The URL can be used to link to this page

2017 07-20E t4, MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING AGENDA City Council Chambers 33 E. Broadway Avenue, Meridian, Idaho Thursday July 20, 2017 at 6:00 p.m. 1. Roll -call Attendance _X_ Treg Bernt O Steven Yearsley _X Gregory Wilson O_ Ryan Fitzgerald X Jessica Perreault _X_ Bill Cassanelli X_ Rhonda McCarvel — Chairperson 2. Adoption of the Agenda Approved as Amended 3. Consent Agenda Approved A. Approve Minutes of July 6, 2017 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting 4. Action Items A. Public Hearing for Pine 43 (H-2017-0058) by DMB Development Located South of E. Fairview Avenue, East of N. Locust Grove Road, North of Commercial Street and West of Hickory Avenue Public Hearing Continued to August 3, 2017 1. Request: Annexation and Zoning of 0.07 of an Acre of Land with an R-15 (Medium High -Density Residential) (0.01 of an Acre) and C -G (General Retail and Service Commercial) (0.06 of an Acre) Zoning District 2. Request: Rezone of 46.11 Acres of Land from the C -G (General Retail and Service Commercial) to the R-15 (Medium High -Density Residential) Zoning District 3. Request: Preliminary Plat Approval Consisting of 516 Lots on 119.77 Acres of Land Consisting of 108 Mixed Use (28 Commercial and 80 Multi -Family Residential) Building Lots and 28 Mixed Use Common Lots on 73.68 Acres of Land in the C -G District and 356 Residential Building Lots Consisting of 196 Single -Family Detached, 128 Single -Family Attached and 32 Attached Live/Work and 24 Residential Common Lots on 46.12 Acres of Land in the R-15 Zoning District Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Agenda — Thursday July 20,2017 Page 1 of 2 All materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. Anyone desiring accommodation for disabilities related to documents and/or hearing, please contact the City Clerk's Office at 888-4433 at least 48 hours prior to the public meeting. B. Public Hearing Continued from June 22, 2017 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 Recommend Approval to City Council — Schedule for City Council August 22, 2017 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 Fifty -One (51) Residential Lots and Seven (7) Common Lots on 2.571 Acres of Land in the Proposed O -T Zoning District C. Public Hearing Continued from July 6, 2017 for Southridge Apartments (H-2017-0077) by Southridge Farm, LLC Located South Side of W. Overland Road, Midway Between S. Linder Road and S. Ten Mile Road Approved with Modifications — Prepare Findings for August 3, 2017 1. Request: Conditional Use Permit Approval for 476 Multi - Family Dwelling Units on Approximately 27.73 Acres in an Existing R-15 Zoning District D. Public Hearing for Knighthill Lot 3 Drive -Through (H-2017-0087) by James Wylie Located Southwest Corner of Chinden Boulevard and N. Linder Road Approved with Modifications — Prepare Findings for August 3, 2017 Request: Conditional Use Permit Approval for a Drive-Thru Establishment Within 300 Feet of Another Drive-Thru Establishment E. Public Hearing for Trust Storage (H-2017-0082) by John Day Located Northeast Corner of S. Locust Grove Road and E. Puffin Street Public Hearing Continued to August 3, 2017 1. Request: Combined Preliminary / Final Plat Consisting of Two (2) Building Lots on 9.28 Acres of Land in the C -C (Community Business) Zoning District 2. Request: Conditional Use Permit for a Self -Service Storage Facility in the C -C Zoning District Meeting Adjourned at 7:30 p.m. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Agenda — Thursday July 20,2017 Page 2 of 2 All materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. Anyone desiring accommodation for disabilities related to documents and/or hearing, please contact the City Clerk's Office at 888-4433 at least 48 hours prior to the public meeting. Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting July 20, 2017 Meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission of July 20, 2017, was called to order at 6:00 p.m. by Chairman Rhonda McCarvel. Members Present: Rhonda McCarvel, Commissioner Gregory Wilson, Commissioner Treg Bernt and Commissioner Bill Cassanelli. Members Absent: Commissioner Steven Yearsley, Commissioner Ryan Fitzgerald and Commissioner Jessica Perreault. Others Present: Machelle Hill, Andrea Pogue, Bill Parsons, Josh Beach and Dean Willis. Item 1: Roll-call Attendance __X___ Treg Bernt _______ Steven Yearsley __X___ Gregory Wilson ______ Ryan Fitzgerald ______ Jessica Perreault ___X___ Bill Cassanelli ___X___ Rhonda McCarvel - Chairman McCarvel: All right. Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. At this time I'd like to call to order the regularly scheduled meeting of the Planning -- Meridian Planning and Zoning on July 20th, 2017. Let's begin with roll call. Item 2: Adoption of the Agenda McCarvel: Okay. The first item on the agenda is the adoption of the agenda. We have Item No. H-2017-0058 by DMB Pine 43. They are asking for a continuance and this item will be open just for the purpose of continuing this item to the regularly scheduled meeting of August 3rd. It will solely be open for that purpose, so if there is anybody here tonight to testify for that particular application, we will not be taking testimony on that today. So, could I get a motion to adopt the agenda as amended? Cassanelli: So moved. Bernt: Second. McCarvel: It has been moved and seconded to adopt the agenda. All in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. THREE ABSENT. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission July 20, 2017 Page 2 of 34 Item 3: Consent Agenda A. Approve Minutes of July 6, 2017 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting McCarvel: Next item on the agenda is the Consent Agenda and we have just one item on the Consent Agenda, the approval of minutes for July 6th. Could I get a motion to accept the Consent Agenda as presented? Wilson: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Wilson. Wilson: I move to approve the minutes as presented. Bernt: Second. McCarvel: It has been moved and seconded to adopt the Consent Agenda. All in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carried. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. THREE ABSENT. McCarvel: At this time I would like to briefly explain the public hearing process for this evening. I 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 a pplicant will come forward to present their case for approval of their application and respond to any staff comments. The applicant will have 15 minutes to do so . After the applicant has finished we will open to public testimony. There is a sign-up sheet in the back as you entered for anyone wishing to testify and any person testifying will come forward and be allowed three minutes and there is a timer on the screen at the podium, so you can keep track of your time. 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 giving up to ten minutes. After all testimony has been heard, the applicant will be given another ten minutes to have the opportunity to come back and respond if they so desire . After that we will close the public hearing and the Commissioners will have the opportunity to discuss and, hopefully, be able to make a recommendation to City Council. Item 4: Action Items A. Public Hearing for Pine 43 (H-2017-0058) by DMB Development Located South of E. Fairview Avenue, East of N. Locust Grove Road, North of Commercial Street and West of Hickory Avenue Public Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission July 20, 2017 Page 3 of 34 1. Request: Annexation and Zoning of 0.07 of an Acre of Land with an R-15 (Medium High-Density Residential) (0.01 of an Acre) and C-G (General Retail and Service Commercial) (0.06 of an Acre) Zoning District 2. Request: Rezone of 46.11 Acres of Land from the C-G (General Retail and Service Commercial) to the R-15 (Medium High-Density Residential) Zoning District 3. Request: Preliminary Plat Approval Consisting of 516 Lots on 119.77 Acres of Land Consisting of 108 Mixed Use (28 Commercial and 80 Multi- Family Residential) Building Lots and 28 Mixed Use Common Lots on 73.68 Acres of Land in the C-G District and 356 Residential Building Lots Consisting of 196 Single-Family Detached, 128 Single-Family Attached and 32 Attached Live/Work and 24 Residential Common Lots on 46.12 Acres of Land in the R-15 Zoning District McCarvel: So, at this time I would like to open the public hearing for Item No. H- 2017-0058, to be continued to August 3rd. Wilson: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Wilson. Wilson: I move we continue to August 3rd, 2017, H-2017-0058. Bernt: Second. McCarvel: It has been moved and seconded to continue public hearing H-2017- 0058 to August 3rd. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. THREE ABSENT. B. Public Hearing Continued from June 22, 2017 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 1. Request: Rezone of 3.07 Acres of Land from the C-C and R-15 Zoning District to the O-T Zoning District Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission July 20, 2017 Page 4 of 34 2. Request: Preliminary Plat Approval Consisting of Fifty-One (51) Residential Lots and Seven (7) Common Lots on 2.571 Acres of Land in the Proposed O-T Zoning District McCarvel: So, we will continue on with opening the continued public hearing on H-2017-0066, 2 1/2 Street Townhomes and we will begin with the staff report. Beach: Thank you, Madam Chair, Members of the Commission. As you said, this -- this was a project that was continued to discuss some additional parking that the Planning and Zoning Commission was concerned that there was not adequate parking on the site, so they requested the applicant bring it back with a modified site plan to accommodate some additional parking . So, you see on the plat here they have changed it slightly to increase some open space. On the next slide here you will see that they have -- they had added parking on both sides of this block -- if I remember -- about 20 parking stalls here now. I believe nine was the number that they came with before. So, the applicant is requesting that the -- staff is in -- is recommending approval of those, but those are the changes that the applicant brought back with some additional parking. McCarvel: Any questions for staff? Okay. Would the applicant like to come forward. Truax: Madam Mayor, Commissioner, thank you for having me again. Bill Truax. Do you need my address? McCarvel: Yes. And your address. Truax: My address 2832 South Courtside, Boise, Idaho. 83706. We went back, got civil and landscape engineer, rebalanced the site. I think we had proposed -- well, some of the deliberation included a discussion of elimination of a couple of the units and put in -- put in some stalls. At the end of the deliberation I don't think there was specific guidance as to the number of parking stalls to add to the development, but we went back added what we could, you know, we bounced it by the staff folks for input. We still believe that the parking arrangement was sufficient as we had it before, but we understand the concern certainly. Restructuring it the way that we did also allowed for a longer continuous stretch for street parking along 2 1/2 Street. So, the streets don't exactly line up with Badley and Gruber, but ACHD was good with this -- this new arrangement. I think there is 20 stalls. I think it added three additional street parking stalls. Probably better circulation now with -- with the rebalanced parking added in there, because now it's accessible to both sides of the development. The other thing that we proposed was -- and this was actually at the recommendation of one of the -- the gentlemen who was here in opposition to the development last time. We proposed adding a provision to the CC&Rs to require that folks, if they have a vehicle it is stored in the garage unit, so that the primary onus is on Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission July 20, 2017 Page 5 of 34 people to use the garage for the intended purpose, rather than for just storage. So, we think that with that we will get pretty close to full utilization of the parking in the building and, then, with that it should be suff icient. McCarvel: Okay. Perfect. Any -- Bernt: Madam Chairman? I have a question for Mr. Truax. Previously there as going to be some parking along the street. Is that -- and I don't remember -- is it sort -- was it 2 1/2 Street that was going to have parking -- or sidewalk parking? Truax: Yes. Bernt: Is it still there? Truax: Yes. McCarvel: Okay. Anybody else? Thank you. Truax: Thank you. McCarvel: Okay. So, at this time I will open it to public testimony and I have -- Bill, is this you? This is you; right? Did you sign -- okay. Bill Gardoski. Gardoski: William Gardoski at 1620 East 2 1/2 Street and I believe that the apartments to be a good idea. What I think has happened, though -- I still see real issues with parking. What about a Thanksgiving Day when any of these people have relatives. Parking on the street -- 2 1/2 Street is narrow. They keep talking about core downtown. There is no retail downtown and I don't see any bicycling or walking for these people, but I think you have crammed so many -- the maximum amount of units in the minimum amount of space for the maximum amount of profit and I don't think there is enough parking. I don't see enough children's facilities. And there is -- again, if they have kids, the schools around close are packed. They are full. And I think the parking issue is going to be a real problem for 2 1/2 Street and no parking on the inside with the garages, I just think it's -- it's going to -- and 2 1/2 is narrow right now and there is a lot of added traffic going to be on there. The apartments are a good thing. I just think that 51 units on 2 1/2 acres is a lot of cramping and it would be nice if they could have that, but I don't see them encouraging bicycling and walking. There is nowhere to walk to. There is no retail really in downtown Meridian. They are going to be in their cars going to the mall and in the summertime it's 100 degrees, they are not going to walk, they are not going to ride a bike, they are going to take their car. And the no parking -- I think the parking inside is going to be an issue with fire lanes. I really do. I think there is just way too much crammed into too small a space. The idea is good, having the owners, which I like better than what they were going to do last year, but it's just way too much in a small space and I don't think that the parking on the street is going to work, because the street is narrow Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission July 20, 2017 Page 6 of 34 now. So, the only thing you do is wait and see. We are for the housing, but not the way it's presented. But we have been residents there for 25 years and I think it's going to really disrupt it. It will increase the traffic by 150 percent. Thank you for your time and I appreciate it. McCarvel: Thank you. Gardoski: You bet. McCarvel: Okay. Mr. Gardoski was the only one I had signed up and is there anyone else here that wishes to testify on this issue? Okay. At the time would the applicant like to come back and address -- anything else? Then could I get a motion to close the public hearing for H-2017-0066. Bernt: Madam Chair, I move to close the public hearing for H-2017-0066. Wilson: Second. McCarvel: It's been moved and seconded to close the public hearing for Item No. H-2017-0066. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. THREE ABSENT. Bernt: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Yes. Commissioner. Bernt: I -- I love this development. I was -- Commissioner Fitzgerald and I, from the very beginning, you know, felt like the parking was adequate. I -- this is -- people need to realize -- and this is what I have came to realize as well -- this is a different development compared to other developments -- other residential developments. This is very different. This is a downtown development -- before high density. I truly believe that we need these type of developments -- more of these type, you know, developments downtown . I believe if we built these type of -- support these type of developments I think that you're going to find that more retail will come and I feel like, you know, more restaurants and the -- I believe that -- that the downtown area is -- could -- very well could be and will be one day the crowning jewel of our city and I -- I believe that these type of developments will help bring more people to downtown to make that happen. So, I think that parking is fantastic. You know, I think that came to a great agre ement there. I think it's going to be great there. I think it's going to be great. I'm in favor of this development one hundred percent. I thank Mr. Truax for -- for, you know, coming up with more parking and I support it a hundred percent. Wilson: Madam Chair? Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission July 20, 2017 Page 7 of 34 McCarvel: Commissioner Wilson. Wilson: There is not much more to add than that, other than, yeah, I mean I think this is the next logical step in sort of the development of downtown and if you look at other downtowns in the Treasure Valley, you know, this is -- these kinds of housing developments are occurring and I think it's just the next step in our -- in the growth of downtown and I support it. McCarvel: I agree. I think -- I think they did exactly what we asked them to do. I think -- I counted up the units, I think we lost one unit and grew the parking by a lot and I think it's just enough for visitors and stuff -- everybody's got their own garages, so I think it's exactly what we asked them to do and I think it looks great. Wilson: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Wilson. Wilson: After considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move to recommend approval to the City Council of file number H-2017-0066, as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of July 20th, 2017. Bernt: Second. McCarvel: It has been moved and seconded to approve Item No. H-2017-0066. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries. Congratulations. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. THREE ABSENT. C. Public Hearing Continued from July 6, 2017 for Southridge Apartments (H-2017-0077) by Southridge Farm, LLC Located South Side of W. Overland Road, Midway Between S. Linder Road and S. Ten Mile Road 1. Request: Conditional Use Permit Approval for 476 Multi-Family Dwelling Units on Approximately 27.73 Acres in an Existing R-15 Zoning District McCarvel: Okay. So, the next one is also a continuation. We will at this time move to continue the public hearing for H-2017-0077, Southridge Apartments. Beach: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Josh. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission July 20, 2017 Page 8 of 34 Beach: Sorry, I jumped the gun there. I apologize. So, this is a -- also a continuation, as you said -- this is a multi-family project that is located at -- it's Overland Road between South Linder and South Ten Mile Road on the south side. It's about 27.73 acres. I will go over any details that you would like. What you asked the applicant to do is to bring back a site plan showing some additional parking and as we are going through this I will have you indicate -- that should be moved over a little. There is several areas where they added parking that the parking won't actually work, because it's in a dedicated landscape buffer, so some of the parking -- roughly about 15 spaces that they have added, they can't -- they can't put in those locations. They have indicated that they have added about 43, brought it up to 1.9 or two parking stalls per residential unit. But, as I said, there is several that aren't going to work, so they will either have to find another spot on site to put those or to lose some units in order to make up for that. But that's what they submitted to us. And I will stand for any questions you have got. Unless you want me to go through anything els e, but what you asked them to do is ask them about the parking. They weren't directed to revise anything. There were some concerns about trash enclosures. I counted ten. I believe that's one additional than was there last -- so just be aware of that is all. McCarvel: Any questions for staff? Okay. Would the applicant like to come forward? Thompson: Madam Chair, Members of the Commission, I'm Tamara Thompson with the Land Group. 462 East Shore Drive in Eagle. Point of clarification. There were always ten trash enclosures. We miscounted last -- at the last hearing. So, there were always ten and, then, we have received e-mail confirmation from Republic Services that the ten that are proposed are adequate for the size of the development. Regarding the parking count, we did add 43 parking stalls and just to clarify a few things , on the north part -- can I draw on this? Well, I don't even think I have to. So, the two on the north -- the -- Overland Road is a -- has a larger entry corridor, so it has a 35 foot landscape setback until we get to those two red circles. So, those -- it narrows down to 25 feet and what we are showing there, the parking is actually out of that 25 feet. So, the architect -- this is the architectural plan and so he didn't have all those -- and he has that 25 foot landscape dash line in there the entire way and he measured it incorrectly. It's actually measured from the back of the curb and so it does work. So, those two on the north side are fine and so -- and so, then, the ones down on the south, those actually work also with the grades. That's just a slope easement that's back in there and it's -- but the grades actually work in those areas, so -- so, everything that we have included actually works from a civil engineering standpoint and per city setbacks and that kind of thing. There are some gas lines on here that make it look like it doesn't and I apologize for that confusion. So, just to -- to like circle back, the site as originally submitted complied with city code required parking. Per the Commission's request we were asked to go back and try to get two parking stalls per unit for the one bedrooms , one-and-a-half units -- or one-and-a-half parking stalls per unit is -- is required, Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission July 20, 2017 Page 9 of 34 but they just wanted across the board two. So, with that we have added 43 spaces. That takes the total spaces to 952, which is two spaces for each of the 476 apartment units. The total parking provides an excess that is similar to othe r recently approved projects. There is six different projects that we looked at just to see where things were. Forty percent of those that were recently approved were right on the money. There was no surplus parking stalls. There were several that were between three and five percent over what code requires and we are on the upper end of that at 4.7 percent. So, where the -- we would be the second highest surplus from the recently approved ones. So, we have 40 -- I'm sorry -- 43 surplus parking stalls. Additionally, because no garages are proposed in this facility, all parking will be available for use by vehicles and not used for storage, like some of the comments last time were that code enforcement's getting calls and typically those are with garages where people put their stuff in them instead of their cars. And we are also next to the park and ride, out of all of the ones that we looked at of recent, that we are the only one within walking distance to a park and ride, which is down at the Ten Mile intersection. And, then, one item that we had last time that we just wanted to clarify, condition 1.1.2, the last paragraph in that section talks about preserving and protecting Old Thorn Lane during construction and then -- but it also goes on to talk about relocating it. So, just to clarify that, that Old Thorn Lane does run through the middle of construction, so that road will be relocated and that connection -- the homes that use that road will maintain that -- they will still be able to -- to get to their homes. It will just be relocated. Not protected during construction. And with our revised plan and that one clarification, will we respectfully request your approval tonight and we will stand for questions. McCarvel: Any questions for the applicant? Commissioner Bernt? Okay. Thompson: Thank you. McCarvel: All right. Thank you. And at this time we would be open to taking public testimony on the issue that it was continued on. I don't have anybody signed up, but is there anybody here that wanted to testify? Okay. Okay. If there is no questions for staff or the applicant, can I get a motion to close the public hearing for item number H-2017-0077. Wilson: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Wilson. Wilson: I move to close the public hearing on H-2017-0077. Bernt: Second. McCarvel: It has been moved and seconded to close the public hearing on H - 2017-0077. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? Okay. Comments? Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission July 20, 2017 Page 10 of 34 Commissioner Cassanelli, since you are the reigning commissioner -- I have actually gone back and read all the minutes from the previous meeting, since I was absent, but I'd like to get your take. Cassanelli: In general we didn't see a lot of the plans here tonight. A lot of green space. Everybody was real positive on -- on the -- the -- the look. The green space, the elevations, all that -- you know, I mean it's -- it's an enormous project. I don't know if we have got anything to scale in the area. It's big, but it's -- it's done nice. There is more green space than -- than -- than what's required. The two topics that were addressed tonight were the ones that came up and I think some of that was a bleed over from -- I wasn't here on the 22nd, but the -- the parking from the 22nd and other projects as well -- we have seen other apartment products where you get a lot of parking, it's bleeding out onto the -- the neighboring streets. There are -- I mean you can't park on Overland, so that takes that out. McCarvel: Right. Cassanelli: And the other one -- the lane, if you will, and it's kind of shared with a neighboring residence to the -- to the east. So, I guess that's good. That was kind of the overall flavor that everybody really liked it . Trash was a -- was a -- was a concern. They said that they could increase -- you know, I mean if need be they could talk to Republican and increase the -- or SSC, whichever one is in Meridian -- and increase the -- the -- the rate of pick up, so that wasn't an issue. You know, I look at it and I see some of these buildings -- you got -- you got a bit of a walk, you know, to go to a trash -- to a trash bin and maybe it looks worse on the map than it would be in real life. It might just be a short little walk to -- to the trash bin. So, that's been addressed. I guess my -- I have got a couple questions for staff in regards to that matter. Number one, does -- do those parking spots in the red -- will those fit within the landscape buffers and, then, two, to piggyback on that, if we approve it with these parking spaces, can at a later date -- let's say they get complaints about not enough trash bins , they want to put in some trash bins, they take out a couple of parking spaces to put in some more trash bins, is that allowable? So, those are my two questions. Beach: Okay. So, typically they are required to keep the amount of parking spaces that you require them to have. So, you know, once we approve a project I don't know how we track that, though, if they decide they need more. You know what I’m saying? I mean I don't -- I don't know -- I don't know how we look at that. Typically we are not going to say, yeah, you can eliminate ten parking stalls to put a trash enclosure in instead, because they are going to be required -- their conditional use permit that you're granting specifically is going to dictate how many parking stalls they have to have. As far as -- I'm going to switch my screen. If you can kind of see what I'm looking at. We looked at the Comprehensive Plan and Tamara's right -- and to go over here. You can see the Comprehensive Plan and their plan -- the -- this green line here is what we call Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission July 20, 2017 Page 11 of 34 an entryway corridor and that's where your 35 foot landscape buffer is required where they are