Loading...
2017 12-21Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting December 21, 2017. Meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission of December 12, 2017, was called to order at 6:00 p.m. by Chairman Rhonda McCarvel. Members Present: Commissioner Rhonda McCarvel Commissioner Ryan Fitzgerald, Commissioner Gregory Wilson, Commissioner Jessica Perreault, and Commissioner Bill Cassinelli. Members Absent: Commissioner Treg Bernt. Others Present: Charlene Way, Andrea Pogue, Bill Parsons Josh, Beach and Dean Willis. Item 1: Roll-call Attendance ______ Treg Bernt ___X___ Steven Yearsley __X___ Gregory Wilson ___X___ Ryan Fitzgerald __X___ Jessica Perreault ___X___ Bill Cassinelli ___X___ Rhonda McCarvel - Chairman McCarvel: Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. At this time I would like to call to order the regularly scheduled meeting of Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission on December 21st, 20 -- 2017. Thank you. Let's begin with roll call. Item 2: Adoption of the Agenda McCarvel: The first item on the agenda is the adoption of the agenda. We have one item that is -- will be changed. It's H-2017-0142, Summertown Subdivision, will be opened only for the purpose of continuing the item to the regularly scheduled date of January 4th. It will be open solely for that purpose. So, if there is anybody here tonight to testify on that particular application, we will not be taking testimony today. Could I get a motion to adopt the agenda. Cassinelli: So moved. Fitzgerald: Second. McCarvel: It has been moved and seconded to adopt the agenda. All in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. TWO ABSENT. Item 3: Consent Agenda Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission December 21, 2017 Page 2 of 64 A. Approve Minutes of the December 7, 2017 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting. McCarvel: The next item on the agenda is the Consent Agenda and we just have the one item on the Consent Agenda to approve the minutes of December 7th. Fitzgerald: Madam Chair, I would move for approval. Wilson: Second. McCarvel: It has been moved and seconded to adopt the Consent Agenda. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. TWO ABSENT. McCarvel: At this time I would like to briefly explain the public hearing process for this evening. We will open each item individually and, then, start with the staff report. The staff will report their findings regarding how the item adheres to our Comprehensive Plan and Uniform Development Code with the staff's recommendations. After the staff has made their presentation, the applicant will come forward to present their case for the approval of their application and respond to any staff comments. The applicant will have 15 minutes to do so. After the applicant has finished, we will open the public testimony. There is a sign-up sheet in the back as you entered for anyone wishing to testify. Any person testifying will come forward to the microphones and be allowed three minutes and you will notice there is a timer on the screen, so you will be able to 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 given up to ten minutes. After all testimony has been heard, the applicant will be given another ten minutes to have the opportunity to come back and respond if they desire. After that we will close the public hearing and the Commissioners will have the opportunity to discuss and, hopefully, be able to make a recommendation to City Council. Item 4: Action Items C. Public Hearing for Summertown Subdivision (H-2017-0142) by 745 W Ustick LLC Located at 745 W Ustick Road 1. Request: Annexation and Zoning of 15.13 Acres of Land with a TN-R Zoning District McCarvel: So, at this time I would like to open H-2017-0142, Summertown Subdivision, to be continued to January 4th. Let's see. And they are requesting the continuance in order to have the preliminary plat application catch up to the annexation application. Yearsley: Madam Chair? Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission December 21, 2017 Page 3 of 64 McCarvel: Commissioner Yearsley. Yearsley: Before we do a vote, can we just make sure for the record that Commissioner Perreault has arrived, so we can make sure when she votes she's noted. McCarvel: We actually count her vote. Yearsley: Yes. McCarvel: Okay. Yes. For the record Commissioner Perreault has entered the room. Yearsley: And with that I would make a motion to continue file number H-2017-0142 to the hearing date of January 4th, 2018. Cassinelli: Second. McCarvel: It has been moved and seconded to continue item H-2017-0142, Summertown Subdivision. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: SIX AYES. ONE ABSENT. A. Public Hearing for Linder Mixed Use (H-2017-0095) by Trevor Gasser, Located at 5960 N. Linder Road. 1. Request: Annexation and Zoning of 5 Acres of Land with a C-C Zoning District. McCarvel: At this time we would like to continue H-2017-0095, Linder Mixed Use, and we will begin with the staff report. Allen: Madam Chair, Members of the Commission, the first application before you tonight was heard by the Commission on October 9th. It was continued at that meeting in order for the applicant to revise their plans. The Commission voted to continue the project to a subsequent meeting in order for the applicant to revise their development plans to remove the multi-family residential component of the plan. In lieu of multi- family, the Commission suggested other uses, such as townhomes, mixed commercial, and/or office uses. The applicant submitted a revised development plan as requested. Staff report has been updated accordingly and the project has been renoticed. The original concept plan is shown there on the right and the new revised proposed concept plan is shown on the -- excuse me. I said right. I meant left. And the new one is on the right. The original application included a request for a rezone of the two properties just to the south of this. Since the last Commission hearing the applicant has withdrawn that portion of their request. The application before you tonight is just a request for annexation and zoning. This site consists of eight acres of land. It's zoned RUT in Ada county and is located -- I'm not sure which of these addresses it was. I believe it was -- well, 5940 or 5960 North Linder Road. Still have that on there from the last application. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission December 21, 2017 Page 4 of 64 Adjacent land uses and zoning. To the north is vacant, undeveloped property, zoned RUT in Ada county. It is the proposed Linder Village commercial mixed use development property that you guys have already heard. To the east are single family residential homes in Paramount Subdivision, zoned R-8. To the south is residential agricultural property and a church, zoned L-O. To the west is North Linder Road and single family residential homes in Lochsa Falls Subdivision, zoned R-4. The Comprehensive Plan future land map designation for this property is mixed use community. The applicant proposes to annex and zone five acres of land with a C-C zoning district. A conceptual development plan was submitted as shown that depicts two pad sites that are a little less than an acre each fronting North Linder Road. A north-south driveway and a 7,000 and 10,000 square foot building with an outdoor plaza area between the two, with associated parking, is proposed on the east side of the site. The applicant does have a potential tenant that would like to develop a dance studio and event center for dance recitals and performances on the rear three acre portion of the site. That is the area right back here. Direct access via North Linder Road is not proposed. However, if in the future when the site develops, if access is not available via the north-south backage road paralleling Linder Road, an access via Linder Road may be needed. In this case staff recommends it would be a temporary access until such time as access is available from the properties to the north and south. At that time the access would be removed unless otherwise approved by the Commission and City Council. A cross-access ingress-egress easement is required to be provided to the properties to the north and south for access to the site and interconnectivity to the properties. There are no pedestrian walkways depicted on the concept plan along the north-south backage road that separates the commercial uses from the arts and entertainment use. Staff is recommending a walkway is provided on one side of the driveway for safe pedestrian access and interconnectivity. Conceptual building elevations have been submitted for the commercial structures that front on North Linder Road. Those are shown on the left there, consisting of one story structures, with stucco, horizontal siding, and brick-stone veneer accents and the event center, proposed to be at least a two story structure, constructed of CMU block on the right. All structures are required to comply with the design standards in the architectural standards manual. Written testimony submitted on this application. Prior to the last Commission hearing Trevor Gasser, the applicant, response to the staff report. Justin Carpenter, Jeremy Evans, Karen Gallegos, Sally Reynolds and a petition signed by adjacent homeowners opposing the development. And, then, there was only one letter submitted since the last Commission hearing and that was from Wendy McKinney in favor of the new revised plan. Staff is recommending approval with the revised concept plan with the requirement of a development agreement containing provisions in Exhibit B of the staff report. Staff will stand for any questions. McCarvel: Any questions for staff? Okay. Would the applicant like to come forward. Gasser: Trevor Gasser. 824 North McKittrick, Farmington, Utah. 84025. Madam Chair, Commissioners, thanks for -- for hearing me again. At the last meeting, as Sonya pointed out, the -- the comments back were multi-family is needed in Meridian, but not at this location and you felt otherwise, that I should remove the multi-family, Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission December 21, 2017 Page 5 of 64 along with the residence. Since I have had a -- time to review the project, see how I can make it work, I am under contract with this new tenant for the back parcel here to do a dance studio, event center, for their recitals and performances. They a local company. They have been in business for a long time and I think it would be a compliment to the community. I had a neighborhood meeting and I had -- I had good support at that meeting. I didn't -- I didn't have any -- anybody there giving me negative feedback and so I have really tried hard to listen to them and to you and I come up with this new plan. I am currently negotiating on the south portion here, about a 1.483 acre parcel with preschool slash daycare that would take that front portion and, then, I would develop office in the back to give it that mixed use feel. So, at this time if you -- if you have any questions I'd be happy to answer them. McCarvel: I just -- about the access, are you in agreement with staff on everything that's in the report in Exhibit B or -- Gasser: So, my only question on that would be if -- you know, if this portion on the south side never got developed, I would like to have access off of Linder and maybe -- I don't know if I had an agreement with the property owner to the south to do a common access in the middle of there, but if -- you know, I looked down at the -- the property to the south on McMillan and Linder and they have three or four access points within 250 feet of each other and both of these properties are 300 feet wide and so that -- that is one thing that I would -- you know, for my commercial tenants it's imperative to have good access. If I take access down here off of Linder on the L-O site, then, I'm fine, but -- and depending on what happens with the Village, I don't know what's going to happen with -- with their plan in the future, too, so I would just need some sort of access off the -- off the front. McCarvel: So, how far out do you think you are from -- to get the rest of that developed, the daycare and the office? Gasser: We are close. I mean I have signed an LOI with a tenant, but it's the holidays and deals don't go through as fast as you would like them to with the holidays. So, I'm hoping, you know, sometime in January. McCarvel: So, what's pictured here is pretty much what we should expect? Gasser: Yes. McCarvel: Okay. Any other questions for the applicant? Okay. Okay. Thank you. Gasser: Thank you. McCarvel: At this time we will take public testimony. I have several names on the sheet here, but nobody that says that they are wishing to testify. Is there anyone here that would like to testify on this application? Certainly. Come forward. And as you approach the mic, please, state your name and address for the record. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission December 21, 2017 Page 6 of 64 Reynolds: My name is Sally Reynolds. I live at 1166 West Bacall Street, Meridian, Idaho, and I'm going to be speaking -- I'm reading a letter, first, from my husband Greg Reynolds. He testified against the plan previously and he couldn't be here due to a work commitment, so I'm going to read his letter if that's okay. Dear Madam Commissioner and Commission Members, I apologize for not being able to attend this hearing in person due to an unexpected work commitment, but since I wrote out some concerns in the previous hearing, I wanted to make sure you knew that they had been resolved. Mr. Gasser and TMEG have been receptive to the concerns that were raised and I applaud their efforts to work with residents to come together on a proposal that provides benefits to the community without additional strain on the local infrastructure. I urge the Commission to approve this new proposal. On a related note, with all the focus right now on redrawing school attendance boundaries due to overcrowding, I hope Meridian city officials will recognize that these small parcels of land can have a large impact on things that are further than 300 feet away, especially where you're talking about high density housing. The question can't be whether or not the city needs more apartments, but whether the placements of them will be a burden on nearby schools or other public utilities. For example, at some point the -- the small property owners on the east side of Paramount will decide to sell off their land and what gets built there will be just as important as what's proposed tonight. I know the Commission understands this and I would ask that it be a topic of discussion at the City Council level throughout the next year. Apologies, again, for not being present tonight. Thank you for your service to Meridian. Greg Reynolds. And I just wanted to add my own personal note. My sincerest thanks to you for encouraging the developer to continue to work at looking at different options for this land and my genuine thanks to Mr. Gasser for being -- he has been a genuine delight to work with and he has kept us in the loop and he has gone above and beyond just what the city has required of him. This outcome is an excellent example of how residents and developers can come together to find a mutually beneficial plan that all parties are in favor of. Many of the Paramount residents are excited to see this land developed into businesses that will enhance our community, serve our children, and increase the commute for parents who currently go far to drop children off to school or dance class and I sent Mr. Gasser this and here is just some comments from residents that I received when I sent out the new plan. Quote: This is great news and an excellent example of what could be if Linder Village developers were actually willing to listen and work with residents. Another one. Love this plan. Great fit for the community. Thank you, Mr. Gasser. Another one. We are very happy with the new plan Trevor has put forth. I think it will be an asset to the community. Another one. Love Gasser's plan. Thank you for sharing it. Another one. That is great. We like it. And the last one. We think this builder has done a wonderful job of finding what fits for the Comprehensive Plan, as well as fitting for the neighborhood. Our hats off to Trevor. Thank you for your time. McCarvel: Thank you. Mr. Gasser, do you have anything else you would like -- that's a good closing for you? All right. All right. At this time could I get a motion to close the public hearing for item H-2017-0095, Linder Mixed Use. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission December 21, 2017 Page 7 of 64 Cassinelli: So moved. Wilson: Second. McCarvel: It has been moved and seconded to close the public hearing for Item No. H- 2017-0095. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: SIX AYES. ONE ABSENT. Yearsley: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Who has -- Commissioner Yearsley. Yearsley: You know, I was not here to hear the first application and so I don't know what was said or what was discussed, but I -- I thoroughly like the new pro -- the new proposed plan. I think, like was said, it will enhance the area providing resources for kids and stuff. The only concern -- and I -- it's not enough for an objection at this point, because there is not enough to know. We have seen it before in the past with the preschool, day school, getting kids in and out in a timely manner without traffic might be an issue that we want to look at, but just -- just as a reference. But I think -- for the most part I think it's -- it's a good plan. McCarvel: I agree. It's night and day from what we looked at last time and what a great use for the community and, as I said, I'm sure it will get a ton of use. Cassinelli: I would agree. I was definitely not in favor of the last one. McCarvel: Yeah. Cassinelli: And I -- you know, I couldn't ask for a better revision in what came back and I commend you for working with the -- with the neighbors and I think it's -- it's going to be a great buffer between the homes in Paramount, Linder Road, and what's already there to the south and I would echo Commissioner Yearsley's statement about the drop off, pick up, and probably something to work with if -- if they do come on board and make sure that's drawn out the best it can be. McCarvel: Okay. Commissioner Perreault. Perreault: I have a quick question. And I apologize if I missed this. Is staff recommending that there is a walkway that goes from the -- the event center here on the east to the properties to the west? Is that what -- what you -- when it says staff recommends a walkway be provided on one side of the driveway for safe pedestrian access? Allen: Madam Chair, Chairman Perreault, the walkway along this north-south driveway right here. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission December 21, 2017 Page 8 of 64 Perreault: Okay. So, as far as if somebody wanted to walk from the east side to the west side are they just going to walk along -- through the parking lot? Allen: I did not include a requirement, I don't believe, in the staff report, but it would be nice to have a pathway from the sidewalk if it's on the right-hand side through to the entrance. Perreault: Because I noticed there was one on the -- Allen: Certainly can be added to the development agreement provisions. Perreault: Okay. McCarvel: Okay. Wilson: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Wilson. Wilson: After considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move to recommend approval to City Council of file number H-2017-0129 as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of December 21st, 2017. Fitzgerald: Second. Are we making any revisions based on what Commissioner Perreault just mentioned? Are we adding that condition? That's not in the staff report. McCarvel: That's not in the staff report. Fitzgerald: So, they are talking about -- so she's talking about one going this way. Wilson: Discuss that maybe. I don't know. I didn't think we had to include -- Yearsley: Well, from my understanding I think the pathway in the -- in the staff report is actually along the roadway. McCarvel: To the south. Fitzgerald: It is. Yearsley: And, then, not to the -- yeah. McCarvel: As the condition of the -- connecting that. Yeah. Fitzgerald: Yeah. Clear across the parking lot. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission December 21, 2017 Page 9 of 64 Wilson: Okay. McCarvel: Yeah. It's item number H-2017-0095. Wilson: So, I'm reading the -- okay. Let's do it again. After considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move to recommend approval to City Council of file number H-2017-0095 with the following modification: That we include an east-west halfway to the entrance. Cassinelli: Second. McCarvel: It has been moved and seconded to approve item number H-107-0095, Linder Mixed Use, with the aforementioned comments. