Loading...
2021-07-15 Item 1. Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting July 15, 2021. Meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission of July 15, 2021 , was called to order at 6:00 p.m. by Chairman Rhonda McCarvel. Members Present: Chairman Rhonda McCarvel, Commissioner Bill Cassinelli, Commissioner Andrew Seal, Commissioner Nick Grove, Commissioner Steven Yearsley and Commissioner Maria Lorcher. Members Absent: Commissioner Nate Wheeler. Others Present: Adrienne Weatherly, Ted Baird, Caleb Hood, Laurelie McVey, Bill Parsons, Alan Tiefenbach and Dean Willis. ROLL-CALL ATTENDANCE Nate Wheeler X Maria Lorcher X Andrew Seal X Nick Grove _X Steven Yearsley X Bill Cassinelli X Rhonda McCarvel - Chairman McCarvel: Welcome to the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting for July 15th, 2021. If you are joining us on Zoom this evening we can see that you are here. You may observe the meeting. However, your ability to be seen on screen and talk will be muted. During the public testimony portion of the meeting you will be unmuted and, then, be able to comment. Please note that we cannot take any questions until the public testimony portion. If you have a process question during the meeting, please, e-mail cityclerk@ meridiancity.org and they will reply as quickly as possible and with that let's begin with roll call. ADOPTION OF AGENDA McCarvel: Thank you. First item on the agenda is the adoption of the agenda. We have Heron Village Expansion, H-2021-0027, that will be opened only for the sole purpose of continuing this item. So, if there is anybody here tonight to testify on that particular application we will be not -- we will not be taking testimony this evening. So, could I get a motion to adopt the agenda as amended? Weatherly: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Oh. Weatherly: My apologies. Point of order. There is a correction to Item No. 1. Oh. Excuse me. I'm out of order. I will take a moment and let you do your job. My apologies. Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. July 15,2021 5 Page 2 of 43 Cassinelli: So moved. McCarvel: It has been moved and seconded to adopt the agenda. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: SIX AYES. ONE ABSENT. CONSENT AGENDA [Action Item] 1. Approve Minutes of the July 1, 2021 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting 2. Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law for DaVinci Park Drive-Through (H-2021-0037) by NeuDesign Architecture, Located at 4744 N. Park Crossing Ave. 3. Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law for Orchard Park Pad C Drive- Through (H2021-0039) by Mandi Brozo of CSHQA, Located at 1245 W. Chinden Blvd. McCarvel: Next item is the Consent Agenda and the Consent Agenda we have three items and the first item we do have a typographical error and that would be the -- the approval of the minutes for the July 1 st meeting. Obviously, not the July 15th meeting, which is today, for Planning and Zoning. We also have Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law for DaVinci Park Drive-Through, H-2021-0037, and Orchard Park Pad C, Drive- Through, H-2021-0039. So, can I get a motion to accept the Consent Agenda as amended? Seal: So moved. Cassinelli: Second. McCarvel: It has been moved and seconded to adopt the Consent Agenda. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: SIX AYES. ONE ABSENT. McCarvel: At this time I would like to briefly explain the public hearing process. We will open each item individually and begin with the staff report. The staff will report their findings on how the item -- item adheres to our Comprehensive Plan and Unified Development Code. After staff has made their presentation, the applicant will come forward and present their case and respond to the staff comments. They will have 15 minutes to do so. After the applicant has finished we will open the floor to public testimony. Each person will be called on only once during public testimony. The Clerk will call the names individually of those who signed up on our website in advance to testify. If you are here in person, please, come forward. If you are on Zoom you will be unmuted. Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. July 15,2021 6 Page 3 of 43 Please state your name and address for the record and you will have three minutes to address the Commission. If you have previously -- previously sent pictures or a presentation for the meeting, it will be displayed on the screen and our Clerk will run the presentation. After all those who have signed up in advance have spoken we will invite any others who may wish to testify. If you wish to speak on a topic you may press raise hand button on the Zoom app or if you are only listening on the phone, please, press star nine and wait for your name to be called. If you are listening on multiple devices, a computer and a phone, for example, please be sure to mute those extra devices, so we will not experience feedback and we can hear you clearly. After all testimony has been heard, the applicant will be given another ten minutes to come back and respond. When the applicant is finished responding to questions and concerns, we will close the public hearing and the Commissioners will have the opportunity to discuss and, hopefully, be able to make a final decision or recommendations to City Council as needed. ITEMS MOVED FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA [Action Item] ACTION ITEMS 4. Public Hearing for Heron Village Expansion (H-2021-0027) by Tamara Thompson of The Land Group, Inc., Located at 51, 125 and 185 E. Blue Heron Ln. A. Request: Annexation of 1.36 acres of land with a R-40 zoning district. B. Request: Rezone of 4.18 acres of land from C-G and R-8 to R-40. C. Request: Conditional Use Permit to allow expansion of an existing 108-unit, 5-building multifamily complex to allow an additional 36 units in two new buildings. McCarvel: So, with that we would like to open the public hearing on H-2021-0027, Heron Village Expansion, and they are requesting a continuance to, I believe, September--what did we say? The 16th? Seal: Requesting for the 2nd, but I don't believe we will have a quorum. McCarvel: Yeah. We are probably not going to have that meeting. So, the 16th is the next available meeting. So, could I get a motion to continue -- do we -- do we have any staff comments or does the applicant have any comments on this one? Tiefenbach: I was talking to Bill. I'm sorry. Say that again. McCarvel: Do we have any staff comments on the continuance for H-2021-0027? Tiefenbach: No, ma'am. The 16th is fine. Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. July 15,2021 7 Page 4 of 43 McCarvel: Okay. All right. Can I get a motion to continue? Seal: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Seal. Seal: I move to continue File No. H-2021-0027 Heron Village Expansion to the hearing date of September 16th, 2021. Grove: Second. McCarvel: It has been moved and seconded to continue H-2021-0027 to September 16th. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: SIX AYES. ONE ABSENT. 