Loading...
2018-04-05Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting April 5, 2018. Meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission of April 5, 2018, was called to order at 6:00 p.m. by Chairman Rhonda McCarvel. Members Present: Chairman Rhonda McCarvel, Commissioner Gregory Wilson, Commissioner Bill Cassinelli, and Commissioner Lisa Holland. Members Absent: Commissioner Steven Yearsley, Commissioner Jessica Perreault, and Commissioner Ryan Fitzgerald. Others Present: Chris Johnson, Andrea Pogue, Bill Parsons, Josh Beach and Dean Willis. Item 1: Roll-call Attendance __X____ Lisa Holland _______ Steven Yearsley __X___ Gregory Wilson _______ Ryan Fitzgerald ______ Jessica Perreault ___X___ Bill Cassinelli ___X___ Rhonda McCarvel - Chairman McCarvel: All right. Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. And at this time I would like to call to order the regularly scheduled meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission on April 5th, 2018, and we will now begin with roll call. Item 2: Adoption of Agenda McCarvel: Thank you. The first item on the agenda is the adoption of the agenda. Could I get a motion to adopt the agenda as presented? Wilson: So moved. Cassinelli: Second. McCarvel: It has been moved and seconded to adopt the agenda. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion Carries. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. THREE ABSENT. Item 3: Consent Agenda A. Approve Minutes of the March 1, 2018 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission April 5, 2018 Page 2 of 21 B. Approve Minutes of the March 15, 2018 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting McCarvel: The next item on the agenda -- and we have two items on the Consent Agenda tonight, approval for minutes for the March 1st and the March 15th Planning and Zoning meetings. Could I get a motion to accept the Consent Agenda as presented? Cassinelli: So moved. Holland: Second. McCarvel: It has been moved and seconded to adopt the Consent Agenda. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. THREE ABSENT. McCarvel: So, at this time I will 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 and present their case for approval of their application and respond to any staff comments. The applicant will have 15 minutes to do so. After the applicant has finished we will open to public testimony and there is a sign-up sheet in the back as you entered for anyone wishing to testify. Any person testifying will come forward and be allowed three minutes. If they are speaking for a larger group, like an HOA, and there is a show of hands to represent that group, they will be given up to ten minutes. There is a timer on the screen at the podium, so you can watch your time and there will be a bell at the end of your time. So, please, be respectful of that. After all testimony has been heard the applicant will be given another ten minutes and 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 A. Public Hearing for The Cottages (H-2018-0013) by Jeff Likes Located at 2134,2146,2158,2182,2170 and 2194 W. Everest Lane 1. Request: A Conditional Use Permit for an Assisted Living Facility on 1.68 Acres of Land in and L-O Zoning District McCarvel: So, at this time I would like to open the public hearing for Item H-2018-0013, The Cottages, and we will begin with the staff report. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission April 5, 2018 Page 3 of 21 Parsons: Thank you, Madam Chair, Members of the Commission. The first item on the -- on the agenda this evening is The Cottage project. It is a conditional use permit. The site consists of 1.6 acres of land, currently zoned L-O, and is located at 2134, 2146, 2158, 2182, 2170 and 2194 West Everest Lane. Adjacent land uses. To the north we have Chinden Boulevard and a golf course and single family property zoned R-8. To the west is daycare and office uses, zoned L-O. To the south is West Everest Lane and single family residential uses, zoned R-4. And, then, to the east is vacant, undeveloped land, also zoned L-O. This property was officially annexing in 2002, but last year they did come before the Commission with a combined primary-final plat for the commercial lots that they are proposing to develop this evening. I also would like to mention as part of that application they did take a development agreement, modification along with the combined preliminary-final plat and the DA was recorded with the provision that the curbing along the frontage of this road be colored or painted red and no parking signs erected on the site, because there is some -- some parking issues with the office complex in that area and along with the elementary school or private charter school that is currently operating in the area. So, we have heard quite a few complaints from business owners and residents in that area. So, the applicant here -- is here this evening to discuss a conditional use permit on the site for a residential care facility in an L-O zoning district. The site plan before you this evening demonstrates two -- or consists of two structures, both 11,600 square feet. The northernmost building will be an assisted care facility -- assisted care facility and the one southern-most building will be for memory care. Both structures, the northern structure will have 16 beds, along with the southern structure. So, a total of 32 beds as part of this overall development. Access to the site is provided from West Everest Lane, which, again, is a private street here. There is an access here and, then, one farther that -- I would also mention to you that there is -- in speaking with the applicant before the meeting this evening there is a shared parking agreement in place for this development and also a reciprocal cross- access agreement for all the lots to have access to West Everest Lane, which is, again, that private street. The minimum parking standards for the site -- these are unique parking ratios for this type of use. The UDC requires 0.5 parking stalls for the number of beds. So, currently, the way the site is designed or at least the minimum parking required by the UDC is 16. The site plan before you this evening is -- shows 22. Staff does have a condition in the staff report that we are requiring -- if you could see my cursor here, we are requiring that the applicant provide additional parking located in this area to mitigate some of the parking concerns that we have heard over the past several months. A landscape plan is here