Bernt: I'm a little bit concerned as to the viewpoints of residents in that area that may or may not have known that there was going to be a public hearing this evening for Speedy Quick and so that's -- that's a hair concerning, you know. I always enjoy hearing both sides, you know, pro, con, whatever. Just facts. And it's a hair concerning that there might be people out there, especially those who have, you know, mentioned they have concerns with the -- with the proposed development. You know, who knows, there might be other people out there that might provide some insight as to, other things that we need to be taking a look at. So, I would propose a postpone as to, you know, we, you know, postpone this another month or weeks or how long -- whatever the process is -- the proper process is. I'm not saying that I support -- maybe we should discussion it a little bit to see if that makes sense for the residents that live in that area. McCarvel: Uh-huh. Okay. Fitzgerald: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Fitzgerald. Fitzgerald: Can I get Andrea's opinion on where we stand in regards to legally how do you feel -- have we covered our bases for this evening's meeting? I don't feel comfortable, truly, because the sign was removed as quickly as it was. Where do you feel like we are legally, not putting the city in jeopardy and -- Pogue: Josh provided you with the legal advice from the city attorney. This is within your discretion. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission June 22, 2017 Page 16 of 55 Fitzgerald: Okay. Thoughts? McCarvel: Okay. Perreault: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Perreault. Perreault: I would think that if they had received notification via mail and they had concerns, at that point they would be kind of watching and keeping track of -- if the hearing had been continued that they would just be watching and paying attention to when and, then, at that time join us here for testimony. Bernt: That's a good point. McCarvel: I agree. I think our -- the people who wanted to have a say have been having a say and probably watching it , but I would strongly suggest some wording get added to the code that when a meeting is continued, that that date be renoticed on those signs. Pogue: Madam Chair, duly noted. Fitzgerald: I think that was always my assumption and that's probably wrong, but I think that's -- for a future that's probably something we need to put in there. McCarvel: Because I think even if you drive by it a month later and that date is on there from a month ago, you think, oh, that's done. Fitzgerald: Exactly. I missed my chance. Perreault: Madam Chair, would you suggest that the mailers also go out or just the sign changes? McCarvel: I don't -- at a minimum the sign change. But -- because that's the way a majority of the people get -- Perreault: The information. McCarvel: -- their information. But -- Yearsley: Madam Chair, I -- my recommendation -- actually, Josh, when was this thing initially noticed? It was back in March? Beach: March. Yearsley: Or when was this initially heard? Beach: That's a great question. We can look. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission June 22, 2017 Page 17 of 55 McCarvel: May 4th. Beach: Okay. McCarvel: And continued to June 6th and continued to June 22nd. Beach: There you go. Yearsley: Okay. So, it's only three continues. You know, if we are going to renotice it I think you have to do both. McCarvel: Yeah. Yearsley: Personally. But we have only done three. A lot of times in the past after we have done, we have allowed up to three, but at about three we start to look at potentially renoticing it at -- when they get farther out like that. So, I guess my opinion is -- I would be comfortable moving forward with this application. McCarvel: Yeah. I think I would, too. So, as far -- I think this is -- there is a lot of equipment. I realize the snowmobiles and the four wheelers and everything are part of their regular equipment. But I would say that -- I mean that would be helpful also to have your 20 foot buffe r there. I mean if you're going to have all that kind of stuff out there -- I would agree that, you know, the repair on those vehicles is not something that can be done in the storage -- or in that parking area. Yearsley: Madam Chair, I also agree that the -- I like the 20 foot buffer. I gives them a chance to do some landscaping to screen all this equipment that he is proposing out there, so -- and the different items. So, I would personally for item one I wouldn't recommend changing that one. Item four, providing agreement for the trash enclosures, I'm okay with that -- to share that one. And, then, Item 6 I'm not comfortable moving forward with -- with his wording that he would like to add that. And, then, Item 2 with the Public Works Department, that one would be amenable for me personally. Fitzgerald: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Fitzgerald. Fitzgerald: I would echo Commissioner Yearsley's comments exactly. I think -- I'm not comfortable with the language in six either. McCarvel: Yeah. Fitzgerald: And it becomes concerning that it does become a contractor's yard very quickly, so -- Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission June 22, 2017 Page 18 of 55 McCarvel: Yeah. I think -- I mean, obviously, the easy answer -- and Commissioner Yearsley alluded to it earlier with the applicant, buil d a shed, do something, you know, to cover that and you can put what you want in there. But if it's going to be open with the residential right behind it, it needs to have some restrictions and some more screening on it, so -- Perreault: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Perreault. Perreault: Did I misunderstand that that's -- that there would be a six foot fence that would block all of that from view or is that -- is there a choice being given to the applicant? The way that number six reads I guess is a little confusing for me. The six foot obscuring fence or fleet vehicle storage should be designed as an off-street parking area consistent with the standards. So, maybe I'm misunderstanding that. Fitzgerald: Commissioner Perreault, it's actually number three in the specific use standards. I think the numbering is incorrect on here. The way that Josh has it it says fleet vehicle storage shall be screened with a six foot site obscuring fence or fleet vehicle storage shall be designed as a n off-street parking area consistent with the standards as set forth in 11-3C-B5 and 11-3B-8 of this title and that's -- and, then, it goes through -- so, it's -- there is no changes that he's asking for I think. Perreault: Okay. Beach: So, I will clarify that the condition as it -- and I apologize. The condition as it reads in the staff report actually says no outdoor storage area as depicted on the site plan shall be for the -- excuse me. That the outdoor storage area as depicted on the site plan shall be for the sole use of fleet vehicle storage. No other equipment shall be stored in this area. Every item in red has indicated on -- on your screen has been added by the applicant. Fitzgerald: Yeah. Beach: He is proposing a six foot solid fence, because he's not wanting to pave that. He wants it to be for fleet vehicles and we let them do crushed asphalt, recycled asphalt in that area for fleet vehicle storage if he screens it with a six foot solid fence. So, I think he's saying that because he's doing the six foot and screening it, he can store things back there. So, that's -- I think that's what he's trying to say. Maybe we can get the applicant back up if you want to clarify what his intent is with that. Fitzgerald: No. I think I found it. I was above -- so, I think, yeah, what you just said is -- it is number six, outdoor storage area as depicted on the site plan shall Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission June 22, 2017 Page 19 of 55 be for the full use of fleet vehicle storage. No other equipment shall be stored in this area. Beach: Try to keep it pretty -- Fitzgerald: Pretty simple and it still covers the use of vehicles that they have to take for -- up in snow areas and those kind of things, but it can't be used for a laydown yard. McCarvel: Okay. Beach: I will add that we inadvertently left out one condition. I mentioned in my presentation that there has not been approval from ITD on the access to Meridian Road. I think the applicant has reached out and I know we -- staff has spoken with ITD on this and I don't know what the conclusion is. I think we need to add a condition -- we don't want to be in the position where similar with what we don't like to do with ACHD is approving something that they are not going to allow. I don't know that they are not going to allow this. So, I think if we add a condition that says the applicant must obtain approval for the access -- Bernt: Smart. Beach: -- prior to obtaining a CZC for the property we cover ourselves. McCarvel: Yeah. Because so far -- I think I saw it in the notes -- that so far they have denied it. Beach: We have discussed it with them and they have indicated to us that they would not be in favor of it and in further discussion I don't know where they have -- I don't know where they have come or gone on that discussion. But I know that we have at least spoken with them and I don't think a conclusion has been met with them as to whether or not they are going to let them have direct access to Meridian Road where their access currently is. McCarvel: Okay. So, we need to add to the motion that this needs to be upon -- upon agreement with ITD. Beach: Yeah. McCarvel: Yes. Beach: Some sort of an indication of approval from them, whether it's an e -mail or a formal letter from them saying they are in favor. McCarvel: Okay. Fitzgerald: Madam Chair? Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission June 22, 2017 Page 20 of 55 McCarvel: Commissioner Fitzgerald. Fitzgerald: And, Josh -- I'm sorry. If they don't get ITD access, they have to use the shared access with the vet clinic next door. Is that the correct -- Beach: The problem with that is the development agreement for -- there is two separate development agreements. There is one for this specific property and there is a separate one for the vet clinic. I don't exactly have the wording down for what the vet clinic says, but it, essentially , says they don't have to provide a cross-access until such time as they develop the south half of their property. It's not developed. So, that -- that access does not go down to Edmunds Drive right now. So, we technically can't require them to provide the cross -access and that gets us in a position where any discussion I had with legal -- we have to provide an access -- Fitzgerald: Yeah. Beach: -- to this property. They have to get access somewhere and so we let them -- we are allowing them -- and I don't anticipate ITD saying they can't have access, because -- they have to have access. I don't know that. So, that's why we are wanting to make sure that they at least give us some indication that they are okay with it. McCarvel: But as soon as they have other access, then, that one on Meridian goes away. Beach: You're correct. McCarvel: All right. Okay. Okay. Yearsley: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Yearsley. Yearsley: After considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move to recommend approval of -- because this is a conditional use permit; correct? Approval of file number -- sorry, I was just making sure that they were the same -- H-2071-0031 for the hearing date of June 22nd, 2017, with the following modifications: On condition -- on the condition four, to allow the -- provide a letter of agreement to share the trash enclosure with the Treasure Valley Vet Center and, then, on the Public Works Department one, that they can either put a sewer line -- eight inch sewer line in or connect to the sewer line in -- in West Meridian Road. And, then, also to -- this condition they have to obtain approval from ITD for an access to Meridian Road prior to CZC approval. I think that was all. Fitzgerald: Second. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission June 22, 2017 Page 21 of 55 McCarvel: It has been moved and seconded to approve Item No. H -2017-0031 with modifications. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIES: FIVE AYES. TWO ABSENT. B. Public Hearing for Stor-It Self Storage (H-2017-0071) by Stor-It Self Storage, LLP Located 3735 N. Ten Mile Road Recommend Approval to City Council – Schedule for City Council 7/25 1. Request: Annexation and Zoning of 11.860 Acres of Land with an I-L Zoning District McCarvel: Okay. We will now move on and open the public hearing for item H - 2017-0071, Stor-It Self Storage, and we will begin with the staff report. Beach: This is an application for annexation. This site consists of approximately 11.86 acres of land, which is currently zoned -- excuse me -- it is currently zoned RUT, I believe, and located at 3735 North Ten Mile Road. To the north is industrial property zoned I-L. To the east is North Ten Mile Road and single family homes in the Isola Creek Subdivision, zoned R-4. To the south is industrial -- or the existing Stor-It Self Storage property. And to the west is the City of Meridian Wastewater Facility, zoned I-L. Prior to submitting an application to the city the applicant processed a property boundary adjustment through Ada county and removed the 35 foot strip of property from their parcel. The property now has no street frontage onto North Ten Mile Road. The Comprehensive Plan future land use map designation for this property is mixed use nonresidential. As I said, the applicant is requesting annexation of approximately 11.86 acres of land with an I-L zoning district, which is consistent with the mixed use on residential land use designation . The applicant proposes to develop a self-storage facility on the site consisting of units varying in size from five foot by five foot to 38 foot by 52 foot, totaling approximately 257,874 square feet. The applicant proposes to construct a facility in two phases with approximately 139,089 square feet in the first phase and 108,785 square foot -- square feet in the second phase. There is a 25 foot landscape buffer required adjacent to the single family home that is adjacent to the east side of the property. So, there is an existing single family home here up against Ten Mile Road. Typically we require a 25 foot landscape buffer adjacent to any residential. As proposed there is no parking required for this project. Parking isn't required for storage facilities, because the trips are usually quick and there is sufficient blacktop area to be accommodating -- to accommodate parking as needed. As I indicated to you, this is an extension of the existing Stor -It facility there. Their office is down here off of Ten Mile Road. This portion would not be required to provide any parking. All buildings in the I-L zoning district are required to be set back 35 feet from the street. There is no problem with that off of Ten Mile, since they don't own that property anymore. As I said, access is from Ten Mile Road and is existing with the current Store-It portion of the project that exists today. Onto utilities. Sanitary sewer service to the proposed development will only be needed for the manager's office, which is adjacent to North Ten Mile Road and, therefore, no new main lines will be needed. The Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission June 22, 2017 Page 22 of 55 sewer is not required for this portion of the storage facility. Water is required. The property to the north was recently approved as a self -storage facility and with that staff required the applicant to stub water to the south property line. The applicant will need to coordinate with that property owner and Public Works to construct water mains to and through the project from the existing ma in line in North Ten Mile Road. Property to the north, which, as I said earlier, has been annexed and approved for Citadel Storage, was required to provide an emergency access in order to develop a portion of their site with the Public Works condition to loop water through both developments. The applicant shall provide an emergency access and utility easement from the cross -access through the subject property out to North Ten Mile Road. The applicant shall coordinate with the adjacent property owner and with Public Works on the location of those required easements. Onto elevation. Structures within the proposed development that are visible from the street or abutting properties are required to comply with the design review standards. The applicant will have to comply when they submit for their certificate of zoning compliance. Building materials for the proposed storage structures -- wall around the perimeter of the development consists of ribbed metal walls and trim and metal roofing. A certificate is zoning compliance application is required to be submitted prior to issuance of any building permits. Staff did not receive any written testimony on this application and we are recommending approval. I will stand for any questions you have. Fitzgerald: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Fitzgerald. Fitzgerald: Josh, the only question I have is on that RUT section to the north. Do you have to have a buffer in there as well? Because that is considered to be residential later; correct? Or it's in the comp plan as -- it's not? Beach: It's a vacant piece of property. It's not residential. It's -- it's a -- Fitzgerald: For future land use map it's not -- Beach: I believe it's a mixed use residential as indicated there as well -- Fitzgerald: Yeah. Beach: -- because of the wastewater facility. Fitzgerald: Is it I-L? Beach: That's -- that's the reason why most of this area is nonresidential. We don't want folks living that close to the sewer treatment plant, so -- Fitzgerald: I just wanted to make sure I understood that. Thank you. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission June 22, 2017 Page 23 of 55 McCarvel: Okay. Okay. Any other questions for staff? Okay. Would the applicant like to come forward. And, please, state your name and address for the record. Callaham: Craig Callaham with Quadrant Consulting. 1904 West Overland, Boise. I'm here tonight to represent Stor-It Self Storage, the owners, and I thank Josh for doing a pretty complete job of explaining this whole thing. The way this is designed is that first phase is anticipated to build the buildings are the exterior perimeter, so everything gets fenced in. Anything that's on the inside of it won't be seen as soon as the buildings are up. And I think we had a five foot setback off all the property lines on the north side when we drew this up. The owners decided to go to ten feet because of the extra cost of fire rating the exterior of the buildings, so they are going to set back another five feet, so they don't have to incur that cost. So, we will have a little bit more room. The property was purchased from Mr. Foldesi who lives on the residential piece that is still there. Mr. Foldesi still operates in the building in the back, a machine shop, so there is kind of a working situation back there. We do have a 30 -- property line is a little bit angled, so it's 33, running down to 44 for a landscape buffer. We hope to be able to let Mr. Foldesi continue using that up to the building, because he's got Hungarian walnut trees that he really likes that are planted in there and, then, he has a garden growing back there, too. So, we have got our setback that we need for the buildings and hope to let him go ahead and use all off the -- the area that he's used to using in that landscape area. So, we will have to come to some kind of agreement whether his garden can be combined with the landscape requirements along there. As for building materials, you saw the picture earlier of the -- the metal buildings. This is an existing facility that Stor-It has and they will have to come in to -- for a design review on this, but we -- they hope for some leeway in between the future Citadel Storage units, because there will be just a 20 foot gap back of building to back of buildings, so there would be no view along that north between the two storage units. On the site to the south and west is the sewer treatment plant. Hopefully, we don't have to doll it up too much for the sewer treatment plant people to look at, so -- they do plan on making the side with the residential more attractive from Mr. Foldesi's side of it and in the future that is ag now that's nonresidential over on the north side, they will definitely want to upgrade that in case an office complex or something goes in over there to -- and with that I will stand for questions. Bernt: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Bert. Bernt: Sir, are you in disagreement with any of the -- anything that staff recommended for your development? Callaham: Yes. We submitted something on the shared access, emergency access with Citadel. The owner did not protest a competitor going into the north of them when they were approved this year and one of the conditions that were put in there was that they provide Citadel with an emergency access and they Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission June 22, 2017 Page 24 of 55 had a little heartburn allowing the competitor the ability to go on with their second phase by giving them an access through their storage unit site, so -- but given some push back on the emergency access -- we already have a main access and an emergency access for our site and the condition for Citadel was for them to do an emergency access on their site and they haven't done that. They wanted to get it through our site, so the owner has a little bit of heartburn with that. McCarvel: Where else would you recommend they do it? Callaham: There is the property to the north. McCarvel: Yeah. Callaham: Or change their configuration so that they can have emergency access back to Ten Mile rather than through the competitor's site. Yearsley: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Yearsley. Yearsley: Now you only have one access to that back corner of the lot; correct? Callaham: It will be sharing the existing Stor-It main entryway and, then, there is another -- there is an existing emergency access out in between the county property and us on the north side. Yearsley: Okay. But what I'm saying is -- if you go back to the site plan. Fitzgerald: Josh, can you bring up, the site plan, so we can take a look at it? Beach: I was looking at my staff report. Fitzgerald: I'm like how long is this going to take? Beach: Dinking around over here. Okay. My apologies. Bernt: I know what you're doing over there. Checking out the NBA draft over there, aren't you? McCarvel: I was going to be patient. Fitzgerald: Yeah. Exactly. Yearsley: So, I guess maybe you can help me. Are you taking out a portion of your existing storage unit to allow access on the one end and so you have two access points into your new system? Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission June 22, 2017 Page 25 of 55 Callaham: Just on the south side of this property is the existing storage units and so their main entry comes in way down here to the south and, then, right along the southern boundary of the county property is the emergency access that they already have. So, they weren't adding anymore connections to Ten Mile. Yearsley: Well, what I'm asking for you guys -- are you providing -- oh, that's not the right one. All right. Oh. No. I can't do that. Maybe if I go there. Fitzgerald: Choose a pencil and, then, the color. Yearsley: I did. Oh, well. But it looks like -- it's hard to tell, but it looks like you only have one access on the back end of the property to your new addition ; is that -- Callaham: There is two. There is two. There is one right -- right off the first building on the -- Bernt: Josh, can you show us? Callaham: It's on the easterly side of it. That is an existing driveway that goes out for the emergency access. Yearsley: Oh. Okay. Callaham: You come up and you will be able to go into the units there. Yearsley: Okay. Callaham: And on the very western side of it there is an access there. Yearsley: Okay. Callaham: So, it's all set up to where the fire trucks and vehicles can loop around and come in either way. Yearsley: All right. I -- because it looked like when I -- when I looked at it it looked like you only had one -- one access. Beach: I have a question as to what -- and, obviously, planning should have caught this. What is this 20 foot mark that I have circled here on the plan? Is that -- it looks like that's another access, but it looks like there is a building in front of that. I'm not sure if that's measuring -- I'm not sure what this is measuring right here, Craig. Callaham: That's something that the architect put on there that's just measuring the building. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission June 22, 2017 Page 26 of 55 Beach: So, you're not proposing an access -- emergency access through there? Callaham: No. There is a break in the buildings right there to get the storm water -- Beach: Okay. Callaham: -- out, but, then, they have a screen wall that closes it off, so they are kind of offset, so that you can't see into complex. McCarvel: Anymore? Thank you. Okay. Callaham: I guess I would add that this is probably one of the bet ter uses for this being up against the sewer treatment plant and there is an existing storage unit to the south of it. You have already approved one portion of it, so this just fills in the whole thing with a storage unit. McCarvel: Okay. Thank you. And there is no one signed up to speak on this issue, but is there anyone here that would like to give any public testimony for this site? Okay. Fitzgerald: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Fitzgerald. Fitzgerald: Move we close the public hearing on H-2017-0071. Bernt: Second. McCarvel: It has been moved and seconded to close public hearing on H-2017- 0071, Stor-It Self Storage. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. TWO ABSENT. Fitzgerald: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Fitzgerald. Fitzgerald: I totally agree with the applicant. I think this is the right location for this and I think with the I-L zone and the wastewater treatment plant being there I think it works perfectly. I do have a little bit of a challenge pushing back on the emergency access between the -- we asked for cross-accesses for commercial properties, whether they are competitors or not across the board and if there is a fire in one of these storage units and there is problems getting access to one of the other -- everybody's stuff is going to burn and so I have challenges with telling them -- telling the person we already approved to work with this Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission June 22, 2017 Page 27 of 55 homeowner -- or this property owner to do cross-access and emergency access to now deny it later. That's kind of hard for me when we have asked them to do that and now they are pushing back after the fact. So, I would be supportive of having emergency access to the other property, but that is just me. McCarvel: Okay. Bernt: No questions. McCarvel: Go ahead. Yearsley: I agree, Madam Chair. I think if they are going to provide a water access to the back there, emergency access is not a -- kind of a bad place to run that water line through, so -- McCarvel: Yeah. I think that's just good planning across the board to be able to get through back there and other things, so -- any other comments, issues? Bernt: No, ma'am. I'm in agreement. McCarvel: Could I get a motion? Fitzgerald: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Fitzgerald. Fitzgerald: After considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move to approve file number H-2017-0071 as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of June 22nd, 2017. Yearsley: Notice of clarification. This is actually an annexation that needs to recommend approval. Fitzgerald: To City Council. Yearsley: Yes. Fitzgerald: Thank you, sir, for the clarification. Yearsley: Second. McCarvel: It has been moved and seconded to approve Item No. -- wait a minute. To recommend approval on Item No. H-2017-0071, Stor-It Self Storage. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIES: FIVE AYES. TWO ABSENT. McCarvel: Okay. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission June 22, 2017 Page 28 of 55 Fitzgerald: Thank you. Beach: That was a clerical error on my end. I usually look at that a little closer. C. Public Hearing for 2 1/2 Street Townhomes (H-2017- 0066) by Broadbent Properties Located South of E. Franklin on the West Side of 2 1/2 Street Public Hearing 1. Request: Rezone of 3.07 Acres of Land from the C-C and R-15 Zoning District to the O-T Zoning District 2. Request: Preliminary Plat Approval Consisting of FiftyOne (51) Residential Lots and Seven (7) Common Lots on 2.571 Acres of Land in the Proposed O-T Zoning District McCarvel: Okay. We will now move forward and open the public hearing for Item No. H-2017-0066, 2 1/2 Street Townhomes. Beach: Very good. Watch that on this one, too. I think I might have messed up the motion on this next one, too, so -- okay. So, this -- this is an application for a rezone and for a preliminary plat. The site consists of approximately 3.07 acres of land, which is zoned C-C and R-15. It's located south of East Fairview on the west side of 2 1/2 Street. Adjacent property. To the north is commercial property, which is the Rite-Aid building, zoned C-C. To the east is single family residential properties, zoned R-8. To the south is also a single family residential property, which is zoned R-15. And to the west is commercial properties, which are zoned C-C. There is no history on this property. These homes have been there -- or been -- property has been vacant for a very long time. The applicant has applied to rezone, as I said, 3.07 acres of land from C-C and R-15 to the Old Town zoning designation. The proposed plat consists of 51 building lots and seven common lots on approximately 2.571 acres of land in the proposed OT zoning district. The gross density for the subdivision is 18.28 dwelling units per acre, with a net density of 25.36 dwelling units per acre. The average lot size of 1,055 square feet. Access is proposed for the site via two access points from Northeast 2 1/2 Street and the applicant is proposing a private street through the development. The UDC requires private streets to be constructed within an easement and have a travel lane width of 24 or 26 feet , with no allowed parking as determined by the fire marshal. The applicant is proposing a private street for the development that is being proposed as a common lot . The proposed private streets are to be constructed as a 24 foot street section and include a five foot sidewalk on one side on all private roads, with the exception of the private road on the west side of the property. So, move forward here and kind of explain to you what -- what the applicant is proposing. There is no sidewalk proposed in these areas. It does not require -- it requires -- let me clarify my explanation there. Sidewalks are required on a private road if it's a Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission June 22, 2017 Page 29 of 55 commercial development, but in a residential they are not -- they are required. The applicant has proposed several sidewalks and pathways through their development. They are 24 foot wide private street sections with the exception of the one, which would be the bottom of your page, which is actually the west side. That would need to be 24. So, we have added a condition that the applicant modify their plan to -- to change that to meet what the fire department requires. The applicant is proposing to develop the project in two phases. A layout of the phasing plan depends on availability of utilities for the project and the applicant will need to coordinate with Public Works on determining those utilities. The submitted plan, as I had indicated, depicts 51 single family attached homes and each contain a two car garage. The applicant has also provided nine additional off-street parking spaces within the development. The applicant, as part of this project, has also applied for what's called alternative compliance, which is, essentially, a staff level variance. There are certain things in the code that we allow to be modified by staff . Parking is one of those items. And so they have asked to -- instead of requiring the four parking stalls for two, three and four bedroom units, that we allow them to have, essentially, two per unit, plus an additional nine parking stalls -- parallel stalls as indicated in these areas with my mouse here. A landscape plan was submitted with the application for the area proposed to be pl atted. Landscaping for this project is not required. Open space and amenities are only required once you hit the five acre mark. Other than that our code does not require you to provide usable open space or amenities. Staff coordinated with the applicant to work with them a little bit on their site plan to get it where it is that you see before you today. They initially had a wider landscape buffer on this west side that wasn't very usable and this area over here where there is now proposed a tot lot was just some trees. We have asked them to reduce that, which, essentially, eliminated some of the parking that they originally proposed for the project to make the open space between the buildings to make that more usable and we encouraged them to provide this tot lot here on what would be the south side and they have -- they have made those changes to their plan. With that there are some existing structures on the property that will need to be removed as part of the development. The property will need to go through the CZC and design review applications for attached structures. Did not receive any written testimony on this. I did receive several phone calls with questions and there were concerns about parking. Staff is recommending approval with the conditions listed in the staff report -- and I neglected to show you the elevations. Fairly attractive elevations submitted by the applicant for this . As you see they are not indicating driveways, at least ones you can park a vehicle on. But a two car garage. Again, I will stand for any questions if you have them. McCarvel: Any questions for staff? Bernt: On -- Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Bernt. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission June 22, 2017 Page 30 of 55 Bernt: Going back to the slide -- there you go. So, what are those at the -- at the top of the development? What are those slots? The gray area above that? Right there. Perfect. Beach: This is 2 1/2 Street. So, the applicant as part of their project will be constructing a portion of 2 1/2 Street and there will be parallel parking available on the -- on the street. Bernt: So, not only they have the nine parking stalls within the development, they have almost like 12 or something parking -- like parallel parking spots on the street that can be used as well for parking. Beach: In theory, but those are not exclusive to this development. Bernt: Right. Beach: Anyone can use those stalls. Bernt: Right. Beach: So, I just wanted to make that clear. McCarvel: Any questions? Okay. Would the applicant like to come forward? And as you approach the mic, please, give your name and address for the record. Truax: Bill Truax. 802 West Bannock, Boise, Idaho. Madam Chair, Commission, I appreciate your time in considering this request . This property has had a long history. Some of you may have seen it in various iterations over time. We are working with the current owners and developing the property in the hopes that we can move it forward through the P&Z Commission and, then, through City Council. We are currently developing other similar style developments in the valley. Ton of demand. The idea is to -- to bring folks who own the units -- all of these will be individually platted lots for sale. So, it's to bring folks that -- that come in and buy into the community and buy into what we believe is a very, very good vision for the Old Town district and have them within walking distance to some very significant city amenities, whether it's the Old Town retail stuff or whether it's the schools, the elementary and the middle school that are, you know, a half mile away or less. And the high school, which is a mile and a half away. It's to get people down in walking distance to a lot of those things and in discussions with staff, you know, as pointed out, there is not a lot of -- or not as many amenities as we would like to see, but I think that people living downtown invested in downtown is what's going to bring some of that stuff and so we are looking for some density. It's not density levels that we think are going to create any sort of nuisance issues and our specific intent is to create usable -- small, but usable spaces within the development. So, if you will notice the green areas on -- on the landscape drawing -- or the site plan shown, you know, our -- our buildings are oriented onto those MEW spaces. We are Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission June 22, 2017 Page 31 of 55 hoping that people get out there on patios, they are watching out for their neighbors. They are interacting with their neighbors. And so we think that by setting it up this way we are going to have folks that really are truly i nvested in their community and one -- one of the features that we have is that, you know, all of the air conditioning and condenser units, which is not really a purview here, but is a design review issue, but they are all thrown up onto the roof, so that their usable space is out in the front. You know, you're not going to have a loud condenser unit running all day long, it's -- you know, the intent is to have patios where kids and families interact and -- and neighbors, you know, actually meet each other. We do have two cars parking. Sorry. Two -- two drive aisles located with parking off of that common alley. It's really to function more as an alley than a private drive. It's to get in and out of your garage. I think the staff's recommendation that a tot lot was a -- was a wise idea. We didn't have that in there. We were focused more on just adding some -- some greenery and some trees in there. But I think the tot lot will be utilized well. As staff pointed out, we are intending to replace half of the street section in two and a half street. Put new curb, gutter, sidewalk in and we exploring the possibility of connecting that sidewalk down all the way to the Cole Valley Christian, you know, we will say, but, you know, pedestrian is huge for us in what we are trying to do. With that I will stand for any questions. McCarvel: Okay. Any questions for the applicant? Bernt: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Bernt. Bernt: So, who is going to be responsible for maintaining the grass and, you know, the sidewalks and streets and -- as a Commission one of -- you know, one of our greatest concerns are -- with these private, you know, roads is who is going to maintain them. Truax: There will be an HOA and there will be CC&Rs recorded against the property. The HOA will maintain all management responsibilities. If they choose to hire a third-party management company they can. Until all of the lots are developed out, the HOA will be maintained by members of the development entity. Just knowing that we have got -- we signed up for obligations to -- to the municipality and other -- other folks. So, until it's turned over fully we will be on that team. But long term it's the folks that are living there. It's the HOA. They will have reserve set up and hopefully they can manage it long term. Bernt: So, my question is so the individual homeowners will be responsible for their own properties; is that what you're saying? Truax: Well, no. The CC&Rs will put that control into -- into the HOA and the HOA most likely is going to contract with a third-party management company and there is a couple in the valley that we have used -- so like DS Property Management will probably be the one to maintain this one. Folks that are used Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission June 22, 2017 Page 32 of 55 to managing things, rather than having individual owners responsible for, you know, some small section of a driveway behind their unit. Bernt: Second question. So, are you going to be putting up signs or marking areas so people don't park in undesignated -- you know, nondesignated parking areas? Because one problem with these private road is that, you know, what we have run into is, you know, parking -- you know, people parking on, you know, the side of the roads and where they are not supposed to and it creates, you know, problems and hazards. Truax: Yes. Absolutely. Fire will require us to -- and I think it's in this staff report also, but that it's going to have to be signed to -- to say no parking, except in the -- you know, the specific parking areas. Yearsley: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Yearsley. Yearsley: What's -- what are your square footages on these type of facilities? You know, you're showing one, two and three bedrooms. What are we looking at square footages for these facilities -- these -- Truax: Yeah. These -- these will probably be primarily two and three bedroom units and they are 1,100 to 1,250ish square feet. Yearsley: Okay. Truax: On two stories. In two stories. Yearsley: Right. McCarvel: And do you envision that these are going to be individually owned lots or more that somebody comes in and buys a block of them and rents them out? Truax: No. Our -- our primary focus is trying to get them sold retail to individual owners, so that it's not some remote buyer buying, you know, six-plex who doesn't care. You know, they are -- you know, they care, obviously, they are investing money, too, but we are trying to get folks that are really, truly invested in the -- in the downtown area. McCarvel: And is there any other layout that you would consider -- I mean more parking? Because even though this is, you know, something that could be changed, you know, especially with this own town -- Old Town designation, it's a big step down from what's normally required as far as parking in this density . So, I mean is there any other plan that you can see that would give it a little more parking for guests? They can't even park, really, in front of their own garage; right? Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission June 22, 2017 Page 33 of 55 Truax: Correct. McCarvel: Right. Truax: You know, we have -- we have gone back and forth on the issue and we -- I have developed a lot of multi-family units and generally speaking we end up with underutilized parking spaces and I would say, you know, there is a need for sure for -- for guest parking to be able to visit, but we feel like the marketability from both folks doing the market studies, as well as doing the appraisals, they haven't indicated that they see a detrimental arrangement here and that's what we use to help guide it. I mean we -- we will be owning the problem long term, because I'm sure we will -- we won't sell out all the units for some time, but we felt that this was a good balance at the end. McCarvel: Any other questions for the applicant? Okay. At this time we will take -- are you finished? Okay. At this time we will take public testimony and I have several people who have indicated they do wish to testify. We will start at the top of the list with Dan Basalone. Basalone. And, please, state your name and address for the record. And you will have three minutes and your timer is right on that screen. Basalone: Sure. Dan Basalone. 2930 North Cloverdale Road. The reason I'm speaking tonight is that I serve as chairperson of the Meridian Development Corporation, the urban renewal agency for the City of Meridian, and the development of this property on 2 1/2 Street is critical to our overall development and the applicant has been before us and as presented this plan and our board has approved a resolution for an owner participation agreement to assist with the streetscape along 2 1/2 Street and we feel that this area meets the mission of the urban renewal agency, which is to remove blight and to promote economic development in our downtown core , which has been neglected for many years until the urban renewal agency came into being and we feel that Mr. Truax and his development group have met what we feel are the goals of the urban renewal agency, especially promoting things such as walkability, pedestrian access to the rest of the core, as well as bicycle use and so forth. Anyone who has driven up 2 1/2 Street for the past -- and I have been doing this for ten years -- has been concerned that this property needs to be developed and we have been looking for a developer who is as open minded as Mr. Truax to all the concerns of the area. We do know that there are concerns about parking. There are concerns about parking throughout our downtown core. If you look at our central core around Idaho Avenue and so forth, we have businesses there that were developed many years ago who don't have the kind of parking that newer developments have say along Eagle Road , but they need to be supported and we support them , obviously, with public parking as we can, but we also support them by encouraging pedestrian and bicycle use as well . To that end our agency is putting in bike repair stations throughout the urban renewal agency to get people out and onto bikes. Unbound has a checkout system for bicycles now and one of the things that we have learned from the Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission June 22, 2017 Page 34 of 55 research done by the various groups that have given us information about urban renewal is that downtown cores basically cater to two groups of people. They cater to millennials who are looking for low cost housing with walkability, with some kind of cultural attractions with restaurants and so forth , and they also cater to 55 and olders who are looking to downsize from their large home out in the valley and come into town and have walkability as well and we feel that this project meets our criteria for millennials based on the cost of the homes and also those seniors 55 plus. So for all of these reasons we are in favor of this project, we support this project, and we hope that it will meet your zoning requirements. Thank you so much. McCarvel: Thank you. Okay. Next person wishing to testify on the list is Michael Morrison. Morrison: Good afternoon, Madam Chair. Michael B. Morrison. 3405 North Curt Drive, Meridian, Idaho. I actually own property on 2 1/2 Street. I think it's a great idea to develop it, if they had parking. If you drive down to Blue Herring on Meridian Road and look at the parking issues that they have there , just like you're talking about. No parking. If you drive down to the park down at Ustick and Meridian Road, the townhouses there, really nice, except there is no parking. So, you see trailers and everything parked alongside the streets and the parking issues and stuff there. I own property across the street from it. Okay. We already have parking issues. So, you have 51 units with nine extra spaces. You have a few along 2 1/2 Street. So, where are the guests going to park for 51 units? I talked with these people before about one of their other units. Oh. I gave my name and address, said, hey, we have lots of parking. So, we come up with nine parking places for 51 places. You don't really want to know my opinion on it. Thank you. McCarvel: Next on the list is William Gorski -- yeah. That's okay. Gardoski: William Gardoski at 1620 East 2 1/2 Street. We moved to Meridian in 1991. It was a wonderful place and we have been property owners since 1992. The traffic on 2 1/2 Street when Meridian -- when Cole School is going in the mornings and afternoons you can't get out of your driveway. We are going to add another hundred vehicles to this little street going and coming, which would probably had two or three hundred a day. I don't see where that's going to help anything. To have children -- all the schools as far as I know -- my son has children in school -- anything close is packed. There is no open -- I mean they are full and they are overfull and I don't understand what a stack of modern apartments will do for making Old Town. I really don't. Parking is an issue. 2 1/2 Street is a race track. We can't get out of our driveway. You put another 100 to 150 cars on there, it's going to totally destroy that. People back up on Fairview clear back to Cole School, sometimes sit there 25 minutes. There is some issues here that need to be addressed as far as -- we were adamantly against it for the traffic and the safety and the kind of people that would move in , if they were owning the place and families is one thing , but I have a feeling that is not what is going to take place. We enjoy 2 1/2 and it's starting to remind me Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission June 22, 2017 Page 35 of 55 of little California, the way Meridian is going. We lived in Escondido for four years and it's getting really out of hand. But I don't think it's -- I'd like to see the property develop, because it's -- it's a wasteland, but I don't think that the apartments are the way to do it and I don't think there is enough parking anyway. But I don't want to see 2 1/2 cluttered up. I'm worried about safety and our pleasant little street I think it would change everything. Thanks for the -- appreciate it. McCarvel: Okay. Thank you. Next person marked that they wish to testify is Bill Truax. Oh. We have you. All right. Anyone else wishing to testify on this issue tonight? Okay. All right. Would the applicant like to come forward and respond to any of the public testimony. Truax: Yes. Just really simply we -- we do understand the traffic loading issue. There are street alignment plans in place, you know, that the city has adopted. I don't think that that developing this specific property is going to alleviate that. You know, there were some original plans that looked at crossing through -- over this property through to Main Street that -- that didn't work out. But, you know, the realignment will help, but it doesn't matter if we had ten or 50 units under the scenarios that we are presented just a moment ago. For us, again, the focus is pedestrian oriented. Yes, people are going to have cars, but the idea is, really, to try to get them out of cars to try to get bikes and walking in the downtown core. It's going to happen. They have got to get to work. They have got to have a car, you know. But we are trying to minimize the impact of that, so -- McCarvel: Okay. Any other questions for the applicant? Okay. All right. Thank you. Truax: Thank you. McCarvel: At this time can I get a motion to close the Public Hearing for Item No. H-2017-0066, 2 1/2 Street Townhomes. Yearsley: So moved. Perreault: Second. McCarvel: It has been moved and seconded to close the public hearing on H- 2017-0066. All those in favor say ay. Opposed? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. TWO ABSENT. Bernt: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Yes. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission June 22, 2017 Page 36 of 55 Bernt: I, first off, want to, you know, say thank you to Mr. Truax and his group for this -- I think it -- I like the -- I think this -- I agree with the -- the representative from MDC earlier. I think this is a great development. I think it's fantastic for the downtown corridor. I'm on the record saying that I'm a big proponent of -- you know, sprucing up downtown and making it livable and I -- so I really like this development. My only concern is the parking. You know, I get the -- I get that, you know, we are trying to get people off cars and, you know, we are trying to get people to walk and we are trying to get people to get on bikes and I think that that is a feasible option for this development. However, people still have cars and people still have friends and family members , acquaintances that -- they come and visit who have cars and so, you know, 51 units and only having nine parking spots to me is somewhat is a concer n. Especially since it is private -- you know, these are private roads and, you know, with the potential of having these people park in nondesignated areas, because the nine parking lot stalls are full. So, that would be my only concern going forward. Probably a discussion needed with our Commission. McCarvel: I agree. If there is a way to -- I mean maybe either widen the road slightly or at least give them somewhat of a driveway to park in . I know it takes away from -- a little bit from that community space in the middle, probably, but -- or wider roads or something or eliminating a couple of units, but I just -- I don't see -- I like the project overall. I think it's -- you know, the density is fine in theory, as long as you have places for these people to park. Everybody here has cars. It's not like we have this massive transit area system -- you know, that's fine. You want to walk and bike within a couple of miles of your house, but everybody has got cars and everybody has got people that visit them and I just think to say, okay, let's put this in as lovely as it is and just hope everything works out, I think you're inflicting some things on the area around it -- you're just -- I think you're asking for a problem without more parking. Fitzgerald: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Fitzgerald. Fitzgerald: So, I'm going to tend to disagree with both of you, so -- the staff and the applicant worked together to come up with a plan that gave more services to the people who live there, which is they have parking on the -- on the east side and they picked put a way to give a tot lot and to make it more livable and I think the whole goal -- and MDC is a perfect example of why they are here to support it -- is to make it a walking community. I think we are missing the point of each one of these places has two garage spaces. So, there is 104 garage spaces, plus nine, plus the street parking, and these are -- the market is going to deal with who buys these units. I don't think you're going to have people who are buying these things have, you know, six cars outside and so I think we have to give more options to people who want to have walkable units downtown and there can't be giant parking lots everywhere that people want to live. I -- it's just -- there has to be a balance and I think this is the kind of site or community that can test that. I think there is a balance between having livable space with a tot Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission June 22, 2017 Page 37 of 55 lot and not having parking spaces that all it is is blacktop. I think the urban center and what that -- the core of Meridian is supposed to look is Old Town. This is the kind of development to try there. And so that's my opinion. I think it was very well done. I think it looks great and I like the MEWs in the middle and I like -- I appreciate the work the staff did to come up with something that is an amenity on the -- on the actual location. So, the parking -- I understand the concerns, but it is not -- is not as big of an issue for me when we are trying to come up with something different than what everybody lives in, so -- and I'm a density fan in this kind of location, so -- Yearsley: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Yearsley. Yearsley: You know, I struggle with this one. You know, I -- I understand density. I understand the Old Town. And I agree this needs to be redeveloped. But given the fact that these units are 12, to maybe even 15 hundred square feet, my guess their garages are going to be for storage. I live in a fairly nice neighborhood with three and four car garages and they still park on the street. Their garages are full of stuff . It's kind of our lifestyle. So, my concern is I think we are going to put an undue burden on the community -- adjacent community for people trying to find a place to park. I understand -- like I said, I understand the density and I like the project, but nine spaces is -- even for people to -- you know, assuming that everyone parks in their driveway, it gives you very little place for anybody to come visit. McCarvel: Yeah. Nobody can. Yearsley: And so I -- I don't know. I don't think I'm -- I'm still -- I think it causes too much of a concern for me. Bernt: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Bernt. Bernt: Commissioner Yearsley, a question for you. So, I don't -- I don't see -- after -- after listening to Commissioner Fitzgerald's remarks and listening, you know, to your remarks, I get two quick -- so, where do -- you know, knowing that there is not that many spaces, I guess, for parking in this -- in this development, would you -- and there is not -- it doesn't look like there is any driveways. It doesn't look like there is a driveway big enough to park a car. McCarvel: No. No. Bernt: Yeah. So -- so I think that, you know, maybe the type of person, you know, that are -- or demographic that they are after are the younger crowd and the older crowd that probably don't have as much stuff. I don't know. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission June 22, 2017 Page 38 of 55 Yearsley: And it very well may be. But you will have individuals that will have stuff and want to park in those nine spaces. We -- we have townhomes in our subdivision very similar to this and they actually have -- they actually have a driveway and a two car garage and they still want to park in our parking lot and -- I mean it's indicative of and what we have and what I have seen and, you know, it's very similar to the development we saw last time with this 55 an older, you know, they actually made room for parking on one side of the street , so they had quite a few parking. I was even still concerned with it with that amount of parking. So, at nine spaces for a hundred units -- or 51 units really concerns me and I don't know what to do to alleviate that. You know, do you lose a few units to try to get some more parking? You know, I don't know what's the right answer. Bernt: How many parking spots do you believe we need in that? What would be acceptable? Yearsley: I don't know. McCarvel: Well, usually in something this dense -- and, Josh, correct me if I'm wrong, but you said 208 is the normal required and we have 104 in this; right? Beach: So -- Madam Chair. So, the code requires that units that have two, three or four bedrooms have two stalls in a garage, which we counted towards parking. Inevitably folks will put their stuff there, but we count them as parking stalls and, then, two in a driveway. So, there is typically four per single family with two, three or four bedrooms. McCarvel: Uh-huh. Beach: And that's -- that's the standard citywide. That includes areas on the fringe where they have -- folks have no choice but to drive. I think the thought behind Old Town and behind some of the other businesses not being required to provide -- I mean I don't want to provide too much information here, but if we have a business in the Old Town that typically it's 500 square feet -- or one parking stall for every 500 square feet for a commercial business . We don't require that in the downtown. If they -- if they want to propose something different than that typically we are in favor of reducing parking in downtown for various reasons. I understand that there is heartburn with the way we have always done it is -- is the four and typically we want the four. The idea behind downtown is to encourage the walkability, encourage bike ability. What I wanted to mention here was that my understanding in my conversations with ACHD is the applicant, in working with ACHD, is proposing some additional -- I can't remember exactly what they are called, but bike service, bike repair stations on the property, so that folks can do that. Understanding that there is a lot of the downtown that still needs to redevelop. This is -- this is going to be one of the first things that happens in the area as far as redevelopment goes and so we are trying to work with developers who want to work downtown . I think MDC is trying to do that as well, to get something going as far as whether it's the Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission June 22, 2017 Page 39 of 55 amenity -- typically you're not going to get the amenities first. You're not going to get the businesses first. You're going to get the people who live down there first. Yearsley: Right. Right. Right. Beach: And that will drive development of the neighborhood services. So, not saying I'm pushing you to recommend approval on something like this, but that's kind of what staff weighed and we weigh in our Old Town district is we want something to develop down here. We have a vision for what we would like to see. This is fitting fairly closely with that vision, with some work that we have gone back and forth with the applicant on, encouraging them and I will say that we -- they originally had more parking stalls than this, as I mentioned to you. Our concern in the downtown was that in this area there is no open space, aside from the Cole Valley Christian School, for folks to recreate. We wanted them to provide something and we felt that, again, a tot lot would be fairly highly used, assuming that the demographic they are going for is the younger crowd with maybe one or two children -- a couple of kids in 1,100 square foot is pretty small. But maybe one. But the kids are going to utilize that. So, that's where staff was on that. Understanding that there will be some off -- or some on-street parking in the downtown, which, again, is going to cause some heartburn for the neighbors, who don't necessarily like the on-street parking, but this will be a widened street section as part of this and we envision that continually occurring as development occurs in the downtown . The streets will be improved and additional parking will be provided. Something needs to happen first. So, it's -- whether that's commercial or whether that's residential. McCarvel: I don't envision replacing the tot lot with a parking lot. I mean because there is nothing, you know, really surrounding this that is a park and really no place to go. I just think -- I mean -- I just don't know that you can -- it's fair to inflict what is inevitable, more cars to be parked out on the narrow streets of the Old Town anyway. Perreault: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Perreault. Perreault: I entirely agree with that. Based on testimony it sounds like even these 12 lots or so that are -- that are on 2 1/2 Street could be taken up by cars coming in to access Cole Valley, maybe they are parking down there from -- from, you know, needing to access Fairview or walking through to get into Old Town. I don't even know that those will be open and available to be used by this development. It's -- it's a great plan. It's a very, very nice plan. But it -- you're correct, in my opinion, that it's going to spill out and it's going to go somewhere. Yearsley: You know, my -- go ahead. Sorry. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission June 22, 2017 Page 40 of 55 Perreault: And, you know, the pedestrian idea assumes that those individuals are going to be working in a walkable area and I think that's the biggest challenge is the likelihood of that many people moving -- you know, somebody leaving where they live now and buying here for the purpose of walking to their work, there is a lot of factors that have to come together for that to happen and so it's a great idea for people to be able to walk there on their off time , but you're going to bet that many of these people are going to drive to a workplace. So, the vehicles are going to come and go. Yearsley: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Yearsley. Yearsley: Talking to Bernt's -- Bernt -- Treg's comments, one of the things you could potentially do is maybe lose four lots and you can do some diagonal parking -- McCarvel: Uh-huh. Yearsley: -- and to increase the number of parking stalls. McCarvel: You know, those are some things that, you know, could be looked at to not -- not dramatically change this facility, but at least try to add some additional parking. McCarvel: Yeah. That's kind of what I was thinking. Lose maybe 27 and 29 and making diagonal parking there would increase probably quite a few. Yearsley: So -- McCarvel: Yeah. There is just -- without having the driveway slots I mean it's just really tight. You're expecting that nobody is going to come visit these people and that's just not going to happen. Yearsley: Yeah. Perreault: Not to mention any commercial vehicles that might come in fo r -- I mean utility trucks, moving trucks, et cetera, et cetera. Bernt: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Bernt. Bernt: Just food for thought. So, the first thing that comes to my mind in these type -- in this development, knowing that there is none other in the area to sort of compare to -- right, Josh? Beach: Yes. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission June 22, 2017 Page 41 of 55 Bernt: All right. Sometime -- the first thing that comes to my mind is, you know, sometimes we rely on past information and past developments and what we know to be true in the past to determine our decision making going forward and most of the time I think that that's a logical way to look at development. But I -- another issue that we need to think about here is I really do believe that if you build it they will come. You know. Who is to say that these type of developments -- yes, right now there may be some issues with parking, but what about five, ten, 15, 20, 25 years from now, it's these type of developments that may bring commerce and business to downtown Meridian that we lack and I started thinking about this project -- concerned about parking. I still am. But I think I'm in agreement with Commissioner Fitzgerald and staff that these -- this development may bring something to downtown Meridian that -- that we currently don't have that could potentially bring things that we need and so something to think about as well. McCarvel: I -- I agree. Absolutely. I think -- I mean the project in theory is great. I just think we need to take some consideration at this point and what are we doing five and ten years from now, where -- what is the value of these places with no parking and cars lined up all over the place and nobody being able to come visit you. I think the density and -- I like the patio going to out front and having a little community involvement there, but I just think we need to -- I mean to go from what we -- from what we remotely know in these dense places on these townhomes and stuff, like I said, there is cars all over the place and to come in here and say, okay, we are going to go down by half of what we would normally have for parking and cross our fingers and hope that it all works out, I just think we need to add some somewhere. Perreault: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Perreault. Perreault: Question for staff. What can we -- what can -- what does the Commission do in a situation if -- if we recommend additional parking, what does that look like for us? Beach: Commissioner Perreault -- Perreault: Do we -- do we set a number of spaces? Do we -- does staff work that out with the applicant? Beach: So, there is any number of things you can -- you can request. This is, as I said, a preliminary plat and a rezone. With a rezone there is a potential to add some additional conditions that would not necessarily otherwise be allowed. So, it just depends on what you're wanting to do. If you want to -- it depends on the specificity that you're looking for. If -- if you're not sure what it would look like to add -- I mean we want to be careful that what we don't require them or recommend that they do that it actually -- if it doesn't work, it's hard to -- see Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission June 22, 2017 Page 42 of 55 what I'm saying? If we say -- you need to add 15 diagonal spaces to the west side of -- that might not work and so I think leaving it -- leaving it vague and having them work with staff to add -- see what parking -- I mean if that's the direction you're going, see what parking space s as they can add might be the best way to go in continuing it if that's the direction you're thinking you want to go. That way you can look at it again and say, yes, this is sufficient. This is what we wanted to do. Or we make it back and say the applicant doesn't want to do it, because they would have to lose five lot units and that wouldn't make the project pencil anymore. I don't know. It -- I think leaving it open to discussion and figuring out that -- having said that, I think the more input you can give us as to what you're exactly looking for us versus -- I guess there is a balance. We want to know pretty much -- you know, much -- you know, we would like 20 parking stalls, see if you can make that work, you know. If we can't we will come back and say it didn't work. Okay. Get 15. That would be my recommendation to you. Parsons: Yeah. Madam Chair, Members of the Commission, if I could just elaborate on that a little bit more. Certainly if we are going to lose units and you want to see additional parking, my recommendation would be continue this out, let us bring a plan forward to you that you can make a positive recommendation on or something that you feel supported, that you want to move on to Council. Looking at this plan, there are some other options for you that may not require -- the other thing we have to be careful of -- and I will get into it where we can possibly add some more parking on this without -- without changing this plan too much, but the other thing that we have to be careful is we don't -- anything that we change on this site plan, we don't want to make an issue for another city department, whether it might be Public Works or it might be the Fire Department, because they have looked at this plan and there has to be adequate public safety to get in there and get out. The one item that I would suggest that we could do to add some parking is -- and I'm not always a proponent of this -- but if you look at the site plan along the north boundary there, at least -- I guess it's the east boundary on this site plan, 2 1/2 Street, they are proposing an eight foot parkway there. So, they are proposing tree- lined streets. The applicant could attach the sidewalk, grab that eight feet, put it on that west boundary and get some parallel parking along the back side where the tot lot is and, then, you could have -- strip that whole back side as parallel parking and get quite a bit of parking back that they lost from the previous version of the plan. Certainly, again, it's something that we would want to run by our Fire Department to make sure that there is still adequate access to the back of those units, but if you're talking about losing units and how to design 20 m ore stalls on this site -- and, again, my recommendation is let's give us -- let's continue this out, let's get a revised site plan and bring it back forward and have you look at it before we move it on to City Council. I don't want -- I don't feel comfortable just saying work it out with staff before City Council and losing three, four, five units on this site. I think it's something -- again, this is important to our downtown. It is important -- Yearsley: Agree. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission June 22, 2017 Page 43 of 55 Parsons: -- that the Council get a positive recommendation on this. MDC, obviously, supports it as presented to you this evening. That's one thing -- that's one of the requirements of alternative compliance when you're seeking a parking reduction in downtown is that you obtain appro val from the MDC board, which the applicant has done. So, again, this has been vetted through the correct process in order to bring this plan forward to you , so I don't want you to take that lightly. The other thing that we have to keep in mind -- and I think all of us have traveled through other jurisdictions and other parts of the country, downtowns typically have less parking. We all agree. That's a norm throughout the nation. That's a trend. That is because they want people to bike, they want people to walk. Again, there is a transit system in place to make some of those things happen. What our code doesn't do very well is support in-fill and that's really what this is. It's an in-fill development surrounded by other properties and so when you have that situation, this code doesn't lend you to that. So, we are here at -- we are at making concessions to the parking, but that -- part of that concession is that we are trying to provide that livable component as you alluded to, Commissioner Fitzgerald. We sacrifice the parking for the open space and the amenity. So, that's the tradeoff here and that's -- that's the -- those are the tools that we have in the code today. Again, it doesn't address in- fill, it's meant to -- more suburban style development and that's why our parking standards are so high. As you alluded to, you live in suburb -- in a suburban neighborhood where you want open space and you want the bigger houses and a three car garage. I mean downtown typically that's not the type of development that we are looking for. So, it just -- just food for thought there, but I thought since you guys were having a pretty lively discussion, I would just give you my two cents. Bernt: It could have been livelier. Yearsley: Madam Chair, I think continuance for me is -- is probably the best option and I don't know if I want to give direction. I -- you know, I would like to see more parking, but I don't want to say you have to lose this or lose that. McCarvel: Right. Yearsley: My opinion would be to -- to take a look at it, see what you can do and what's feasible. McCarvel: Yeah. Yearsley: I like the idea that you could potentially maybe lose t wo lots, put some diagonal parking in the center of that center unit and maybe go that route or something like that. But that would be kind of my recommendation, but I would recommend continuance. McCarvel: Yeah. I agree. And, like I said, I -- I like the -- overall the in-fill project, but I just -- I'd like to see one more shot at it to give just a little more -- Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission June 22, 2017 Page 44 of 55 and like Bill said, if you, you know, pull some of that forward and have some parking along that back line there and -- just something. I just -- I just don't think nine for that many units is enough. Fitzgerald: Madam Chair? McCarvel: See what we can do to maximize it. Yes, Commissioner Fitzgerald. Fitzgerald: I -- I think everybody knows my opinion. I don't think this needs to be continued. I think it should go forward the way it is. But I don't want to us to walk away -- Mr. Truax has done a great job of walking through the process and getting MDC sign off and I think it's unfortunate for us to hop in the middle of that. So, I hope -- you know how much we appreciate your efforts to get t his thing done. I think it's great. I think it's something different and I think we have got to move downtown in a different direction that doesn't include everybody having six parking spaces for themselves. That's what this product does and I think that's the direction downtown wants to go and so that's where I -- so, I think everybody knows my opinion. If that's the direction that the board wants to go to continue it, that's fine, but I think -- I think it's very well done and I think it's great, so -- McCarvel: Okay. We have to reopen the public -- okay. Are we ready for a motion? Yearsley: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Yearsley. Yearsley: I move to continue file number H-2017-0066 to the hearing date of -- Beach: You could potentially do July 6th, which would be two weeks. Yearsley: I recommend -- what's the next one? July -- July 20th. Move to recommend it be continued to July 20th to have the applicant have a chance to look at maybe potential additional parking spaces on the site. Perreault: Second. McCarvel: It has been moved and seconded to continue H-2017-0066 to July 20th. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? Fitzgerald: No. Bernt: No. McCarvel: Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. TWO NAYS. TWO ABSENT. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission June 22, 2017 Page 45 of 55 McCarvel: Okay. Moving on to -- I will open the public hearing for H-2017- 0074, Northpointe Retail Drive-Thru. Oh. Sorry. It has been suggested, in lieu of opening the public hearing for the next item, that we take a five minute break. We will do so. (Recess.) D. Public Hearing for Northpointe Retail Drive-Through (H- 2017- 0074) by Slichter/Ugrin Architecture Located 1750 W. McMillan Road 1. Request: Conditional Use Permit Approval for a Drive Through Establishment in a C-G (General Retail and Service Commercial District) Zoning District within 300 Feet of Existing Residences McCarvel: Okay. We are going to resume our meeting here tonight and we are going to open the public hearing for Item No. H-2017-0074, Northpointe Retail Drive-Thru and we will begin with the staff report. Parsons: Thank you, Madam Chair, Members of the Commission. Next item on the agenda is for a conditional use permit for a drive-thru on a property that is zoned C-G. This property was annexed and zoned and preliminary platted in 2003 as part of the Kelly Creek Subdivision. It later recorded -- final plat recorded as Northpoint Commercial and it's Lot 3, Block 1, in that subdivision, and in 2014 -- with the annexation of this property there was a development agreement that required any use on this property to go through the conditional use process. But since that time the applicant has amended that development agreement and now they are, basically, subject to whatever is allowed in the C-G zone. So, in this particular case, because the drive-thru use is adjacent to existing residents -- residential uses to the west, they did trigger the requirement for a conditional use permit. The Comprehensive Plan designation for this property is commercial and that's why you see the C-G zoning on it today. The application is here this evening to discuss developing this particular property with a 12,000 square foot multi-tenant building, with an accessory drive-thru use on the west side, located here where my cursor is. As I mentioned to you earlier, the property is adjacent to existing residential uses along the west boundary, therefore, triggering the requirement for a conditional use perm it, subject to the specific use standards in the UDC. Staff has reviewed the submitted site plan and it does comply with all of the specific use standards for the drive-thru use. So, if I can go through those very quickly. So, in the UDC the applicant is required to provide an exit lane, so patrons coming in off of McMillan will turn into the site and stack along the back side -- the north side of the building here. You can see here where the menu board is and, then, pick up window is located on the west side. Because the applicant is providing a dense buffer along the west boundary and it's adequately -- there is adequate Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission June 22, 2017 Page 46 of 55 separation between the residential use and the drive -thru, there is no requirement for any other additional buffering, other than the 25 foot landscape buffer on the west boundary. Here is the landscape plan that the applicant is proposing for the site. With the conditional use permit application, the applicant did submit a concurrent alternative compliance application. When this subdivision was constructed ACHD required that a drainage facility be placed along the frontage of this property. Because of that utility easement they are not allowed to plant the required trees along that street frontage, so the applicant has, through the alternative compliance process, requested to plant the required trees along the west boundary. If you have driven by that site you will -- you will see that a CapEd is there and there is a future retail site just to the east of this, which includes -- incorporated a mix of planting materials and perma bark. Typically, with -- when we have developments come in through our design review process, we like to have developments looking as one cohesive design theme and so in this particular case, rather than just having lawn along that frontage, we want to make sure that they incorporate some of the same plan ting materials and perma bark that the adjacent development incorporated, so that we have a consistent landscape buffer along the frontage of McMillan Road and Linder Road. So, that is a condition as part of this project. The other provision is -- the other option the applicant had was typically when we have easements they have the ability at five feet outside of that ACHD easement to plant the required trees. Again, the applicant has chosen to go through the alternative compliance process. Because we want to have a more cohesive design along that frontage we are okay with no trees, we just want to make sure that, again, they incorporate the same design features as the adjacent property to the east . Staff did receive some conceptual renderings for the proposed structure on the site. It looks like the proposed building materials consist of glass, block, stucco and some metal awnings that you can see h ere. Future compliance with the design manual and the design standards will also be required as part of this project. So, again, this is a rendering, but any future construction on the site would generally have to comply with these elevations that you se e here this evening. The applicant is not requesting any extended hours of operation with the application. Because they are adjacent to a residential use they will be restricted to the hours of 6:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m. and that would be seven days a week and that is also conditioned in the staff report. Staff did not receive any written testimony on the subject application . Again, we are recommending approval with the conditions in the staff report. This will conclude my presentation. I would stand for any questions you may have. McCarvel: Any questions for staff? Yearsley: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Yearsley. Yearsley: Help me understand orient. So, on that -- is the -- the main road that's already there that they are butting up against? Is that what that is? I'm trying to figure out how -- Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission June 22, 2017 Page 47 of 55 Parsons: The one on the south boundary? Yearsley: Yeah. Parsons: Well, let me go back up -- Commissioner Yearsley, let me go back up to the aerial here or the vicinity map. So, currently when this north -- when this subdivision come into play the applicant -- when it was approved by the city, the applicant built all the cross-drive-up -- the cross-access driveways are constructed throughout the development. They were approved for a right-in, right-out only access onto Linder and, then, they have a full access and a right- in, right-out onto McMillan. And, then, also they built a cross-access driveway that ties back into the subdivision that you see here . It's not on this aerial, but this -- this skinny lot here that connects to West Apgar Creek is a common lot for access to this property and that's how it was created with the subdivision. So, right now, if you can see my arrow here, there is a cross-access driveway that goes east-west and one that goes north-south on -- right at this -- at this access onto McMillan and, then, also one farther to the west that ties back into the subdivision. So, that's how you -- so, again, these are already constructed. Yearsley: And so the driveway itself is actually closer to the residents than if it was switched the other way around; correct? Parsons: That's correct. Yearsley: Okay. That's what I wanted to make sure of my orientation, if that's what I was seeing. Okay. Thank you. McCarvel: Okay. Any other questions? Okay. Would the applicant like to come forward. Slichter: Good evening, Madam Chairman and Commissioners. Chad Slichter. Slichter Ugrin Architecture on behalf of Black Hawk Meridian, LLC. McCarvel: And those microphones are not as sensitive as we would like them to be. Slichter: Okay. McCarvel: So, if you would get close to them. Slichter: Okay. Get in here close. Okay. So, just to help clarify a little bit on orientation. Let me pull up a Google Map here, which is a bit old, but -- so, I was the architect on CapEd as well, so I'm familiar with the subdivision. CapEd actually is the concrete site here, which is, obviously, completely built. Can you kick back to that aerial, Bill, please. There you go. Okay. So, you can see the existing drives. So, that's really what we are talking about and the drawing that Bill was showing was actually the big square lot on the bottom left . Basically the Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission June 22, 2017 Page 48 of 55 dirt lot there. So, that's -- that's the property that we are -- we are looking is this one right here. So, the purpose of this is because of the drive -thru option that we are proposing. We are trying to have some flexible use. We have got some restaurant interests in the -- in the building, as well as some other retail users, so as far as drive-thru access for flow purposes, it really needs to be on that west side of the building. We did have a neighborhood meeting. We did have some folks turn out. They were I think getting inundated with neighborhood meetings, because I think the neighborhood is fairly large and they were given stuff clear up by Rocky Mountain and clear down to the west . So, there were seven or eight folks that showed up, all of which were initially concerned with everything, but as we talked, walking through it, there was some opposition to the drive-thru particularly. However, as we talked, you know, the big issue was one of the people there, her house was going to be directly to the east -- or to the west. So, as you're coming around -- as you're coming around the turn -- this isn't showing up. As you're coming around the turn here into the drive -thru her house was right in that area. So, we talked through it and as Bill has indicated, we have gone for the alternative compliance and this is a little bit different drawing, Bill, than what you were showing, but I will get to that here in a minute. So, what we have done is actually bermed this up along -- along here to help lift any vegetation, even a little bit higher. We have done a little bit of berming at the -- kind of the knuckle at the drive-thru and one of the things that the neighbors were concerned with -- the property that we are really talking about stops here, but my client Mr. Durst here behind me, one of the things that the neighbors had requested was, hey, how about if you just plant the whole west property line of that subdivision and Mr. Durst has so graciously agreed, thinking that would be a good neighborly thing to do for -- for those adjacent neighbors. There is currently a six foot wood fence, so it's pretty solid and so, you know, we tried to make a first step -- it doesn't appear that anybody is here that was at the neighborhood meetings, so I think they recognize that we were going to try to do what we could to help with that. Again, commercial use, the drive-thru that they were concerned with was -- like if it was a McDonalds or something of that nature. Granted, there is no guarantee that it wouldn't be and we told him that, but initial thoughts are it's more of a hometown, smaller type shop on the end that -- coffee shop, something about nature. So, if there is any questions -- I can keep going, but you have seen pretty much everything. Fitzgerald: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Fitzgerald. Fitzgerald: Chad, where is the squawk box for the ordering? Slichter: That would be right back here. Fitzgerald: Okay. So, that's not just the menu, it's the -- the voice box as well? Slichter: Right. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission June 22, 2017 Page 49 of 55 Fitzgerald: Okay. Slichter: Yeah. And the intention of part of this is it -- it's one-way traffic in on both of this, that's why we have the angled parking and , then, we can exit out. Having two-way traffic in their got a little confusing with the drive-thru lane and we wanted to pull the drive-thru lane out so people could still drive through on the back. So, we pulled that -- the squawk box back with the menu and got it back where we could stack six or so vehicles actually in front of it. Fitzgerald: Oh. Okay. Slichter: As well as four or five behind it. Fitzgerald: Can we restrict it to be a Starbucks? Sorry. Slichter: Sure. Fitzgerald: Is that in the development? Can we do that? Sorry. No. Slichter: Real quick on this -- one of these staff's comments -- and we will go back and look at this. This is before we actually saw the staff report. We did have the landscape architect modify the landscaping along McMillan to show a planting area about five feet wide. There will still be some grass between the sidewalk and it and where we did -- let me see. It would kind of tie in with this strip. It's over at CapEd. So, this is the CapEd drawing that we did. I will go back and look at plantings and things of that nature. There will be a gap for the time being, because there is still -- there is still this parcel -- or this pad. There is actually a pad here now that would be unbuilt, so there won't be a connec tion to that landscaping currently, but it would be in the near future I would imagine as things continue to develop there. Yearsley: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Yearsley. Yearsley: I'm sure you have gone through this process, but if you would explain it to me. Why not flip that building and put the drive-thru on the other side? What -- Slichter: So, you want your drive-thru window on the right side of your car where you're driving? Yearsley: Oh. Slichter: If you flip it over, then, your stack -- all your stack is on the -- against McMillan Road. Yearsley: Yep. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission June 22, 2017 Page 50 of 55 Slichter: Which would be the front of the building, which would not be amenable. Yearsley: I figured you had thought it out, but -- it takes me a minute to figure those things out. Slichter: We have actually done them backwards before and it -- it can work in certain situations, but it does cause some problems. Yearsley: Yeah. Single drivers are pretty tough. Slichter: Yeah. And, then, you have cross-traffic and it gets a little funky. Yearsley: Okay. Thank you. Slichter: You bet. McCarvel: And I have got one question. Staff had one more recommendation in here about the radius on that west side and the drive-thru -- Slichter: Yes. McCarvel: -- be changed. You got that, so all vehicles can get through there? Slichter: Yeah. What we would end up doing is, basically, just getting that knuckle off there -- McCarvel: Just the knuckle. Okay. Slichter: -- which is pretty straight forward and simple. McCarvel: Okay. Perfect. Slichter: I do want to point out one thing here just as a clarification. The landscaper actually took our curb straight through, which we want to plant the property of the north, but we do n't want to mess with the roadway -- the driveway that's there and currently -- and Bill and I talked about this. There is a -- we would 45 it, basically, at the property line or right around the property line back to the -- because the driveway actually aligns over here, so we would plant about 20 feet versus 25 and at such time that the northern property got developed, then, they could put in the curb, stretch that back over and, then, just modify sprinklers and all that. McCarvel: Okay. Any more questions for the applicant? All right. Thank you. Slichter: You bet. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission June 22, 2017 Page 51 of 55 McCarvel: Don't have anyone signed up to testify, but is there anyone here in the room that wishes to testify? Okay. All right. At this time can I get a motion to close the public hearing for Item No. H-2017-0074. Bernt: So moved. Fitzgerald: Second. McCarvel: It been moved and seconded to close the public hearing on H-2017- 0074. Northpointe Retail Drive-Thru. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. TWO ABSENT. McCarvel: Any big discussion? I think it looks like everything has been covered in the staff report. Fitzgerald: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Yes. Fitzgerald: I think it looks great. I think it blends well in with the -- the neighborhood -- or with the -- the CapEd that's already there. I think Chad does a great job in developing neighboring uses to look like each other . I think it's very nice of the applicant to do the landscaping buffer for the neighborhood, berming, to kind of keep lights in early times and late evenings and the squawk box is going to be buffered by whatever is developed later and it's further away -- enough away from the other houses to the north that I'm not concerned. So, I think it looks great. McCarvel: Yeah. I agree. I think that squawk back on the back side kind of alleviates whatever noise concerns there really could be there, so -- Yearsley: Madam Chair, I also agree. I like the layout. One thing I like about this is they actually put the drive-thru in the very back of the property, so your pedestrians can walk -- or your -- those people -- patrons. Bernt: Those people. Yearsley: Patrons. Those people can actually be in the front and park in the front. You would have employees park in the back. I think it's actually a very nice layout of how it's all put together. So, I think they did a very good job. McCarvel: I agree. Bernt: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Bernt. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission June 22, 2017 Page 52 of 55 Bernt: After considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move to approve number H-2017-0074 as presented in staff report for the hearing date of June 22nd, 2017. Fitzgerald: Second. McCarvel: It has been moved and seconded to approve File No. H-2017-0074. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. TWO ABSENT. E. Public Hearing for Raisin' Angels Daycare (H-2017- 0072) by Neudesign Architecture, LLC Located 143 W. Archerfield 1. Request: Conditional Use Permit Approval of a Daycare Center for up to 135 Children in a C-G Zoning District McCarvel: And at this time we will open the public hearing -- at this time we would like to open the public hearing for Item No. H-2017-0072, Raisin' Angels Daycare. Parsons: Thank you, Madam Chair, Members of the Commission. The last item on the agenda this evening is the Raisin' Angels conditional use permit. The site consists of 0.76 of an acre of land zoned C-G and it's located at 143 W est Archerfield Street in the Paramount Subdivision Square. It's Paramount Square Subdivision. Excuse me. Surrounding land uses include developed and -- vacant and undeveloped zoned -- land zoned C-G to the east, west and south and a multi-family development to the west, zoned R-40. Comprehensive Plan designation for this property is commercial as well, as the previous application. The applicant is here this evening to discuss a conditional use permit to operate a daycare center for up to 135 children in a C-G zoning district. This particular land use does require a conditional use permit in the C-Z zoning district. The facility will provide care for infants up to -- from infants up to children -- school age children and days of operation are Monday through Friday. The applicant did not specify any hours of operation, but staff is recommending that they operate between the hours of 6:00 a.m. and 11:00 p.m. Access to this site is provided from West Archerfield, which is a local street. So, the application is consistent with the UDC, taking access from a local street. The site plan that's before you this evening has been modified based on the conditions in our staff report. Staff had some concerns with site circulation with the original submittal, so what the applicant's done is they have actually oriented their sites so that you have a one-way circulation pattern, so everyone will come down Archerfield, turn south and, then, take a -- get oriented here -- right into the site and, then, parents will be able to pull in safely and drop off their children in front of the facility here. What that also provided was additional parking for parents to also Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission June 22, 2017 Page 53 of 55 drop -- stop, pull in, and drop the kids off or even additional parking for daycare - - for the employees of a daycare facility. One of the other requested changes from staff was cross-access to the adjacent property to the west and that condition actually came from ACHD. If I can step back here to the aerial, you can see that this particular lot is located on a radius , so ACHD had concerns that people entering and exiting on that curve , there could be a traffic conflict there. So, the applicant was gracious enough to comply with ACHD's and staff recommended condition and provide a cross- access driveway to that property, so there won't be another -- hopefully, there won't be an access at that radius causing a conflict in the future. This is also the site plan and landscaping plan, so landscaping for the site is fairly minimal. In the UDC only -- the only required landscape buffer -- or landscaping along Archerfield is a ten foot minimum. You can see here the applicant is providing in excess of ten foot the landscape buffer and, then, along the landscape -- the parking lot landscaping along this east boundary they are required to have a ten foot minimum and, then, anything internal to the development they just need a planter island. So, you can see here the plan as submitted does comply with UDC. Here are the proposed building elevations. Again, a mixture of stucco --two colors of stucco, asphalt shingles, and, then, some stone accents and, then, some decorative corbels underneath the windows. This is similar to the Raisin' Angels facility that's currently constructed on Pine Avenue near the Scentsy campus. They are looking to expand their business and they thought this is a good location given the amount of residents in the area and with the multi -family coming on and not having this in the areas. Staff concurs. So, staff did not receive any written testimony on the applicant -- on the application. We did receive written test -- written concurrence from the applicant in agreement with all staff conditions. Again, we are recommending approval of the project with the conditions stated in the staff report. With that I conclude my presentation and stand for any questions you might have. McCarvel: Any questions for staff? Okay. Would the applicant like to come forward. And, please, state your name and address for the record. Bidwell: I'm Amanda Bidwell. I'm with neUdesign Architecture and we are at 725 East 2nd Street in Meridian. So, as Bill said we paid a lot of attention to the way the site flows in getting one-way traffic so that parents can get in and out quickly, especially because of the high traffic times just like the freeway, 8:00 and 5:00. It would be a little ridiculous. So, we tried to pay attention to stacking and that's why you see the entrance on the west side versus the east side, so that there would be increased area for that and then, yeah, with all of the residential around it and that proposed multi-family, I think a daycare facility is going to be needed in this area. I think it's a really good suit. With that I will stand for any questions. McCarvel: Any questions for the applicant? All right. Thank you. I don't have anyone else signed up wishing to testify on this issue, but is there anyone here that would like to? Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission June 22, 2017 Page 54 of 55 Fitzgerald: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Fitzgerald. Fitzgerald: Move we close the public hearing on H-2017-0072. Perreault: Second. McCarvel: It has been moved and seconded to close the public hearing on Item No. H-2017-0072. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. TWO ABSENT. McCarvel: I will just start. I agree, I think a daycare next to a high density residential area is probably going to be greatly needed and appreciated and I agree, I think they have done great attention to the flow and I think it looks great. Fitzgerald: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Fitzgerald. Fitzgerald: I totally agree. I appreciate the applicant's willingness to provide cross-access for that and, Bill, I appreciate your working with them to -- the flow of traffic so everybody is safe and I think it looks great. McCarvel: Anybody else? Yearsley: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Yearsley. Yearsley: Oh. Madam Chair. All I can say is 135 children is a lot of children. Holy cow. McCarvel: Are you signing up to be an employee -- Yearsley: No. No. No. I think it looks good. I think the traffic flow is good. I do have to laugh, I think their turning movements on their trucks are backwards, but that's just because I'm an engineer. Bernt: Picky. Picky. Picky. Yearsley: Sorry. No. I think it looks good. I imagine that during your pick up times and delivery times, you know, it will be -- it will be packed and -- but I think it's a great location given -- given the amount of homes in that area and the apartments and stuff, I think you're right on the market for a good location. McCarvel: Okay. All right. Could we get a motion? Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission June 22, 2017 Page 55 of 55 Bernt: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Bernt. Bernt: After a consideration -- after considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move to recommend approval to the City Council of file number H- 2017-0072 as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of June 22nd, 2017. Yearsley: A point of order. This is a conditional use permit. It should be approval, not recommend to City Council. McCarvel: Just approval. Just the opposite of what you did before. Yearsley: Sorry. Bernt: So -- Fitzgerald: You're just approving. Bernt: We -- McCarvel: We are just approving it. Fitzgerald: Just to approve. Bernt: Should I start it over again? Fitzgerald: No. Just change your motion. Bernt: All right. Fitzgerald: Approve it. Bernt: We are just approving this because it's a conditional use permit. McCarvel: Second? Yearsley: Second. McCarvel: It has been moved and seconded -- it's a good thing this is about over. It has been moved and seconded to approve the conditional use permit Item No. H-2017-0072, Raisin Angels Daycare. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. TWO ABSENT. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission June 22, 2017 Page 56 of 55 McCarvel: Can we do one more motion? Yearsley: Motion to adjourn. Perreault: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Perreault. Perreault: I make a motion that we close the meeting dated June 22nd, 2017. Yearsley: Second. McCarvel: It has been moved and seconded to adjourn the meeting. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. TWO ABSENT. MEETING ADJOURNED AT 8:40 P.M. (AUDIO RECORDING ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS.) MIT-000714-91 _CHAIRMAN 0 C. JAG COLES LCITY CLERK -/ 16 J2(7 DATE APPROVED