5. Public Hearing for Wells Street Assisted Living/Andorra Subdivision (H-2021-0024) by Jamie Koenig of Babcock Design, Located at 675, 715 and 955 S. Wells St. A. Request: Annexation of 17.5 acres of land with a TN-R zoning district. B. Request: A Preliminary Plat consisting of 61 building lots and 8 common lots. C. Request: A Conditional Use Permit to allow an Assisted Living and Memory Care Facility on the southern portion of the property. McCarvel: Next item is H-2021-0024, Wells Street Assisted Living and Andorra Subdivision and we will begin with the staff report. Tiefenbach: Good evening, Madam Chair, Members of the Planning Commission. Alan Tiefenbach, associate planner with the City of Meridian. This is a proposal for an annexation, a zoning to traditional neighborhood R, a preliminary -- a preliminary plat and a conditional use permit. The property is 17 and a half acres of land. It's zoned RUT in the county. It's located at the southwest corner of East Magic View Drive and South West -- South Wells Street. Here are the maps you can see. So, to the north East Magic View Road. That's an R-8 zoning, mostly assisted living to the north there. To the east, South Wells Street, that is zoned RUT and L-O. To the south is East Wells Circle and that is zoned L-O and there is currently office buildings there. To the west is zoned R-1 in the county and that is existing single family residential, which I will talk about shortly. A little bit about the history of this. There was a similar proposal that was approved for these properties in April of 2020. It was called Andorra Senior Living. This proposal included 76 single family residences in a three story apartment building with 88 dwelling units. Following the Council meeting and the approval, the property owners have a parcel to the Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. July 15,2021 $ Page 5 of 43 left, which was part of this. It was 972 East Wells Circle. They decided they weren't interested in selling the property, which, basically, made the -- what was approved to fall apart. So, what you are seeing now is a new redesigned development and also no longer contains that parcel that was with the original one. The summary of this request is its annexation and zoning of 17 -- 17 and a half acres of land with the TN-R zone district. It's a preliminary plat. That would be the north -- I will just call it half, even though it's not really half -- the northern portion, 61 building lots and eight common lots -- that's about 11 and a half acres. There is a conditional use to allow a 91 unit three story nursing and residential care building with a footprint of 30 -- 30,000 square foot. So, three stories -- and I will show you the graphics. There is also a proposal for an additional roughly 9,000 square foot commercial building, although the end user has not been identified. There were a few administrative requests. One of them was to allow 61 private lots to be served by a gated community, whereas only 50 are allowed, and as I will talk about -- 32 of the required parking spaces will be provided in bulb outs, which, again, I will show you. So, I'm going to sort of run through this proposal with the graphics and try to explain this to you. Again, the applicant proposes to develop the northern part of this site with 61 single family lots, a 91 unit three story assisted living memory care building, and possibly a 9,000 square foot office. Within the nursing and residential care facility the applicant proposes some -- a restaurant, spa, salon, multi -- multi-purpose movie theater, lounge, library, and other spaces to serve the residents of this facility. The portion of the property to propose for a single family detached, which is what you are seeing here. So, I have kind of an overview on the right there to show the whole site and, then, I zoomed into the -- on the left there so you can sort of see which part I'm talking about. The portion of this property proposed for the detached single family residences is directly adjacent to the established Snorting Bowl Subdivision. That's what the actual subdivision is called, although it's also referenced as Woodbridge, and that's to the west. That subdivision would be roughly over here. This adjacent subdivision is comprised of lots of approximately 5,500 to 6,500 square feet in area. There are 16 existing houses in this subdivision and these houses are approximately 42 to 45 feet in width. The applicant proposes 21 houses of approximately 32 feet in width and lots sizes of 4,000 square foot. With 61 houses on 11.7 acres, this is approximately five dwelling units per acre. The Comprehensive Plan recommends three to eight dwelling units per acre for this area. So, this is somewhat in the middle of what the density would be designated. At staff's recommendation, the applicant -- so, one of the things we wanted to make sure is that -- is what they are proposing is compatible with the existing single family residences to the west. Staff had a few recommendations to the applicant and the applicant made a few other things. So, one of our recommendations is that we -- we wanted them to stagger the houses so that the neighbors wouldn't be looking at this wall of houses and that's what you can see here. They are -- they are staggering in the setbacks between 27 feet and 12 feet. That's what you can see here. Again, to try to eliminate that wall. The other thing they are doing is that they are varying the height of these buildings. If you can see this graphic, the -- the lighter shade is the one stories. The darker shade is the two story. So, the larger houses are one story closer to the western residences. The smaller houses, for instance, this one that you see here, are all two stories. So, again, this was done both to provide visual relief and to help to reduce the -- the visual impacts. One of the things that -- that is new, that the Planning Commission has not seen, is the original version of this and the staff Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. July 15,2021 191 Page 6 of 43 report that went out to the Planning Commission showed these houses having three foot setbacks from the property line. That's the requirement of the TN-R zoning district. For a few different reasons, including trying to be a little more compatible with the adjacent residences, the applicant has actually increased that. So, now they are proposing five foot side setbacks, which is -- would be ten foot wide between houses. If you measure the houses to the west, roughly -- they are around that same, between ten and 12 feet apart. So, this is trying to become more compatible with the existing single family residential. So, because -- because the increase in setbacks, the five foot setbacks for each house was not with the original staff report, staff is recommending an additional -- additional condition of approval and I will come back to this at the end and this condition of approval would be on the development agreement, requiring that the properties along the west, the ones adjacent to the subdivision, that they maintain a five foot side setback. Okay. So, here is the south half, which really isn't half. This includes 91 assisted living and memory care units with supporting retail, restaurant, and entertainment uses and a 30,000 square foot footprint. The proposed development -- what they are doing here does meet the goals of the Comprehensive Plan, which talks about mixed use neighborhood designation. But one -- one caution that staff would have is that the original version of this that came in when they -- when they did their notification and their neighborhood meeting was what you are being presented with tonight. Sixty-one residential units, assisted living and memory care on the bottom southwest corner -- southeast corner and office or a commercial building in the middle. Since that time the applicant contacted staff asking about whether or not the southwest part could contain a multi-family project instead. Staff told the applicant that that was not what this was noticed as. If they wanted to do multi-family, then, this would be required to do a new community meeting. They will have to re-notice this the -- the Planning Commission hearing would be rescheduled. Basically it was a whole new application. With that explanation the applicant said, never mind, we are --we have figured it out. We are going to move forward with this proposal as it is. That's okay, but the -- the one concern that staff does have is that TN-R is one of the few zone districts that actually allows multi-family by right. Meaning that it would not have to go through a conditional use if it was zoned to TN-R. To make sure that what is being presented here tonight is what would be approved if the Planning Commission were more inclined to do that, staff has recommended and is adding -- has added a recommendation that the development agreement would say that the only use allowed here in the southeast corner would be nursing and residential care. If they wanted to do anything else, then, they would have to amend the DA and go back through a public hearing. They are required to provide ten percent open