for you. It does -- in compliance with the UDC standards. I would also mention to you that in the -- in the staff report there is a condition of approval where a portion of the southern building is encroaching within the ten foot landscape buffer along West Everest Lane. So, the applicant has been conditioned to shift that building farther to the north or at least turn -- twist it a little bit more so that it is located outside of that landscape buffer and we will verify that with a certificate of zoning compliance application. The applicant has provided conceptual elevations for you this evening. Primary building materials consist of horizontal HardiePlank siding and cedar shake siding, with stone veneer wainscot and asphalt shingle roofing. The applicant also provided some conceptual renderings for you to Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission April 5, 2018 Page 4 of 21 take in consideration. Staff is recommending approval with conditions. I would also mention to you that we did receive written testimony from the applicant in agreement with most of the conditions of approval. The only ones that they want you to take under consideration is the one that I mentioned to you earlier. Currently there is a condition -- a 1.3E in the staff report that requires the additional parking that I shared with you in that area east of the northernmost building. The applicant would like you to strike that condition. With that I will conclude my presentation and stand for any questions you may have. Cassinelli: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Cassinelli. Cassinelli: How many additional parking spaces are you wanting to see out of there? Parsons: Madam Chair, Members of the Commission, we haven't -- we haven't specified an amount, but if you look -- if this landscaping were to be removed there is some kind of structure located here. So, quick math, we could go one, two, three, four and possibly five additional parking spaces could be provided on the site for a total of 27. Cassinelli: Thank you. Wilson: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Wilson. Wilson: So, if we just go about halfway -- what you're proposing goes about halfway on that side. Parsons; That is correct. Wilson: So, about five? Okay. Holland: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Holland. Holland: On the west side of the proposed landscape plan it looks like the building is pretty close to the edge of that parcel. Is it pretty close to the adjacent buildings that are going to be in that -- the daycare facility and some of those other office uses? Is there a buffer between those? Parsons: Madam Chair, Members of the Commission, this property is zoned L-O, so the applicant will have to comply with those -- the setbacks in and that standard. I'm trying to think if that's an interior lot line -- I believe -- I can look at the code real quick. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission April 5, 2018 Page 5 of 21 It's either a five or ten foot landscape -- or ten foot setback for the building. So, let me verify that really quick in my -- in my book and, then, I will answer and I can get back to you on that. McCarvel: Okay. Any other questions for staff? Okay. Would the applicant like to come forward? Please state your name and address for the record. Likes: Jeff Likes. 1119 East State Street, Eagle, Idaho. I think while Bill looks that up, the only -- the only thing we have a question on -- I think we brought it up a few times -- is just that parking along there -- along the additional parking -- does this work? Well, there you go. So, right in here. That little square there is a clock tower. It's actually been moved out to here now and in its place and through -- right around there we have included an outdoor fountain seating area for the residents to come and sit and hang out in. The reason we requested that that be striked is that currently there is 12 employees that will work here at a time and current code calls for 16 parking spaces. So, we are currently at 22 parking spaces. So, we are already overparked. Even with our 12 employees we have ten additional parking spaces for any -- anybody visiting. Our residents don't drive, so there is really no need for extra parking for our 32 residents either and, then, we just -- we would like this area to be more for the -- the residents there. They can walk around, live in a nice landscape area. So, we have no problems with everything else. We did already -- we caught the building on that south just after we submitted this, so we have already shifted that out of the property line. We have the two bike racks and we are gaining that -- we are getting the fencing. We gave that to a builder in the CZC, so -- and we are okay with the no parking signs along Everest. So, I will answer any questions. McCarvel: Okay. Any questions for the applicant? Cassinelli: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Cassinelli. Cassinelli: Is there room in between the two buildings to -- to put that fountain and seating area, as opposed to it out where the clock tower was? Likes: Sure. Madam Chair, Commissioner, not particularly. We do -- we have a walking path that I can -- so, we do kind of promote a lot of walking with our residents and they come here, they come out, and we have a walking path that kind of comes along here and back down and this is -- again is just more landscaping to help buffer. Here we have residents that live there and so we like to have landscape and that buffers that between anything going on out there. So, we just list that as land -- just list that as landscaping and we understand the parking and the neighbors' concern for parking. Again, with this type of facility we don't necessarily want extra parking on the site due to who lives there. You know, more family, friends, and employees that work there. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission April 5, 2018 Page 6 of 21 McCarvel: Okay. So, you have 12 employees -- is that the height of your shifts? I mean, obviously, there is probably fewer in the overnight, but -- Likes: Correct. That's at the height of the shift, the 12 employees. McCarvel: And, then, you have the change of shift and 22 spaces. Likes: Yeah. Wilson: That's during the day; right? The height -- Likes: Yeah. Yeah. McCarvel: Any other questions for the applicant? Likes: Thank you. McCarvel: Thank you. Parsons: Madam Chair, I have got the answer for you. McCarvel: Okay. Parsons: So, looking through the ordinance, we could treat that as a rear setback in the L-O district and that would require zero setback. So, the architect will have to design the building separation per the building codes at this point, which I know he's aware of. McCarvel: All right. At this time we will take any public testimony. Is there anyone here to testify on this application? Okay. So, I'm assuming the applicant doesn't -- oh. Sure. Maxwell: Madam Chair, my name is Mark Maxwell. I will be the owner-operator of the business -- McCarvel: Okay. Maxwell: -- or The Cottages. Just a point of clarification for the 12 staff. They will never be there at the same time. That's how they would be there throughout a 24 hour period with shifts. McCarvel: Oh. Okay. Maxwell: Yeah. More than ample parking. About four, maybe five staff at one time. McCarvel: For both buildings? Maxwell: Per building. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission April 5, 2018 Page 7 of 21 McCarvel: Per building. Maxwell: Yeah. So -- McCarvel: Yeah. So, ten -- okay. Maxwell: Not the 12 per building or -- for the site. McCarvel: Yeah. So -- but ten employees at one time. So, half those parking spots are gone -- are for employees. Maxwell: It would be very rare, but -- McCarvel: Okay. Okay. Maxwell: Yeah. We are traditionally about four at the peak time during some hours per building. I would say five is a little buffer, but usually four and, then, two in the evenings and, of course, one during the night per building, so -- McCarvel: Okay. All right. Any other questions? Okay. Maxwell: Thank you. McCarvel: Thank you. Okay. So, at this time could I get a motion to close the public hearing for H-2018-0013. Holland: So moved. Wilson: Second. Cassinelli: Second. McCarvel: It has been moved and seconded to close the public hearing on H-2018- 0013. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. THREE ABSENT. McCarvel: I know parking is one of our favorite issues. Wilson: Well, I'm just going to play -- Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Wilson. Wilson: Okay. So -- I mean they are already -- you know, I know we don't like the minimum here, but I mean they are, you know, about 30 percent over that minimum with Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission April 5, 2018 Page 8 of 21 the 22 spots and, I don't know, the way I see it, I like that not having parking on that side. I mean I think that that's an area where you can enjoy a visit, you can -- I don't know, but I think it adds -- it detracts from the aesthetic if we add five parking spots in that area. You know, again, I don't know, I don't want more cement over there. I like the landscaping around the building. I think it, you know, makes it look nice and I think they are 30 percent over as it is, so an additional five spots -- I mean that's another, you know -- so I am -- I am -- I am leaning with the applicant, but I would like to hear what my fellow commissioners have to say. Holland: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Holland. Holland: I think I tend to agree with Commissioner Wilson. I know I have -- I have had a grandmother living in a facility like this in the memory care unit and I know that having some green space and flowers really helps with the aesthetics. So, I think anytime you have got the ability to have some green space is really nice for those residents and I think they have done a good job of -- of meeting the minimum requirements that the city has set for this kind of facility. So, I don't see a need to replace that in -- or turn that into parking, though some of the neighboring businesses certainly could be a concern in the future. McCarvel: Yeah. I'm -- I'm still leaning towards a little more -- I'm just -- I'm wondering why that landscape space can't be -- I mean between those buildings and make a nice seating area there. I just think with -- I mean because the road along the south is no parking. They have -- there is a fence on the west and, then, you have got -- so, ten employees and shift change -- I don't know. And you know there is going to be -- I know the residents don't have many cars, but they have visitors, so -- that is my two cents. Cassinelli: I have -- actually a question for staff. Is -- with regards to parking. Obviously it's all about -- it's all about parking. I think we are all happy with the design and the layout and those sort of things and we know -- you know, as you mentioned we have addressed this -- this area before with parking and it's -- it's going to get worse, it's not going to get better. In that 22 spaces have we allotted for -- the minimum handicap is in there? You have got that allotted for, those two that are in there, that's -- is that -- I'm not counting spaces here. Is that above the 22? Is that in addition to those 22 or is that -- that's included in that. Parsons: Madam Chair, Members of the Commission, that is included in the overall parking ratio. Cassinelli: So, obviously, staff won't be using those and probably a lot of visitors may not be using those. Parsons: Possibility. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission April 5, 2018 Page 9 of 21 Cassinelli: Possibility. Parsons: Yeah. Cassinelli: So, to tighten things up, I'm -- I like the green space. I hate giving up green space. They are above the minimum. You know, on the flipside I hate to penalize them for what's going on right now to the west and -- and I think further to the east with the -- with the school. I'm almost -- I would almost lean -- as much as we need that -- as that area needs the parking, I don't know that they would be a big parking user, so I'm almost -- I would almost lean towards the applicant to -- to not withhold that. Wilson: I think I have guidance on a motion. So, you're saying you're -- you're in -- what the applicant is pushing or -- Cassinelli: Is to not -- to not -- sorry. To be more clear. Yeah. To be more clear to what you were -- Wilson: I want to make a motion here, if no one else is -- after considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move to recommend approval to City Council of file number H-2018-0013 as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of April 5, 2018, with the following modification: That we strike Condition 1.3E requiring that additional row of parking. Cassinelli: Second. McCarvel: It has been moved and seconded to recommend approval on H-2018-0013, The Cottages, with modifications. All those in favor say aye. Parsons: Madam Chair, I'm sorry to interrupt, but you're approving the CUP tonight. Sorry. McCarvel: Oh. Yeah. Thank you. Parsons: So, it's accurate, so -- McCarvel: So, we are approving, we are not recommending -- Parsons: Move to approve. Wilson: Okay. McCarvel: Yeah. Okay. Wilson: So, I move to approve -- McCarvel: There you go. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission April 5, 2018 Page 10 of 21 Wilson: Do I need to say it all over -- approve file number H-2018-0013 for the hearing date of April 5, 2018, with the following modification: That we strike Condition 1.3E. Cassinelli: And I will still second that. McCarvel: All right. It has been moved and seconded to approve file number H-2018- 0013, The Cottages. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. THREE ABSENT. B. Public Hearing for Fire Station No. 6 (H-2018-0016) by City of Meridian Located at 1435 W. Overland Rd 1. Request: An Annexation and Zoning of 1.99 Acres of Land with an R-8 Zoning District McCarvel: So, at this time we will open the public hearing for Item H-2018-0016, Fire Station No. 6, and we will begin with the staff report. Beach: Thank you, Madam Chair, Members of the Commission. As you said, this is for the Fire Station No. 6. It is an application for annexation and zoning. This property consists of 1.99 acres of land. It is currently zoned RUT within Ada county. It's located at 1435 West Overland Road. To the north is West Overland Road and Camper World, which is zoned I-L. To the east is a single family residence and what's called the Boise Party Barn, zoned R-8. To the south is recently approved Star Point Apartments, also known as Linder Road Apartments, zoned R-15. To the west is vacant or undeveloped property also zoned RUT within Ada county. There is no current history on the property within the City of Meridian. The Comprehensive Plan future land use map designation is medium density residential. The applicant has applied for annexation and zoning of 1.99 acres of land with an R-8 zoning district. The proposed zoning is consistent with the policies in the Comprehensive Plan and the future land use map designation of media density residential. The applicant proposes to develop a new City of Meridian fire station on the property, which includes an apparatus bay, housing areas for staff, and offices. Once the property is annexed the applicant intends to apply for a conditional use permit and a certificate of zoning compliance and administrative design review for the property to establish the fire station use on the property. The applicant has provided a conceptual site plan, indicating the access points, circulation, parking and building footprint of the property. With the conditional use permit application the applicant will need to submit a site and landscape plan that meets the applicable UDC sections. There is a 20 foot -- 25 foot landscape buffer required along Overland Road. Internal parking lot landscaping will also be required. We will have to narrow those details down a little bit when we get a more detailed site plan for the project. Accessibility. The applicant is -- and this is a conceptual site plan, but my understanding of how this site plan will function is that the fire truck will come in here, the garage door on the south side of the building, another garage door on the north side of the building, the fire trucks Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission April 5, 2018 Page 11 of 21 will exit utilizing this for their exit when their sirens are on. This will be just to pull back in in a non-emergency situation. As I said, this is conceptual. They are showing some parking and some landscaping on the property. Staff is really minor condition with this - - the applicant has an issue with staff's condition to kind of line up the access road, the entrance, if you will, with Camping World to the north, to kind of make those line up a little bit better or share an access with the property that's directly to the east that will develop in the future. I, not being a fireman, don't know exactly how -- what issues there may be and so I'm hoping that the applicant and anyone here from the fire department can -- can answer some of those questions and maybe fill you in on how that will work. With that staff is recommending approval and I will stand for any questions you have. McCarvel: Josh, the reason -- the reason you're looking at wanting to line that up is because the land to the -- to the east when it develops there will be yet another access, so that's -- basically there will be two right on top of each other, plus the -- Beach: Madam Chair -- I didn't explain that, but, yeah, typically staff -- and Overland is a designated arterial road, heavy traffic, the fewer access points we have to those arterial roads the less the traffic slows down and gets backed up. So, our -- our hope is that we can share an access and that the existing access for that property will be eliminated with a shared access point on the property line. McCarvel: And I get it. Maybe this is a question for the applicant, but how does a shared access work with a fire station? Beach: Got it. And that's -- that's -- I'm sure they will want to cover that. McCarvel: Okay. All right. Any other questions for staff? Okay. Would the applicant like to come forward? Butterfield: For the record, Charlie Butterfield, division chief of training -- or division chief of planning, Meridian Fire Department. So, a little history on this piece of property. It was purchased by the Meridian Rural Fire Protection District in 2012 for the purpose of a fire station and now we have, essentially, gotten to the point with responses in the area and future development that's been approved in the area that we need to build a fire station there. So, we have learned with our other five fire stations that putting fire stations on arterials is not the best business, so about a year and a half ago, as we knew we were getting ready to put a fire station over here on this piece of property, we started to actually look at trying to take it off the arterial and we had investigated putting it over in Bear Creek Park on Stoddard and we got a lot of very -- I will say negative responses from the community of placing a fire station in the park. So, we did come back to this piece of property that has been owned, recognizing that we are putting it on an arterial, but we do own the property. Some of the concerns with staff's recommendation of wanting to move that is sharing access with fire apparatus and unknown