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries. Congratulations. Thank you. MOTION CARRIED: SIX AYES. ONE ABSENT. B. Public Hearing Continued from November 16, 2017 For Timberline Subdivision (H-2017-0140) by Bailey Investments, LLC Located at 655 and 735 W Victory Road 1. Request: Preliminary Plat Consisting of 59 Single Family Residential Lots and 8 Common Lots on 17.3 Acres of Land in the R-8 Zoning District. McCarvel: Okay. At this time we would like to open the public hearing for item number H-2017-0110, Timberline Subdivision, and we will begin with the staff report. Beach: Thank you, Madam Chair and Members of the Commission. Just to start out, I happen to have the hiccups this evening, so apologize in advance if there is some odd noises coming from this direction. McCarvel: All righty. Beach: I have been holding my breath for a while, so hopefully they are gone. So, tonight this is the Timberline Subdivision. It is an application for a preliminary plat. The site consists of approximately 17.3 acres of land. Is currently zoned R-8. It's located at 655 and 735 West Victory Road. Adjacent land use and zoning. To the north are single family homes in the Bear Creek Subdivision, which was also zoned R-8. Excuse me. Zoned R-4. To the east are rural residential property, which is zoned R-8. To the south are single family residential properties in the Kentucky Ridge Estates Subdivision and Biltmore Estates, which are zoned R-4. And to the west are single family residential property also in Kentucky Ridge, also zoned R-4. The Comprehensive Plan feature land use map designation is medium density residential. The proposed plat consists of 58 building lots, seven common lots, on 17.3 acres of land in the R-8 zoning district. The gross density for the subdivision is 3.41 dwelling per acre. Average lot size is Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission December 21, 2017 Page 10 of 64 8,490 square feet. All of the proposed lots comply with the dimension standards of the UDC. There is an existing recorded development agreement for the subject property that requires all of the lots that elbow up to the Kentucky Ridge Estates Subdivision to be 10,000 square feet in size at a minimum, the developable lots, and they all do comply. There are several existing structures on the site that will be demolished as part of the project. The phasing plan as presented by the applicant indicates the first phase of the development will come from the south and the second phase will include the Victory Road frontage. In an effort to ensure that pedestrian connectivity in the area occurs sooner, rather than later, staff is recommending that the applicant construct the landscape buffer and sidewalk along West Victory Road with what is their first phase. So, you can see here on the -- the plat -- south on this diagram is to the left, so -- or, excuse me, north is to the left. South would be to the right. So, the first phase would be connecting to the Biltmore Estates Subdivision in this location and, then, Victory Road runs up and down right here, which was the connection at this point. Typically the City Council has been asking for subdivisions that are within -- relatively close distance to a school to, at a minimum, put in a sidewalk along the frontage to accommodate the pedestrian students getting to school. This is relatively close to a school on Stoddard, so our request -- but this not being an annexation staff can't technically require the applicant, because we can typically -- we typically do that with an annexation, but with the preliminary plat we don't have the ability to do that, but we are recommending that that is something that is looked at, that at a minimum a sidewalk be -- be installed along the frontage. Moving on. Access is proposed for the site via one access to Victory, as I mentioned, and a stub street to the south -- or South Bear Claw Avenue. The applicant's proposing two additional stub streets to the parcel to the east that will connect to future development. There are several lots that are encumbered by an existing easement. Any existing utility mains crossing a property that are no longer in use or needed must be abandoned and any associated easements would need to be released or relinquished. You can see here in this location there is an existing easement that is no longer being used, we have asked the applicant as part of that, as a condition in the staff report, that that be relinquished prior to a final plat being approved. A minimum of ten percent of qualified open space is a standard requirement for subdivisions per the UDC. Based on the plat, which is 17.3 acres, a minimum of 1.73 acres of qualified open space is required. The applicant has revised their preliminary plat recently and we have not yet received an updated revised landscape plan that I can analyze to ensure the ten percent requirement. Staff has conditioned the applicant to provide that landscape plan prior to City Counsel to ensure that the amenities and the ten percent open space threshold are met based on the area of the plat -- the annexation, excuse me, two qualified open space -- too qualified amenities are -- are required. The applicant is also requesting that the city's domestic water be used as irrigation. The applicant has not provided a waiver of requirement from the irrigation district as proof that they do not have water rights. Use of the city's domestic water as irrigation should be the last option in providing irrigation water to the proposed development. So, the applicant will have to provide something from the irrigation district indicating that they do not have water rights or the capacity to serve the development. So, the elevations are shown here. The conceptual elevations. The applicant is proposing to construct single family detached homes. The applicant has submitted Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission December 21, 2017 Page 11 of 64 conceptual sample building elevations for future homes. The building material consists of a variety of wood siding, cultured stone and/or masonry with architectural shingles. With that staff is recommending approval of the application and I will stand for any questions you have. McCarvel: Okay. Thank you. Any questions for staff? Would the applicant like to come forward. Riley: Madam Chairman, Commissioners, Penelope Riley. Post Office Box 405, Boise, Idaho. 83701. I'm here representing, obviously, the applicant Project Team for Timberline Subdivision. Project Team and the applicant have reviewed the staff report and concur, with the exception of the requirement for street improvements on Victory Road and I'd like to cover that a little later in my presentation. The project engineer is available this evening for any questions you have regarding engineering. We have had two neighborhood meetings. The first we had a flawed neighborhood meeting list from the land records office, so we hosted a second meeting and that one complied with the city standards. The Project Team has been corresponding with the neighborhood. I had a nice list of e-mail addresses and we forwarded information to them over the course of the application processing period. The project is two phases, as Josh has mentioned, and generally splits the site in two. A landscape plan will be prepared and updated in time for the City Council meeting. The lots adjacent to Kentucky Ridge will be 10,000 square feet as required by the previously recorded development agreement and the remainder of the lots are in compliance with the city code. With regard to the vacation of easements, we have submitted legal description and exhibits to the City of Meridian, so that vacation is in process as far as I am aware. Common areas for the subdivision will be a minimum of ten percent as required by city code and the irrigation waiver, the project engineer is working on that now. So, it's in process. With regard to Victory Road -- and, Josh, if you would put up that illustration I gave you. Thank you. We are requesting that the improvements on Victory Road be constructed with phase two. There is a 300 foot separation between phase one and phase two directly north. In other words, Victory Road is at least 300 feet away from the northern boundary of phase one. So, it's quite a distance. Yes, you can see on this illustration -- and my highlighting is a little bit sloppy, but there is a full sidewalk available in the north side of Victory Road and it traverses from Stoddard all the way to Meridian Road. So, there is full pedestrian facilities available at present. I'm assuming that bus stops, as they are currently laid out now, are to the west where Kentucky Ridge and Kentucky Estates access Victory Road or for all the residences on the north side of Victory Road. So, it's unlikely that we have a bus stop on the south side adjacent to our site at this time . A sidewalk would, obviously, dead end on the east side of the site, because that's where they would run into the canal and, again, we have full pedestrian facilities available in the north side of the street. Residents in phase one would not be able to easily access Victory Road from -- from phase one, they would have to either go south through Biltmore or go east and south through Kentucky Ridge and Kentucky Estates to get -- to walk up to Victory Road. So, those pedestrian facilities are in place now. As the developer plans to move forward quickly with phase two, so there would be a minimal delay in the construction of the Victory Road improvements, at any -- regardless of Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission December 21, 2017 Page 12 of 64 whether or not they are done with this phase or the next. It won't be much of a delay. So, in closing we do request that the conditions of approval be modified, so that the street improvements along the site of phase two portion of the site be constructed with phase two and with that I would be happy to answer any questions you have. Yearsley: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Yearsley. Yearsley: So, the piece in front of Kentucky Ridge, did that get sidewalks included or do you know if there is sidewalks already in front of the Kentucky Ridge? Riley: I believe so. On the streets? Yearsley: Yes. On Victory Road. Adjacent to yours. So, would you be connecting to existing sidewalk to the -- to the west? Riley: There is a development in between us, our site, the phase two portion of our site, and Kentucky Ridge. They -- they still have to traverse another development site before they can get to the Kentucky Ridge -- Yearsley: Okay. Riley: -- access point. McCarvel: So, there is nothing there right now to connect that sidewalk to? Riley: Well, it looks like it's in -- it's been constructed. This is maybe -- McCarvel: Oh, there it is. Okay. Riley: -- more recent than that. Fitzgerald: Madam Chair? Riley: Oh, I take that back. It doesn't look like it has been constructed yet. McCarvel: Commissioner Fitzgerald. Fitzgerald: Josh, that's Kentucky Villas; right? Or that's what it's called? The pink -- or chunk of the pink that's already got addresses? Is that all done? Is it developed out? Parsons: Madam Mayor, Members of the Commission, yes, that is a subdivision that's in process and that sidewalk was required as part of that development. It's just not constructed. It's -- they have surety for that improvement. So, as the weather breaks and we get out of winter, we do anticipate a sidewalk along that street frontage. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission December 21, 2017 Page 13 of 64 Fitzgerald: And, Josh, you mentioned there is a -- like they connect -- connection to schools concept, is there a -- where is the school near here, so that we understand that. Beach: So, this is the subject property here. So, the boundary line is about right there. It splits the intersection there. This is the Kentucky Villas and this is their project here. North on Stoddard is where the school is. I will scroll up so you can see. This is the school here. So, it's -- it's fairly close by. Zoom out a little bit. You can see how close that is. Fitzgerald: And to the east, while you're scrolling, it looks like giant retention ponds. Is that -- what are those? Are they -- they are dry in this picture, but -- Beach: This area where my mouse is? Fitzgerald: Yeah. Beach: Yeah. That's -- that's property that is not -- it's not necessarily a retention pond, there has just been water in there. Fitzgerald: Okay. Thanks. Yearsley: So, Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Yearsley. Yearsley: Would you be willing to -- at least at a minimum construct your sidewalk at least to the east side of Stoddard, if not all the way through? Riley: So -- oh, you mean along our west property line? Yearsley: Yes. At least so -- because right now the -- the property to the east is actually -- has a sidewalk to your property line, but it doesn't get to the east side of -- of Victory Road, so that you could actually put a crosswalk in to go to the north. Riley: Oh. So, you're asking if we would extend the sidewalk, so that it was on the other side of where Stoddard is? Yearsley: Right. So, you're -- well, you're asking for a waiver from not doing the landscaping in the front. As an alternative -- and we would have to discuss this, but I wanted to get your opinion. Would you be willing to at least go to the other side of the street, so we could have some sort of a crosswalk, so they can get safely to another sidewalk to walk to school? Riley: That seems very reasonable. Yes, I believe that would be acceptable. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission December 21, 2017 Page 14 of 64 Yearsley: Okay. Riley: I was just looking at these here. Sorry. Yearsley: All right. Thank you. McCarvel: Okay. Riley: Thank you. McCarvel: Thank you. At this time we will take public testimony. I have one person signed up. Dustin Hilgert. Come forward. And, please, state your name and address for the record. Hilgert: Dustin Hilgert, 490 West Tall Prairie Drive in Meridian, Idaho. 83642. McCarvel: Okay. Thank you. Hilgert: Appreciate you guys' time tonight. I will make it as quick as I can. I'm up here talking about this subdivision. I live in an adjacent subdivision, the Biltmore Estates. Knowing that this is already zoned residential, so there is not a whole lot we might have to say, but there is about 20 houses that are built up. We are kind of on a bluff and we have this subdivision being put in that is given, in our opinion -- most people are out of town because of the holidays, so they are not here. No -- there is no thought process into what that's going to do to our houses and our views and -- and everything else. I mean everything is stacked right up on us, so I'm going to come in my backyard here and I'm just going to be hanging out with my -- my neighbor, because they are just -- everything is right there. And I know it's already zoned residential, but we have had to we have tried to have this conversation with the developer and, essentially, have been told, well, the only think you can do about what we do with the houses we put in here is by the property, because we are going to do whatever we kind of want, which upsets us, because that's the point of having a planning and zoning committee and requiring people to submit drawings and preliminary plats. So -- and as you go through their -- their actual application -- I mean the drawings of the houses that are in there are over -- or the photos, they are houses that are over 20 years old. They are not even houses that would be built right now. We were given some subdivisions of similar houses that they might put in the subdivision. You know, Tuscany, Paramount, all the nicer subdivisions in Meridian, which is great, but how come the application didn't have anything like that? I mean they have -- they reference wood garage doors in like three different spots in the application. I challenge anybody to find an actual wood garage door on any house in the City of Meridian right now. My point with that is is we don't want to stifle growth and I'm a taxpayer, I mean I want more tax base, I want to be able to have the amenities in Meridian. I have been here for over a decade, but we can't just let anybody come in and just throw something together and, hey, here we go, we are onto the next subdivision, we are just going to forget about everybody that -- that is already actually paying taxes to the city and that's my big concern. And another one is Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission December 21, 2017 Page 15 of 64 -- they just brought up is access from Victory. So, now you're not going to have a road for phase one from Victory, so people are going to actually have to drive in through three subdivisions, go right through -- with one road in, they are going to drive by 60 houses to build all those houses. I don't understand that. And the -- the irrigation is the same thing. I don't know why they wouldn't have irrigation. The farmer that's been there watering those fields for his sheep is using irrigation. So, if they didn't sell the water right with the property -- now, whose taxes are going to pay for more water to get filtered and treated to go to people doing their landscaping. I don't think there has been a lot of thought put into this. McCarvel: Thank you. Okay. There is no one else signed up on the sheet, but is there anyone else in the room that would like to testify on this application? Okay. Would the applicant like to come back? Riley: Thank you, Madam Chairman, Commissioners. Would you like me to give you my name again? McCarvel: Yes. Go ahead. Riley: Penelope Riley, Box 405, Boise, Idaho. 83701. Development is always -- new development is always difficult and we are sensitive to the fact that the individuals who live to the south of us and had extraordinarily nice views up to now -- unfortunately, someone else's view was damaged when their subdivision went in and it -- it's a domino thing that -- that there isn't any easy answer for, really. There is two lots that will be aligned east to west at the very bottom of the subdivision, so -- and there is an elevation difference between the houses behind -- to the south of us and the new homes that would be constructed in phase one of Timberline. So, I don't know what I can say with regard to that. We don't know for sure that their views will be destroyed, it just depends on what home is built on what lot, but, again, there is an elevation difference and they are up on a bluff, so there is some -- some opportunity for them to retain some portions of their view in the worst case scenario. The architectural images that I submitted with the application were provided to me by the applicant Bailey Investments and I guess I would just have to say regarding architectural elements, there is -- there is a pretty consistent theme of home types and sizes and footprints that exist in this general vicinity of the subdivision. Very, very far from that is a developer as a builder would be dangerous, because, then, you have a lack of consistency. People like to have homes that are somewhat similar. So, my thought is that there won't be a big variation between the homes that are there now and the new homes that will be constructed. With regard to irrigation, like I said earlier, the engineer is working on that. I know he has inquired into the irrigation district to see how much water rights we do have with the site. It may be insufficient to supply all the homes that would be constructed. The engineer is here and perhaps he can address that item for you. And, finally, your question, sir, about the sidewalk. My understanding is it's already stubbed to our property line on the west side, so it might already be in place, what you are looking for in regards to sidewalk to what would be the south side of the east side of the intersection of Victory and Stoddard, if I'm understanding you correctly, Commissioner. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission December 21, 2017 Page 16 of 64 Yearsley: No. Because they have already built it to their property line. Your property line is in the middle of the roadway. I want to go to the east side of that intersection, so we can have a crosswalk to a safe sidewalk on the other side of the street. That's what my thought was. Riley: Madam Chairman. I understand. It seems like a very reasonable request. Yearsley: Okay. Riley: I would be happy to answer any questions. Yearsley: Oh, I was going to bring up the irrigation. Is it just not enough water or not enough water at one time? Could they put a pond in to use for adequate irrigation to -- for storage? Riley: Obviously, that's a possibility and I will let the engineer discuss that. I think at this time we don't have a clear number on how many feet of water we have, so -- there is no sense in using domestic water if there is sufficient irrigation water. Absolutely. Cassinelli: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Yeah. Commissioner Cassinelli. Cassinelli: The -- what are there for proposed common areas and amenities right now? That was -- it looks like those aren't in there yet. Is that -- Riley: Madam Chairman, Commissioner, I believe we have -- we originally had three common lots distributed across the site to provide amenities. One of them would have just been the grassy open space that's listed in the Meridian Code as being one of the amenities and, then, my understanding was a -- kind of a community picnic area with a covered -- a covered area and the barbecues, that kind of thing. Picnic tables. Cassinelli: And a follow up question on that. What I was looking at when I was reviewing this earlier was it looked like some of that open space -- I couldn't tell is at the entrance to the subdivision? Is that where those fell? Riley: Madam Chairman, Commissioner, we have relocated the common areas with an outdated site plan that we haven't submitted yet. Cassinelli: Okay. Riley: And they are -- they are off of Victory Road. So, they are not immediately adjacent to any high traffic roads. As an afterthought, we did try to distribute them across the site, so that -- it is an unusual shape, the development site, so we did try to distribute the open space common lots, so that they were equally distributed. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission December 21, 2017 Page 17 of 64 Beach: Commissioner Cassinelli. McCarvel: Josh. Beach: If I could just quickly, the -- we have got it called out, things that would -- had noticed on the plat, that there are at least the number and the location of the common lots, so I can kind of show you generally where those are, if that's what you're interested in finding out exactly the location of those. So, one of those is down here at the -- what would be the far -- the far right side. If I can turn on the annotation here. Maybe. Oh, looking at the wrong thing. Let me switch the screen, so you can see what I'm saying. McCarvel: That would be good. Beach: I apologize. There. That's better. So, the temporary turnaround located here where my mouse is, that's one of their open space lots. The second one is in this location here. The third one is this location here next to Victory. There is another in this location here. I believe those are the four. Correct me if I'm wrong, Penelope, but I think those are the -- Riley: I think that's correct. Beach: Those are the four common lots. Yearsley: So, Josh, so what I'm understanding is one of the common lots -- or amenities is going to be a temporary turnaround until someone develops in the future? Okay. Riley: Madam Chairman, may I address that? McCarvel: Sure. Riley: Thank you. Commissioner, I think we have more than we need in terms of the area and I agree that a turnaround in that location for a temporary period of time is kind of wonky, but, eventually, it will be converted to a full open space area. McCarvel: And who is responsible for that? Is that -- Riley: That would be the HOA. McCarvel: To get rid of the turnaround and put that in? Riley: Well, it depends. I'm sorry. Madam Chairman. It depends on when the property to the east of us develops, because we are stubbing to that elongated triangle area that has been ponds and is now dry. The property owner did come to the neighborhood Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission December 21, 2017 Page 18 of 64 meeting. Mr. Bishes. And he indicated he was interested in doing some development in the future, but I have no more information than that. Fitzgerald: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Mr. Fitzgerald. Fitzgerald: Are you -- and staff or -- can help -- maybe you can answer this. Are you bonding for that so that we have assurance that it gets built? Is that something you guys put a surety up for? Riley: Madam Chairman, Commissioner, are you asking me if we would bond to -- for the removal of the turnaround? Fitzgerald: Yeah. Riley: Well, that's certainly an option. McCarvel: There is a lot to leave -- Fitzgerald: That's -- McCarvel: -- for the HOA in that small of a subdivision. Fitzgerald: Yeah. It doesn't work. Beach: I will also mention that it's not atypical that there is a lot that is a nonbuild lot until such time as the road goes through. We don't see a lot of times where they are trying to use a common lot for that. Typically it's -- more of an incentive for the builder, if it's on a buildable lot, to get their subdivision finished and get going. That way the open space isn't kind of held that would otherwise be used for the subdivision. That would be in a temporary turnaround and covered in asphalt until who knows when. So, this is something else to keep in mind. I mean there is -- there is different things that they could do, but staff didn't require that they -- again, I haven't seen a landscape plan, so I don't know exactly how much open space they have for the development, whether or not it -- I'm reluctant to say staff is comfortable with a large portion of the open space being held in this temporary turnaround for who knows how long; right? Without knowing exactly how much open space they have for the development I'm a little bit leery of allowing a large turnaround on one of their larger common lots for the subdivision. Perreault: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Perreault. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission December 21, 2017 Page 19 of 64 Perreault: Riley, are any of the amenities, the tot lots, the basketball court, et cetera, are they going to be in phase one or phase two? You said some of them are going to be closer to -- won't be closer to Victory Road or will be? Riley: Madam Chairman, Commissioner, with this unsubmitted updated plan we have one that would be just south of the main entrance and just south of the little intersection that's shortly inside. Right now the area that has these easements to be vacated, that's a common area. So, there is a sizable piece now that would be available in phase one and, again, I would want to comment that the developer on the Project Team understand that we have a requirement to provide at least ten percent in common area and it needs to be able to fit that 50 by 100 foot rectangle, which is the standard for open space. So, we are aware of that and we will make sure that we comply with it. McCarvel: Thank you. Any other questions? Riley: Thank you. McCarvel: Okay. Thank you. Okay. At this time could I get a motion to close the public hearing for item H-2017-0140, the Timberline Subdivision? Perreault: So moved. Fitzgerald: So moved. Yearsley: Second. Cassinelli: Second. McCarvel: It has been moved and seconded to close the public hearing for item number H-2017-0140. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carried. MOTION CARRIED: SIX AYES. ONE ABSENT. McCarvel: I think it would -- I mean overall I think it is a good layout. I mean as far as this -- you know, they did get those bigger lots and as far as -- I mean that could have been a whole lot of houses below that ridge, instead of just four, as far as what they are going to be looking at. But I think the biggest issue I have with this is making sure that the developer is responsible for taking care of that -- getting rid of that turnaround and making it a nice common area and need to get what that is going to be, if it is just going to be grass or whatever, that it needs to be done by the developer. That it's not left for the HOA to do. Yearsley: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Yearsley. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission December 21, 2017 Page 20 of 64 Yearsley: I agree. You know, this is kind of a funky parcel and I think they have done a pretty decent job. Lot sizes are pretty big. So, I mean it's complimentary to the surrounding area. I understand the gentleman's concern about his views. Unfortunately, it was zoned medium density residential, so there is -- you know, I'm not trying to say for anyone, you know, there -- you know, it was going to be homes and planned for homes in the future, so I don't know what to -- to tell them about that. The two concerns that I do have is -- if -- the property to the east was old sewer lagoons and -- and there is even funkier parcels than this one, so what's the time frame of when that's going to develop and how -- what is it going to develop into and you're holding hostage -- holding hostage the open space for something you don't know when. So, my -- my opinion would be -- I think we ought to at least consider continuing this until we see a landscape plan and verify what our open space is and/or basically making that turnaround not part of the open space, that they have to comply with the open space for ten percent requirements, excluding the turnaround parcel. McCarvel: Add a buildable lot or something. Yearsley: Yeah. You know. And if the HOA -- you know -- because my guess is more than likely this will be built out before that parcel gets -- they extend it in the future, so you're leaving it to the homeowners association to do something with that, so -- so, I'm a little uncomfortable moving forward. With regard to the -- the landscaping the front half of it, as -- with phase one, I think I would be amenable at least having them extend their sidewalk at least to the east side of Stoddard and have a crosswalk across the street that we can have a safe access as a compromise. So, that's kind of where I'm leaning at this point. I'm leaning at this point to continue. Fitzgerald: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Mr. Fitzgerald. Fitzgerald: And I absolutely agree. I think my challenge is this is a tale of two different developments. The one that would be to the north is very succinct and it's a difficult piece of land, but the piece up against Biltmore just seems like it's shoehorned in there and I'm having a challenge with that. So, I completely agree with Mr. -- or with Commissioner Yearsley. I think Block 1 -- you can always make Block 1 a -- common area the whole thing, but I will let the engineers work that out. But I agree, we can't leave this to the HOA, that's too -- it's too hard for the city to track. So, let's get a landscaping plan in front of us and we can make a better decision. But my only comment was if there is another way of laying this thing out -- because it's a little funky. You could deal with the views from Biltmore and maybe make that Block 1 area more common area than not and maybe re-adjust those, because this thing looks shoehorned in here. Just my -- my gut, so -- Parsons: Madam Chair, Members of the Commission. McCarvel: Bill. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission December 21, 2017 Page 21 of 64 Parsons: Certainly continuation is your option this evening. What I would mention to you is when we first started working with the applicant on this project, we had recommended that they not even extended the street along that portion and stub it, we had actually recommended a common driveway for access to those three lots. If they are at the 150 foot mark, then, they wouldn't even have to do a turnaround, the fire department could get in there, that open space could still function and, believe it or not, that open space for that turnaround is -- does tie into an open space that was constructed with the Biltmore Subdivision. So, there will be invisibility -- all the more reason to keep it open space connecting to open space. So, I think staff is in agreement with you this evening that maybe we continue this out and see if they can redesign at least that corner and see if they can maybe to have those six lots take access from a common drive and try to figure out whether or not we can get some open or pedestrian walkway into that back common lot there and really make it something special for those six homes that -- that front on it. I think there is -- there is some opportunities there that the applicant could take advantage of. Yearsley: And, also, I agree with -- I agree with that. And, then, we also need to have -- I think a better understanding of the irrigation component as well, because if we have to have a pond for irrigation, you know, that takes into reducing their open space potentially as well. Because I think -- given 8,000 square foot lots, you're going to have a fair amount of lawn and that's kind of an undue burden to put on the homeowners to have to pay domestic water prices for irrigation. McCarvel: All right. Wilson: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Mr. Wilson. Wilson: After consider -- or I move to continuing file number H-2017-0140 for -- I guess when would we be continuing that? McCarvel: With the holidays -- do you want to skip to -- Yearsley: I think go to the 18th. McCarvel: Yeah. Wilson: To January 18th for the following reasons: I think to consider sort of the open space challenge and, then, I think the other outstanding question, again, is that irrigation situation and how that will shape kind of the plan moving forward. Fitzgerald: Second. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission December 21, 2017 Page 22 of 64 McCarvel: It has been moved and seconded to continue item H-2017-0140, Timberline Subdivision. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carried. MOTION CARRIED: SIX AYES. ONE ABSENT. D. Public Hearing for Harper Ridge Subdivision (H-2017-0151) by McMaster Limited Partnership, Located at 3885 E Copper Point Drive Recommend Approval to City Council with Modifications 1. Request: Conditional Use Permit Consisting of 124 Multi- Family Dwelling Units on Approximately 10.68 Acres in an Existing C-G Zoning District and a Preliminary Plat Approval Consisting of 16 Multi-Family Building Lots, 4 Common Lots and 2 Other Lots on 10.68 Acres in and Existing C-G Zoning District McCarvel: Thank you. Okay. So, at this time we will move on and open the public hearing for Item H-2017-0151, Harper Ridge Subdivision, and we will begin with the staff report. Beach: Madam Chair, this is an application for a preliminary plat and for a conditional use permit. The site consists of approximately 10.68 acres of land, which is zone C-G. Excuse me. It's located at 3885 East Copper Point Drive. To the north is a commercial business zoned C-G and also vacant commercial property that's also zoned C-G. To the east is recently approved single family homes in the Movado Estates Subdivision, which is zoned R-8. To the south are single family homes in the Sutherland Farm Subdivision, zoned R-4 and R-8. And to the west is a church also zoned C-G. The Comprehensive Plan future land map designation is mixed use residential. So, as I said, there are two separate requests. The first tonight is a conditional use permit. It's requested for multi-family development in the C-G zoning district. The proposed multi- family development consists of approximately -- I shouldn't say approximately. Consists of 124 dwelling units and 16 structures on 10.68 acres of land. The units consist of one, two and three bedroom units. For multi-family developments off-street parking is required in accordance with the UDC, which requires two parking spaces per dwelling, with at least one of those in covered parking -- parking bay or garage, based on 124 units, one, two and three bedrooms, a minimum of 238 parking spaces are required, 124 of which should be covered. The site plan depicts a total of 248 spaces, 128 of which are covered, which does comply with the you UDC requirements, with an excess of approximately 14 spaces over. A minimum of one bicycle parking space for every 25 proposed vehicle spaces or a portion thereof is required, based on 248 vehicle spaces a minimum of ten bicycle spaces is required. The applicant is proposing 12. Parking lot landscaping is required to be provided in accord with the UDC. There are existing trees on the site. The applicant is required to comply with the mitigation standards listed in the UDC. As I said -- get to the plat in just a second. A certificate of zoning compliance and administrative design review are required for development of the site. Elevations I will get to in a second. As I said, this is also an application this evening for a preliminary Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission December 21, 2017 Page 23 of 64 plat. The plat consists of 16 residential building lots, four common lots and two other lots on, as I said, 10.68 acres of land. The smallest lot is 11,514 square feet. The average lot size of 20,183 square feet. This is the plat here. Staff has reviewed -- has reviewed the proposed preliminary plat and found it to be incompliance with the UDC. Access to this site is proposed for one access to Copper Point Drive and two to Copper Point Way. Copper Point Way is designated as a collector and Copper Point Drive is considered a local street. A traffic impact study was not required for this project per ACHD. The applicant has some additional information on open space, but they do meet the threshold, as I said, for a plat. Ten percent is required. The applicant proposes to provide 1.39 acres of qualified open space or approximately 13 percent. The Ridenbaugh Canal does run along the southern boundary of the property, which does offer a nice buffer. There is also -- going through the landscape plan, the applicant has provided approximately 25 feet of space along the south -- additionally the Ridenbaugh Canal and, then, there is a nice buffer on the south side where it gets to some existing homes. A six foot tall open vision fence having 11 -- 11 inch gauge two inch mesh or other construction in the -- in ability to deter access to the waterway is required along the Ridenbaugh Canal. Sidewalks are required to be provided with the development in accord with the UDC. Attached sidewalks exist along a portion of East Copper Point Drive. The applicant shall provide detached sidewalks along the entire East Copper Point Way of the property, which is considered, as I said, a collector. An attached sidewalk along South Knapp Avenue. The plans will be revised to show the missing section of sidewalk along East Copper Point Drive. Streetlights are required to be installed along all public streets. Staff is -- moving to the conceptual elevations. The applicant proposed a couple different variations of these, just with different colors, but the material appear to be stucco, stone, architectural shingles, things that would conceptually meet the standards of the UDC and the architectural standards manual. With that staff is recommending approval of the project and I will stand for any questions you have. McCarvel: Any questions for staff? Fitzgerald: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Mr. Fitzgerald. Fitzgerald: Josh, in regards to the elevation change from Sutherland Farms down to the -- the Ridenbaugh there and, then, it -- this property drops significantly; is that correct? Or is there -- is it flat? I was looking for a -- I know it's going to come up in the conversation, probably, going forward, so just -- Beach: See if I can pull up the shot of that. There is some change. I believe the -- coming from Copper Point Way over the bridge to Sutherland Farms you do -- you do -- the elevation is increased. I don't know exactly how much, but I will see if I can pull up another -- Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission December 21, 2017 Page 24 of 64 Yearsley: There is a change. I don't know about significant. But it wouldn't screen some of this and I know -- it's kind of like the height of the canal, really, because that canal is kind of raised through that area, so -- Fitzgerald: Okay. Thank you. McCarvel: Any other questions for staff? Would the applicant like to come forward? Schultz: Good evening, Commissioners. Matt Schultz. 8421 South Ten Mile in Meridian. Here on behalf of McMaster Limited Partnership. Mr. McMasters has owned the property for over ten years now. It was actually part of the original Sutherland Farm application back in 2002 when they annexed all of Sutherland Farm and Sutherland -- this actually has a little faint track on the Google Earth if you look at it. This was an old horse farm track. So, this is part of Trevor Robert's farm originally. It was the point of annexation. It was zoned -- it was annexed and zoned C-G back in 2002. It was excluded from the development agreement with everything south of the canal, which was zoned R-4 PUD, with mixed uses proposed. It ended up with a few iterations over the years, but I have been involved in the last two, going all either R-4 or R-8 south of the canal. There was a discussion about doing some multi-family over the years, it just never came to fruition. So, here we are doing some multi-family in an existing C-G zone. It is an allowed use. The reason we are before you with a preliminary plat is we do want to lay it out for the lots around the -- around the -- around the buildings. If not for that it would just be a conditional use permit within a C-G zone. It's existing all the way around us. The roads are existing. The height elevation -- depending on how you look at it, it's probably at least six to ten feet, maybe even more to the homes' backyards, but because the homes are above the canal and, then, the canal is above us, elevation difference, based on our survey. The -- the distance between our buildings and the nearest home I think is like 150 feet. There is a nice buffer, not only elevation wise, but horizontal, and we are limiting to two stories. Our highest height of our building will be 29 feet, according to the architect that drew these up. So, it's -- we are not pressing it. It's a max of two stories. We are not asking for three stories. We are not asking for a three story commercial building like there is the Citi -- CitiBank, you know, further away there. You know, we are not asking for that. We are asking for two stories, which is -- I think blends in very well, especially with the elevation change that we have there. And to speak of the density, it's pretty low density for multi-family at 11 -- 11, 12 units per acre. Typically for multi-family, the ones I'm looking at, those are two and three story buildings, we get up to 18 to 20, you know, dwelling units per acre. So, this is really -- as far as multi-family goes, it is a relatively lower density. It's got ample open space. We have got good buffers. We agree with all of staff's comments and wanted a couple clarifications on the buffering requirement to the west. It was kind of something that we -- I talked to Josh about earlier today and we -- you know, whether it leads to alternative compliance or whether it actually applies I don't know, but there is a requirement for a 25 foot buffer between us and -- and the site to the west. It's a church. It's been there for a while. There is a building up in front on Copper Point with a big parking lot in the back. So, most of our frontage is -- if you can pull that up, Josh. The plan. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission December 21, 2017 Page 25 of 64 Beach: I will say that staff was incorrect. It's not a 25 foot buffer required to the west. It's only five feet, Matt, so -- Schultz: We are good there, so -- Beach: We are in good shape. Schultz: We are in good shape. I think we got at least 12. If you count them, we are like 20. If you count what they did. We are eight plus 12, you know, and -- so -- Beach: Pull that up here in just a second. Schultz: Yeah. Beach: This is the area in question we were talking about here is where the storage building is and it goes to the west -- Schultz: Yeah. So, that's good news. I was a little concerned. I felt like we had a good case anyways, you know, but that was a really good case. One of the things we focused on, really, immediately was an existing preschool to the north where it says Advantage Early Learning Center and so in the first iterations of our site plan one thing I noticed was, man, we need to pull those buildings back, you know what I mean? Setback's at 12 or 15 or whatever it was, we made them 30, you know, so we put them extra far back from there. A lot of extra trees in there and so we really wanted to kind of get a nice buffer back there. They got a good high quality wrought iron fence around them. Already there. But we just want to get a nice screen and not be looming over that with our buildings. So, we pulled those buildings back and turned -- we turned the patios facing east-west, instead of north-south, which was one of the original iterations. So, that was some of the -- some of the specific designs we did on this. Nice little addition with some of these little single storage -- storage buildings. They are single story. They had -- they were able to provide storage, ten foot by 20 feet, for people that could have fit into some of these areas that you can't really do anything else with, so you may as well put them in there. And they provide a nice buffer, too. They are architecturally going to be nice and they provide some -- some extra storage for the people that are there as well, that could be -- could be rented out. Got a great clubhouse on this thing, with nice amenities. Nice clubhouse. Nice pool. Playground. Fire pit. And good open space. So, Mr. McMaster -- we were telling our consultants, hey, give us your best shot, you know, on this and let's just put something nice in and -- and let's do ourselves proud on what we do. There is some contention about traffic. You know, that's been our biggest contention with the neighbors from day one is traffic. What about traffic? People are going to cut through our subdivision and some might, but having said that, ACHD did not originally make us do a traffic study and, then, they came back when they started hearing some of the feet coming, that we should -- we should go engage somebody to do kind of a partial trip -- trip generation and they reference that in their -- in their conditions of approval that that study was done and Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission December 21, 2017 Page 26 of 64 there is no excess. Although it may be more than people like, it doesn't exceed any of the thresholds and criteria that they have established for the amount of traffic allowed on local roads. So, we are kind of just matching in. We got three good accesses onto Copper Point. We think most people are going to want to go out to Eagle. Some may want to cut back through. We can't really control that. But we don't think it's as much, you know. People will usually want to go to the north and west, not south and east, but you never know. Some are going to do that. You know, we can't control it, but I don't think it's a bad thing to have interconnectivity. We always ask for interconnectivity. I know Trevor Roberts didn't want to build that bridge for the cost, but it was put in for interconnectivity and emergency access and it serves a purpose and there is a two- edged sword with it, though, that you get some people using it that may not live in the subdivision, but that's what we get with interconnectivity. So, I really think it's a good -- a good project. It's a good fit. We have done our homework to make sure that we don't -- we send as few people as possible. It is hard to be a hundred percent on that, but we got good screening. They have got some nice screenings to the south. They have got an existing ten foot multi-use pathway on their side with mature trees in it and, then, we have so much -- you are going to have trees on our side, some mature kind of wildish trees that we are going to maintain as good as we can for the taller ones there along the canal. We don't want to cut them down if they are good, but we are also planning, you know, a couple hundred more on our site. So, with that we are going along with staff's recommendation for approval and ask for your approval. Thanks. McCarvel: Any questions for the applicant? Yearsley: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Yearsley. Yearsley: Why are we going for a preliminary plat, just out of curiosity? Schultz: That's a good question. We would like to -- what you will see with four-plexes is -- these are on the same lot and sometimes an investor wants to buy them. It's all managed by a master HOA. It's all controlled. But in this case we just want to have that flexibility moving forward to potentially have a couple of different owners in there to buy a building or several buildings. Didn't think about whole -- the whole on complex. So, it's flexibility in financing. Flexibility in ownership moving forward is what it is. That's really what it is. Yearsley: Okay. Because I'm on -- president of our homeowners association and, unfortunately, the homeowners association a lot of times doesn't have any teeth and so I -- it really concerns me by breaking this up and not having one owner and how this may look in the future, so -- Schultz: I understand your concern, but if you look at, Mr. Yearsley, most of the apartment projects -- or four-plex projects they are individually owned and have strong Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission December 21, 2017 Page 27 of 64 ownership controls built in to make sure that it is all maintained adequately moving forward. For everybody's benefit. Everybody's benefit. Yearsley: All right. McCarvel: I have another question. We are just a little bit on the plus side on the parking requirements and I understand there is no parking pretty much along that Copper Point Way and we get the canal behind us, so there is really no give there. With maybe your new found landscaping space is there room there for some more parking or somewhere -- I mean I love the storage units in there, so I don't really want to take -- but is there maybe a way to squeeze out a few more parking spots in there, since we are -- you know, it's pretty close and there really isn't any overflow parking around this place. Yeah. Thanks, Commissioner McCarvel. I'm looking at a spot where we could add three or four, you know, right now -- McCarvel: Yeah. Schultz: -- toward that east end between those two storage buildings. There is probably more than a few there that we could add in. McCarvel: Okay. Schultz: It's a little bit arbitrary, though. You know, we meet it, we exceed it, but we don't exceed it enough. So, how much is enough and that's where we get a little -- how much? McCarvel: And I think, you know, for the most part the -- the minimum conditions that are there are usually okay, because there is somewhere for, you know, usually some surrounding street parking or something for visitors and some overflow, but with the canal being there and -- I don't think there is anything out there in Copper Point Way that the street is wide enough, at least from what I read. So, this is pretty contained I think in those areas. We have -- in the past like to see just a -- you know, a little more above the required minimums and, you know, it -- I know it's a give and take, because you have got -- a beautiful amount of open space and I think it's laid out quite nicely, just -- you know, I would say going forward is there anything -- any places you see where there is -- Schultz: I do. McCarvel: -- a few spots? Schultz: I do. A few spots. If you want to give us a recommendation, you would like to see five or ten more, we will do what we can to get them in there, you know. McCarvel: Uh-huh. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission December 21, 2017 Page 28 of 64 Schultz: I am seeing -- and I know it's a concern of Council as well, probably, that it has some excess overflow for special events, whatever. When we initially looked at this we weren't aware Copper Point was a -- was a collector -- a designated collector and if it wasn't you could have parked on that, you know, and so that would have been tons of extra, but if it's called a collector I don't think they are going to let us do that, you know, and so that's -- to your point it would be nice to have a few more, but, you know, we meet the code that requires two per for every, you know, two and three bedroom and, then, one and a half for every single and we meet -- and we have bicycle spaces and handicap and we have a handful left over, you know, okay, we will meet it and -- how many more do we need, you know? So, it's just -- like you said, there is nice landscaping. Where there is not that -- so -- but I do see it -- I do see probably, you know, four, six, eight spaces we might be able to pick up potentially. McCarvel: Okay. Yearsley: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Yearsley. Yearsley: My recommendation would be ten, if we could. Schultz: All right. Yearsley: You wanted a number. McCarvel: There is a number. Yearsley: That was the number. Schultz: There you go. It's always good to get a number. McCarvel: Okay. Any other questions for the applicant? Okay. We will move on to public testimony then. Schultz: Thanks. McCarvel: Okay. We have a number that have signed up that they wish to testify, so I'm going to start off with the people who have signed yes. We will start with Nancy Boudreaux. And as you approach the mic give your name and address for the record. And pull that mic right down to you. Boudreaux: My name is Nancy Boudreaux. I live at 2611 South Tristram Way, Meridian. That's in Sutherland Farms. McCarvel: Uh-huh. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission December 21, 2017 Page 29 of 64 Boudreaux: I'm sorry not to see a lot more of the homeowners here. I think it's the holidays is what's done it, because there is a lot of concern about all of this going in. We are not only being encroached with all of these apartments, but on the other side of that map we have got -- I can't -- right -- Movado. All of that area out there is going to be all homes and apartments and you haven't -- I don't think that the developer really has acknowledged the fact that they are going to be using that bridge over -- on Knapp from Copper Point or -- I don't know if it's point or what. But, anyway, a lot of that traffic is going to have to come right through -- McCarvel: Speak into the mic. Boudreaux: Sorry. Okay. Sorry. Walked off. A lot of the traffic from those apartments -- for school mainly is where we are really concerned. They are going to be coming across the Knapp bridge, making a left onto Pine Bluff, which becomes Tristram, make a left on Hollandale, go all the way through Muir Wood Subdivision and they would end up on Cloverdale. Did I say Cloverdale? I meant Hollandale and that other one. But, then, they have to go down through Muir Woods and make a left onto Cloverdale and then -- if you're driving that is and, then, you have to take another road and go back to the school. Now, if the kids are walking or riding their bikes, they have to take the same pathway that I just described and they are going -- they are going to end up out on Coverdale. There is no light at that particular intersection. There is a pedestrian light only just a little bit to the left when you're on Coverdale, but now -- you know, it's very dangerous for the kids to be crossing over there. We are really concerned about that. Right now we have a number of kids that are coming through our subdivision, but live in our subdivision, but with all of this new stuff they are going to be using Knapp to come into our subdivision to try to get out to Cloverdale or if they come across that bridge and they make a right, that will go around and meet up with Easy Jet and, then, they will make the right onto Easy Jet and go out to Eagle that way. So, there is going to be a huge amount of cars. People take their kids sometimes to school. They come back home. They go to school to get them. They come back home. I mean those are normal daily things that parents do, but I just don't understand -- first of all, I don't think the apartments themselves are a good fit for that area. I would much rather see single family homes in there and I don't know what the regulations are. He was talking about the parking, but if you have 124 units, one and a half parking places, is that what I heard I think? McCarvel: Two. Boudreaux: Two. A lot of people are going to have two cars per family. If you have teenagers you're going to have more. McCarvel: Right. Boudreaux: Where are those cars going to be, you know. They don't -- they haven't listed all of the what ifs I guess. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission December 21, 2017 Page 30 of 64 McCarvel: Right. Ma'am, your three minutes are up, so if you could wrap up your thought. Boudreaux: Okay. One second. I think maybe I have already done it. McCarvel: Okay. Boudreaux: Okay. I thank you. McCarvel: Thank you. Boudreaux: Bye-bye. McCarvel: Next on the list is John Boudreaux. J.Boudreaux: Council, I'm John Boudreaux. I live at 2611 South Tristram, Meridian, Idaho, and I live, oh, not too -- well, not too far from Knapp. Anyway, right now I understand this is zoned C-G commercial use; is that correct? McCarvel: Yes. J.Boudreaux: And based on all of the area to the north and east of Knapp, that's all going to be residential, that whole area in there, and there is one little road, Movado Way, that they are talking about putting in there and that's going to take care of I think -- I believe it's 600 plus homes in there, plus this is another 124 over here in the proposed plat that's supposed to be commercial and so they can shoehorn everything in there and, then, they were talking about the park over -- parking overflow. I know exactly where it's going to be. It's going to come right across the bridge on South Knapp and park in Sutherland Farms. Well, the problem there is you park on either side of the road, you have about enough room for one vehicle to go in each -- not even in each direction -- in one direction without hitting the stuff and all that traffic is going to filter through all these roads that are not wide enough for two-way traffic if there is any vehicles parked along the side. It would be much better use to leave that as a commercial area where it doesn't have the impact on the schools and the traffic and those types of things. And right now we have multiple owners that they are proposing for all these apartments here that -- and those lead to issues of maintenance and all those other types of things, the quality of the buildings and such, how they are maintained, and -- you know. And that's going to be right across the -- not the pond, but the canal from us and wouldn't have to put up with that stuff, so -- and the other thing is -- if I understand it all right, is that the developer is of Movado and all this and this proposed one are all inter-linked and we have talked -- this whole thing we have talked one new road and that's Movado Road and that's on the north side of -- well, it's on the east side of Topaz and it comes into Overland. The rest of that traffic is going to be filtered through the existing roads in here and most of it is coming through Sutherland Farms. Thank you. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission December 21, 2017 Page 31 of 64 McCarvel: Thank you. Next on the list is -- indicated they would like to speak is Eric Gabrielson. Gabrielson: Eric Gabrielson. 4231 East Easy Jet Drive, Meridian. Southland Farm Subdivision. I have a two-page report that I submitted today to the Planning and Zoning that should be part of your packet. It's covering some areas within their conditional use permit and preliminary plan. Also I don't know if he's got a copy of that that he can show up on the screen as I go through that. The development statistics are -- first of all, thank you, Madam Chair and Commissioners, for spending the time and listening to my testimony. Stats on this is 60 multi-family two-story apartments with 124 units on 10.68 acres on Copper Point Drive. The apartment stats are that they are one bedroom and two bedroom and three bedroom units with one and a half spaces for one bedroom, two and a half spaces -- two spaces for two and three bedroom as far as parking, for a total 238 spaces. I feel the parking needed is two spaces for the one bedroom and 2.5 spaces for the two and three bedroom, for a total 300 spaces. I don't feel adequate parking is allowed in this complex. It's gross density is 11.6 dwelling units, which is far exceeding the adjacent residential development of Sutherland Farm and Movado. No extra parking for visitors, yes, and family seem to exist. No overflow parking allowed on Copper Point Drive. If parking occurs there illegally, Copper Point Drive, the street would be restricted to one way traffic due to the width. Site history on Sutherland Farm, one of his paragraphs, the subject 10.7 acre site did not have a detailed site plan in the 2002 preliminary plan in Sutherland Farms. Not currently a part of Sutherland Farm development, no HOA fees or lot development fees being paid to Sutherland Farm HOA. The paragraphs surrounding uses and zones. Insufficient access into and out of apartment complex. Only direct access is to Eagle Road. To the west on Copper Point Drive. Indirect access to Overland Road through the north through Silverstone complex. No access to Clover Road -- Cloverdale Road unless going through Sutherland Farm and Muir Woods. No access south of the apartment complex unless traveling through Sutherland Farm and Muir Woods to get to Victory and Overland. Access to Overland Road through Movado Subdivision, if and when Copper Point is connected to Movado. No access through Movado to Cloverdale Road. So, any access from Copper Point to Movado is going to be going through the Movado Subdivision up to Overland Road. Mentions access and use of a six acre park and ten foot regional walkway, which are private and part of Sutherland Farm. Should not be used by apartment residents. Mentions pedestrian and vehicle connectivity to the south, to Eagle and Victory Roads through Sutherland Farm. Excessive traffic would occur through the Sutherland Farm subdivision. Conditional use permit requirement paragraph. Insufficient parking design, as I presented earlier. Proposed 230 parking spaces, but needs to be at least 300 spaces, with no overflow allowed for visitors. The preliminary plat paragraph, gross density of 11.6 dwelling units per acre is excessive and not consistent with surrounding residential development of Sutherland Farm, which is 122.38 acres, 383 units, for a gross density of 3.13 dwelling units. I'm also assuming that the development of Movado is going to be a similar density, not 11.6 density. Pressurized irrigation is proposed though Nampa-Meridian at a pump station in Sutherland Farm. As stated, an upgrade to the pumping station is needed to support the apartments. Who will pay for that upgrade and what will be the effect on the water Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission December 21, 2017 Page 32 of 64 pressure in Sutherland Farm. Roadways and storm drainage. No street parking allowed on Copper Point Drive for overflow, unless it was widened to allow parallel parking. The architecture renderings do not conform to the existing development in Sutherland Farm and Sutherland Downs. Also do not conform to Movado Subdivision. Overall site statistics. Sutherland Farm, the original development agreement of Sutherland Farm HOA did not include a multi-family component. The Harper Ridge Subdivision cannot assert any intent by the above for a multi-family component. To summarize, in conclusion, there is not -- there is insufficient parking for residents and guests. This is too high of density for the increase in location. Traffic access is insufficient. Not a part of Sutherland Farm Subdivision, as alluded to, with no HOA fees or site fees being paid. Access to Sutherland Farm park, private park and walkway, should not be promoted. Nonconforming architecture renderings to adjacent residential developments. And no pressurized irrigation proposal for cost of pumps upgrade and the effect on Sutherland Farm Subdivision. McCarvel: Okay. J.Boudreaux: My last point is that there should not be any multiple owners of lots should be allowed. This leads to disrepair of each one of the unit lots with different owners not working together. I oppose the Harper Valley Subdivision for the above reasons. Thank you for your time. McCarvel: Thank you. Paul Hosford. Hosford: Good evening, committee. I'm Paul Hosford. I live at 2711 South Knapp Avenue, Meridian. In the Sutherland Farms district. Eric presented everything that I was going to emphasize and I agree with the -- the looks of the thing -- what do they call it, the renderings, it reminds me of a barracks when I was in the service. I don't see -- just from the looks of it alone and not for it. Thanks. McCarvel: Thank you. Gary Vanackern. Ackern. Vanackern: My name is Gary Vanackern. I live at 3967 East Raja Drive. I am like everyone else, adamantly opposed and thank you, Council, for hearing us out from the community. You know, we have gone through several rounds as the subdivisions around us and, unfortunately, it is around the holidays and not everybody can be here. I can say we are concerned about this. The density, the C-G, just like everybody else has said, this was designed to be commercial. It was platted as commercial general, not for residential. It may be possible to move now with a conditional use. I oppose that. We would rather have daytime traffic than 24-7 traffic. Knapp Road that connects -- can I get -- Josh, can I get you to pull up the aerial that you were just showing in the subdivision -- or not the subdivision, but the city plat, which shows all the platting going on with Movado? We just met last week with the City Council on Movado and they reduced the number of apartment complexes in Movado, because of the saturation of high density and apartments. I realize there is a desire for that. However, they have cut that in almost half, because they are finding there is vacancies and they are not able to Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission December 21, 2017 Page 33 of 64 fill those. We would rather see business than homes. We are highly concerned, like most subdivisions, with the traffic. This doesn't include, even if there was a traffic study done, it does not include the traffic for Movado that it's going to generate. We tried to talk previously with Planning and Zoning and we have talked with the City Council about cross-connection to Cloverdale. The vote was not to do that, the Mayor two weeks ago worked with us and asked us to work with the builder to try to work with ACHD to create that cross-connection to alleviate the additional traffic from Movado and this subdivision -- between Movado and this subdivision there is an amazing amount of traffic that will come through our neighborhood. People going to school at Pepperidge, south and east, they are going to have to come through there. There is no outlet to Cloverdale. They either have to go through Movado or they have to come through our subdivision and Knapp is not a collector road. If you put traffic or parking on either side, you're going to bottleneck that and you're going to have a problem. I am concerned about the traffic parking on East Copper Way and I feel like -- if you look at this on the northern boundary of this piece of property, that boundaries are -- I'm not sure if there is a fence, but if that is a collector road with the traffic coming out of Movado, there needs to be a required fence along that street, so that kids cannot run from that open space out into that collector road. The parking, we would like to make sure that there is no parking allowed along that road and I just feel like that this is not the right development for this piece of property. My concern also is the property across the street is going to become another subdivision just like this one and continue to increase the density. I appreciate your time and really ask you to consider this. This is really high density in this area and I realize that the city likes that and there is revenue from that, but I just don't, again, think this is the right development for this piece of property. Thank you. McCarvel: Thank you. Doug McMitt. I'm sorry. McMaster. I have been corrected. McMaster: Doug McMaster. 