space, which is about 1.1 acres of property. They have provided an exhibit here. They are providing 22.6 and they have this -- the exhibit that you are showing here is open space that meets what the dimensional requirements are per our code. So, again, they are meeting -- they are -- they are providing twice as much open space as they would be required. They are required to have one amenity with this development. They are proposing at least nine, depending on how you count it. There would be a central open space, a 4,300 square foot clubhouse, swimming pool, hot tub, pickleball court, horseshoe pit and a dog park, as well as numerous pathways across the development and what you can see through the middle as sort of this central green space corridor. Although not required, because this is nursing and memory care and they don't have to provide an amenity, they are. So, Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. July 15,2021 Flo] Page 7 of 43 the -- the nursing residential care facility shows a sizable open space, an internal courtyard, a few different ball courts, a picnic -- picnic gazebo and a community garden. There is an informal ten foot wide pathway stub that the west sub --west subdivision line. So, over here there is kind of an informal pathway that's there. Has not been developed. The Meridian Pathways Plan shows eventually that there would be a future multi-use pathway that would connect to this. The concept plan, as shown does actually show a direct connection. So, again, this is where that would be and they have provided basically a direct east-west connection to this. There is portions of this pathway that are close to ten feet wide here, but it narrows down to probably five or four feet here. Staff is recommending because this is eventually going to be a major pathway, that this has -- all of this would have to be built to a template of ten feet wide to be consistent with the pathway plan. Also, what's -- what's important to note is that the pathway plan actually chose the pathway running along Five Mile Creek, which is here. As I mentioned at the beginning of the presentation, this piece of property here with the original proposal that came that was approved, this was part of that proposal. This no longer is part of this proposal, no longer under the applicant's control. So, we are not sure if and when this would develop. If it did develop and come into the city, then, we would recommend that the alignment of this pathway would be matching the plan, meaning coming down this pathway -- or, sorry, coming down the Five Mile Creek. However, in the interim the applicant is also providing this stub here and -- and if and when this was ever developed, then, this pathway would no longer provide the major pathway, it would be running along Five Mile Creek to be consistent with what the original configuration is. So, again, staff is also recommending that that segment be built to a ten foot wide template as well and in the -- in the interim it would just sort of loop around the commercial lot here. In addition to that, the conceptual development plan shows detached sidewalks and pathways providing designated pedestrian access between all the single family residences. The central amenity and the office building -- when we were going through the designs -- again, this is somewhat conceptual in nature and the more specified dimension things would happen at the time of the final plat when you see the -- the final plat and landscape plan. The plans indicate that some of the -- they are required to have an eight foot wide parkway along all of the streets in this development, including the internal streets. It may not, based on these plans and what we are seeing, it may not meet those. But, again, the applicant is aware of this and when -- if and when this goes to public hearing for a final plat we will be reviewing the landscape plans to make sure that all the minimum requirements and the minimum landscaping requirements are met. Access to this development is proposed from the adjacent local streets, which is East Magic View Drive, South Wells Street, and East Wells Circle. For internal connectivity the applicant is providing a gated community. And so this whole area here, all 61 lots, will be gated and they would consist of alleys and private streets. There was an existing unnamed ACHD right of way, which you can see down here, as Easy Gentry Circle. ACHD originally were -- were requiring them to build the whole thing out, including the cul-de-sac. The latest version of this that I just received from ACHD today is just because the applicant has limited control over this whole area, they are only requiring them at this point now to just stub it to the western property line. The -- the code states that a gated development shouldn't have more than 50 dwelling units. And if -- as I mentioned, the northern part has 61 dwelling units. This is because the homes are clustered around a central open Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. July 15,2021 Fill Page 8 of 43 space. We have got additional corridors in here and many different pathways. Although it is feasible to restrict the number of gated lots to 50, the development is intended to be a walkable neighborhood with home clusters, like I said, and it even has MEWS, which is one of the intents of the private street section of the code. Because of this, because of the clustering, because of the amount of open space, because fire and PD did not express any issues with this, staff did not have any concerns with the extra 11 lots. This is something that the planning director approved through alternative compliance. So, if this were to go forward that would have already been approved by the planning director. It's important to note that there has been some changes to this concept plan since the staff report went out. The one thing you saw in the staff report was an older version. There has been a few versions that are in the case file. If you have been on the -- if you have been on the online case file recently there is many many different versions, but what has changed is that the original plan had a -- if you can see my pointer. The version of this -- of the plan that went out with the staff report, there was a house that was here, this road down here was an alley, and there was an additional private road here. A couple of different things happened. Staff noted that we had some issues with this long block -- this long block length. They are limited to the length of blocks and we thought there should be some sort of connection. So, the applicant has since provided this little park and this trail connection here. The house that was here has now been moved to the south of the clubhouse and swimming pool. The other issue was that the applicant says there was some problems with addressing off of the alley that was here. This alley has now been converted to a private street, so that addressing can happen and the street that was originally here is now gone away. So, there was -- so, they have lost one street and they have increased some of their green space here and they have provided a trail connection here. If the Planning Commission were inclined to recommend approval or approve the conditional use tonight, staff would recommend by reference that the most recent version concept plan, which would be July 13th, would be part of that, as you are seeing right now. The last thing I want to talk about is parking. So, single family residential -- single family residential portion of this development proposes 61 houses with three or more bedrooms and this requires per our code 244 parking spaces. That's four parking spaces per house, basically. Two of them would have to be covered and, then, two of them could be in the driveway. All of the number of -- the number of parking spaces that are being provided -- although the applicant has proposed that 32 of these be provided in bulb outs. So, you can see a bulb out here. You can see one here. There is a -- there is a few down here. There is some here. They have provided a parking plan showing that they have all these parking spaces