what that next piece of property is going to be developed as and having to share that access with potential public is a concern. Fire apparatus are big, they are Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission April 5, 2018 Page 12 of 21 heavy, and we don't really want people in the way of them when we are coming and going 24 hours a day. So, we would prefer to keep this as noted here, recognizing that what staff is trying to recommend, but we feel that with the emergency services that we deliver it's just not applicable, so I would ask that that be stricken. With that I will stand for questions. McCarvel: Any questions for the applicant? Cassinelli: I do have a question, Madam Chair. McCarvel: Commissioner Cassinelli. Cassinelli: When -- when you're returning with -- with fire engines and whatnot, do you typically activate the emergency signals and turn them red? Butterfield: No. Cassinelli: When you're bringing -- obviously when you're leaving on a call you do, but when you're coming back in do they typically -- Butterfield: We do not. Cassinelli: Okay. Because I don't know if that would be -- if that would help that situation that you're -- McCarvel: Yeah. I'm just wondering if we flipped the building and had the more common in and out access a little farther away from the access we know is probably coming on the other property and that emergency access be the only one that's close to the one on the east property -- would be the lesser used one maybe. Because I can see where Josh is coming from. I mean when that property develops you're going to want those streets to line up, so there is not so much, you know, people trying to get out in that left turn lane and meeting each other to get across, but -- is that -- is that an acceptable thought or is this set in stone? Butterfield: I still think -- Madam Chair, Members of the Commission, I think that either way we still are going to have unknowns of who we are sharing that with. McCarvel: No. I'm not saying share the access, I'm saying flip the building so your -- your exit where your fire trucks exit is the one that's closer to what will be their access, because -- you know. So, you don't have your common -- you know, where you're parking and everything is your common area coming in and out of cars so close to where there is probably going to be another access to Overland. Butterfield: Madam Chair, Members of the Commission, one concern with flipping that is that we did have -- as we are exiting -- as it is right now we are exiting in an emergency -- Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission April 5, 2018 Page 13 of 21 McCarvel: Uh-huh. Butterfield: -- we would -- if we flip that I think we would be, then, more poised to being head onto campers coming out of Camping World. McCarvel: Okay. Butterfield: So, we had it in that way so that as we are coming out we are not directly -- McCarvel: Facing them. Butterfield: -- facing campers coming out from Camping World and from their -- their access point right across the street. And, then, also we would have signalization on here as well, as we do with all of the other fire stations. So, the way that it is right now we can stop traffic I think pretty well and, then, also stop traffic prior -- prior to the turn in to Camping World, so we wouldn't be having issues with that. I think it would create more challenges directly across from Camping World's entry -- McCarvel: Yeah. Butterfield: -- to have our emergency apparatus responding. Beach: Yeah. So, I guess going back to what -- what I was talking about, I have absolutely no idea how any of this works and so I'm glad that we had somebody here that does. Some of this goes back to -- the way you guys have looked at this and where you're going to put your emergency signals on Overland Road and -- and I didn't have any of that information and so that's -- McCarvel: Yeah. Because I'm -- Beach: Staff may have fallen short in our recommendations. McCarvel: Okay. Yeah. Because the property to the east -- I mean we don't know that they are going to have an exit close to right there -- because alls I'm trying to avoid is -- you know, you got somebody trying to -- in a non-emergency situation exiting, taking a right out of the fire station and somebody -- you know, just to the east of there taking a left and that's going to be our point of problem. But I mean I think the property to the east -- if there is no plan there, then, they just don't have to navigate around that. Parsons: Madam Chair, Members of the Commission, the reason why we are bringing this up to you -- and we talked about it a little bit at our -- our earlier meeting we had, is -- as Josh alluded to you, once annexation is done they only have to come back through -- through a conditional use permit. Well, the access in our code is typically something that the Council discusses and makes the waiver or acts on access points of arterials. It's typically not a function of the Commission and so we wanted to at least daylight that Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission April 5, 2018 Page 14 of 21 issue for you as you make your recommendation, so that when Council -- this goes to Council they can weigh in on the access. So, when the conditional use comes back to you for approval, we have already worked out that and we are not bringing that up in that staff report. So, that's -- that's really why we are bringing that up to you this evening is because we just want to get that out on the table that with this annexation the access has been addressed. If Council approves it the way this is, we have that on record and we don't have to deal with that issue as we move through the conditional use process. McCarvel: Okay. Any more questions for the applicant? Thank you. I don't have anybody signed up to testify on this application, but is there anybody in the room who would like to do so? Just state your name and address for the record. Gladics: For the record Gunnar Gladics at 1101 West Grove Street in Boise, Idaho. Applicant's architect. I just wanted to point out a couple other small technical items. Josh, if you could go to the auto turn radius drawing. That's it. One of the other -- one of the other items that we were concerned about was the turning radius of the engines coming back to the station. If we had queuing up in the right side lane to turn right out of the shared access way, the engine coming back to the station wouldn't be able to enter the site with the 25 foot width that we have been allowed from ACHD, so that would be one of the other concerns that we would have in a shared access point would be the ability to get in and provide good response times. McCarvel: Okay. Gladics: Thank you. McCarvel: Thank you. Okay. With there being no other public testimony and I assume no other applicant rebuttal, can I get a motion to close item -- the public hearing on Item H-2018-0016. Wilson: So moved. Holland: Second. McCarvel: It has been moved and seconded to close the public hearing on H-2018- 0016. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. THREE ABSENT. Wilson: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Wilson. Wilson: I will lead off I suppose again. I -- I think it looks good. I -- now that I understand the rationale for this design a bit better and the fact that this isn't -- you Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission April 5, 2018 Page 15 of 21 know, this isn't a typical access. I mean this is a -- this is a specialty access and there is a specific reason why they need it this way, I'm leaning towards the applicant in striking that condition, but I would like to hear what my fellow Commissioners have to say. McCarvel: Yeah. I agree. I think we let the fire department do what they do and I think they know best on their accesses and, I agree, I don't think it's going to be a highly used thing, so I guess our -- our -- so far are two cents to City Council is to let the accesses be as they are. Cassinelli: And I would -- I would agree and I think also that parcel to the east, when that gets -- when that develops, when that's annexed, we can take the exit -- I mean have to look at it making the access to that further to the east -- McCarvel: Yeah. Cassinelli: -- to have some separation. So, I would agree to -- with my fellow Commissioners. Holland: Madam Chair, I tend to agree as well. I think if it was to share a driveway you run the risk -- if it's a residential neighborhood or something, you have got kids that want to go see a fire truck and kind of stall some things out. It could be dangerous. McCarvel: Yeah. Holland: I would like to make a motion. McCarvel: Commissioner Holland. Holland: After considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move to recommend approval to City Council of file number H-2018-0016 as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of April 5th, 2018, with the following modification of striking the staff recommendation to align that drive with the access point across the street. Cassinelli: Second. McCarvel: It has been moved and seconded to recommend approval on H-2018-0016, with modification. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries. Thank you. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. THREE ABSENT. C. Public Hearing for Wells Subdivision (H-2018-0017) by Schultz Development LLC Located at 2550 E. Amity Rd Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission April 5, 2018 Page 16 of 21 1. Request: Annexation of 14.80 Acres of Land to the R-4 Zoning District; and 2. Request: Application for a Preliminary Plat of 38 Single- Family Building Lots and 11 Common Lots on 14.8 Acres of Land in the proposed R-4 Zoning District McCarvel: At this time I would like to open the public hearing for item H-2018-0017, Wells Subdivision, and we will begin with the staff report. Good luck. Beach: Madam Chair, Members of the Commission, this is an application for both annexation and zoning and for a preliminary plat. This site consists of approximately 14.8 acres of land, currently zoned RUT, located at 2350 East Amity Road. To the north are residential properties in the Messina Meadows Subdivision, zoned R-8. To the east is the future Castle Creek Subdivision, zoned R-8. To the south is East Amity Road and residential properties in the White Bark Subdivision, which are zoned R-4. And to the west are single family residential properties in the Paisley Meadows Subdivision, which are zoned R-4. Because this is annexation there is no current City of Meridian history on this property. The future land use map designation is low density residential. The applicant, as I said, is requesting for annexation of 14.8 acres of land within an R-4 zoning district. The proposed zoning is consistent with the text of the Comprehensive Plan and future land use map designation of low density residential and the preliminary plat consists of 38 building lots and 11 common lots. The plat is proposed to develop in one phase. Just for orientation's sake north is to the right. And, then, your Amity -- Amity Road is over here on the left side of the page. So, the gross density of the subdivision is 2.5 dwelling units per acre and the net density is 4.08 dwelling units per acre. The average lot size within the development is 10,664 square feet. There is an existing home and outbuildings on the site. The home is proposed to be included on a Lot 6, Block 1, in this subdivision. Any outbuildings that do not meet the required setbacks for the R-4 zoning district shall be removed or relocated. Development of this site is required to comply with the dimensional standards in UDC 11-2A-5 regarding the R-4 zoning district. Staff has reviewed those and found them to be in compliance with those standards. An ACHD traffic impact study was not required for this project. Access to the site is currently provided via -- currently provided via East Amity Road, which is an arterial. The access for the existing home will be terminated with the development of the proposed subdivision and the plat as submitted does not depict direct lot access to Amity Road in accord with 11 -- UDC 11-3A-3. Access is proposed from South Shapiro Avenue, East Melwood Street and East Daulby Street as local -- all considered local residential streets, so -- top of the page here is an access point to the currently being constructed Paisley Meadows Subdivision. It would be to the east here on the south side -- on the bottom of the page to the Castle Creek Subdivision and, then, through a bridge that will be constructed into the Messina Meadows. Just out to Amity is a pedestrian access. So, as I said, there is no direct lot or subdivision access to Amity Road. There are three common driveways on the plat that serve a total of seven residential lots. A landscape plan was submitted with the Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission April 5, 2018 Page 17 of 21 application for the area proposed to be platted. A 25 foot wide landscape buffer is required