proposing to put those -- those parking stalls on this side is within just the 25. So, she's got an extra ten feet. So, I think as far as that goes we will have to look and see how wide -- how many stalls were inside that -- that line. And we can look again, too. It looks like it's going to be pretty close. As long as she stays outside of that 25 feet, because we don't allow parking within that landscape buffer. She should be okay. So, we will have to verify that that will work. Cassanelli: And, then, on the south side, you know, there was a grade there. Beach: There is and so that's something they will have to work with -- the irrigation district and I can let them cut into that -- that bank for parking, so it will have to -- to make sure that it's -- that it's not going to be an issue and I don't -- I don't know what the irrigation district is going to say on that. It's up to them. Parsons: Madam Chair, Commissioner Cassanelli, if I can elaborate on your -- the first point of your discussion regarding -- if they had to lose parking to add some trash enclosures, in our ordinance there is -- the staff has the ability to make site changes. A couple ways we handle conditional use permits. The director has the ability to do a minor CU mod to make some changes and if those -- if they don't fit within that context, then, the conditional use goes back to the Planning and Zoning Commission for approval. So, in this particular case, because parking has been such a great -- an issue raised at the public hearing, if the applicant were to lose parking, if you were to tie the site to the speci fic parking count and they were to lose some parking, more than likely it would trigger them to have to come back in front of the Commission for -- to have you review the plan and look at the parking for this site. So, it's -- it's something to consider when making your motion tonight. The other thing to keep in mind is that the applicant does have a phase three and so if we do hear some concerns - - let's say they get this phase one and phase two up and running and there is some concerns with garbage and parking, we certainly can look at phase three and maybe impose some other conditions where some of that parking could be shifted from that north to this site to make up for that or add additional trash enclosures with phase one and two and have -- and add the parking back to phase three to address some of those concerns. So, I think we still have some flexibility here, but I just want to let you know what the process is for at least a staff approval to a conditional use versus what the P&Z would look at with a modification to the conditional use permit. McCarvel: Yeah. Because, Bill, didn't they have -- is there more density down here in phase one and two with the thought that they were going to lose some density in three in this overall -- Parsons: Madam Chair, Members of Commission, I wasn't at the -- this P&Z hearing on -- Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission July 20, 2017 Page 12 of 34 McCarvel: Okay. Parsons: -- July 5th, but -- McCarvel: Yeah. I read something that -- Parsons: -- this plan presented to you does -- is a little bit higher density than what was originally portrayed in their concept plan approved for this site. So, yes, even though it's R-15, their density is at 17 units to the acre, so that's something that you're taking under consideration tonight -- or least probably at the previous hearing, too. I'm sure Josh mentioned that to you. So, it is a slight bump. So, it's going to be whether or not -- we don't know what's going to happen with phase three, because the way the DA is structured, if I'm not mistaken, I think they have to come back for platting that portion. I think they have to subdivide it and go through another conditional use permit . So, anything that happens on that third phase will be coming back before you and the City Council. But we can look at density on that particular property. McCarvel: But right now -- Parsons: Now or later. It's your choice. McCarvel: Yeah. But right now we are sitting at 17? Parsons: That is correct. Approximately 17. McCarvel: Okay. Yeah. I mean I -- I just don't think it's fair to compare this to other recently approved projects. I mean this is on a much bigger scale in the corner itself with the streets and the canal and everything kind of lock it in, so there aren't the other options for parking out on the street that other sites may have had and I think it -- you know, it's, obviously, the right corner for high density. It looks like a good project. I just think we need to get the details right on it and if the density is over anyway maybe that's part of the issue. Any other thoughts? Anybody wanting to think out loud? Cassanelli: Madam Chair, you said you went through the notes -- McCarvel: Uh-huh. Cassanelli: -- from the last meeting. I don't recall a big conversation about density being over, did you -- McCarvel: It may have been -- I don't -- no, it's not in the notes, but -- Cassanelli: What we -- Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission July 20, 2017 Page 13 of 34 McCarvel: -- Bill just mentioned -- Cassanelli: -- I mean the comments and that mentioned -- you know, everybody was fairly positive about the -- about it. The parking was -- was a big one that we wanted to -- you know, you got one chance to do this and we didn't want to mess with parking. So, that was -- I think that was a big thing. The trash was -- the trash, as I mentioned, was an issue, but I don't recall conversation of being -- being over density on that. I think these units -- the number of units fit within the -- the overall agreement; is that right, Josh? The number of units. Because didn't they move some around from part of the project? Beach: The request was to the -- so the request was to use some of the density for phase three on this phase. It was about 60 units. Typically we don't have a way to condition another portion of property to reduce their density, to increase the density on another portion. Having said that, they have asked for a step up in density, which allows for greater density than would otherwise be -- be allowed. It -- it's not much higher than -- than the R-15, but you still have the ability to say we don't want you to do that. We don't -- we don't want to go over 15. You can - - you can ask them to reduce the number of units, which would also help with your parking if you don't want to go to 17 . And I'd have to look up the exact number that they are looking at for density. I have got it right here. So, the gross density is 17.17 dwelling units per acre, with a net of 18.3. McCarvel: So, they are planning on -- so, they are planning on evening that out in phase three to reduce the overall density? Beach: So, there was -- there was an overall unit count that they were allowed and so they would have to -- I guess the development agreement limits them to a certain number of units, so they wou ld have to -- they would have to reduce the units on phase three in order to make up for that, is my understanding. If you're not comfortable -- I mean so the things to think about here -- if the other phase doesn't get built or doesn't get built for a long time, we don't -- we don't know market conditions -- and this is for you to decide, but we could -- if you're trying to make up parking later on another phase that may never happen , that's -- that's something to think about. So, you have got -- have got an option. You can ask them to increase parking. Having said that, there is not a whole lot of area to do that or -- or to reduce the number of units and go for that. Bernt: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Bernt. Bernt: So, if -- if they were to stick within the 15 max for this -- for this density, how would that affect the units -- the number of units? Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission July 20, 2017 Page 14 of 34 Beach: Have to do the math and I don't know exactly what the number would be, but -- Bernt: Just even a ballpark. It don't need to be exact. Is it one, two, five, ten? Half of it? What -- Parsons: Madam Chair, Members of the Commission, the conceptual development plan that was approved when this R-15 was in place, showed 416 units on the site. That's -- Bernt: That's five something? Parsons: Yeah. That would be what was allowed. If you remember at the time that this came through our zoning ordinance had a maximum density requirement in the zoning district. So, zoning correlated to the amount of -- the maximum density you can have on a property. A year or so ago we actually removed that from the code. So, now density is not driven by the zone, density is driven by the comp plan and so -- and under the comp plan the applicant has the ability to ask for a step up in density and that's what they did with this application. So, staff doesn't have heartburn with the increase in the density, but there is an overall development agreement that caps this site to 1,277 residential units, I believe, and so that's what we are using as a guide as additional multi-family comes in on this -- out in this area and if any other single family homes come in, all of that is part of that aggregate that's tied in with the development agreement for this particular property and the adjacent residential that's developing to the southeast of this project. So, again, staff doesn't have a problem with the increase in density, it's just something that -- if you're having -- if you're struggling with parking, that's a direct correlation with density; right? Because you lose -- you have a concern with parking, you lose units, that's how you increase your parking or you find an area that -- lose open space and increase parking. That's why we bring it up. Again, staff doesn’t have any concerns with what the applicant is proposing. I think the Commission, from my understanding, is you just wanted to see additional parking to have some guest parking for the apartment complex due to the size that their -- the number of units that they are proposing with this development. Bernt: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Yes, Commissioner Bernt. Bernt: Bill, do you remember how many -- what the density was prior to making the parking -- do you remember discussing that at all? Cassanelli: And that's what I don't -- I don't recall discussing density that day. It was -- mainly it was about parking. We gave them guidance on -- on two -- two parking stalls per unit -- Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission July 20, 2017 Page 15 of 34 McCarvel: Yeah. Cassanelli: -- and that's what they came back with. Again -- Bernt: Did they take away units? Did you take away units? Beach: The density hasn't changed. The number of units has not changed. It's the same number of residential units. They just added more parking. Bernt: Okay. McCarvel: Yeah. If you want questions for the applicant, we need to open the public hearing again. Bernt: I sort of squeaked that one in. Sorry. McCarvel: So, I think -- from the notes from the last meeting it looked like you guys came down to requesting abou t 60 to 75 additional units and it looks like they got about 43 if they are all valid and they can be done up along that canal. Cassanelli: So, are they not even coming back with the -- with the number that we -- the guidance that we gave them? McCarvel: It doesn't look like it. You can -- this is -- the discussion on that. And I apologize, sometime with all the commissioners being on vacation, we have had -- out of seven we have got three out of the four that were gone last time and three new -- three back that were gone last time. Wilson: Well, it seems to me now that we are having a discussion about density, which maybe should have happened before, it sounds like the assumption that the density was fine kind of led to people increasing the parking. I don't know what -- what do others think about the density? I mean you were -- Bernt: I don't know if I have a huge problem with the density. I mean -- I mean I look at it and I -- I don't think I'm overwhelmed by the -- by the density per se. McCarvel: Unless it causes problems in other areas. Bernt: Right. Sure. McCarvel: Which it seems to be doing. Pogue: And Madam Chair? McCarvel: Yes. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission July 20, 2017 Page 16 of 34 Pogue: Josh, could you just clarify that the set number that they were held to in the DA, this -- this project brings a 60 unit bump to that number, which does fall within the standard of being substantially compliant with that number. That's why we can have you consider it. But it is, still, a 60 unit bump from the total number that they were -- is that correct; Josh? Beach: Yeah. So, we look at the DA and we can say that there is a -- I'm going to pull up the development agreement, too, so we can look at it a little bit more in detail, if you all would like to do that. But I don't think the number of the units is -- is the concern. The concern. The concern that comes -- because that -- again, they have got a certain number that they are allowed to have. So, if they do more here, they just can't do as many in another phase. Bernt: Is that next phase phase three; right? Beach: Got it. McCarvel: Right. Beach: The issue that we have talked about was parking and the -- like I said, that's something that if you -- it meets the code. Nine hundred and nine were the number of spaces that meets the -- the code based on the -- if we look at the number of one bedrooms is required to have 1.5 per unit and two and three are required to have two. So, based on the number of units they have and the sizes, they exactly meet what the requirement is. Bernt: I thought they were five percent higher. Beach: No. It's exactly the number that they needed. The concern from the discussion that was at the last hearing was, yes, Overland Road is an arterial road, you can't park on that at all. The road that's going to be built on the east side is going to be a collector and you can't -- you can't park on that either. So, the concern was, well, where do these folks park -- McCarvel: Where is the visitor parking. Beach: -- park internally, because there is no additional parking spaces. This proposal now is for five percent higher. Correct. So, the original proposal was exactly the number, but they have come back with -- Bernt: But prior to they were add -- they were adding exactly where they needed to be -- Beach: You got it. Now they have -- Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission July 20, 2017 Page 17 of 34 Bernt: -- which means they have 4.8 percent higher than what the code is; am I right? Beach: Yes. And now there is additional, so it's -- McCarvel: It's a -- with the conditional use permit -- Beach: It was talked about, but there is 43 additional -- Bernt: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Uh-huh. Bernt: So, where is the 60 -- I mean where did the number 60 come from? Why was the number -- just made it up? McCarvel: Well, after -- well, I mean there was discussion and -- because it looks like there was about two or three pages of going back and forth of how many do we want and they started with 90 and, then, they said somewhere between 45 and 90 is -- okay, split the difference and, then, it was 75 and said they would be happy with 60. So, they were just trying to give them a number as a guideline, but they came back with 43, so -- but it's just alls we were -- I mean I guess that's part of our -- this met exactly minimum code, but -- Cassanelli: Parking. McCarvel: For parking. But in light of the fact that Overland -- there is no -- there is literally no street parking here, the Commission the last time felt this project needed a little extra parking internally than what the minimum code requires. Wilson: I mean with that context, a little bit more information, I mean I think -- I mean I think I'm fine with the density and I think the applicant, after kind of knowing the full picture of what happened two weeks ago -- and it sounds like the applicant -- that the numbers of 60 and 90, you know, they were kind of feeling a way towards what the right number was in order to provide guidance . I think that they have come back with something that works for them. It's five percent over. I think I'm now comfortable with, you know -- McCarvel: They started with suggesting ten percent over and -- Wilson: Yeah. McCarvel: -- got it down. Wilson: So, I'm comfortable with recommending approval. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission July 20, 2017 Page 18 of 34 McCarvel: As long as those spots are viable. Bernt: I think that would be probably -- you need to put that in -- in the motion. Cassanelli: Given that there is nowhere else to park and people are either -- they are going to figure it out, they are going to park at the park and ride and walk a half a mile and get down there , they are going to move out, you know, they are going to see what else -- because they cannot park on Overland, they are not going to be able to park on the road to the east , it's a -- it's a collector. I would have liked to have seen them come in with more spots, because we did give them -- you know, looking at those notes we give them guidance of -- I mean splitting the difference between two numbers, they went outside of that on the low end. I would have liked to have seen them come up with -- with that. I think about the only way they can do it -- they can either push some of the buildings together more and lose green space, add some more parking, remove a building all together. That would bring the density in line. McCarvel: Or they take a third story off a building or two. I mean that reduces the density, but -- Cassanelli: Correct. McCarvel: -- I don't know how to -- I mean hold them to the reduced density done in phase three -- you just don't know what's going to happen in the future. Cassanelli: Well -- and that's -- I mean none of us may be here in the future and have a whole new commission that doesn't have the -- the information that we have now. I would rather -- I would rather approve things for today based on the condition and what we know today and let -- you know. And not try and solve it down the road. McCarvel: I agree. Cassanelli: That said, I'm not exactly quite sure. I would -- I would have liked to have seen adjustments. Bernt: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Bernt. Bernt: What is the percentage right now of green space compared to what is required? McCarvel: I believe they are way over. Yeah. Way over. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission July 20, 2017 Page 19 of 34 Beach: It's like 44 percent and -- it's quite a bit of green space that they have got. A majority of it is going to be along the canal, because they can't -- they have an easement there, so they can't -- they can't do anything with that. So, there is that open space. They were also able to count as op en space half of the buffer along Overland Road as part of their open space and they have got quite a bit internally, too. I can go -- this is the concept. But you can kind of see here it's not green, but there is black and white, but the darker area is all their landscaped area. Anything that's 20 -- at least 20 by 20 counts towards open space in multi- family. So, there is -- there is quite a bit. McCarvel: And I think that's what they have requested. Cassanelli: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Cassanelli. Cassanelli: At the tail end of that do you -- do you see what the -- what was the guidance -- was the guidance two per total flat across the board two per -- Bernt: Right how it's one point something -- McCarvel: I think for a while it looks like they were chasing overall two units per -- Parsons: Madam Chair, Members of the Commission, I was going -- I was going to have some suggestions for you this evening to help you. Bernt: Let's hear them. W hat are you waiting for? Parsons: Well, I think we want to give the applicant flexibility. I think -- that seems to be the key here. We are okay with density. We know market will kind of drive what he does on this particular property and the number of units he wants to get here. We know we have a DA that caps him at a number of units -- multi-family units specifically. So, we have ways to kind of capture that density someplace else or reduce that density on this site in the future through that development agreement, unless they come forth and modify that DA to change their unit count. With that being said, for staff it would be simpler for your condition, if you're good with their overall layout of the development and the elevations and the open space -- and I hear you saying you are, I think it would be easier, rather than capping the applicant at a specific parking stall count, I would just say that the overall development needs to have two unit s -- two stalls per unit. And that I would say make modifications with staff. We don't have to come back with you guys to try to figure out how to add parking for those units. We have that flexibility there. Like Josh says, the CDC, he's going to look at the overall parking ratio and he's going to say two stalls per unit and we can do very Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission July 20, 2017 Page 20 of 34 easy math and get the correct parking that you guys want to have happen out there. That's how I would structure that condition of approval. Wilson: And that was, essentially, I think the aim of the -- McCarvel: The spirit of what was happening last week. Wilson: -- we are fulfilling that, rather than going back and forth. McCarvel: Yeah. Wilson: Okay. Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Wilson. Wilson: After considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move to approve file number H-2017-0077 as presented in the staff report for July 20th, 2017, with the condition -- hopefully I'm getting this right -- that each unit have at minimum two parking spots per -- per unit. Bernt: Second. McCarvel: It has been moved and seconded to approve Item No. H-2017-0077, Southridge Apartments, with modification. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries. Congratulations. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. THREE ABSENT. D. Public Hearing for Knighthill Lot 3 Drive-Through (H- 2017-0087) by James Wylie Located Southwest Corner of Chinden Boulevard and N. Linder Road 1. Request: Conditional Use Permit Approval for a Drive-Thru Establishment Within 300 Feet of Another Drive-Thru Establishment McCarvel: Moving on. Bernt: Thanks, Bill. Sorry. You saved us a good half an hour. McCarvel: Okay. At this time we would like to open a new public hearing for Item H-2017-0087, Knighthill Lot 3 Drive-thru. Beach: Madam Chair, this is a -- I will try to be brief. This is an application for a conditional use permit for a drive -thru. Adjacent land use and zoning. To the north is Chinden Boulevard and vacant and undeveloped -- vacant -- excuse me. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission July 20, 2017 Page 21 of 34 Vacant, undeveloped commercial properties zoned C-C. To the east is the Black Rock Coffee, which is in a C-G. To the south is Lochsa Falls Subdivision, zoned R-4. To the west is vacant commercial property in Lochsa Falls Subdivision, zoned C-N and R-4. In 2013 the property received approval of a new preliminary plat and a development agreement modification and we received a final plat in 2014. The Comprehensive Plan future land use map designation for this property is mixed-use community. The applicant is proposing to construct a 4,410 square foot multi-tenant building. The conditional use permit is for a drive- thru for a restaurant and it consists of approximately 2,650 square feet of building. All access points to the property were approved with th e preliminary plat. Staff's analysis of the proposed development include the internal site improvements and the site circulation of the drive-thru. The proposed site layout is consistent with the concept plan approved for the Knighthill Center. Planning and Zoning Commission should be aware that this will be the third drive -thru in the development. The staff does not anticipate that the number of drive-thrus will increase the number of internal conflicts. The UDC requires a conditional use permit if a drive-thru establishment is within 300 feet of a residential district or another drive-thru. Staff's analysis of the proposed development includes the -- as I said, the internal site improvements. Staff did not receive any comments from -- any public comments on this. The applicant will be required to obtain a certificate of zoning compliance and administrative design review approval for the project. We are recommending approval of the project and I will stand for any questions you have. McCarvel: Any questions for staff? Okay. Would the applicant like to come forward, please. And as you approach the mike just state your name and address for the record. Wylie: James Wylie. 1464 East Territory Drive, Meridian. Madam Chair, Members of the Commission, thank you for your time. Josh pretty much said it all. The only thing I have to add is we do agree to the conditions set forth in the staff report and we just ask for your affirmative vote on the project. McCarvel: Okay. Wylie: I will stand for any questions. McCarvel: Any questions? Short and sweet. All right. No questions. Thank you. I have a couple people signed in. We have -- do you go by Jake? Okay. So, that was you on the sign-up sheet. I have Eric and Kenny. Did you wish to speak? Okay. Anybody else here wishing to speak on this issue? Okay. All right. Can I get a motion to close the public hearing for Item No. H-2017-0087? Cassanelli: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Cassanelli. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission July 20, 2017 Page 22 of 34 Cassanelli: I move to close the public hearing of the Knighthill Lot 3 Drive-thru, H-2017-0087. Wilson: Second. McCarvel: It has been moved and seconded to close the public hearing on H- 2017-0087. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. THREE ABSENT. McCarvel: Commissioners, thoughts? Cassanelli: Two questions. McCarvel: Sure. Cassanelli: For staff that -- can you go back to a site plan? Thank you. The larger one that's -- takes into consideration the projects on the -- to the west where that Everest Lane comes through. It -- there we go. Thank you. What's that going to do to that Everest Lane? Is that going to -- is that going to come through into that or is that going to dead end right there? Beach: It already does. Everest is a -- is a private lane and it connects to a private drive aisle through the Knighthill Center. That's not a public road in there. So, it's going to stay there. If you follow my mouse, the drive aisle goes straight out to Chinden and continues through and kind of comes out here on Linder. So, if your question is what is it going to do to that, I'm not -- I'm not sure what that -- what that question is getting at. Cassanelli: Yeah. Does that Everest Lane -- is that -- so that -- that access won't be blocked, they will still -- Beach: Right. Cassanelli: -- Everest will still have access through that -- through that retail establishment. Beach: Correct. Cassanelli: Okay. That was -- that was one question. The other question -- it might seem silly, but going now to the project slide, handicapped stalls are away from the building. Is that normal? Beach: We have got that covered already in a condition that they move closer to the building. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission July 20, 2017 Page 23 of 34 Cassanelli: Okay. Beach: So -- we noticed that as well. Cassanelli: Otherwise the project looks good to me. I don't see an -- I don't see an issue with the drive-thru and the other drive-thrus that exist there. McCarvel: Yeah. I think they have some items in the staff report about making some markings and stuff to make drivers aware that there is more t raffic coming. So, I think -- Wilson: Pretty standard. McCarvel: Yeah. So, I think it's covered in the -- Wilson: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Wilson. Wilson: After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to approve file number H-2017-0087 as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of July 20th, 2017. Bernt: Second. McCarvel: It has been moved and seco nded to approve file number H-2017- 0087. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries. Congratulations. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. THREE ABSENT. E. Public Hearing for Trust Storage (H-2017-0082) by John Day Located Northeast Corner of S. Locust Grove Road and E. Puffin Street Public Hearing 1. Request: Combined Preliminary / Final Plat Consisting of Two (2) Building Lots on 9.28 Acres of Land in the C-C (Community Business) Zoning District 2. Request: Conditional Use Permit for a Self- Service Storage Facility in the C-C Zoning District McCarvel: Okay. At this time we will -- I will open the public hearing for Item No. H-2017-0082, Trust Storage. We will begin with the staff report. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission July 20, 2017 Page 24 of 34 Parsons: Thank you, Madam Chair, Members of the Commission. The next item -- the last item on the agenda this evening is the Trust Storage, combined preliminary/final plat and conditional use permit application. The site consists of 9.28 acres of land, currently zoned C-C, and it's located at the northeast corner of South Locust Grove and East Puffin Street. To the north of the site we have a C- Store and fuel facility and a car wash, zoned C-C. South we have an LDS church, zoned R-8. Multi-family residential and Mountain View High School zoned L-O and R-4 to the east. And to the west we have Locust Grove and assisted living facility and single-family residential uses, zoned L-O and R-4. In 2000 this property was annexed in with a C-N zoning designation and in 2010 it came back before the commission as -- with a preliminary plat and a rezone application, known as the Summerton Subdivision. The portion that is currently developed with the Fast Eddy's site was phase one of that subdivision. The subsequent phases were never completed and so that preliminary plat has expired and that's why the applicant is here this evening to replat the remnant portion of this particular property. I would mention to the Commission that with the rezone of that property, a new development agreement was required. The plan that is before you this evening is consistent with the recorded -- so, the applicant is not required to modify that agreement with City Council. The combined preliminary/final plat consists of two building lots. There is a Lot 1, Block 1, which is along Locust Grove and, then, Lot 2, Block 1, will be where the -- the Trust Storage facility site is proposed. At this time Lot 1 is not -- does not have any development proposed for it. It will come back through whatever process or whatever use is proposed for that site, whether it's staff level approval or a conditional use permit approval, but once the plat records that will be a legal lot for future development and, then, Lot 2, Block 1, again, as I stated for the self- storage facility, which will house 14 storage buildings and an office building on approximately seven plus acres or so. Or eight acres or so. Access points to this development were approved with the previous preliminary plat and are currently constructed, so there is a shared cross-access agreement that runs east to west that ties into a main north-south cross-access driveway that heads -- connects to the Fast Eddy's site and, then, there is a full access to Locust Grove and, then, also a full access to East Puffin Street along the south boundary. Here is their proposed site plan and landscape plan before you this evening. As you can see here the development is bisected by that cross-access driveway. To the east as part of the development of the site the applicant is required to construct a 25 foot wide landscape buffer along Locust Grove . You can see on this graphic that Lot 1, Block 1, is exclusive -- does not include the required landscape buffers, so the applicant has been conditioned to include that prior to signature on the plat. East Puffin Street is a local -- designated a local street, so the UDC requires a ten foot wide landscape buffer along that roadway and because this site sits adjacent to multi-family on the east, the applicant is required to construct a 25 foot wide landscape buffer between the multi -family use and the proposed storage facility. The landscape plan before you -- or at least this portion along the east boundary currently does not meet current UDC standards. The UDC requires that any trees that are planted along that boundary Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission July 20, 2017 Page 25 of 34 be touching at maturity and you can see these trees are approximately based on one tree for every 35 linear feet. So, additional plantings will need to be added along that side of the proposed storage facility. You can see the -- because of the cross-access here between the two developments, staff has some concerns with maybe vehicle stacking and entering into the eastern portion of the site, so staff has recommended that the applicant work with the adjacent property owner and include some kind of traffic calming in that north-south ease -- or cross- access driveway here to mitigate any of those concerns. You either put in some speed bumps or put in some -- maybe some stop signs here or controlled intersections to slow down traffic as they head through the two developments. I would also mention to you that this landscaping on this site is pretty minimal for a storage facility, but the UDC does require that landscaping be placed along the drive aisles and so as I noted in the staff report, the applicant is proposing landscaping along the east side of the drive aisle and the south side of Building D here, but it does not include the required trees. So, they will have to increase the plantings in those areas and, then, also if you look at the west side of the west half of the storage facility a buffer isn't even proposed for that side of the drive aisle. So, staff -- I didn't catch that in my review of the staff report, so I am recommending that you add a new condition this evening that includes a -- at a minimum a five foot wide landscape buffer with trees every one per 35 linear feet along that east boundary of Building C. Here are the proposed -- well, one other additional item that I noted in the staff report. If you look at the eastern portion as well you can see that the applicant is proposing some outdoor storage on the site. Some of these areas are also open to view from the adjacent streets, so staff has asked the applicant provide you some details on how they plan on screening those areas. The UDC does require that the applicant screen it with a wall or solid material. Typically these facilities are all screened by buildings, but in this case there are some open areas, so the applicant will have to address that for you this evening and, then, also address for you how they intend on using this outdoor storage area, whether it's for parking internally in the site or is it for RV storage or boat storage or something to that effect. I think they have some information for you on that as well. So, that's something that staff has asked for clarification for you this evening as you take deliberations on this application . The last item that I want to touch bases on are the proposed building elevations for the site. As I mentioned in the staff report, the elevations as submitted do not comply with the current design standards manual or architectural standards manual. The applicant has proposed the entire facility be constructed out of metal siding. The architectural standards manual does allow the use of metal siding, it just doesn't allow it as a primary building material . So, it needs to be limited as an accent material only. If you look at the surrounding developments in the area -- and this is what I noted in the staff report -- is there is some pretty high quality office buildings in the area and if you look at Mr. Eddy's fuel facility site there north of this, there is some pretty substantial architectural details of those building. So, staff has recommended that the applicant incorporate some of those design elements into the storage facility and I think they want to address that with you as well. So, staff did receive an e-mail this afternoon from Alisa Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission July 20, 2017 Page 26 of 34 Barrett in regards to this application. Her primary concern was that the Commission allow the north-south shared driveway to remain open as part of this development. She was concerned about people having to get on to Locust Road and they turn back into the Steve Eddy site and with this application, again, those cross-access agreements are in place, so staff is not in favor of losing any of those cross-access driveways or changing any of the proposed access -- approved access points with this development. So, the way it's constructed today is the way it will remain if you choose to move this application on to City Council with a recommendation. Staff is recommending approval with the conditions in the staff report. With that I will conclude my presentation and stand for any questions you may have. McCarvel: Okay. Cassanelli: Madam Chair, quick question. McCarvel: Commissioner Cassanelli. Cassanelli: Bill, the -- you cover everything in your conditions, except for the -- what is it, five -- minimum five foot wide landscape buffer. How many trees were you -- can you repeat that? Thirty-five? One per 35? Parsons: Madam Chair, Members of the Commission, that is correct. Code requires a minimum of five foot wide landscape buffer and, then, one tree for -- per every 35 linear feet. Cassanelli: But in your conditions you do have -- you're calling out for some sort of traffic mitigation in there? Parsons: Yes. I'm asking for traffic mitigation somewhere along in here, whether it's speed bumps or controlled intersection or some kind of choker there to try to minimize or slow down traffic through there. McCarvel: I believe there are stop signs there right now. Parsons: Okay. If you feel that's adequate and we can strike that condition and just -- McCarvel: But the one we will need to add will be the five foot landscape buffer along -- Parsons: That's Building C. McCarvel: -- the access or -- Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission July 20, 2017 Page 27 of 34 Parsons: Yeah. That's Building C is this -- where you see my cursor going up and down, that's labeled Building C on the site plan. McCarvel: Okay. Any other questions for staff? Okay. Would the applicant like to come forward? And as you approach the mike, please, state your name and address for the record. Day: John Day. 3501 North 32nd Street. Thank you, Madam Chair, Commissioners. Yeah. So, we are here requesting approval for this combined -- excuse me -- combined and preliminary plat and conditional use. I think Bill spelled out the details for you on the project. We are -- we are accepting of all the staff's conditions with the following clarifications or revisions requested. So, item -- specific conditions of approval number -- item 1.1.3.C states that the plat shall be recorded prior to applying for a building permit . We would request that we would be able to apply for a building permit prior to the recording of the final plat. We understand the requirement after that would be that we would receive approval and recording of final plat prior to occupancy. Reason being is we are trying to get this constructed and get it paved prior to November. So, we are up against a time limit. Item 1.1.4, the parking lot landscaping and landscape buffer. We did meet with Bill earlier this week. We did discuss the additional five foot landscape buffer on the west side of the north side -- north-south access street and we are in agreement that that's -- that's all right and we will construct that. And, then, also regarding the landscaping in further discussions with Bill earlier this week, we would like to state that -- for the record that the owner has decided to implement some water-saving landscape techniques and so we are going to be applying those. That will meet -- you know, to meet the municipal code and so the revised landscape plans will -- will be reflecting those conditions. Regarding the traffic calming, if the stop signs are already there, that's fine. We are accepting putting those in if they are not. I'm curious -- I have been out there on the site. I don't remember exactly where they are, but I would assume that they are on the north-south -- or, excuse me, they are on the west access and so the north-south is a through street and that's probably the way we would like to see it, but we are okay with calming methods there. Regarding the exterior look of the building, again, we met with Bill prior to this hearing. We understand the issues that staff takes with the proposed design . I think we had a very good meeting discussing these and I don't see any reason why we are not going to be able to meet the requirements of the development code on the design review submittal and the certificate of zoning committee -- submittal. So, again, work we are confident that we can meet those requirements moving forward with them . As far as the fencing goes, again, we are in agreement that solid fencing will be proposed and will be constructed. We would request, though -- I guess -- so, on Puffin Street we have no -- no issues on the north side of Puffin Street, south side of Lot 1. We take no issues with the solid fencing there. One thing we would like to see, if we could put some kind of wrought iron open fencing that would be between -- sorry, Bill. Those two little openings on the east-west of -- what is that building? F? So, the small little openings on the east and west side. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission July 20, 2017 Page 28 of 34 Right there. Uh-huh. And, then, over on the other side. It's our understanding that these aren't necessarily open to the public right of way and, therefore, they are not necessarily required to be solid screened. We would like to keep them open a little bit -- a little bit transparent for some safety reasons within the complex. So, again, we propose in those two areas we would like to see kind of a wrought iron open fence. But, then, all along south -- the south side of the buildings on Puffin we are okay with solid and, then, to address the -- and the solid parking in the parking area, H, you know, we are accepting of solid fence along there as well. That parking area is for surface storage of small vehicles. It is not for RV parking. The buildings you see on the larger lot on the north and the east, those are all RV parking. They are covered. Three sides. Two sides and a roof, each unit. So, the surface storage is only for smaller car, smaller boats. The parking sizes are about 11 by 22 feet, so they shouldn't be big enough for large RVs and that's not the intent of them , so -- other than those clarifications or revisions we are accepting of the staff's report. Is there any other questions? McCarvel: I have got a question. I'm hearing a couple of different words here. I just want to make sure we are all on the same page. I hear you using the word solid fencing and I heard Bill use the words wall and to me that means some sort of concrete wall. What -- are we close to the same page there? Do we all have the same meaning? What are we all actually talking about here? Parsons: Good question, Madam Chairman, Members of the Commission. When I met with the applicant earlier this week it was -- we had discussed the possibility of a -- of a block wall and that's why I spoke to the -- the terms of a wall. I can certainly scroll up into my staff report and speak to what the standard says and we can go from there. McCarvel: Okay. So, I guess I'm asking you what -- what is your interpretation? I'm hearing you use the word fence -- solid fence -- Day: Well -- and I guess in this case it would be a wall. It was something solid that you cannot see through. McCarvel: Right. We are not talking about some chain link or -- Day: No. McCarvel: -- some PVC fence -- Day: Gosh, no. No. McCarvel: That's not -- that's not what you meant using the word fence. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission July 20, 2017 Page 29 of 34 Day: Yes. Sorry. A solid fence. So, something that you cannot see through, so -- McCarvel: Okay. Cassanelli: Madam Chair? In addition to that, Bill, if you're looking that up, what -- what's the height requirement? Parsons: Madam -- Madam Chair, Members to the Commission, the height in that zoning district would be up to eight feet. Minimum six. Cassanelli: Minimum six, up to eight. Six to eight feet. Parsons: That's your range. McCarvel: I would guess we would want to probably go eight on that open area there where there is no building. That could be part of our discussion. Parsons: So, Madam Chair, Members to the Commission, the specific use standard as it's written in code, it says storage facility shall be completely fenced, wall or enclosed and screened from public view. That's why -- Cassanelli: Bill, can you repeat that? Did it say entire? Parsons: Shall be completely fenced, wall, or enclosed and screened from public view. McCarvel: Okay. Parsons: So, that's -- that's why they are asking for the -- wrought iron fence on that one, but it's still -- it says completely screened. McCarvel: Right. Okay. And, then, another question -- I mean the elevations -- you have to show it -- do we have any other elevations on what your thoughts are going to be on those exterior materials? I mean -- because I don't think the metal is going to obviously -- Day: No. No. And we are in agreement with that. You know, we had talked with Bill about replacing some of the metal with stucco and either CMU block to break it up and, then, use just the metal as the accent colors, just some of the -- the panels you will see will be constructed out of -- out of stucco. So, for instance, the blue or specifically let's talk about the tan panels, those would all be one kind of -- one panel made out of stucco or one panel made out of CMU block. The blue would be one panel as well, with a different building material. McCarvel: Somebody -- see how it -- Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission July 20, 2017 Page 30 of 34 Day: No. I will say -- well, and so -- the colors are part of this. This is the second storage unit that the client has constructed and so the client has put out a brand and these are the colors that he's used. So, we try to stay consistent with the brand, hence the colors. So, we understand the city's -- you know, the staff's concerns with the materials and the colors and, again, we feel like we can work with -- work through this with them -- with the proposed materials. They just talked about CMU and/or stucco and using metal as an accident. And additional to that -- which isn't reflected very well in these elevations, just that those panels are popped out from the face of the wall by eight inches, approximately. So, there is some relief horizontally and vertically as you can see from the parapet. McCarvel: Okay. Any other questions for the applicant at this point? Okay. Thank you. Day: Thank you. McCarvel: We will move forward to public testimony and, John, you were the only one signed up; right? Okay. Is there anyone else here that wishes to testify on this -- okay. And I assume you don't want to come forward again. Okay. Cassanelli: Madam Chair, I have a quick question for the applicant. McCarvel: Oh. Could the applicant come forward before we close the public hearing. Cassanelli: He may be able to shout it out. The -- the two towers there -- Day: There is two different perspective view of it, so -- Cassanelli: Okay. What's the height of that? Day: Gosh, you got me there. I want to say we were the 28 foot range. Cassanelli: You say 28? Day: Yeah. I honestly can't remember. It was either 24 or 28. Cassanelli: Okay. Thank you. Wilson: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Wilson. Wilson: I move we close the public hearing on H-2017-0082. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission July 20, 2017 Page 31 of 34 Bernt: Second. McCarvel: It's been moved and seconded to close the public hearing on H-2017- 0082. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. THREE ABSENT. McCarvel: I can go first. I just -- I really want to see these building materials upgraded, just based on what the surrounding area is. I think -- I mean nobody's allowed to just go put metal buildings on their own property when the subdivisions are on there and you have got a gas station, the car wash there, that's went way overboard. It looks beautiful. It gorgeous. You know, as well as the school and all the other things around there are substantial building materials. I think it would be a shame and they can't do it with code, but -- yeah. The building materials shown scare me a little. I don't know if we want to have them bring another elevation back or if we just want to -- is staff okay with what's in the code and they are going to have to meet code? Parsons: Madam Chair, Members of the Commission, certainly the way the condition is written it -- it says they need to comply with the design standards and that's going to require a change of materials. Now, what I will mention to you is this is a conditional use permit, so I mean anything is on the table for you, if there is something that you prefer to see, something that you could add as a condition of approval. I think in meeting with the applicant earlier in the week I was comfortable that at least -- at least the roof lines and the building façade does modulate. As he mentioned, some of those panels do stick ou t eight inches, so it's not going to -- my concern is looking at this perspective was that you have one long straight blank wall with really stark colors and only a variation in patterns and so that could be a little daunting, particularly along a local st reet -- a public street. That's really where design review kicks in and we really want to see something that blends in with the surrounding development. That's really the intent of design review is to get something that is consistent with the surrounding development, so it doesn't look out of place. One could argue -- now what I will say to the Commission is that we don't regulate color and to me the green and the blue are probably going to be the starkest thing out there to anything else, because everything in that area are earth tone colors and that's what I shared with the applicant earlier in the week, too, is it's -- if we can get some of that material as accent, I think we can be supportive of it, but we have got to try to get it to blend in better with the surrounding area. That's the intent of the design manual and limiting that metal siding and providing some of those other materials, that stucco, some rock, something on the office building to blend in. I mean there is ways to do it. Again, as far as the modulation of the building, I think we have got that covered with those panels popping out and the changes in the roof line. We just need to come to a consensus on the appropriate metal accent and color scheme and potentially how they are going to -- what else they are going to use, whether it's going to be stucco or block. It's c ertainly within Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission July 20, 2017 Page 32 of 34 your purview to kick it out to see additional elevations before you kick it on to the City Council or if you feel comfortable with the way the condition is written right now it says they need to compliment the surrounding development and they need to comply with the architectural standards manual. And that's how we have it structured at this point. McCarvel: Okay. Yeah. I think -- I mean it's a great place for a storage unit. You got apartments there and -- I mean the way things are being built in Meridian with all the apartments and smaller homes, storage units are in demand. But I agree that -- that corner has potential of being a really nice corner. There is a lot of storage units, you kind of -- it just blends in and there is others that kind of stick out, so I just want to make sure the design standards are met. Bernt: And I get why they want to -- you know, it's his brand, you want to create a brand when people are, you know, driving on the street they -- you know, you want them to look at your facilities and know who you are and what you do and I get that. So, the only thing that I feel -- and I agree -- you know, this is a great location for a storage facility. It's fantastic. I would feel more comfortable probably, you know, asking them to redesign knowing exactly what those materials are before we send it off to City Council. Like I want to be able to see it -- I mean I feel like I don't -- I don't want to blankly say I want this changed -- want this changed and send it off without knowing what those changes are. McCarvel: Right. Bernt: So, I would rather have like a completed project, you know, before we send it off to City Council. I think that -- that would be my only thought with regard to that. McCarvel: Okay. Cassanelli: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Cassanelli. Cassanelli: There was also a request to get the building permit before the final plat. In the past we have I think kind of shied away from doing that. I understand they are wanting to get -- to get some pavement down before the weather turns, but I think that's -- McCarvel: I think at the rate things are being built we don't want to miss crossing the T's and dotting the I's I think. Cassanelli: And, then, other comment that -- that I have -- two comments, I guess. I would like to see -- I would like to see us along the side of eight foot, not six foot -- Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission July 20, 2017 Page 33 of 34 McCarvel: Right. Cassanelli: -- that you mentioned. And any -- what -- I kind of want to get an idea of -- of everybody's else's thoughts on that -- on that tower, if you will. Quite a bit higher that stands out. McCarvel: Uh-huh. Yeah. And I realize it's good for advertising, but on the same token usually people who need a storage unit have -- are seeking out the ones that are fairly close to them. The -- do we want to just move to continue to see the elevations? Cassanelli: I think so. And, then, have them add in the landscape -- McCarvel: Yes. Cassanelli: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Cassanelli. Cassanelli: Based on the information I move to continue file number H-2017- 0082 -- we haven't chosen a hearing date, have we. McCarvel: You want August 3rd or the 17th, Bill? Does the applicant have -- Parsons: Does the applicant have a preference? 3rd? Okay. August 3rd. Cassanelli: Okay. I move to continue file number H-2017-0082 to the hearing date of August 3rd for the following reasons: More elevation images showing -- showing approved building materials and fitting in with surrounding developments, as well as the addition of the landscape buffer on Building C. McCarvel: And fencing. Cassanelli: And fencing. Bernt: Do you want to be specific with the fence? Cassanelli: The fence. Thank you. Bernt: Second. McCarvel: It has been moved and seconded to continue H-2017-0082, Trust Storage, to the date of August 3rd, 2017. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries. Meridian Planning & Zoning commission July 20, 2017 Page 34 of 34 MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. THREE ABSENT. McCarvel: One more motion. Bernt: Madam Chair, I move that we adjourn tonight's meeting. Cassanelli: Second. Wilson: Second. McCarvel: It has been moved and seconded twice to close the meeting for July 20th. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. THREE ABSENT. MEETING ADJOURNED AT 7:30 P.M. (AUDIO RECORDING ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS.) APPROVED —R"6t4BA SEL-- CHAIRMAN DATE APPROVED Tke5. 