and this is something, again, that -- that could be approved administratively through alternative compliance and the director did approve this alternative compliance. The reason why, again, is because of the number of open space, the clustered units, the amount of pathways, it was either support this or have them redesign and make the driveways longer and possibly lose some of the open space. So, the parking is there, it's just not -- some of it is across the street or directly adjacent to the houses and not directly on the houses. One thing I do want to mention, though, is the 244 parking spaces that I mentioned, they don't account for this clubhouse down here. They are required to provide, based on the commercial requirements, nine parking spaces. That's one of our conditions of approval. When we look at this plan we think it's feasible. The applicant can carve out an additional nine parking spaces. That is one of Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. July 15,2021 F12 Page 9 of 43 the conditions of approval that has been included with the staff report. For a nursing and residential care facility, the parking requirement is a half a parking space per bed. This concept plan indicates 102 beds, requiring 51 parking spaces. They have shown 101 parking spaces and with the office building 18 would be required and they are showing 40 on this concept plan. I'm giving you just sort of a brief view of the single family residences. This is the assisted living. This came out later. A couple of weeks ago they provided the most recent elevations of the office per a request by staff. We -- just generalizing now, if and when this is approved, they will have to do a certificate of zoning compliance for anything that's commercial and they will have to go through design review. Looking at the assisted living, just -- just from guesstimating and eyeing, it's probably getting pretty close to meeting the requirements of the -- of the architectural standards manual, not so much probably with the ones on the left, I think this is just more conceptual than the ones at the top. However, either way, just so you know, at the time of CZC we will make sure that the -- both of these buildings meet the minimum standards that are required for design review and for the certificate of zoning compliance. At the time of the staff report going out staff received two letters of testimony. The concerns that we received were increase in traffic, the potential height of houses and narrowness of the side setbacks of the houses, adjacent to the Woodbridge or Snorting Bull Subdivision. Since staff noted that the plans have been updated, numerous times since the written testimony has come out, there has been a bit of discussion between staff and at least one of the adjacent neighbors about some of the questions and some of the concerns. I have not heard anything directly and have not seen any written testimony since the letters that we received since that time. So, I'm not sure if those concerns are outstanding or not, but I'm sure we are hear tonight. With that staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve the conditional use to allow the nursing and residential care facility and just to mention that a separate conditional use may be required for the additional commercial building based on what the end user finally has figured out to be. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the annexation and zoning to TN-R and plat for 61 lots, a 91 unit nursing and residential care and additional office building. In addition to the conditions in the staff report, staff recommends a condition to the development agreement that the side setbacks for all lots on the western perimeter adjacent to the subdivision be increased to five feet and staff recommends that the Planning Commission include with their motion the updated concept plan dated July 13th, 2021, in their motion, and at that I will stand for any questions or concerns. McCarvel: Okay. Thank you. Would the applicant like to come forward? Johnson: You should be able to control this now from there, Jamie. McCarvel: And, please, state your name and address for the record. Koenig: Oh, sorry. I have got the wrong one here. Okay. That's --that's not what I have. Jamie Koenig with Babcock Design Group. Address is 800 West Main. Downtown. Thank you, Alan, for doing such a fantastic job of running through everything and summarizing this. I -- actually, you covered practically everything I wanted to touch on, so I will try not to repeat anything that you have already covered. One of the main things Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. July 15,2021 F13 Page 10 of 43 1 would like to say -- as an architect occasionally you run across a developer that cares about the same thing that most of us care about, including myself, and -- McCarvel: Pull it right close. Yeah. Koenig: Sorry. Would like to do -- we would like to do things the right way. They have an interest in the same things that most of us have an interest in, such as open spaces, quality amenities, having a site plan that's well thought through. Elevated design for the architecture. Interesting materials and design. That kind of -- when you manage to successfully pull all of that off all at once it kind of falls into place and becomes a very nice experience for everybody and a sense of place, something that people that live there can be proud of. People that visit will be interested and people that pass by as well. That doesn't always -- that doesn't always happen. So, I think we are very lucky because of that. Brent, the developer, is -- is that type of person. He is very much in line with how we -- how we like to see things done. We feel that this project fits in with the neighborhood very well. The assisted living and memory care is very close to St. Luke's, as an example. The -- although the 55 plus is not restricted to 55 plus, it's actually targeted toward that age group by having landscaping that's cared for and the price point I think sort of lends that -- lends it to the age group. I think it would also be possible that someone with aging parents could live in the assisted living building, someone that would like to be close to them, could also buy a home, just north of there to be close to them. So, that would probably work out very nice also in some cases. Traffic is always an issue in this area. That area is kind of broken and I don't -- we don't have a solution for that, but I think that the use that we are proposing, out of everything that could be proposed, tends to contribute less traffic than a lot of other uses that could come along and so we -- we feel like that's a good fit also. To backup to the parking for the north residential area, we are required to have 244 and through the south revisions that Alan spoke about there, our changing the streets around, we were able to increase the bulb out areas and get 266 spaces, which is above the 244 required. And, again, we have -- we have tried to pay close attention to Woodbridge's concerns and modulate the setbacks and the heights of the buildings and, again, these buildings are -- are going to be very nice, high quality buildings. So, I think -- I think that that works out pretty well. We think that we have done a good job and try -- we have really tried to minimize that wall effect that some of the Woodbridge neighbors have expressed concern over. The previous plan that was approved, it made it all the way through City Council, was Andorra and that project was all single story, but they were townhomes and so that was a much longer building and so the spaces in between, again, were three and three setback side yards and so you ended up totaling that up to maybe 30 feet of open space and in this layout with the skinnier lots, the 40 wide lots, we actually ended up with 200 -- 200 feet of running distance. So, we think that that's a lot better. I think the design is quite a bit better than it was last time around. The office -- office parking. I don't know if anything was mentioned about that, but I believe Meridian requires two per thousand square feet and we are