905 Sherington, Eagle, Idaho. I would like to address just a couple of concerns here, starting with, one, being the plating that seems to -- and it's a just concern. I have done this before in Nampa and we are doing it for financial and phasing reasons and things like that. My intent is to own this in its entirety, but it gives me an option should things change. So, what we did to address that was do covenants, as there is in any subdivision. So, it doesn't matter if I own it or one of you own it, the rent is X amount. The compound is taken care of by a management company that hires a landscape firm that keeps it addressed and proper. If you look at this close, it's not a normal apartment complex, it's two stories. We have tried to make it a little different. We tried to get the open space. We have covered the parking per the specifications. Put a lot of landscaping in it. We have tried to be the buffer between Sutherland Farms and the commercial and the canal itself and the elevation difference is so huge, that it really is two separate projects and if you look at the traffic -- and what no one is considering, the market we are looking for, there something like 60 percent of the people between 19 and 30 years old work within two or three miles of that area. Young families, people that ride bicycles to work, and most of them work along Eagle Road, they do not work on Cloverdale and I have left that side and unless you know your way through, it's shorter to go to Eagle, back to Overland, take a right and go to Cloverdale, Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission December 21, 2017 Page 34 of 64 than it is to go through Sutherland Farm. Is there anything I might be able to address for you while I'm here? McCarvel: Any questions? Okay. McMaster: Thank you for your time. McCarvel: Thank you. That's everybody that we have listed that has said that they would like to testify, but is there anyone else in the room that would like to add anything? Certainly. Come forward. Wait until you get to the mic. Paschal: My name is Ron Paschal. I live at 2523 South Jeblar Way in Meridian. And my house borders the proposed project here. Now, first of all, I'd like to say I oppose this. I oppose it for a number of different reasons. One being -- McCarvel: Could you -- I'm sorry. Could you -- they can't hear. Paschal: One being traffic. You know, what's been said is that there is plenty of in and out spaces around. I know the developer likes to say that. But if you look on this map and you look at where these streets intersect Eagle, you will find that there is one traffic light on Goldstone, not a traffic light on Copper Point, where they say everybody is going to go, and one traffic light on the road goes through our neighborhood, Easy Jet. And so my experience living in that neighborhood for the last five years, six years, is that the vast majority of traffic coming out of the commercial area comes up through our area, crosses that bridge, comes down Easy Jet, so that they can hit that traffic light on Eagle, so that they can make their left or their right. Now, I don't know if you guys have been on Eagle at anytime in the last couple of years between like 3:00 o'clock in the afternoon and 6:00 o'clock in the afternoon, there is cars lined up from Victory all the way to the other side of 84 trying to get south and they stop at that -- those signals and they move one car at a time, a little bit at a time, and so it's not easy getting out of that commercial area to go north or south. There is only one exit that exits out onto Overland and that's -- and there is a signal there, but all of the traffic that's -- that will be coming from the Movado, plus the development that they want to put into this new section here, I don't think it's going to work. In my own opinion. For safety reasons. For convenient reasons. For, you know, a number of different reasons. And, then, the last thing I'd like to say is that everything in that area is commercial. There are no residential houses in that area, where they want to put apartment buildings. I understand that people want to sell their property and they want to make a profit and they want to move on with their lives and they want to do all that stuff, but I think a much more suitable development in that area would be, you know, like a senior living area for over 55, that takes care of their parking issue, it takes care of the traffic issue, it takes care of a number of different things. Anyway, I'm opposed to this project vehemently and that's really all I got to say. If any of you all have any questions for me I will be happy to answer them. McCarvel: Thank you. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission December 21, 2017 Page 35 of 64 Paschal: Thank you for your time. McCarvel: Anyone else before we close? Certainly. Rackham: My name is Glen Rackham. 3700 East Girdner, Meridian. I live in Sutherland Farm. I think the people who spoke tonight did a nice job. I really wasn't going to say anything until I heard Mr. McMaster speak. He kind of disappointingly lied about access and I think I just wanted to make sure it was straightened out, to make sure there is no question. I understand he has financial incentives, he doesn't live in that area, and so he -- he wants to sell and make best use of the property. Residents leaving that apartment will not go to Eagle, they will not turn on Overland to get to Cloverdale, especially people going to school. There is no right turn lane there. Having lived there when I want to go to Cloverdale I already go through -- go through the existing road out through the existing subdivision. I live not too far away. That traffic will increase substantially. There is no doubt about it. For such a high density area there, there needs to be an access to Cloverdale for those people. Expecting the existing roads to support that and expecting that people won't use that, is -- is -- it's not accurate. It's a dream. And I think everybody involved knows that. Also I just want to say, again, firmly, what these other people said. I think you would see a much larger gathering of people here if it weren't for the holiday season and the time this is. They are -- you know, people in our area in Sutherland Farm, they are not happy with this plan. We understand that's residential development. We understand that people are going to build homes there, but we want it to be done the right way and not something that's going to hurt us and substantially increase our traffic. Thank you. McCarvel: Thank you. Anyone else? Okay. Stocking: My name is Gail Stocking. McCarvel: Okay. Please pull the mic close to you. There you go. Thank you. Stocking: Gail Stocking. 2837 South Teddy Avenue, Meridian. A question that I have -- and I admit I didn't see it on the plat. Is there a sidewalk to be built on the south side of the road in front of the apartments? McCarvel: Can we get that map back up, Josh? Yeah. We will have the applicant answer. Beach: It doesn't do a great job of showing that, but the requirement is that Copper Point Way is a collector, so a detached sidewalk is required to be constructed along the entire frontage. Stocking: Is it already there? My concern is if it wasn't on it, that's going to take up some of your parking space, if they have to back up as a result of the sidewalk being there. And also the street that goes out of the west side, what does that go through? Is Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission December 21, 2017 Page 36 of 64 it on the back side of the daycare? Okay. Because when I looked it's not a very wide road or space that is there now and that was my concern. Thank you. McCarvel: Thank you. Gabrielson: Good evening. My name is Carol Gabrielson. I live at 4231 East Easy Jet Drive. I just want to make a couple of points about the traffic and going through Silverstone. Silverstone business park was never made to move residential traffic. It is made to move business traffic. There is two very distinct sides, the east side and the west side of Silverstone. There is one point where that connects and that's at Cobalt Point and Silverstone, which is about a one and a half block south of Overland. It's extremely difficult to get through the business park. We are very familiar with it, because our daughter works at the Edward Jones office there. Our granddaughter, who is 11 years old, has been going to Nature's Child since she was six months old. So, we are in that business park an awful lot of the time. It's going -- the Movado and this Harper Ridge -- I think that there is just -- these streets can move this residential traffic. It's not going to happen and it's going to push it through our subdivisions. Copper Point is the main mover of traffic for both back end of Movado and for Harper Ridge. Copper Point is not a decent street to put that much traffic on. Yes, it does go out to Eagle, but it's not a signal and it also -- the visibility on Copper Point, when you're turning out onto Eagle, is really not very good. It's a downhill slope from Victory. So, you don't have a really good look at the traffic that's coming and it comes fast. There is a lot of speeding on Eagle on that part and I think it's going to cause some real problems. One other thing that I would -- to disagree with Mr. McMasters is he said that it's easier to go out Overland and down Cloverdale if you're going to get your kids to Pepperidge. Our granddaughter goes to Pepperidge. We take her almost every day. So, we are well familiar with that route and it is not the fastest way and I have to admit we live in -- in Sutherland Farm and we go through Muir Woods when we take her to Pepperidge, because it's the easiest and fastest way. Overland is clogged up every single morning while we take her to school and it's going to get even more so with all the traffic from Movado. So, I think that we need to really take a look at how much traffic we are generating in this area. We tend to compartmentalize all of these -- all of these new subdivisions that are being built and we only look at how the traffic from that particular project is going to affect our subdivisions. But you can't do that anymore. Not with the way Meridian is growing. You have to look at what's being generated by all these new projects and the roads -- our road system is not being upgraded enough to handle all of this. If you start pushing all this -- all this traffic through our subdivisions, it's going to really affect our way of life. It's going to affect the quality of life, it's going to affect our property values, and I just really think you need to start taking a real strong look at that. Thank you. McCarvel: Thank you. Anybody else before the applicant returns? Porter: My name is Ron Porter. I live at 3580 East Quin Drive. It's part of Sutherland Downs, which is the patio homes division of Sutherland Farm. With the -- with the size of the Movado subdivision going in it would seem like it would be prudent to wait to put Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission December 21, 2017 Page 37 of 64 the 120 units in until we see the full impact of what that five or six hundred homes is going to do to this subdivision. Sutherland Farms has been a good subdivision. The HOA has been very active. They have improved that park. I just don't want to -- it seems to be a good community for the City of Meridian and to dump all that traffic through that subdivision I just think is a disservice to those folks, so -- McCarvel: Thank you. Sir. In the black hat. R.Stocking: My name is Rulon Stocking. I'm at 2837 South Teddy Avenue in Meridian. It's part of the Sutherland Farms Subdivision. There is two aspects of it, but I recall from the last time that we -- we were going to be putting in some homes at -- apartments at Easy Jet and Eagle, if you remember there, there was a letter that was written by one of the principals who said, please, do not have anymore apartments coming to this immediate area. We are overcrowded as it is. And I don't know -- I haven't heard that for anyone around here since we have been talking about it, but it's a real concern of mine. I don't -- and do not ever expect to have any children anymore in my lifetime, but we have grandchildren and things that are around -- we have adopted grandchildren -- excuse me -- grandchildren that come around in our neighborhoods and we are so concerned about them, because we see people who are speeding in our neighborhoods and very concerned about the area. I -- we walk -- my wife and I walk with our dog in that area all the time and the canal -- we have got a nice walkway down the canal. It's one that Sutherland Farms takes care of and it's going to be used -- that's fine. As long as they take care of it, the people that are going to be using it. The way that we have been talking tonight it sounds like a done deal that the apartments are going to go in. I believe that the message is we don't want the apartments here. They are not ready for it. There is going to be a lot of new traffic coming through the area. We don't know what the traffic is going to be when the Movado Subdivision is placing their homes there and their apartments. They reduced their apartments because of what's -- the overcrowding of the -- of apartments right now. The other thing, of course, is the fact that we -- as a group we are not here like we were in the past and it's because of two things. Number one, I think the fact that last time we were here, which was, I think, last week or so, we were expecting to be talking about this subdivision -- or this complex and we -- I -- maybe it was just me, but I may have misunderstood. I put down that we -- it was a done deal. We have already voted and I understand that now. We need to be -- take a close look at it to see the impact on -- not only the number of apartments that are coming in, but the -- how it's going to impact the subdivisions that are around it. I appreciate the opportunity to discuss this with you. McCarvel: Thank you. Anyone else? Judy: Hi. I'm Pamela Judy. My address is 4046 East Raja Drive in Sutherland Farm. I'm also the secretary of the homeowners association. I'm not here on their behalf, I'm just here for myself. I would agree with everything that's been said tonight. One of the things that hasn't been brought up is in regards to the daycare center. I can tell you many times throughout the year they have events there and their parking lot is overflowed and they use Copper Point and Cobalt Way to park and it jams up that Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission December 21, 2017 Page 38 of 64 corner in there and it jams up that whole area and that's something that you need to consider as well, because there is little kids running around all the time getting to and from their cars and that's going to be a big concern with the traffic and we are concerned about the Movado Subdivision and how it's going to affect our subdivision with the traffic and you add these apartments down there and it's even going to make it worse. So, thank you. McCarvel: Thank you. Okay. Is that everybody? Okay. Would the applicant like to come back. Schultz: Thank you, Commissioners. Matt Schultz again for the record. If that wasn't a strong showing then I don't know what was. Even though a lot of people didn't show up, they still had their -- had their voice heard. Can you hear me now? I'm speaking into the mic. So, obviously, a common theme throughout this has been traffic. We stand behind our ACHD approval. We stand behind the fact that it was studied and it was the same study -- traffic engineer that did Movado. It was not ignored. It was incorporated. They did trip distribution. They did trip generation. And there is more traffic on those roads projected than they would like. It still does not exceed the criterias of ACHD. It doesn't. I mean we have done -- we paid for it. We hired the consultants. They do their own independent analysis and it's more than they would like, but it does not exceed the criteria and ACHD approved this with no qualifications and they didn't rubber stamp this, they looked at it and they made us jump through some hoops and we did it and that's with Movado being, what, ten, 15 times the size of us. I mean that's a huge site next to us. And so we are kind of getting drawn into the Movado, you know, traffic argument somewhat, you know, it's -- because they said that they needed a Cloverdale access. Well, we have no control over Cloverdale access. But we are getting drug into that argument. So, having said that, we are going to put a sidewalk in -- widened slightly, because to be full width on Copper Point. There is some pavement lacking there now. I don't know if it's six feet or seven or eight -- whatever it is, there is a certain width we have to widen where we do the five foot curb and gutter, five foot detached sidewalk with a tree lined park strip along there. Whether ACHD makes us no park that or not I don't know. We are not using it in our calculations for parking. You know, there may be parking allowed, there may not. I'm not sure what they are going to do. But that's -- whatever ACHD wants to do with that public road and these are public roads that are all interconnected out here. Like I said before, the fact that that bridge went in was an ACHD decision. They knew exactly that there would be cross-connection traffic when it was required that Sutherland Farm put it in and here we are talking about the cross- connecting traffic that goes through and I -- I get it. I live on a busy road and I hate it when people speed in front of my house. I get it, you know. but how you regulate people from speeding, other than post the speed limit and hopefully there is a cop out there, you know, giving tickets more than once every, you know, six months. It gets frustrating. However, we are focused towards -- we are focused towards Over -- we are a quarter mile away from Eagle. Movado is, you know, between a half and three- quarters of a mile from Eagle. So, we are focused towards Eagle Road. That's where most of our traffic is going to go. As far as some of the comments that were brought up, we do think multi-family is a good fit. We think it's a good transitional between the big Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission December 21, 2017 Page 39 of 64 CitiBank building and what could have went here for commercial, you know, in terms of bigger buildings. We think it's a good transitional to two story. The 11 units to the acre, interestingly enough, even though we are not part of Sutherland Farm, if you look at the overall density of the overall Sutherland Farm and us, with what was applied for back in 2002, it's four to the acre. It's within what everybody expected for the overall density. I mean we are -- we are not blowing anything up with this. So, as far as the gross density far exceeds -- we don't think so. The pressure irrigation. Nampa-Meridian runs regional systems, so it's just not Sutherland Farm's system, even the Sutherland Farm might have