along East Amity Road. A resident -- which is considered a residential arterial. A ten foot wide compacted gravel shoulder meeting the construction standards of the transportation authority and landscaping or other vegetative ground cover is required along East Amity Road. Multi-use pathway -- so, I guess just by way of explanation, the staff report as it currently reads requires there to be a ten foot multi-use pathway along the frontage of Amity Road. Our pathways master plan shows that there is a ten foot multi-use pathway to be built. For whatever reason staff did not get a ten foot multi-use pathway with Castle Creek on the east side of this project, nor did we get it with Paisley Meadows on the west side of the project, so the condition in working with the Parks Department and the pathways coordinator -- we have come to the conclusion that we do not want to require there to be a ten foot multi-use pathway along this section, as it would be rather silly. So, the condition should read: A five foot sidewalk along East Amity Road, the length of the Amity frontage. So, that would be a condition -- and I can tell you what number of that condition is here in just a second if you would like. We would like to modify that condition to just be a five foot sidewalk. Open space for the development. Ten percent qualified open space is required. The applicant is providing 1.48 acres, which is -- is ten -- let me back up. The site is 14.8 acres in size. So, a minimum at 1.48 acres of qualified open space is required. A total of 1.85 acres or 12.5 percent qualified open space is being proposed, which consists of half the street buffer along East Amity, a micro path, and internal common open space areas and parkways that comply with that requirement. All development existing in the five acres or more are required to provide a minimum of one site amenity. One additional site amenity is required for each additional 20 acres. Because this is under 20 acres just one amenity is required and the applicant is providing a shade structure or gazebo on Lot 9, Block 2, and as well as pathways through internal common areas in accord with that requirement. The applicant is in accordance with the Public Works Department on street lighting along Amity Road. The applicant did provide conceptual elevations for homes to be constructed within the development. They appear to meet the architectural standards that the city has and should comply with these standards in UDC. Six foot tall solid fencing is proposed along the south boundary of the site, the back edge of the buffer along East Amity Road. Did not receive any written testimony on this application and staff is recommending approval. I will stand for any questions you have. McCarvel: Okay. Any questions for staff? Cassinelli: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Cassinelli. Cassinelli: Did you have that condition that -- Beach: Yeah. Here right now. Parsons: Madam Chair, you can go ahead and have that -- Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission April 5, 2018 Page 18 of 21 McCarvel: Yeah. We will come back -- Parsons: We will circle back on what those conditions are. McCarvel: Does the current plat as shown show a ten foot walkway there? It just shows the five? Actually, where the -- after it comes out it might be nice to have a little extended area there. Okay. Any other questions for staff? Okay. Would the applicant like to come forward. Schultz: Good evening, Commissioners. Matt Schultz. 8421 South Ten Mile in Meridian. Here on behalf MWT, LLC. We are happy to be developing the -- Mr. Well's property. It is R-4, which is a lot better than apartments, which I have been doing lately. We are not talking about parking, which is good, and thanks, Josh, for catching that condition, because it went right by me -- that that was in there or I would have said something earlier. Along -- along Amity doesn't make sense to do a ten foot pathway when there is nothing on either side of us. But we are -- we do have a little ten foot connection between -- as you see they are going out to Amity, because there is a sewer line through there. It goes to our site with some manholes. We are providing that for a combined access slash, you know, manhole access slash pathway. So, that's why that's ten. But it's an interesting site. When we first submitted it we -- we had an extension out to Amity Road. You know, you connect to your frontage and that's what you do and we were kind of over accessed in that we have four -- four different connections, but for marketing and other things, that's just what we thought we would do. When we did submit it ACHD called me and said, you know what, you can't connect to Amity and my jaw dropped and I'm like really and they have a policy that says on arterials, which this is, this will be a five lane someday, you have to prove that you need that access to connect to it and, obviously, with two other -- two other existing and one future stub streets that was -- that was a losing argument and then -- then she said, oh, by the way, if it does go through, there will probably be a signal there, because we line up across the street with the -- with the White Bark Subdivision, which connects into Sky Mesa and beyond and it would be a very popular intersection with people coming out of -- out of Tuscany and so I said, okay, okay, we will take it out. So, it's a little bit different in that regard, a little quirky, but it still works, since we do have those three accesses. We hope the developer to the -- you know, down to the east there. He has an approved plat with 19 lots that has a connection to Amity, which would be good. And we are building a bridge this fall to connect into Tuscany. That developer put up half in a trust when they did Messina Meadows, or whatever phase, and with ACHD and we -- we build it and combine those and it will be built for interconnectivity. But it blends right in. The only quirkiness is Mr. Wells is staying. He has been there for 35 years and he would like to continue to stay there. He's -- we bought everything but his acre around his house and he's going to fix up. We are going to landscape buffer in front of him and he's going to take access internal instead of external. It actually works pretty well, you know, for him to stay there on a big lot. The utility -- there is a sewer line right through the middle of our site and it's the developer of -- Scott Mason negotiated it. He didn't want to buy his property, but he wanted