right at 4.5. So, we are overparked for that. I tend to get excited about the open space, which is a little bit strange. I, obviously, don't work outside and I'm glad for that, but the Five Mile Creek connection to the neighborhood I think that's actually beautiful. I think with some natural grasses and the landscaping that we have shown could be a very nice evening walk for Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. July 15,2021 F14 Page 11 of 43 many people and, then, as well as some of the connectivity that we have going north- south through the center of the space would really, you know, provide for an interesting experience and kind of reaches out into the community with the pathways. We think the ALMC is -- is also a very nice looking building. It will have very nice views in many directions and Alan's already mentioned all of the amenities that we are proposing on the courtyard spaces and I think overall for the entire site the combined density is 9.7 units per acre, which is less than it was last time when it was approved. It was about 10.1. So, that's really everything that I had planned on saying. So, do you have any questions? McCarvel: Yeah. I'm going to start off with one. Are you in agreement with everything, then, that was in the staff report? That's that -- all the staff recommendations, you are in agreement with all of it? Okay? Koenig: We have been in contact through -- McCarvel: Okay. Okay. Any other questions for staff or the applicant? Seal: Yeah. Just real quick. I was kind of looking for a map that was going to line up the houses on the west there with what's existing. Tiefenbach: I have that. There it is. I can't figure out how to do full screen on this thing. Sorry. I have been trying to make the browser go away and I'm not having any luck yet. Seal: Still not seeing it. Tiefenbach: Oh. Sorry. Seal: Okay. Thank you. Tiefenbach: Do you want me to leave that up, sir, or go back to the original plan? Seal: Oh, if you could leave it for a minute that's -- thank you. McCarvel: Yeah. Cassinelli: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Cassinelli. Cassinelli: Kind of to tie into that, Alan, what -- the five foot side setbacks, is that kind of in line with -- with R-8 or R-15? Tiefenbach: R-8. Bill says R-8. I don't have that memorized off the top of my head. Sorry. Cassinelli: And is Woodbridge R-8 or R-4. Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. July 15,2021 F151 Page 12 of 43 Tiefenbach: They are R-1. They are not in the city. But if you look at the distance between the houses when I scroll them off it's roughly the same distance between the houses. The houses in this development are narrower, but the distance between the structures -- the house are a little narrower, the lots are a little smaller, but the distance between the structures is comparable to the distance to the -- between the adjacent structures. Cassinelli: Thank you. McCarvel: Any other questions -- sorry. Tiefenbach: I have -- do you want to show that? I think the applicant wants to -- see if I have -- Cassinelli: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Yes. Cassinelli: Quick question for -- Jamie, on those houses that are -- that will back up to Woodbridge there, what are some average square footages? Do you --do you have that? Koenig: I don't recall of the top of my head. McCarvel: Please, you --you have to say-- everything has to be said into that mic. Sorry. Koenig: I don't recall off the top of my head, but they are listed on the exhibit that we submitted. I believe the -- Tiefenbach: Are you saying the lot sizes of the development or the adjacent subdivision? Cassinelli: No. The -- in the development. The home --the average square foot--square footage of the -- of the houses there that back up to Woodbridge. Tiefenbach: Houses. Koenig: I believe including the garages around 1,800. 1 believe. Cassinelli: Obviously, you have got some -- you have got some two stories and some one story in there, so it's going to be some smaller and some larger. Okay. Madam Chair, I had another question. McCarvel: Okay. Cassinelli: And I just -- either to -- Jamie, to you or to Alan. So, there is no multi-family into that -- you went through a lot in the -- in the presentation there and I just -- because Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. July 15,2021 F16 Page 13 of 43 we talked on that, but I want to make sure that that is not in this application. Is that correct? Tiefenbach: Agree that there was a lot. Staff does have a -- Cassinelli: You did a great job. Tiefenbach: I do agree there was a lot. My wife calls me too much information Alan. Too much information in there. To the southeast, the -- the assisted living memory care, right now as that use is being proposed, under TN-R the zone district that is being proposed to, multi-family would be allowed by right, meaning you would not have to come in front of the Planning Commission, but staff is recommending a condition on the development agreement that says that the only use that can occur there is this -- is a nursing home and assisted living. So, if they wanted to do any kind of multi-family at all, they would have to amend the development agreement and would have to come back, do a public hearing. Cassinelli: Okay. Thank you. McCarvel: Okay. Any other questions for staff or the applicant? Commissioner Grove. Grove: Madam Chair. Jamie, just a question with what Alan had mentioned with the clubhouse and the nine additional parking spots. Is that reflected in the concept plan that we saw tonight or is that something that still needs to be added in? Koenig: That's something that's in -- that's something that's in there tonight. It's reflected in the 266 number. McCarvel: Okay. Any other question? Cassinelli: Why not? McCarvel: Commissioner Cassinelli. Cassinelli: Jamie -- if we can put -- put that last -- the -- the plat map up there. Tiefenbach: The one with the lot lines? Cassinelli: Yeah. Well, not the -- Tiefenbach: The section one or the one with the property lines? Cassinelli: The one of the 61 homes. The home -- plat of the 61 homes. Tiefenbach: Is that the proper one? Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. July 15,2021 F17 Page 14 of 43 Cassinelli: That will work. Tiefenbach: Okay. Cassinelli: The -- the bump outs there for parking on the west side, I'm just wondering, because I was going to bring this up in -- in our comments, but since we are still in open session I can ask Jamie here. There is really no additional park -- that puts all the parking on the -- all the -- I would assume visitor parking and whatnot on the west side. There is not a -- there is really nothing up in that northeast corner. Could we shift that island of homes that's -- I guess it's on the south side of Gentle -- Gentle something lane -- to where the parking is on the east side. Do you see what I'm trying to envision there? Because there is no -- there is no -- there is -- there is no additional parking on that side. So, anybody that did have to go to the other side of that, just a -- it's a random thought. I have those. Just like Alan has too much information. Koenig: We certainly could make that change. Cassinelli: Okay. McCarvel: Any other questions? Okay. Thank you. Madam Clerk, do we have anyone signed up for public testimony on this application? Johnson: Madam Chair, we have several people signed in, only one indicating a wish to testify. That would be John Overton, indicating he is the representative for the Woodbridge HOA. McCarvel: Okay. Overton: Good evening, P&Z Commission and city staff. Thank you. My name is John Overton. 