built it first and another subdivision is connected onto it and they are going to make us upgrade the filter. There currently is no filter on that pump station that Trevor Roberts put in for whatever reason and so they are going to make us put in a -- a pump filter in, any other pump upgrades they want us to do. So, we are not going to decrease anybody's pressure. As far as fencing, we are going to put a fence along Copper Point Drive behind those units. So, to their point, we don't want any kids running out in the road either and so there is going to be fencing around that -- fencing around our pool area. They have a nice park. We are going to have a nice park, too. We are having a pool. They don't have a pool, but we are going to have a pool. You know, we are going to have some nice stuff. We think people are going to hang out at our park area. But they might a little bit. I don't know what they are going to do. But we are going to provide a really nice amenity to keep our residents on our -- on our site. You know, we are throwing in amenities to keep them there. The daycare center, like I said about parking, ACHD may allow parking on Copper Point. I don't know. But we are going to improve it. We are going to widen it. We are going to put the sidewalk along there and do what's safe for everybody and we are going to put in over a quarter mile of six foot wrought iron fence along the Ridenbaugh Canal. Six foot wrought iron. Even though the code is chain link, we are going to do the six foot wrought iron all along there. There is like 1,500 feet. Just thinking of safety, keeping kids out of the canal. Even all of the commercial sites don't have any -- don't require you to fence, we are providing fencing around ours, because we are residential and there is going to be more of a chance. So, we are -- we are putting that perimeter fence all the way around it for safety purposes. So, we really do think -- although traffic is such a big deal and I get it, I understand it, I'm sorry, but this was planned for in the overall regional traffic system. It really was. It doesn't seem like it. It seems like there is too much of it, but it really was planned for in COMPASS projections and -- and all those things, at the end of the day we hang our hat on ACHD approved and ACHD does control the roads that we are just connecting to. We are just connecting to what was already there when we got here and just to wrap up, Mr. McMaster had a chance to sell this for a lot of money a few years ago. He wants to build it himself. He wants to own it himself. He wants to run it himself. It's named after his granddaughter. I mean he wants this to be nice and we have hired the best professionals to design it. The renderings probably don't do it the best justice of what this is going to look like. This is going to be a really nice -- really nice multi-family site that we can all be proud of and it's going to be something that's going to be run well and then -- and your staff ensures that. Your staff's recommended approval. Your staff has very stringent, trust me, review standards and design standards that -- that these -- these aren't going to be cheap, these are going to be nice with a lot of architectural detail, a lot of rock, stucco, brick, all those things that really make these nice and long Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission December 21, 2017 Page 40 of 64 term investments that will be maintained and people will be proud to live there. So, with that we ask for your approval. McCarvel: Any other questions for the applicant? Okay. Thank you. Schultz: Thanks. Fitzgerald: Madam Chair, I move we close the public hearing. Cassinelli: Second. McCarvel: It has been moved and seconded to close the public hearing for H-2017- 0151, Harper Ridge Subdivision. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: SIX AYES. ONE ABSENT. McCarvel: If I know my fellow Commissioners, are we ready for a five minute break before we continue or do you want to plow through? Break. Five minutes. Recess: (7:57 p.m. to 8:02 p.m.) McCarvel: Okay. We will return to our meeting and we have just closed the public hearing and we will move on to Commissioners' comments. How do our Commissioners feel about this, just to jump off? I think -- I would like to start. I mean -- and just a reminder is the C-G zoning is -- does include residential up to R-40. So, this being a density of about 11 -- I mean we are not even really kissing the lower threshold of the R-15, so -- which is allowed in the C-G zone. So, that's a good place to start. Wilson: I mean briefly just speaking of the traffic, I mean there has been -- you know, I am absolutely sympathetic. I think all of us are Meridian residents and see this tremendous growth that's occurring and, obviously, I would say this is probably the center of growth, really, for -- for Meridian and the community. I mean there is just explosive growth occurring and, you know, I live near Tuscany and there has been developments around us and I have listened to my neighbors talk about the traffic situation and telling me how -- you know, how it's negatively going to impact kids and their quality of life and I mean I have kids myself and, then, you have a traffic study, which kind of balances out that, you know, rather -- maybe overly negative assessment of the traffic situation. There is no doubt that traffic is going to increase, but, again, I see a study which says that, you know, it's in line with the growth that's already occurring, which is a lot, and I think that, you know, I weigh that -- you know, as I weigh the fact that I think that this area, you know, complies with -- with the way it's been zoned, too, and it's, again, on that lower end. So, I think at this point I am I think open to approving it, but I'd like to hear what my fellow commissioners have to say. Fitzgerald: Madam Chair? Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission December 21, 2017 Page 41 of 64 McCarvel: Commissioner Fitzgerald. Fitzgerald: Do you want to go ahead? McCarvel: No. Go ahead. Fitzgerald: No. I tend to agree. I think Commissioner Yearsley uses this a lot, is growth is in that area and you guys have dealt with a lot and I know that we have -- we have worked through things on Easy Jet and on Eagle Road. I think there is potential that -- that what you could get in this area could be a lot more dense and more impactful if it was a commercial building, like CitiBank, if it was three or four stories in the C-G zone, that you would not be very happy with and so this is a -- it's a balanced approach to this project. I know -- I think the density is not as high as it could be. I think that they were -- they were -- took a lot into account in regards to making it two story, so that those views and some of the -- the impacts that could have been taken away by a three story building or more as being balanced. I think it's got very nice amenities. I -- actually, I like the -- the look of the buildings. I think they are different, they are modern, they are -- sir, you had your comment, your time to make a comment. Let us deliberate. Okay? I -- everything is not going to look exactly the same as Sutherland Farm or other things and so I tend to agree that we have to use the studies that we have in front of us, have the information we have in front of us and so I tend to lean towards moving towards an approval, too. Yearsley: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Yearsley. Yearsley: When I first saw the application on the staff report my first concern is we are chewing up a lot of commercial property for residential and especially this area. I -- personally I think I would almost rather see the four story CitiBank building there personally. I drive Eagle Road every day, so I am in your boat. I know the traffic is horrible, so I struggle with this, because I think the way the developer has put this together with his amenities, I think the site looks really nice, he's done a very good job laying it out. My two big concerns is I still think this should be commercial. We are chewing too much of our commercial property up to residential. And the other concern I have is -- I understand the CC&Rs. I work with them every day with a homeowners association. Sometimes they do not work and, you know, I do not like this parceled up and so because of those two items I can't -- I can't be in favor of this project. McCarvel: Commissioner Perreault. Perreault: Madam Chair. I like that this creates transition between the commercial and the existing residential. That part of it I really -- really is appealing. I don't drive this area often, so other commissioners probably have better perspective than I do as far as the traffic in that -- you know, what might come off of Copper Point or down through Sutherland Farm. I also -- I just -- I like that as a transition. As far as the parking goes, Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission December 21, 2017 Page 42 of 64 I completely agree with -- with Commissioner McCarvel on there needing to be additional parking spaces, needing to be overflow parking, and I -- I think that -- that the average resident in this location probably is going to head out towards Eagle and go up north to any commercial area, rather than going south, unless they are specifically going to a school, maybe, but, otherwise, I would assume that most of the traffic is going to head up and go north up to Overland and somewhere that's -- that's commercial or up to the interstate in that direction, rather than -- than heading south as often. That's my thought on that, but -- yes, so -- those are my thoughts. McCarvel: Okay. Commissioner Cassinelli. Cassinelli: I didn't hear a whole lot of objection in terms of the delay out -- maybe a few design things. The biggest was traffic and I, too, am very -- very sympathetic with traffic. Where I live neighboring subdivisions have opened up and my street is -- if you come and watch me in the evenings I'm usually swearing very loudly at cars going down my street. I'm not happy with it. How ACHD never saw fit to put another -- to put something else out to Cloverdale baffles me, but I think all in all I think it's a -- it is a good transition. When I first was reading through it I was thinking it was going to be a three story or more and it's not, which -- which I think it -- you know, it's going to be a good impact for the homes there as far as -- as far as what they are going to see. I don't really see people heading over to that park and Sutherland Farms. I think people are -- people are going to hang out in the apartments and they are going to -- they are going to hang out with the pool and those sorts of things. The traffic is -- I really feel the -- I'm very sympathetic with that traffic and these subdivisions are made to handle additional traffic going through them. Those are my thoughts on that. But I -- you know, this isn't -- this is going to pale in comparison to Movado and I'm thinking what that's going to do, particularly trying to get over to -- to the elementary school over there. I don't think this is going to be a big -- you know. And I don't see a lot of people wanting to get out to Cloverdale from this. I think Movado, which is already -- you know, already heading through, that's going to be the -- that's going to be the impact -- not this project so much. I'm not sure how exactly I feel, though, overall, because I -- Commissioner Yearsley has brought up some excellent points. Perreault: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Perreault. Perreault: I'd like to make one more comment. I agree with Commissioner Yearsley regarding the multiple -- the siting and not allowing for multiple owners. There is a similar development near where I live, there is multiple owners and the buildings are in different states of maintenance at any one time and it has affected that development I think and I can see why he would express concern in that regard. McCarvel: Yeah. I, actually, thought it was a nice transition between -- I mean especially being the two story and with the amount of green space that they have put in and storage units right there within the development. I thought it was a nice layout and Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission December 21, 2017 Page 43 of 64 nice amenities. I definitely would like to see more parking and I don't -- Commissioner Yearsley, maybe you can help us out on this. Is it -- I'm not thinking it's within our purview, but is it mandated that they be single owner or tighten the screws on that at all? Yearsley: I would refer to legal on that question. Pogue: I think you can make the recommendation. I'm not quite sure -- Bill, what other -- whether you can condition that in -- Parsons: Madam Chair, Members of the Commission, over the years you have seen these projects gone before you and staff consistently told you that that's what we have been conditioning applicants to do, to have one HOA overseeing the entire complex. So, that condition if I remember correctly, is in the staff report. They have to provide that to us as part of getting their certificate of occupancy for these sites. So, certainly to make it clearer on the record, yes, you can include that as a condition, that one entity oversees the entire complex for maintenance purposes and we will make sure that that condition is adhered to when they come in with their certificate of zoning compliance. McCarvel: So, that language is already in the staff report? Parsons: Well, the staff report says that they need to provide us a maintenance agreement. It doesn't specifically say one owner. So, if that's how you want it to read, we can certainly add that verbiage in there for you. Yearsley: So, I actually have a question regarding that. So, could we break those two up and approve the conditional use permit, but deny the plat? Parsons: Madam Chair, Members of the Commission, again, I would defer to legal, but typically when you're looking at property that's already annexed and zoned in the city, you're looking at the plat for performance with our standards. In the C-G zone there are no minimum lot sizes. Yearsley: Okay. Parsons: So, it's tough to -- to deny a plat when -- exactly, when there is really no minimum lot size, it's just for ownership purposes is why they are divvying it up or as Mr. McMaster said, the applicant, the owner, it is typically -- a lot of times in our experience it is for phasing purposes for financing. McCarvel: Okay. Any more comments or are we ready for a motion? Think and ponder on it. Any other questions for staff? Yearsley: So, I'm going to be bold. So, Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Yearsley. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission December 21, 2017 Page 44 of 64 Yearsley: After considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move to recommend denial to City Council of file number H-2017-0151 as presented in the staff report for December 21st, 2017, for the following reason: That I don't think it is an appropriate place to be putting the apartments. I think it should be commercial and I don't like the preliminary plat being multiple ownership. So, for those two reasons. McCarvel: All those in favor of denial say aye. Yearsley: We need a second. McCarvel: Oh. Second. We need a second. They're being no second, would there be another motion? Fitzgerald: Madam Chair, does that die for lack of a second? McCarvel: Yes. Fitzgerald: Okay. Thank you. Okay. Go ahead. Wilson: If I'm going ahead with an approval, what am I saying to multiple ownership exactly? McCarvel: You can put an additional request -- condition on it to have -- Fitzgerald: One owner. Wilson: One owner. Okay. Yearsley: Well -- and I think you have to make a recommendation to Council, because I think that is a Council recommendation versus us. McCarvel: Right. Yeah. Wilson: Okay. Cassinelli: And kind of a question on that. Could we -- if you did a -- if there was a denial strictly with that reason, that way they would -- as opposed to making a recommendation to Council that there be one owner. Yearsley: Well, like you said, with it already being zoned and preliminary platted, I mean it's already zoned. They are coming before with a preliminary plat. We actually have to -- to put it on its merits and based on its merits it meets the preliminary plat requirements and so we can't deny it on its own merit, because of one -- of the preliminary plat, so -- from my understanding. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission December 21, 2017 Page 45 of 64 Wilson: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Wilson. Wilson: After considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move to recommend approval to City Council of H-2017-0151 as presented in the staff report with the following modifications: That there be an additional ten parking spots. I believe that was the number we settled on. And that we recommend to City Council that there be one owner of this property, that that be added to the conditions. McCarvel: Okay. Fitzgerald: Add a condition of the zoning compliance. That was added? Yearsley: What's that? Fitzgerald: Or is the condition a zoning compliance? Was that what that -- or is it just a recommendation for one owner? Yearsley: I think it's just a recommendation. Because that's a -- Fitzgerald: Just want to make sure. Yearsley: -- Council purview. Fitzgerald: Second. McCarvel: It has been moved and seconded to approve file number H-1027-0151, Harper Ridge Subdivision. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? Yearsley: Nay. McCarvel: Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. ONE NAY. ONE ABSENT. E. Public Hearing for Track Utilities Expansion (H-2017-0141) by Lance Rackham, Located at 305 W Franklin Road 1. Request: Conditional Use Permit Approval to Expand the Existing Equipment Sales, Rental and Services Use (Track Utility Formerly Known as H&H) Approved with CUP-06-019 for the Purpose of Allowing Additional Outdoor Storage on the Abutting Property Located at 305 W. Franklin Road in the C-G (General Retail and Service Commercial) Zoning Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission December 21, 2017 Page 46 of 64 District McCarvel: So, at this time we would like to open the public hearing for item number H- 2017-0141, Track Utilities Expansion. Fitzgerald: Hold on, Madam Chair. We need to make a point of order that our -- we are losing one of our members. McCarvel: Oh. Yes. I'm sorry. Yes. Commissioner Wilson will be absent for the remaining of the meeting. We will give the room just a second to clear and, then, we will start with the staff report. All right. Okay. Mr. Parsons. Parsons: Madam Chair, Members of the Commission, last item on the agenda this evening is the Track Utilities Expansion conditional use permit. This site is located at 305 West Franklin Road. It consists of 5.02 acres of land in the currently zoned C-G within the city's corporate limits. The Comprehensive Plan for the site is commercial on the future land use map. So, it is zoned appropriately with what we have envisioned for -- for the -- the zoning coincides with the Comprehensive Plan. And, then, I would also let you know that this property is primarily surrounded by partially developed and developed commercial property. So, it's surrounded by commercial development. As I alluded to in the opening, the applicant is here to discuss expanding a conditional use permit that they received back in '06 on the adjacent property just to the east of the site as you can see on the right of this site slash landscape plan, which originally when this came through the city it was H&H Contractors is what the original business owner was and it's since been sold to Track Utilities and as you just heard tonight, the valley is rapidly growing, as you all know, as we see application after application come through to you. This particular business owner is looking for additional storage to expand the site. In order for that to happen on this property we have to allow them to float their conditional use permit onto this adjacent property with, of course, the property owner's permission, which we did receive. So, right now the current use of the adjacent property where the CUP was approved, it's been approved for equipment sales, rental, and repair and office uses and so what the owner is proposing -- or what they are proposing this evening is to develop the five acres adjacent to the site, to the west, with essentially a storage yard. They are expanding the storage yard. That's really what the primary purpose is. You can see here that they are proposing an access -- an emergency access to Franklin Road. Comments from ACHD. The applicant was required to share the access point that you see located here between the two property lines and this would be the main entrance in and out of both this lot and the adjacent property moving forward. The applicant is also required to put sight obscuring fencing around the perimeter of the site. Directly to the south we have an RV park. Because there are extended stay sites, the director has deemed that as a residential use and, therefore, staff is recommending that the applicant construct a 25 foot wide landscape buffer along that south boundary, along with that six foot site obscuring fencing in accordance with UDC standards. Probably the biggest contention between staff and the applicant is the existing residence that's currently on the property. Single family Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission December 21, 2017 Page 47 of 64 homes aren't allowed to be in the C-G zone, so it is nonconforming. It has been vacant for quite some time and it's my understanding that the home is currently being used as storage by the property owner. Both staff and the fire department and police department have recommended that the structure be removed prior to the stor age yard use commencing. Also, because the applicant is wanting to use the storage yard as an interim use, as part of our conditions of approval staff is recommending that this conditional use permit have a sunset clause. So, we have wrote a condition of approval that this use should cease within a five year time period and the hope is that at some future date the highest and best use for this property is for it to go commercial and be further redeveloped and at that point we would look at wider landscape buffers along Franklin Road and we would re-evaluate the access to the site and how that would connect with the adjacent property and we certainly envision more commercial structures on the site, not it being a storage yard forever. So, with that staff is recommending approval. We have not received any written testimony on this property. And I will conclude my presentation and stand for any questions you may have. McCarvel: Okay. Any questions for staff? So, Bill, just a clarification. That site's really not being used at all; is it? Correct? Parson: Madam Chair, Members of the Commission, Commissioner Yearsley, correct. Right now it's just a boarded up home and vacant property. Yearsley: Okay. McCarvel: Okay. Any other questions? Would the applicant like to come forward. Nickel: Good evening, Madam Chair and Commissioners. For the record Shawn Nickel. 