to buy a sewer easement to free up some capacity issues to the south. So, that's why that road on the east kind of adds a little bit Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission April 5, 2018 Page 19 of 21 of meander to it and there is actually a sewer line that was defined by somebody else that we are following there that's underneath that road that goes up to that bridge connection. So, we think it's good. They are big lots. It will be a nice complement to the neighborhood. Very coveted area in South Meridian and we are anxious to -- to get going with it being R-4, with deeper lots and wider lots, it's going to be a good little sub. So, we agree with staff's recommendations for approval, striking that ten foot path along -- along Amity, but other than that we are -- we are just asking that you -- that you approve it as submitted. So, thanks. McCarvel: Okay. Any questions for the applicant? All right. Schultz: Thanks. McCarvel: The people that I have signed in for this application have indicated they do not wish to testify, but has anybody changed their mind and would like to testify on this application? Okay. So, I assume the applicant does not want to come forward again. All right. So, at this time could I get a motion to close the public hearing on item H- 2018-0017. Cassinelli: So moved. Wilson: Second. McCarvel: It has been moved and seconded to close the public hearing. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. THREE ABSENT. McCarvel: I think this is a fairly straightforward application. Love it when we see R-4s. Don't see them all that often. And I think -- I mean we go with ACHD's recommendation. You know, there is not a lot -- there are those three other accesses out of it, so we are good there. Wilson: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Wilson. Wilson: If you are finished. McCarvel: Yes. Wilson: I live in that area. I live in Bellingham Park, which doesn't necessarily connect to it, but it's pretty gosh darn close and I'm glad that they are filing that out, that -- doing that in-fill. I like that they are bigger lots. I think there is a nice mixture of all sorts of different houses in that sort of area between -- sort of bungalow type houses in Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission April 5, 2018 Page 20 of 21 Tuscany, regular houses, some smaller lots. So, I like seeing kind of the bigger mixture and, yeah, I like this project. McCarvel: Yeah. I think we normally -- I mean would like to see a little heavier on amenities, but, on the other hand, the Y is going right across from it. I mean there is going to be plenty of things to go do. Plenty of space, so -- Holland: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Holland. Holland: I don't see any concerns either. I think this is a pretty straightforward project. Cassinelli: I would have to echo my -- my fellow commissioners and there was no -- one question I had was the existing structures, but there was no objection to that and so I don't think that's a problem, so -- McCarvel: All right. Cassinelli: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Cassinelli. Cassinelli: I guess it's my turn tonight. Madam Chair, I -- after considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony I move to recommend approval to City Council of file number -- get the page back here H-2018-0017, Wells Subdivision, as presented in a staff report on the hearing date of April 5th, 2018, with the following modifications -- what was that? Josh, what was the -- 6-1.3? 6.1.3 to go with the five foot sidewalk. Beach: It should be 6.1 -- so all five of those highlighted conditions. Cassinelli: Okay. So, it's conditions 6.11.2, 3, 4, 5 and 6. McCarvel: To alter it to be a five foot pathway instead. Cassinelli: Yes. Holland: Second. McCarvel: It has been moved and seconded to recommend approval of H-2018-0017 with modifications. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. THREE ABSENT. Parsons: Madam Chair, before we adjourn this evening I do want to bring up a couple of items for -- for you. First one is June 7th is the city picnic, which all of you will be Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission April 5, 2018 Page 21 of 21 invited to, but that is our first hearing date for our June hearings and we are not going to be scheduling that. So, as time moves -- as we get closer and closer to that date staff will be monitoring as to whether or not we need to have a special meeting to -- to address any land use applications that -- that come through our office. Currently right now we are scheduling for the May 17th hearing. It's not -- not terribly heavy at this point. When we met with the chair this -- today at 4:30 she had brought up another excellent point about the July 5th P&Z hearing, which is the day after the Fourth of July and so we would like all of the Commissioners to start thinking about your vacation, your schedules, so that if we have to adjust our P&Z times in June we can act on that and make sure to notify our friends in the clerk's office as to those special requirements. We have several options. We can either have a special meeting on the 31st of May. We could have it the 14th of June. There has also been talk that if we canceled the July 5th hearing that we would have two special meetings in June, the 14th and the 28th. So, please, the next -- give you some homework this evening. Look at your calendars, figure that out, and, then, hopefully, we can have a plan of attack during our next Commission hearing or feel free to e-mail me and we will get something in the books and get it scheduled. Thank you. McCarvel: Chris, could you send out an e-mail to our fellow commissioners that aren't here to check their calendars. Wilson: It would be a good reminder to respond to your e-mail. McCarvel: Yeah. Wilson: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Does anybody else have anything to say? Commissioner Wilson. Wilson: I moved to adjourn this evening. Cassinelli: Second. Holland: Second. McCarvel: It has been moved and seconded to adjourn. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. THREE ABSENT. MEETING ADJOURNED AT 7:03 P.M. (AUDIO RECORDING ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS.) APPROVED Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission April 5, 2018 Page 22 of 21 _____________________________________ _____|_____|_____ RHONDA McCARVEL - CHAIRMAN DATE APPROVED ATTEST: _____________________________________ C. JAY COLES - CITY CLERK