1922 East Bowstring in Woodbridge Subdivision in Meridian, Idaho. We have stood before you many times, but before I start I need to make two quick corrections. There were two little snafus that were just said, one by city staff and I don't think he meant to. Woodbridge is very much in the city. It's not an R-1 county. Woodbridge is R-4. Desert -- Locust View Heights to the south of us is the one that's R-1 in the county. I know the question was what was Woodbridge. We are an R-4 subdivision. Okay? Second thing was city staff made a comment that said, I believe twice, that there were 244 parking spots, but when Jamie just spoke he said 266. That needs to be clarified as well. We got multiple numbers. This is the problem we are having. This is the big problem we are having with this project is we keep hearing information that is changing. It's been so dynamic it's been hard for us. We didn't mark we were opposed. We didn't mark we were in favor. There is things we like about this project, but there has just been too many changes and there is even another big change as we get through this that has not been mentioned once tonight really. That was a major part of why we as a subdivision approved the previous project. But we need to go back. We have had three projects in this area east of Woodbridge. The thing to remember here is no matter what gets built there, every single vehicle has two options. They can go out to the east or they go to the Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. July 15,2021 F18 Page 15 of 43 west. There is no way they can drive south. There is no way they can drive north. When they go west one of their two options is they are driving -- all of those vehicles are driving through our residential subdivision on our residential streets. So, we have been very involved in all of the different applications over the years on safety, traffic safety, ACHD traffic studies, which I understand was not requested in this plan and I'm -- I'm at a loss for why this time there was no traffic study requested, when in previous applications there were. So, I'm a little lost on why we have no traffic study. We live in a subdivision with 269 homes and not a single crosswalk within our subdivision to get children and families across the street from the south side to the north side where our pool and park is or from the phase two on the east side to our west side to get to Fuller Park. We don't have a singe crosswalk and we have a tremendous amount of traffic coming through Woodbridge. So, I'm a little bit at a loss why ACHD isn't playing a larger role in determining what the impact is going to be on our subdivision. We have sat on committees -- I sat on committees with Mayor de Weerd specifically geared toward developments are going to affect our subdivision. For years she said this was going to be part of the medical corridor and we fought two multi-family developments successfully all the way through City Council voted down, because they just didn't fit with what this area was designed for. Now, we supported strongly the last development -- the first Andorra one. We have not just supported this one, because it's significantly different. The major effect -- or the major difference on this one is we got into the development agreement with the developers coming in agreement in the meeting at City Council last time that the individual houses would be in the development agreement as 55 and over. We needed assurances for our residents that we are not going to have all these houses turn into young families -- and maybe we are dealing with three or four cars or more per house really negatively impacting the amount of traffic already coming through Woodbridge. We totally support the idea of assisted living memory care or the independent living 55 and over plan. We were supporting it, we were behind it, everything was great. We are sad that that project failed, but this is not the same project. We now sit at a position where Magic View Drive -- and you don't really see it, but it's there, you come out on Magic View Drive, you turn left, boom, you are in Woodbridge. We have another development that's approved. It's on the north side of Magic View. They have a lot of parking and yet every day ten to 15 cars are parked on Magic View Drive on both sides, restricting our ability to get through, and now I see a development that we still don't know what the exact number is of internal parking spaces, but you get a large event, a party or a group, we are going to have cars parked up and down that Magic View Drive and if you get to our subdivision we have a beautiful island and restricted area. It's going to be an absolute bottleneck. It's not going to be safe and it's going to be a blind exit for us coming out of our subdivision. So, I really would like to see the applicant and the city discuss or commit to the over 55, the 55 and older, the independent living, what really fits with the other part of their project. The same way the initial one did. I understand and there was an initial letter we put on the file that profits were part of the issue and we get that, but we, as residents of Woodbridge, never put profits in front of safety of the residents of our subdivision. We need this to be a well thought out and safe project for everybody. Now, with that said, the applicant's done a lot. He has. He has made a lot of changes. He has made a lot of changes to the depth and the size and the height and the fact that they are not three foot side setbacks or five foot. Our understanding was Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. July 15,2021 F19 Page 16 of 43 they were five foot, because they couldn't put windows on the sides of those houses at the three foot setback. They had to go to a five foot setback with ten feet between the homes before they could actually put glass on the side. I could be corrected if I'm wrong, but that information came out of Planning. So, the second problem we have -- and there was an article online today talking about it being 55 and over is the original plan was all one story, because that's what 55 and over is. When you start building two story houses with some of the master bedrooms being upstairs, there is no way people of Woodbridge are going to buy for one minute that you intend to build it as 55 over. Not a chance. That doesn't make sense. I have never seen that anywhere. The whole reason the first project did as well as it did and had the one story townhouses is because that makes sense. That's what other 55 and older communities did. You just don't normally ever see two story homes, especially not bedrooms in the second story. Although I don't have to park in there, we are really concerned that those bump outs are ever going to hold what number crunchers tell me are going to be in there, because they are not marked parking spots. I think you are still going to be short parking. We are still going to have parking out on the main roads outside of the gated community, which is going to cause issues for everybody else. The amenities. Besides hoping to see the applicant step up and say we will commit to 55 and over, we mean it, we want to be a good neighbor, we want to do what was done the first time where we stood up and we said, hey, this is great. The amenities listed fit with a 55 and over. Love to see the amenities, if it's possible, I don't know. Ted can tell us. Whether the amenities themselves can be required and listed in a development agreement, along with them agreeing to 55 and over and they may refuse and if the -- if the applicant refuses the 55 and over and listing out what the amenities are, at least they have told Woodbridge and all the residents what their true intention is. They have kind of told us their true intention simply by the fact that they tried to change to multi- family, because that's what we have been afraid of all along. It doesn't fit with the vision for this area. It doesn't fit with the traffic problems we have got. You can go out there to St. Luke's Lane every day and waiting in those long lines -- it's a nightmare. It's one of the reasons everybody uses our subdivision as a cut through. It's the reason that when a project like this comes to Council we get 150 people filling this place because they are so passionate about all these cars coming through our subdivision at all times of the day. What does that mean? McCarvel: That's your ten minutes. Overton: Is that my ten? McCarvel: Yeah. Overton: Okay. McCarvel: So, if you want to wrap up your thoughts. Overton: I will wrap. I used this term in front of the HOA board last night -- or Tuesday night. We are cautiously optimistic. We