3er,114 ATTEST: If C S - CITY CLERK - OQao�PjEo AU� ST' j�o 2 City of a &VIV,R�Q11AIV'4 �s� SEAL P/ Changes to Agenda: • Item #4A: Pine 43 — AZ, RZ, PP (H-2017-0058) — Request for continuance to August V so the applicant can provide additional information to address Staff's comments regarding the plat design. Item #4B: 2.5 Street Townhomes (H-2017.0066) Application(s): ➢ Rezone ➢ Preliminary Plat Size of property, existing zoning, and location: This site consists of 3,07 acres of land, zoned C -C and R-15, located south of E. Fairview Ave. on the west side of 2 and a Half Street. Adjacent Land Use & Zoning: 1. North: Commercial property (Rite-Aid), zoned C -C 2. East: Single-family residential property, zoned R-8 3. South: Single-family residential property, zoned R-15 4. West: Commercial properties, zoned C -C History: None Comprehensive Plan FLUM Designation: MU -NR Summary of Request: The applicant has applied to rezone 3.07 acres of land from C -C and R-15 zoning districts, to the 0-T zoning district. The proposed plat consists of 51 building lots and 7 common lots on 2.571 acres of land in a proposed 0-T zoning district. The gross density for the subdivision is 18.28 d.u./acre with a net density of 25.36 d.u./acre. The average lot size is 1,055 square feet. Access: Access is proposed for this site via two access points from NE 2 and a Half Street. The applicant is proposing private streets through the development. Private Street: The UDC requires private streets to be constructed within an easement and have a travel lane width of 24' or 26' 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 5 -foot sidewalk (pathway) on one side on all private roads with the exception of the private road on the west side of the property. Private streets are not intended for single-family development unless those homes front on a mew. The applicant has provided a mew for a large number of the lots, and due to the additional open space provided and the applicant's vision for tree -lined streets, staff is in favor of the request for private streets. Phasing: The applicant is proposing to develop the project in two phases. The layout of the phasing plan depends on availability of utilities for the project. The applicant will need to coordinate with public works. Parking: The submitted plat depicts 51 single-family attached home that each contain a 2 -car garage. The applicant has also provided 9 off-street parking spaces within the development. The applicant is asking for alternative compliance to reduce the parking requirements for the development from the required 4 parking stalls per unit containing 2, 3, or 4 bedrooms to 2 stalls per unit. The applicant has received approval from MDC to reduce their parking requirement. Landscaping: A landscape plan was submitted with this application for the area proposed to be platted. Landscaping for this project is not required, however the applicant has provided 0.71 of an acre in unqualified open space. This are includes the mew lots, the area with the tot lot, internal pathways, etc. The applicant shall provide a revised landscape plan at least ten days prior to the City Council hearing. The applicant should also be aware that there is an 8' sewer main along the west boundary. Trees will not be allowed to be planted over the main. Open Space/Site Amenities: The applicant has proposed parkways, mew lots and a tot lot for the development. Although this development does not meet the threshold to require amenities, the applicant has proposed to include a tot lot as part of the project due to the fact that there are limited options for children to play in the immediate area. Sidewalks: The applicant proposes to construct a 5 -foot wide detached sidewalk along 2 and a Half Street as well as 5 -foot walkways through the development and along several of the private streets. Existing structures: The applicant will be removing several structures from the property and these shall all be removed prior to signature on the final plat. Building Elevations: The applicant has submitted some conceptual sample building elevations for future homes in this development, included in Exhibit AA, Building materials consist of board and batten, asphalt shingles, and fiber -cement siding. Design Review (DES): A CZC and DES application is required to be submitted prior to issuance of building permits for the single family attached homes. With the submittal of the DES application, the applicant shall submit a master site plan that designates the design, color schemes and variations for each unit. The applicant must comply with the design standards listed in UDC 11-3A-19 and the guidelines contained in the Architectural Standards Manual. Written Testimony: None Staff Recommendation: Approval w/ conditions Notes: Possible Motions: Approval After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to recommend approval to City Council of File Number H-2017- 0066, as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of July 20, 2017, with the following modifications: (Add any proposed modifications to conditions) Denial After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to recommend denial to City Council of File Number H-2017- 0066, as presented during the hearing on July 20, 2017, for the following reasons: (You should state specific reasons for denial) Continuance I move to continue File Number H-2017-0066 to the hearing date of (insert continued hearing date here) for the following reason(s): (You should state specific reason(s) for continuance) Item #4C: Southridge Apartments (H-2017-0077) Application(s): ➢ Conditional Use Permit Size of property, existing zoning, and location: This site consists of 27.73 acres of land, zoned R-15, located at on the south side of W. Overland Road, midway between S. Linder Road and S. Ten Mile Road. Adjacent Land Use & Zoning: The subject property is primarily surrounded by developed and undeveloped commercial and residential properties, zoned RUT (Ada County), R-2, R-8, L-0 and TN -R. Comprehensive Plan FLUM Designation: MHDR Summary of Request: Conditional Use Permit (CUP): A CUP is requested for the development of multi -family residential uses on the subject 27.73 acre property in the R-15 zoning district. The UDC (Table 11-2A-2) also requires CUP approval for a multi -family development in the R-15 zoning district. The multi -family residential development is proposed to consist of 476 dwelling units within (42) 2 and 3 -story structures on 27.73 acres of land. The units will consist of 1, 2 and 3 -bedrooms containing 500-800 s.f. for the 1 -bedroom units and 800-1,200 s.f. for the 2 and 3 - bedroom units. There are 1181 -bedroom units, 238 2 -bedroom units and 120 3 -bedroom units. The 2 and 3 story buildings vary in design and layout. An approximately 6,000 s.f. clubhouse and 2,000 s.f. pool house are proposed for the development. The clubhouse is proposed to contain a fitness facility and a meeting room with kitchen. The applicant shall provide elevations and further details of these structures prior to the Planning and Zoning Commission. As stated above, staff finds that the proposed project is substantially compliant with the concept plan approved in the development agreement. All of the proposed uses are consistent with those desired in MHDR designated areas and are allowed in the R-15 district; the multi- family residential use is allowed as a conditional use. Off-street vehicle parking is required to be provided on the site in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3C-6. For multi -family developments, parking standards are based on the number of bedrooms per unit —1 -bedroom units require 1.5 spaces per unit with at least one of those in a covered carport or garage and 2 -bedroom units require 2 spaces per unit with at least one of those in a covered carport or garage. For commercial development, one space is required for every 500 s.f. of gross floor area. For the clubhouse and pool house, a minimum of one space per 500 square feet of gross floor area is required to be provided in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3C-613. Based on a 6,000 square foot clubhouse and a 2,000 square foot pool house, 16 parking spaces are required to be provided. The total number of parking spaces required for the overall development is 909. The applicant has proposed to provide 909 parking spaces, which meets the requirements of the UDC. The applicant is also proposing 486 covered stalls for the development, which also meets the requirements of the UDC. Street buffer landscaping along W. Overland Road and S. Grand Fork Way is required as set forth in UDC Table 11-2B-3. A 35 -foot wide buffer is required along W. Overland Road, an entryway corridor, and a 20 -foot wide buffer is proposed along S. Grand Fork Way. Landscaping is required to be installed within both of the street buffers in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-313-7C with the first phase of development and prior to issuance of the first Certificate of Occupancy for the site. Parking lot landscaping is required to be provided in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-313-8C. The landscaping appears to comply with these standards. A 5 -foot wide detached sidewalk is required to be constructed along W. Overland Road and S. Grand Fork Way, per UDC 11-3A-17. Additionally, all sidewalks around buildings shall be a minimum of five feet in width. The applicant shall construct the sidewalk along W. Overland Road with the first phase of development. The applicant is proposing one access from S. Grand Fork Way for the development. S. Grand Fork Way will be constructed as part of this project. The Fire Department is requiring the applicant to provide one emergency access to the site to W. Overland Road. The applicant should coordinate the location of the Fire Department on the location of the emergency access. The development agreement requires that the applicant provide access to parcel # S1223131250, and that this access be protected and preserved until an alternative access route is provided. The applicant shall provide details of the access for this lot prior to submitting a Certificate of Zoning Compliance application. With phase one of this development, staff also recommends that the applicant dedicate to ACHD and construct an off-site portion of S. Grand Fork Way to connect with a future phase of the Southridge Subdivision No. 3. The conceptual elevations incorporate architectural features designed to provide articulation and variety such as windows, and offsetting walls. The main entrances should be designed as focal points of the buildings through architectural treatments and lighting and should provide weather protection. Roof forms should be distinctive and include variety and detail when viewed from the street — sloped roofs shall have a significant pitch and flat roofs should include distinctive cornice treatments. Building materials are proposed to consist of hardiboard, board and batten, lap siding, and other similar materials. Prior to submission of a Certificate of Zoning Compliance, the applicant shall provide details of the carports. Administrative design review is required with the Certificate of Zoning Compliance application(s) to ensure final design of structures comply with this requirement and the design review standards and guidelines in effect at the time of development. Building elevations were submitted for the multi -family structures (see Exhibit A.4). No building elevations were submitted for the carports, clubhouse, or pool house. Building materials for the multi -family structures consist primarily of lap siding, hardiboard, and asphalt shingles. The applicant is required to obtain approval of a Certificate of Zoning Compliance application for establishment of the new use and to ensure all site improvements comply with the provisions of the UDC and the conditions in this report prior to application for building permits, in accord with UDC 11-5B-1. The applicant is required to submit an application for Design Review concurrent with the Certificate of Zoning Compliance application in accord with UDC 11-5B-8. All structures built on the site are required to comply with the City's design standards. Written Testimony: None Staff Recommendation: Approval w/ conditions Notes: Possible Motions: Approval After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move approve File Number H-2017-0077, as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of July 20, 2017, with the following modifications: (Add any proposed modifications to conditions) Denial After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to deny File Number H-2017-0077, as presented during the hearing on July 20, 2017, for the following reasons: (You should state specific reasons for denial) Continuance I move to continue File Number H-2017-0077 to the hearing date of (insert continued hearing date here) for the following reason(s): (You should state specific reason(s) for continuance) Item #4D: Knighthill Lot 3 Drive -Through - CUP (H-2017.0087) Application(s): ➢ Conditional Use Permit Size of property, existing zoning, and location: This site consists of 0.89 of an acre of land, zoned C -G, located at 1793 W. Chinden Blvd. Adjacent Land Use & Zoning: 1. North: Chinden Boulevard and vacant and developed commercial property, zoned C -C 2. East: Black Rock Coffee, zoned C -G 3. South: Lochsa Falls Subdivision, zoned R-4 4. West: Vacant commercial property and Lochsa Falls Subdivision, zoned C -N and R-4 History: • In 2013, the property received approval of a new preliminary plat (PP -13-031) and a development agreement modification (MDA -13-019). The approved preliminary plat consists of 5 commercial lots and 1 common lot on 9.11 acres. The DA mod replaced the previously approved concept plan with a new one. The amended DA recorded as instrument #114014784. • The final plat (FP -14-020) was approved in 2014. Comprehensive Plan FLUM Designation: MU -C Summary of Request: The applicant is proposing to construct a 4,410 square foot multi -tenant building. The conditional use permit is for a drive-through for a restaurant that consist of 2,650 square feet of the building. All access points were approved with the preliminary plat. Staff's analysis of the proposed development includes the internal site improvements and the site circulation of the drive-through. The proposed site layout is consistent with the concept plan approved for the Knighthill Center. The Planning and Zoning Commission should be aware that this will be the third drive-through in the development. Staff does not anticipate that the number of drive-through establishments will increase the number of internal conflicts, however. The UDC requires a conditional use permit if the drive-through establishment is within 300 feet of a residential district subject to specific use standards listed below. Staffs analysis of the proposed development includes the internal site improvements and the site circulation of the drive-through. Based on the overall square footage (s.f.) of the