1589 North Estancia Place, Eagle, Idaho. And I'm here representing the applicant on this project. First of all, want to -- want to thank staff for their -- for their working with us, first of all, and for the recommendation for approval. Keep in mind this is a temporary use that we are asking for. We are not asking for this to be the final use of this property. The intention -- and just to clarify, I'm actually representing the property owner, who are here this evening, and not Track -- Track Utility. Track Utility approached my clients with the proposal to lease their property for expansion of their storage -- of their -- of their existing business. So, while we -- while we do appreciate staff's support, we were hoping that because this is a temporary use that the city and the Planning and Zoning Commission will work with us on a few items that we want to address this evening. One, obviously, that staff already mentioned was the removal of the home and I'm going to have Mr. Rackham get up here in a second and he can kind of explain the issues with that. The second is the -- is the time frame. We -- while we do recognize -- and part of our application stated that this is a temporary use, we would like to expand that some additional time to possibly ten years, rather than five, or if you feel that might be too much time, maybe five years with a time extension allowance after the first five years to come back and get reevaluated. It's -- when Track Auto -- or Track Auto -- Track Utility leases this property they are going to have to do a lot of -- put a lot of expenses towards getting it into compliance, like the fencing and landscaping and Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission December 21, 2017 Page 48 of 64 things like that and five years is probably not going to be enough time for them to do that. We don't know what the future use of the property is going to be, so it could redevelop in five years, but we would like to push that to a ten year sunset clause. And, then, the other issue is the 25 foot buffer on the southern property line up against the RV park. So, staff is proposing that we do a six foot solid fence along the perimeter of the property, which we are fine with. I did speak this morning with the owner of the RV park and he was supposed to show up tonight and he did not -- to testify. But his main concern is having vehicles parked back there that might start up in the morning and exhaust and noise and so he was -- and his name is -- his name is Rick Lindquist and he's the one I spoke with this morning and he would be fine with us putting a -- so, currently there is a four to five foot chain link fence with slats along that southern boundary and he would be fine with us placing a six foot solid fence against that property line, against that existing chain link fence, to provide a visual buffer and he would be willing to have us -- we don't feel it -- since this is a temporary use that planting trees and landscaping and trying to figure out how to get irrigation back there is necessary for Track Utility to look at this nice landscape -- landscaping next to their storage. If we could have a condition on the -- on the application that does not allow any parking of vehicles along that southern border and we have the six foot high fence , the neighbors indicated that they would be in favor of that and that would provide us with the ability to move forward with this -- with this project. I believe that's all I have. And I want Lance to come up and talk a little bit about the house and, then, we can address any questions you have. McCarvel: Any questions for the applicant? Yearsley: Sorry. Assuming that the other two guys are with you, we are not going to have any public testimony, so I'd like to at least have some conversation with this. I have to agree, I think -- I admit I have a tendency to agree with planning staff. I would -- I would hesitate -- I struggle to do ten years without the removal of the house. You know, I would consider ten years if the house was removed and make it more suitable for the needs and we could probably come up -- at least for me personally -- I can't speak for the other Commissioners, but the -- the landscaping in the back -- I understand not wanting to landscape that and I understand the -- you know, if -- my thinking is if we can get a written statement from the adjacent property owner, but I also think we need to have a condition that no equipment shall be greater than the fence be stored back against -- up against the fence, because that's the goal of that 25 foot buffer is to not be able to have a 20 foot tall, you know, piece of equipment sitting there as well. So, you know, if we could actually make a condition that, you know, no -- no vehicles against the fence and potentially nothing stored higher than the fence within that 25 foot buffer as well. I -- those are the kind of things that I -- I look at personally as what I would -- what I would see and I would be interested to see what the other Commissioners would think as we are talking about this, because I don't want to make a condition that you're not willing to do, you know, so I would like to kind of talk about this prior to closing the public hearing, if you guys don't mind. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission December 21, 2017 Page 49 of 64 Nickel: And, Madam Chair and Commissioner, I think that's a reasonable request. But, again, we will discuss that I guess. And, again, Madam Chair and Commissioner Yearsley, we would like to -- the applicant would like to discuss the house. McCarvel: I'd like to hear more about the house. Absolutely. Nickel: Before he gets up, are there any other questions about the other -- well, the -- Fitzgerald: We can bring you back up for that. McCarvel: Yeah. We can bring you back. Cassinelli: I do have one quick question. What is the -- on the current lot that Track Utilities is on, what is -- what's the fence situation on the back there? Is that just chain link? Nickel: It's the same consistent four to five foot chain link with slats all along the southern border. Cassinelli: For privacy on the southern border of the RV park. Nickel: All along the northern side of that RV park. Cassinelli: Okay. Thank you. Rackham: Madam Chair, Commissioners, thank you for listening to me here. McCarvel: State your name and address for the record. Rackham: Sorry about that. Lance Rackham. 4674 East Dear Flat, Kuna. 83634. I'm here representing my parents who have owned this property over 40 years. They are older in their age and so as a family we are wanting to help them out with some -- some income later on in their -- later on in their golden years and Track Utilities has come to us and offered to -- they need some more room and so to -- to expand on a couple of things that were already brought up, on the very back side of the property -- are we able to blow that up at all on the bottom side of the property? On the south side where Track already is? Currently Track Utility does utility for all these subdivisions that are going in and so they have a lot of -- a lot of spools that will have wire and storage on and that's what they are needing and you can kind of see in this picture there is not any vehicles on that back south side, it is just that kind of material that they just need a yard to put it in. They have a fair amount of equipment as well and most of that stays out in the middle. So, as far as that buffer goes, that would -- I don't believe there would be a problem with that at all. The home there, it was mentioned that it has not been occupied for some time. That is not a hundred percent accurate. My father uses that right now as a storage facility and he frequents that quite often. It is -- it is not in very good -- it does not have very good curb appeal right now and we realize that. As family Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission December 21, 2017 Page 50 of 64 members have gone by and seen that, the curb appeal needs to be brought up to standards, but it is not in -- it's something that could still be rented out and still could be used on the upper level of that home. So, for the condition to be torn down, I'm not sure why we would tear down a home that -- that it still has -- has value from a rental standpoint. We would -- I guess we are looking for a concession to bring the curb appeal to -- to standards. There is current landscaping there and a sprinkler system that has been turned off and not used that's able to get up and going and get that curb appeal back, so it looks nice for those that are driving by. The five year -- why five years is important is the money that it's taking Track Utility to -- that is a pasture behind the home. That's a five acre parcel. And so you have, you know, four acres and three- quarters of it's pasture. Well, they are going to have to bring in 12 inches or so of pit run and, then, on top of that they are going to have to bring in road mix and, then, it's also -- we need to have dust abatement, so it will be recycled asphalt and, then, fencing and all that, it does not pencil out at five years to do all that. So, it coincides five years -- where that number originally came is it coincides with the lease options they currently have, but if the option is there for -- to them to extend that, they would, obviously, like to do that so it pencils out for them. Track Utility employs I think around 200 people. They are a great asset to the City of Meridian, just at that location, and so it would be -- it would be sad to see them leave, because that is the alternative right now if -- if they can't get the yard space they need they are moving out, so -- McCarvel: Any questions? Thank you. Nickel: Madam Chair, could I -- could I add one thing? McCarvel: Yes. Nickel: And Lance brings up a good point. As far as the landscaping in front of the house, that can be -- that can be put together with -- with the -- I think is staff allowing us the ten foot landscape strip along the boundary of Franklin Road and with the -- as Lance said, there is existing irrigation from the house that can be turned on and so we can incorporate the ten foot with the existing landscaping in front of the house and beautify all that and, then, it would, obviously, be up to Mr. Rackham to work on the house itself and, then, secure it and make it -- make it more appealing, so that he could rent it out. I think -- I think that's what we are trying to propose on that. So, I can stand for any other questions you have, but I just wanted to add that. Yearsley: I guess I would be curious what are the thoughts on the house? You know, I struggle with that, because it is a nonconforming use and we are doing improvements on the property and, typically, when we do improvements on the property we like to try to make the whole property is within conformance. I don't know, I -- McCarvel: Yeah. I guess my feelings on the house is I don't think you're going to rent it out with industrial storage all around. It's needs to be one or the other. I mean -- Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission December 21, 2017 Page 51 of 64 Nickel: Madam Chair -- because I -- I totally understand the concerns and that you are correct, it is a nonconforming use currently in a commercial zone. I think the alternative, though, is that at some point the value or the cost of doing the improvements is going to be outweighed by the -- by everything and if it doesn't go forward, then, we are going to be stuck with a five acre piece of property that's going to sit there until it does develop in five to ten years and not -- sorry. Not that that's a threat, that's just kind of reality, as opposed to having at least three-quarters of it being -- or 9/10ths of it being used -- being looked at on a daily basis, being taken care of and the house being brought up to a respectable standard. Whether that's -- you know, whether it's converted into maybe an office or a commercial type of use or what have you, but I kind of -- that's why we are asking for some -- for some help in trying to figure out how we can do this to make it work for the -- for the family, for Track Utility, but also for the city, so the city has something that it's not a distraction or nuisance to police and fire. So, that's what we are asking. Yearsley: I think with some of that -- and, again, I try not to speak for my Commissioners, so I apologize. I am assuming that in front of the house you're going to put fencing with screened fencing up, besides the house; is that not correct? Nickel: Fencing would go -- Bill, if you can put that back up there. Fencing is going to go around the house -- it will go around the house. Yearsley: I know, but on the other side of the house you're going to have fencing up at least probably the sidewalk or near the sidewalk, that -- that is screened, if that's not correct. Nickel: Yeah. The storage -- the storage portion -- Yearsley: Portion of it. Yes. Nickel: -- of it will be screened from public view. Yearsley: So, why don't we just screen the whole frontage and make that house not even as a house and it becomes a storage part of the -- the overall storage. I struggle with not putting the house as a house use, because I don't -- I'd like to get rid of that and, you know, maybe we just put the fence all the way across and use that as part of -- either Track Utility uses it or he has an agreement that he gets to go into their yard and -- Nickel: I think -- I think that's something -- Madam Chair and Commissioners, I think that's something that probably could be worked -- worked out. I am seeing some nodding of heads in the back. So, maybe -- maybe that's the -- maybe that's the alternative that we try to work on -- Fitzgerald: Madam Chair? Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission December 21, 2017 Page 52 of 64 Nickel: -- and still -- and still secure and get the house -- or the building to at least a somewhat reasonable standard. McCarvel: Commissioner Fitzgerald. Fitzgerald: Can I ask Commissioner Yearsley a question? Yearsley: Oh, absolutely. And please -- and that's why I was hoping maybe you guys would say I don't like this or not. Fitzgerald: And, Mr. Rackham, I appreciate -- I think for your point I appreciate what you're trying to do for your family. I think -- I would be okay if we talk about making it a commercial use, like if we need more little office-type spaces, but you can't make that a house that it is rentable for a resident -- residential, so I agree with you there. I -- so, I'm not sure we need to put some conditions around what it can be used for if we are not going to tear it down. Like as I -- and I agree it's hard to pencil it out, but I'm trying to find a balance in between. So, I'm up for suggestions. But I -- there is -- I don't think we can put that into a residential use. Yearsley: Right. And I agree, if we could put it into some sort of a useful purpose -- Fitzgerald: Yeah. Yearsley: -- I'm good with that. McCarvel: Where it's not just boarded up, but is -- Yearsley: And, you know, that was my thought is we just screen the whole thing, he can, you know, keep it as a storage and it's no longer a house, it becomes an accessory dwelling to the parcel. Fitzgerald: On the property. Yearsley: As a -- and I'm not meaning this by any means offensive, but -- but as a threat I -- I personally don't have a problem with Track moving to someplace else. I realize that we would lose those jobs, but at that point you have ten acres now that becomes developable that we could see something potentially better. I'm not saying that what is there is bad, but, you know, that ten acres it becomes a lot more desirable for future commercial development versus just five acres, so -- Nickel: You're turning a negative into a positive. Yearsley: Absolutely. So, you know -- so, them leaving -- you know, we like to keep our businesses here, but them leaving personally is not a reason for me to lower my standards. So, that's kind of what I was trying to come to -- Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission December 21, 2017 Page 53 of 64 Fitzgerald: And, hopefully, it could give the Rackham family an opportunity to sell that for even better, but -- Yearsley: So -- so, I guess what -- what conditions do we want to propose? I guess I'd be curious to what other people think. I feel like I'm the only one making the deal here. Cassinelli: Do we need to close the -- McCarvel: Well, that's what I was wondering. Are we at the point now where we are willing to let the applicant go? Yearsley: Well, I -- Perreault: Madam Chair, may I ask one more question of the applicant? McCarvel: Commissioner Perreault. Perreault: So, I guess what I'm, again, struggling with, like the other Commissioners, is really what asset is this home to you. If it's not in good repair and there is maintenance costs, wouldn't it be more effective for you to tear it down and put an actual storage building that's designed for that? Is there -- I mean I assume you have run the numbers and decided that that's not cost effective, in addition to the improvements that need to be made or the -- the tenant has done that. I mean is there -- is there an attachment there from the family standpoint? Help us understand why this house should stay. Nickel: Madam Chair and Commissioner -- and you are correct, there is somewhat of an attachment that the Rackhams -- McCarvel: Please state your name and address for the record. Rackham: Devaughn Rackham. 3700 East Girdner in Meridian. 83642. The outside of the house is in disrepair. There is a broken front window. I think it should have new locks on it. I walked through it in just the last few weeks and there is nothing about the inside of it that is dilapidated. I mean it's 40 plus years old. It's old. But it's still usable as an office. In fact, that was -- when we moved to town many years ago that was what it was used for, it was an office, and so there is not a real good reason to tear it down, because, you know, it does need some cosmetic work for sure, because it hasn't been used, but inside it's still very usable. So, you know, we like the idea. We are happy to talk about fencing it off and -- and having it be part of the property. You know, the cost of tearing it down and building something else just doesn't make a lot of sense, because other than, you know, the outside cosmetics, which could be improved, it's -- it's a useful structure still. Is that helpful? Yearsley: So, I guess -- I think -- for me personally I think you're -- I would be more comfortable fencing it off and making it part of the compound and if they want to make an office, have them come back and -- come back with TI improvements and have that Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission December 21, 2017 Page 54 of 64 go through a separate application, instead of saying we -- we can allow it for office at this point, just out of curiosity, and Bill's comment about we should be going into deliberation, I actually watch City Council, they actually make all their deliberations before they actually close the public hearing, which I thought was kind of interesting. Is that not what you're understanding, counsel? So, actually making these comments and discussions right now I don't think is -- is out of order. Is that not correct? Pogue: Uh-huh. That's correct. Yearsley: Okay. So, I still think we can make that comment. So -- what's that? Fitzgerald: I agree with that. I just want to -- when we first started on here I tried to do that and I got -- I got shot down by your predecessor. No, I'm just joking. I just -- you guys can beat me up later. But, no, I think -- I agree with you, having the conversation -- because we can have feedback from the applicant on certain things. So, I agree with that. Yearsley: I don't want to do a condition that -- that he's going to say, well, I just -- the whole deal is just gone now, because -- Fitzgerald: I can't make it work. Yearsley: Yeah. I couldn't make it work. McCarvel: One at a time I think. For our lovely recorder over there. Okay. Commissioner Perreault. Perreault: Thank you, Madam Chair. It does need to be kept as a commercial -- nonresidential use. McCarvel: I agree. Perreault: I'm in total agreement on that. McCarvel: So, we got that one out of the way. Cassinelli: Comments. Questions. Down here. McCarvel: Commissioner Cassinelli. Cassinelli: One question for Commissioner Yearsley. With your proposal to fence that all in, are you -- would we still keep it -- we would still keep an access point off Franklin on that lot; correct? Yearsley: No. My -- my motion would be to -- you have the one entrance that they have for emergency exit and no other entrances. My recommendation. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission December 21, 2017 Page 55 of 64 Cassinelli: Okay. Yearsley: So, you would actually have to come through Track Utility's yard to access the house and at a -- at a certain time if they want to make this into an office building, which I am totally happy with, I think they need to come back and show us how they are going to make this an office building and how they are going to have an approach. It's still all their property. They can do whatever they want with it. But I think to make this clean -- for my -- for opinion, to make this clean we just -- we fence it all off and not have any access, except through Track Utilities. McCarvel: So, they would have to close that driveway off. Yearsley: Yes. That would be my recommendation. Fitzgerald: With the emergency access. Yearsley: With the emergency access on the -- on the one -- on one piece. Because I'm sure Track Utility could actually allow him access to that property, either through the front or some way through that area not -- not disturbing their yard type situation. Because, then, your -- you know, my concern is if we leave that driveway access there now, we are just adding one more point of contention and how is he going to open the gate, does he -- you know, how is that access going to happen. I think for feasibility I think you just fence the entire thing off and -- and -- at this point. Cassinelli: As another option, is it a -- one thing that's been discussed is a little beautification from the outside of the property. But do we have any -- do we have any teeth into doing that? I mean if we -- if we approve it, Council approves it, who -- Yearsley: So, we approve this. This is a conditional use permit. Cassinelli: I'm saying if we do, what's to say that the improvements to the house are not done? McCarvel: It would be part of the conditional use permit. It would be part of them -- it would be in the requirements to be able to use this as what they are requesting it to be used as. Cassinelli: So, code enforcement could -- Parsons: Madam Chair, Members of the Commission, yes, it would -- what will happen is if you guys take action on this and you -- in favor of this application, the applicant has to come back for a certificate of zoning compliance. At that point if you want that structure to be converted to an accessory storage building for the site, in conjunction with the outdoor storage, then, they would have to go through the building department. We could do that through the certificate of zoning compliance process and that Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission December 21, 2017 Page 56 of 64 residential use to approve it as an accessory storage building and, then, through that CZC process and in their working with the building department they could convert that to a storage building. That's how we would do that. And, then, if there were any violations, then, yes, code enforcement would be in contact and take action on that. Cassinelli: My preference would be to make it look -- you know, give it the curb appeal and make it look nice, instead of a -- a big -- you know, instead of a fence all across the front of it. I don't know which is easier. I think for the city to -- to enforce and to put through. McCarvel: I -- as I'm sitting here thinking about this, I mean part of this is, too, they want the expansion or extension into ten years and part of that is because of the expense of all this and I'm just thinking if we leave the house, but requires some curb appeal updates -- I mean if that's truly all that's wrong with that is a few broken windows, then, repair it, but it's -- that would -- I mean either the five year sunset or five years come back and ask again and see what that area is doing. Fitzgerald: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Fitzgerald. Fitzgerald: If we are going to pull this apart, ten year scares me a lot. McCarvel: Yeah. Fitzgerald: I will be totally honest with you. So, I don't have a problem with the concept of this -- I mean how fast we are growing is exponential, so I don't have a problem with having a five year with a check back and a request for a time extension, but a ten year flat doesn't work for me, so -- Yearsley: You know -- and I am good with that, too. McCarvel: Yeah. But I think if we are only going to grant him five years, I think we do need to be careful of the cost where -- Fitzgerald: Yeah. I get that. McCarvel: But I'd like to see -- I mean if this is our opportunity to take something that's literally boarded up for no reason, other than a broken window -- Yearsley: I'm -- yeah. I don't know -- McCarvel: -- and if the window is broken it maybe it is time to just take it down. Yearsley: Yeah. I don't know how best to make this work. I'm trying to look for reasons to make this work all around and my thought was the easiest was just to -- to fence it Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission December 21, 2017 Page 57 of 64 off. Give them a five year with a five year extension and -- potential five year extension and at least that way you have -- because the problem is is they go in and fix this all up and green it all up, who says in two years they just let it all dilapidate again and so you're stuck with it for three more years. I'm not saying -- but you run those risks of -- with that. So, that's kind of why I personally think we need to -- either personally, like you said, tear it down or fence it off. Perreault: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Perreault. Perreault: Well, if we propose that they come back and have to make another request -- go through a review after five years and the house is in poor condition, that it could be reviewed again at that time? McCarvel: Sure. Cassinelli: I would -- I would hope that with the income of this the house can be maintained. McCarvel: Either maintained or start the process of slowly taking it down and getting the area ready for the next stage of what this whole property is going to be. Or converting -- I mean it could be -- yeah. I believe it can be converted to office space. Yearsley: Oh -- and I think it could be, too. The question is is when and, you know, if. You know. So, are you -- because I don't want this to be an apartment or a rental. That's not what we are wanting this to do and the easiest thing to do is to fix it up and try to -- try to rent it as a rental house -- housing unit. So, for me the leverage that I have personally is to fence it off, have them come back and unfence with a zoning compliance for an office facility. Does that make sense? It forces the hand of either you fence it off or you make it into an office and not a rental is where I am coming from. McCarvel: Yeah. I think residential use is nonstarter. Parsons: Madam Chair, Members of the Commission, just a point of clarification. The county records have this as a residential -- it was commercial, but the home is -- I don't even know what they have the home classified anymore, but since no one's lived on the property, in our opinion the single family use has ceased. So, therefore, there is really no use on the property -- established on this property. In our code when a use ceases, then, it's no longer there. You would have to come back and reestablish a use. For your purview tonight is you are establishing a new use on this site or expanding the use on this property for storage. Accessory storage or a primary use, which is on the adjacent property. So, anything that -- if that home was to remain, the applicant isn't going to just be able to fix the house up and, then, have someone renting the home, because we are not going to recognize that. That use doesn't exist anymore. They would need to come back to the city to do something with that house. That process Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission December 21, 2017 Page 58 of 64 would either be through a conditional use or through a certificate of zoning compliance, depending on what use they propose for that home to be used for. We don't know at this point. The more -- the reason why we were concerned is we just didn't want to have a fire hazard on the property if it was something inside, no one's visiting the site, it's getting vandalized, riffraff happening. Crime. Those are the concerns that police and fire and staff have with the way the building looks now. We are just concerned that someone's going to get in there and cause mischief, we are going to have an issue there, now all of a sudden we have a storage yard with all of this other equipment out there and we just make it worse for all the other surrounding properties. So, that's really what staff is concerned with the building. As far as use, whether it stays or goes, we will leave it to your purview, but right now we -- we are of the opinion it should go, based on the current condition of the exterior, not necessarily the interior, because none of us have been inside. It's just something to take into consideration. Cassinelli: We probably also need to discuss the back of the lot. Yearsley: Okay. Cassinelli: We haven't done that yet. Yearsley: No. I -- well, I guess at this point -- Cassinelli: My -- my only issue with the fence is I'm having a hard time visualizing a fence that's going to make it look -- I mean if it's going to be a five foot chain link fence, what's that going to do? Yearsley: Well, I think it has to be a screen fence, like a vinyl fence or a wood fence. McCarvel: What's already there is the chain link fence and they are proposing that it be a solid fence and it looks like there is already some landscaping on the trailer court side, but staff is recommending another 25 feet back there of landscaping between -- on the north side of the fence. So, the fence is already a condition to go around the entire perimeter. A solid fence. And that would replace or be on the north side of that chain link fence. But, then, the question at hand is do we require the 25 feet, in which I think the director said -- deemed that south part as residential, so that there is required to be a 25 foot landscape -- Perreault: Madam Chair, I'm in agreement with Commissioner Yearsley about it not being necessary to have manicured landscaping back there, as long as there is the buffer and that -- that serves its purpose, I think that would be sufficient. McCarvel: I would agree. I would think as long as -- I think we put the stipulation in there that they are not parking the large vehicles back there, that it's something that the fence does obscure, then, you know, for a certain buffer area I think -- Perreault: But my question is -- Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission December 21, 2017 Page 59 of 64 McCarvel: -- is adequate for the five year limitation on it. Yeah. Perreault: Is there going to be a requirement of solid fencing in this new section that we are discussing or is that going to run all the way across the back of the existing Track Utility property? Nickel: Madam Chair and Commissioner, we are just proposing it on the parcel -- the new parcel. McCarvel: On the new part. Yearsley: Yeah. It's kind of hard to do an off-site improvement. Perreault: Yes. I know that. I know. I'm just wondering what their intention is. Cassinelli: So, am I hearing you correct, are we saying -- are we just in favor of a fence if the RV owner -- if that's what they are okay with and not the landscape buffer? Yearsley: Yeah. So, my condition was -- or my thought was is if the owner is okay -- if the adjacent owner is okay with it, to have a screen fence, so it's not visible through, like a wood fence or a vinyl fence type situation and for the first 25 feet they can't have any equipment or storage greater than six feet tall, so you can't -- you won't have a lot of stuff sitting up over the fence within that 25 feet. McCarvel: So, those people that live there don't have a wall of trucks. Cassinelli: Yeah. Yearsley: Of wire rolls. McCarvel: Yeah. Yearsley: So -- Cassinelli: Is the -- would you -- would everybody be, then, okay with the -- what Commissioner Yearsley is proposing, a fence all the way across the front on Franklin, access to the -- to the home be -- be through the Track Utility yard? Nickel: Madam Chair and Commissioner, yes, that's fine, and also keep in mind that you will have the landscaping along the entire front that will be maintained. Plus by -- I guess by removing that access and forcing it through Track for that structure, you will be further keeping it from being -- I guess rented out as a residential use, because it's going to go through an industrial. Plus I believe staff can put it -- or you could put a condition in there that it does not become a residential use and, then, it would be code Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission December 21, 2017 Page 60 of 64 enforceable. Code enforcement -- code enforceable if it changed uses. So, you would have the -- McCarvel: And that would maybe mitigate some of the -- if you're having vandalism issues and stuff, I imagine that's why it's boarded up, but if there is no access there, you know, people would just assume that it's part of this, that it -- Cassinelli: So, that as far as the two, the one down there, I mean for your -- for access for your father on that, through Track Utilities, that's a thumbs up? McCarvel: Because that would mean probably your access is limited to business hours then. Cassinelli: Should we close this up then? Parsons: Madam Chair, Members of the Commission, just one other -- while you deliberate. I appreciate the fact that you don't want to require the 25 foot landscape buffer along the south boundary, but this is still a conditional use permit, so if you feel it is appropriate to protect the surrounding properties, you could require the vinyl fence to go across the property as well. That's part of your purview. The conditional use permit does allow you greater latitude to impose conditions on sites that are a little different than what code requires. So, you do have the ability, if that's something you feel -- not requiring it there, but having -- protecting that whole south boundary, including the site where they are operating -- as you can see in this aerial there they do have trucks and equipment in that section, too. So, I think you do -- it is part of your purview this evening to make that a requirement, that entirely along that boundary, too. So, I don't want you to think that you can't do that. You do have the capability to do it. Yearsley: Madam Chair, that is good to know. Perreault: That -- that makes sense to me. It doesn't make any sense to me to put a privacy fence up along the -- the property in question and not put one along the -- Track Utility's existing property, since the RV park runs -- runs below all of it. McCarvel: Okay. Perreault: So, if the staff is saying that that's in our purview, I would make that recommendation. Nickel: Madam Chair, just one more comment. Just keep in mind that the boundary of the existing Track Utility, that has been there for 15 years, 20 years and it's -- so, that's an existing use, so -- Yearsley: Oh, no. Nickel: -- as opposed to us put a new use in, so I just -- Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission December 21, 2017 Page 61 of 64 McCarvel: I would think if they are coming back in five years that maybe that's the time to put the teeth into that piece of property. I don't know. Nickel: Thank you very much. Yearsley: Thank you. Cassinelli: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioners. Commissioner Cassinelli. Cassinelli: I move we close the public hearing for file number H-2017-0141, Track Utilities Extension. Yearsley: Second. McCarvel: It has been moved and seconded to close the public hearing for H-2017- 0141, Track Utilities Extension. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. TWO ABSENT. McCarvel: How about some more discussion? Yearsley: You know, I -- McCarvel: Or thoughts. Yearsley: I think this was actually productive. McCarvel: Absolutely. Yearsley: Instead of us trying to put our conditions and -- you know, we were able to hear from the applicant of what they wanted and try to come up with a decent compromise. Personally, I think it's actually a fairly decent compromise. I hope Track Utilities is amenable to this as well and, then, that you guys can generate some income. So -- McCarvel: Okay. Yearsley: -- any other comments before we make a decision? Perreault: I just have a question, Commissioner Yearsley. McCarvel: Sure. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission December 21, 2017 Page 62 of 64 Perreault: Could you bring that back up, Bill? The site plan. Are you proposing a fence from -- from the landscape buffer to the east edge of that property? Yearsley: Yes. Perreault: With like a rolling gate that allows them to go in and out to the -- no? A complete solid -- McCarvel: Close off that access. Perreault: Well, I do like the element that it -- that it prevents access on that driveway. Yearsley: Yes. Perreault: That is exceptionally important. McCarvel: Okay. So, so far what we are -- we were heading is that the perimeter gets fenced, including everything along the front of Franklin Road and that driveway access goes away. But that the house can stay. Yearsley: As an accessory use. McCarvel: As an accessory use. No residential, which its time has expired anyway as a use and access would come through Track Utility to that building and, then, the landscape on the south side, we would not require the 25 feet, but we would require a 25 foot buffer of nothing being stored or parked there that's over six foot tall for 25 feet. Yearsley: Yeah. McCarvel: Okay. Yearsley: And I guess the last question was is -- we do have the purview to fence Track Utility's property with secure screening. Is that something that we want to impose at this point? I'm kind of on the fence with that one. It's already been that way for years. McCarvel: It's been that way for 15 years. Cassinelli: If the RV -- I would say if the -- if the owner of the RV park was here and was kind of demanding it, then -- but it doesn't seem to be a big objection. McCarvel: I think those people that live there -- I mean they have lived there for a long time, they know what's there, it's -- I think -- if they come back in five years and want to extend all of this again, then, maybe you get some feedback on that. The landscape -- Fitzgerald: Agreed. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission December 21, 2017 Page 63 of 64 McCarvel: Okay. Yearsley: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Yearsley. Yearsley: After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to approve file number H-2017-0141 as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of December 21st, 2017, with the following modifications: That the south landscaping buffer be removed, but to not allow anything taller -- no vehicles or anything taller than six feet to be stacked within that 25 foot buffer area. That the fencing on the north end of the property to be extended to the property line, with the landscaping and other amenities on the -- on that frontage to be extended to the east boundary property line of the property. The building -- the house there to be considered not a residential use anymore and be considered an accessory dwelling and the -- the applicant has opportunity to come back within five years for another five year extension. Fitzgerald: Second. Cassinelli: Second. McCarvel: It has been moved and seconded to approve H-2017-0141, Track Utilities, with the aforementioned modifications. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. TWO ABSENT. Cassinelli: Madam Chair? McCarvel: No. I have one thing on the agenda that you don't. Mr. Parsons -- thank you, guys. Mr. Parsons has asked for a few minutes this evening. Parsons: So, Madam Chair, Members of the Commission, I did want to share some information with you this evening. I wanted to at least let you know and confirm with you tonight that we are trying to get together a joint meeting between you and City Council. That hearing date is -- the preferred date is February 13th at 6:00 o'clock. Dinner would be served at 5:30. So, we are looking forward to having you join the Council on that evening to just kind of touch bases and see where everyone is at and, then, as I get back into the office tomorrow morning I will go ahead and forward that meeting invite to all of you, so that you're aware of that and you can include that on your calendar, so look forward to your attendance on that evening. Yearsley: The other last question I had -- are we doing -- McCarvel: Next one. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission December 21, 2017 Page 64 of 64 Yearsley: Next one. All right. McCarvel: I asked that today, too. Yearsley: Yeah. I figured you -- yeah, if you could get done. Election of officers. McCarvel: Commissioner Cassinelli, do you have anything -- you would like to make a motion? Cassinelli: Madam Chair, I move to adjourn. Yearsley: Second. McCarvel: It has been moved and seconded to adjourn the meeting for December 21 st. All those in favor say. Opposed? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. TWO ABSENT. McCarvel: Merry Christmas. MEETING ADJOURNED AT 9:19 P.M. (AUDIO RECORDING ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS.) APPROVED RHOS DA McCARVEL - CHAIRMAI ATTEST: T, _ - CLERK 6-tql Lv&e'j; C4y C(erK v e000'DRp'fED AUC 0 n ^ City of a - IAAHO SEAL v DATE APPROVED