are not here to say deny. We are not here to definitely say approve. We are cautiously optimistic that the developer will stand up and Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. July 15,2021 F20 Page 17 of 43 do the right thing, which the previous developer did, to get Woodbridge's buy in and approval. McCarvel: Okay. Overton: So, I stand for any questions. McCarvel: Any questions? Okay. Cassinelli: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Oh. Commissioner Cassinelli. Cassinelli: John? Over here. Overton: Oh. Sorry. Cassinelli: Do you have any traffic counts through -- through Woodbridge? Overton: Working with ACHD they have not done a traffic count since COVID started, because that threw everything off. The kids weren't going to school, they weren't driving, there is a history--ACHD has our traffic counts and how they were increasing for the past almost ten years. We have continued to request them and had John Lawson from ACHD come in and run those counts. There was a request to have another traffic count done -- I think it was this spring and I never saw it happen and I don't know whether they are just busy or backlogged, but we need another one, because now we are seeing the world kind of come back to life and the traffic is really picking up and that's before this has been done. I hope that answers your question. Cassinelli: I was -- well, I was hoping you had one maybe even from '19 or -- but you don't have -- you don't know the -- Overton: No. They are obtainable. I -- actually, we have made requests before from ACHD for all of them, so we can show the historical pattern of what we have seen, because we have actually looked at those in the meetings with ACHD and Meridian city staff. Cassinelli: Okay. Overton: So, it can absolutely be obtained. Cassinelli: Thank you. McCarvel: Thank you. And I understand Mr. Overton spoke for the subdivision, so if there is anybody else that has anything additional to add or -- I'm assuming you were all Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. July 15,2021 F21 Page 18 of 43 in agreement of his presentation. Okay. So, that being said, is there anybody else that wanted to testify? Okay. Weatherly: Madam Chair, we have no one else signed up. McCarvel: Okay. Anybody else in the room have something urgent? Okay. Alan. Tiefenbach: I just would like to add a couple of staff's comments on some of the things that Mr. Overton discussed, if that's okay. McCarvel: Yes. Tiefenbach: First of all, my apologies, that was a snafu about the --about your subdivision not being in the city. My bad. About the 55 plus, the one thing I want to comment about that is that's certainly something that the applicant can do, but it's important to mention -- because we have talked about these before, these sorts of things have come in front of you and I have said the same thing from bad experiences in other municipalities. Not this one. It's very difficult for staff to enforce 55 plus. The only way that staff -- if I'm reviewing the project, the only way that you will convince me to review the project, under the assumption that it will be 55 plus, is a deed restriction. That's really the only way that it can be enforced. Otherwise, it could be something that the applicant could offer, whether it's the covenants or something like that, unless there is a deed restriction and believe it's illegal, there is really not much we can enforce with it being 50, because it's targeted towards 55 plus. In regard to the amenities, that's something very easily -- generally our development agreements say that the concept plan would generally conform with -- that the -- what's being approved should generally conform with -- with what's being presented. You could certainly add the amenities as they are being required into the development agreement. So, if Mr. Overton thought that that would help calm the -- the concerns of the adjacent neighbors, certainly you can say that the amenities as listed in the Planning Commission hearing would be part of the development agreement. The last thing I -- in regard to the parking, he's absolutely right, it's been a very dynamic thing. At the time that the staff report went out the concept plan that we had had 244 parking spaces. They were missing parking spaces for the clubhouse. I have -- there is a recent version of the concept plan, which you are now seeing here. I have not counted those parking spaces, because I got this today. I would leave that to the applicant to mention whether that new number of 266 1 think he said is correct. You could certainly add that to the development agreement. And last, just as an FYI, this is actually slightly less than number of units than the one with the multi-family. When ACHD commented they -- what they said is that because we reviewed it with the previous one and we did not require a traffic study, the way they put this is as a courtesy to the neighborhood you may consider doing a traffic study, but a traffic study is not required. McCarvel: Thank you. Would the applicant like to come back. Koenig: Just to clarify, the 266 number is correct in the north residential portion. The offices have 45 stalls and the assisted living to the south has 110 stalls and ACHD took Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. July 15,2021 F22 Page 19 of 43 a look at the layout of this scheme and the average daily trips did not rise to the level to warrant the traffic impact study, so we didn't have one done. McCarvel: Okay. Koenig: And, then, I believe Brent may want to say a few words, too. Thompson: Hello. My name is -- I really have to bend over. Sorry. This is Brent Thompson is my name. I live 2476 East Lacrosse Circle in St. George, Utah, but former resident of Meridian city. Used to live in the Saguaro Canyon neighborhood when it was first developed years ago. So, I am -- somewhat have some roots here and my in-laws live here as well. But we are really excited about this project. I have got a couple of comments just -- I hate the word rebuttal, by the way. It sounds a little aggressive. But I do have a couple comments based on some of the previous commentary. But we are super excited about this project. Many-- many of you probably don't know that we actually -- we are under contract for this project right before it was approved at City Council, so we have been involved in the original project. Due to COVID and so forth and circumstances, the previous developer chose to sell. That's when we got involved and did not own any of the parcels at that time. Since, then, we closed on all of these parcels. We own them. We have invested a great deal of money in trying to get the design, in our opinion, to a better design. Some of the challenges that we had -- and I just wanted to kind of-- it was thrown out there that we are making decisions for profits. We are making decisions based on marketability and -- and the livability of the community. Agreed that the 55 and older was a great concept. The challenge was is that they had for sale fee simple product, so when we had --the original design only had one car garages and really small units. About a thousand square feet. For us we felt that just wasn't sufficient for most people that are looking to live in the area. I consider myself one of the prospects to live in this community. I'm 51 years old almost and I have parents that are aging that I would love to have them in this building and I view people such as myself to live in that -- that area. I recall the City Council, in approving the project last year, one of the Council Members commented about -- similar to Alan had commented about the challenges of restricting 55 and older. We are targeting 55 and older, so to speak, or my generation and older, simply so that we can be able to take care of our parents and people that may be housed in a building such as this. The building's a phenomenal building designed by Babcock Design. Jamie has done a phenomenal job with it and his team. We also have a great team with Van Elgin and Keith. Back here with JUB Engineering. We have integrated both the engineering firm and the architectural firm