building, approximately 4,410 s.f., a minimum of 9 vehicle parking spaces are required to be provided on the site. A total of 39 parking stalls are proposed, which exceeds the UDC requirements. A CZC and DES application is required to be submitted prior to issuance of building permits. The applicant must comply with the design standards listed in UDC 11-3A-19 and the guidelines contained in the Architectural Standards Manual. Written Testimony: None Staff Recommendation: Approval w/conditions in Exhibit B of the staff report Notes: Possible Motions: Approval After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to approve File Number H-2017-0087, as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of July 20, 2017, with the following modifications: (Add any proposed modifications to conditions) Denial After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move deny File Number H-2017-0087, as presented during the hearing on July 20, 2017, for the following reasons: (You should state specific reasons for denial) Continuance I move to continue File Number H-2017-0087 to the hearing date of (insert continued hearing date here) for the following reason(s): (You should state specific reason(s) for continuance) Item #4E: Trust Storage - (H-2017-0082) Application(s): Combined Preliminary/Final Plat and Conditional Use Permit Size of property, existing zoning, and location: This site consists of 9.28 of acres, zoned C -C, located at the northeast corner of S. Locust Grove Road and E. Puffin Street. Adjacent Land Use & Zoning: 1. North: C -store, fuel facility and carwash, zoned C -C 2. South: LDS Church, zoned R-8 3. East: Multi -family residential and Mountain View High School, zoned L-0 and R-4 4. West: Assisted living facility and single family residential, zoned L-0 and R-4 History: • In 2000, this property received annexation and zoning (AZ -00-004) approval of 16.119 acres of land with a C -N zoning district (Ordinance No. 882). • In 2010, a rezone (RZ-10-006) from the C -N zone to the C -C zone and a preliminary plat (PP -10-006) consisting of five (5) building lots was approved for the Somerton Subdivision. A development agreement was required with the rezone of the property and recorded as instrument #111037071. The subject property is a remnant parcel leftover from the approval of the previous preliminary plat. The developer at the time failed to process any time extensions with the City and the previous plat has since expired. Comprehensive Plan FLUM Designation: Commercial Summary of Request: The applicant has applied for a combined preliminary and final plat (PFP) consisting of two (2) building lots and a conditional use permit for a self-service storage facility on 9.28 acres of land in the C -C zoning district. Lot 2, Block 1 is proposed to develop with a self-service facility consisting of 14 storage buildings, including an attached office and the other lot is slated for development at a future date. The proposed storage facility is subject to specific use standards set forth in UDC 11-4-3-34. For the most part the proposed facility complies with these standards except for the following: 1. The distance between structures shall be a minimum of twenty-five feet (25'). All of the proposed storage buildings must meet or exceed the 25 -foot distance requirement. The drive aisles between buildings A and B and B and C do not comply with this requirement. Further, there are areas within the portion of the storage facility located on the east side of the north/south drive aisle that also does not comply with this standard. The site plan submitted with the CZC application must include 25 -feet of separation between all structures per the specific use standards, 2. The storage facility shall be completely fenced, walled, or enclosed and screened from public view. The applicant for the most part has designed the site so the perimeter storage buildings screen the facility from public view. However, there are areas along or near Puffin Street that staff believes may be visible without having specific details. Staff recommends that the applicant fully enclose the area along the south boundary of Puffin Street between Buildings A and C; area between Building E and F and F and G; and the entire area adjacent to the proposed parking area H with a solid fence or wall that complements the design of the facility. Further, the secondary access gate between Buildings D and E should be constructed of a solid material to impede visibility into the site. 3. All outdoor storage of material shall be maintained in an orderly manner so as not to create a public nuisance. Materials shall not be stored within the required yards. Stored items shall not block sidewalks or parking areas and may not impede vehicular or pedestrian traffic. The applicant has depicted some internal parking area within the proposed secure facility east of the north/south drive aisle. At the public hearing staff recommends the applicant clarify for the Commission the intended purpose of this parking area. Access: Access to this development was provided with the first phase of the previous development formerly known as Somerton Subdivision. Reciprocal cross access is also in place to serve both lots and there is an existing a full access on to S. Locust Grove and E. Puffin Street. Because the storage facility is bisected by a commercial drive aisle, staff recommends that the applicant incorporates traffic calming where the two internal drive aisles intersect or provide speed bumps in the north/south drive aisle. Landscaping: A 25 -foot wide street buffer is required to be provided along S. Locust Grove Road (arterial) and a 10 -foot wide landscape buffer (local) is required along E. Puffin Street, as set forth in UDC Table 11-213-3; these buffers must be on a common lot or on a permanent dedicated buffer depicted on the plat. The required 25 -foot wide landscape buffer is not shown on the across Lot 1, Block 1. Further, the unimproved Locust Grove right-of-way adjacent to Lot 2, Block 1 must also be landscaped in accord with UDC 11 -3B -7C.5. Prior to signature on the final plat the applicant must revise the landscape plan to incorporate the 25 -foot wide landscape buffer on Lott and include details for landscaping the unimproved right-of-way along the frontage of Lot 2. Parking lot landscaping is required to be provided in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11 -3B -8C. The landscape buffer on the on the east side of the north/south drive aisle and the north side of Building D must include 1 tree per every 35 linear feet per UDC 11 -3B - 8C. A 5 -foot wide landscape buffer and 1 tree per every 35 linear feet is required along the east side of Building C. A 25 -foot wide landscape buffer is depicted along the east boundary in accord with UDC 11 -3B -9C; trees must touch at maturity. Building Elevations: The proposed development is required to comply with the design standards set forth in UDC 11-3A-19 and the ASM. The applicant has submitted renderings that demonstrate how the site will be viewed from the public streets. The primary building materials is metal siding presented in multiple colors and variations in the pattern. As currently designed the proposed elevations do not comply with the design standards. The ASM encourages that the building provide variations in roof and wall planes and a mix of building materials to avoid long segments of blank walls. Further, the proposed storage facility is also adjacent to several other commercial developments that have higher quality architecture than the proposed storage facility. Staff recommends that the applicant use similar color palette and building materials as the adjacent commercial developments so that it complements the surrounding developments consistent with the policies contained in the Comprehensive Plan and the ASM. NOTE. This requirement applies to the perimeter buildings only. Certificate of Zoning Compliance (CZC) and Design Review (DES): A CZC application is required to be submitted prior to issuance of building permits. The applicant is required to obtain approval of a design review application for the proposed structures and site design for the self-service storage facility. This application may be submitted concurrently with the CZC application. The applicant must comply with the design standards listed in UDC 11-3A-19 and the guidelines contained in the ASM. Staff recommends approval of the subject applications with the conditions listed in Exhibit B of the staff report. Written Testimony: Lisa Baird - Email discussed the need to keep the existing commercial drive aisles in place with the development of the storage facility. Staff Recommendation: Approval w/conditions in Exhibit B of the staff report Notes: Possible Motions: Approval After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to recommend approval File Number H-2017-0082, as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of July 20, 2017, with the following modifications: (Add any proposed modifications to conditions) Denial After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to recommend denial File Number H-2017-0082, as presented during the hearing on July 20, 2017, for the following reasons: (You should state specific reasons for denial) Continuance I move to continue File Number H-2017-0082 to the hearing date of (insert continued hearing date here) for the following reason(s): (You should state specific reason(s) for continuance) Meridian Planning Zoning Commission Meeting DATE: July 20, 2017 ITEM NUMBER: 3A ITEM TITLE: Approve minutes of 7/6/17 PZ PROJECT NUMBER: MEETING NOTES C-5 3 CLERKS OFFICE FINAL ACTION DATE: E-MAILED TO STAFF SENT TO AGENCY SENT TO APPLICANT NOTES INITIALS Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission July 6, 2017 Page 69 of 69 MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. THREE ABSENT. Yearsley: Mr. Chairman? Fitzgerald: Mr. Commissioner Yearsley. Yearsley: I move we adjourn. Cassanelli: Second. Perreault: Second. Fitzgerald: I have a motion and a second to adjourn. All those in favor say aye. Yea. We are adjourned. Thank you all. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. THREE ABSENT. MEETING ADJOURNED AT 9:33 P.M. (AUDIO RECORDING ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS.) APPROVED =-VtEE-CHAIRMAN Rh o aO a- ATTEST:: C. JAY COLES - CITY CLERK -�--I 2-01 DATE APPROVED GO�PTCsDwtic - OI dy G �u Q ,(' City of IDAHD y" SEAL F � mr�R °� ray zaE�S°Q� Meridian Planning Zoning Commission Meeting DATE: July 20, 2017 ITEM NUMBER: 4A PROJECT NUMBER: H-2017-0058 ITEM TITLE: Pine 43 Public Hearing - AZ RZ and PP by DMB Development - s/o E. Fairview, e/o N. Locust Grove Rd, n/o Commercial St and w/o Hickory Avenue MEETING NOTES S or i n C� -/V �'3 C (,v T CLERKS OFFICE FINAL ACTION DATE: E-MAILED TO STAFF SENT TO AGENCY SENT TO APPLICANT NOTES INITIALS CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING PUBLIC HEARING SIGN -IN SHEET Date: July 20, 2017 Item # Project Number: Project Name: H-2017-0058 Pine 43 Please print your name For Against Neutral Do you wish to testify (Y/N) AJ ! IV or -,F_ Meridian Planning Zoning Commission Meeting DATE: July 20, 2017 ITEM TITLE: 2 1/2 Street Townhomes ITEM NUMBER: 4B PROJECT NUMBER: H-2017-0066 Public Hearing continued from 6/22 - Rezone of 3.07 acres of land from the C -C and R- 15 zoning district to the O -T zoning district AND Preliminary Plat approval consisting of 51 residential lots, and 7 common lots on 2.571 acres of land in the proposed O -T zoning district by Broadbent Properties - s/o E. Franklin on the w/side of 2 1/2 Street MEETING NOTES Aptn 4-o C/C CLERKS OFFICE FINAL ACTION q, -D (5a-bse� DATE: E-MAILED TO STAFF SENT TO AGENCY SENT TO APPLICANT NOTES INITIALS CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING PUBLIC HEARING SIGN -IN SHEET Date: July 20, 2017 Item # Project Number: H-2017-0066 Project Name: 2 1/2 Street Townhomes Please print your name For Against Neutral Do you wish to testify (Y/N) /,��tj Meridian Planning Zoning Commission Meeting DATE: July 20, 2017 ITEM NUMBER: 4C PROJECT NUMBER: H-2017-0077 ITEM TITLE: Southridge Apartments Public Hearing continued from 7/6 - CUP approval for 476 multi -family dwelling units on approximately 27.73 acres in an existing R-15 zoning district by Southridge Farm, LLC - s/side of W. Overland Rd, midway between S. Linder Rd and S. Ten Mile Rd MEETING NOTES ti -e V� �` KO J I CLERKS OFFICE FINAL ACTION DATE: E-MAILED TO STAFF SENT TO AGENCY SENT TO APPLICANT NOTES INITIALS CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING PUBLIC HEARING SIGN -IN SHEET Date: July 20, 2017 Item # Project Number: H-2017-0077 4C Project Name: Southridge Apartments Please print your name For Against Neutral Do you wish to testify (Y/N) Meridian Planning Zoning Commission Meeting DATE: July 20, 2017 ITEM NUMBER: 4D PROJECT NUMBER: H-2017-0087 ITEM TITLE: Knighthill Lot 3 Drive Through Public Hearing - Conditional Use Permit for a drive-thru establishment within 300 feet of another drive-thru establishment by James Wylie - SWC of Chinden Blvd and N. Linder Road MEETING NOTES �p-nom i�-F c ms's q3 ev --Fp, CLERKS OFFICE FINAL ACTION DATE: E-MAILED TO STAFF SENT TO AGENCY SENT TO APPLICANT NOTES INITIALS J CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING PUBLIC HEARING SIGN -IN SHEET Date: July 20, 2017 Item # Project Number: H-2017-0087 all Project Name: Knighthill Lot 3 Drive -Through Please print your name For Against Neutral Do you wish to testify (Y/N) Meridian Planning Zoning Commission Meeting DATE: ,July 20, 2017 ITEM TITLE: Trust Storage ITEM NUMBER: 4E PROJECT NUMBER: H-2017-0082 Public Hearing - Combined PFP consisting of 2 building lots on 9.28 acres of land in the C -C zoning district and CUP for a self-service storage facility in the C -C zoning district by John Day - NEC of S. Locust Grove Rd and E. Puffin Street MEETING NOTES C'vn�l'hc,�e rjtq 40 8/'J CLERKS OFFICE FINAL ACTION DATE: E-MAILED TO STAFF SENT TO AGENCY SENT TO APPLICANT NOTES INITIALS CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING PUBLIC HEARING SIGN -IN SHEET Date: July 20, 2017 Item # Project Number: H-2017-0082 Project Name: Trust Storage Please print your name ��f . wll D 4E For Against Neutral Do you wish to testifv (Y/N)