at the very start of this project, simply so that we can have the project well designed and be able to maximize its potential. Excuse me. Sorry. I always get a little nervous when I have to do this and we have so many commissioners. But I just wanted to -- to just make a couple of comments. I value very much the process that we have here in this great country of ours and for the opportunity to speak up and for citizens to be able to share their thoughts and so forth. The Woodbridge community is a very beautiful community. I respect that very much. And they are -- they are very interested in what's happening in here, obviously, and it sounds like it's been going on for years. We have really put forth the effort and the expense to make this the best project that we possibly can and to make it economically pencil and to Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. July 15,2021 F23 Page 20 of 43 be able to provide a building such as this. You can imagine this three story assisted living memory care building, it's significant in cost. Close to around 20 million dollars or more. When we first got some of our bids back, because we have already gone down the road of designing this architecturally, some of the bids, just because of the cost and everything else that changes, we had a little bit of sticker shock. So, we did go back to Alan and said, hey, was there a potential -- I just want to make sure that it's known that when it said multi-family, we are simply going back to the old apartment design, which is really a 55 and older apartment complex. We weren't coming in with a traditional apartment building. We feel that we can make this -- this building work and make this project work and be a great success, although it is more expensive than it was, we are building it with steel and putting a significant amount of investment in it. Many of you may or may not know much about opportunity zones, but this is actually an opportunity zone area and this is an exciting -- I don't know how many projects have been done in opportunity zones for that purpose, but there is no intent to flip or sell. This project is simply going to be an asset that's going to be held for at least ten years or beyond and we are super excited about it. We think the architecture is exciting. The product that we have here is really modeled similar to other projects here in Meridian city already, which are similar to Brighton's Cadence product. They have two story product there, as well as single family. The other product they have is Pine 43. Also similar product. I don't -- I get a little uncomfortable when there is any kind of -- somewhat discrimination against young families that may move in. That's not our target. But at the same time we can't prohibit if somebody does have children that wants to move there or if somebody that's been divorced and has a young family and I don't think we can do that in any community, whether it be Meridian city, St. George, or anywhere we may live. We are targeting 55 and older, but at the same time we are definitely going to have people that are maybe 51 like myself that would like to live here as well. It's a gated community. I have a very similar community in St. George, Utah, called Bella Vista. It's also a gated community. We have 101 homes approved there. We have got right now 76 residents, most of which are from 50 to 75 years old. It's not age restricted, but just by nature it draws that client and so I think it's a lot cleaner and that's really our intent. We are not going to try to do every home a two story home. People may want to have the single level, but we want to have the flexibility to do so. My last example. My mother-in-law just moved from Eagle last year and moved into a Cadence -- Brighton home by Cadence there off of Chinden. She has a two story product. We just stayed there three weeks ago as a family in the upper floor. They have a main floor master and it's a beautiful product and very much in demand and I believe those setbacks are even smaller than what -- what are proposed here as a five foot setback, which I think is -- most of Meridian city is five foot setback, I believe. So, we think it's a very exciting product. We are putting in the money and the investment to make it right. We don't have any bank financing or anything on the project. We have come in and put forth our very best efforts on this project and we have a lot to gain to be able to make it best for the community and if you have any questions I'm happy to answer any if you had any. McCarvel: Okay. Any other questions for the applicant? Okay? Yearsley: Madam Chair? Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. July 15,2021 F24 Page 21 of 43 McCarvel: Commissioner Yearsley. Yearsley: So, just so I can clarify for the record that you are not planning to do any deed restrictions on these homes? Thompson: No. Just simply because, again, we believe there is market individuals like myself that-- and the other thing --just let me clarify that. Especially with so many people that have moved from out of state, we see this as an opportunity for people to -- if they have a loved one that needs to be in the memory care or the assisted living building, somebody may want to have a second home within this community where, you know, the yards are maintained and have great amenities when they come and visit. You know, we just don't know exactly who that buyer is. By limiting it to 55 and older it just creates challenges -- title challenges. Yearsley: Thank you. Seal: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Seal. Seal: Just a quick question on the memory care unit and everything. That's -- I mean is that going to go in -- at what stage is that going to go in compared to the single family? Thompson: We are actually going to go immediately, assuming if we can get through Planning and Zoning Commission, as well as City Council, we have actually gone through the expense -- and it's our risk and we do this on most of our projects -- certainly if you are in Treasure Valley. Developed three successful projects already. We have got seven that we are developing right now. This being one of them. We already have the -- the civil engineering drawings almost done for the entire site, knowing that there may be a few changes here and there upon approval. We also have the three story building is -- Jamie, can you just give me a number how much percentage done? Okay. So, we hope you had that -- McCarvel: Can you give the number in the microphone for the -- Thompson: He said about 25 percent done. As far as the -- and that's construction drawings. So, when I say at great expense, these aren't just conceptuals that Jamie did in his office. The little office building that is down below, but that's kind of a simple 9,000 square foot building. The three story buildings are already in process in design. So, we hope to start immediately after approval, if we are so lucky to have so -- do so. We will actually be submitting construction drawings soon after. Thank you. McCarvel: Okay. Thank you. If there is no more questions, could I get a motion to close the public hearing on H-2021-0024. Seal: So moved. Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. July 15,2021 F25] Page 22 of 43 Cassinelli: Second. McCarvel: It has been moved and seconded to close the public hearing on H-2021-0024. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: SIX AYES. ONE ABSENT. McCarvel: I think we clarified in earlier discussions that I think everything that Alan went through is in the staff report as -- all the considerations, all the additional things that he wanted added, including the restriction of this being a memory care unit and not a multi- family, unless they come back with a different application. Tiefenbach: Yes, except there would be an additional restriction regarding the five foot setbacks that just happened and the concept plan that you saw tonight is about one day old and so you would be also approving the concept plan dated July 13th with additional parking and the -- the trail connection put into the east. The southern most alley turning into a road and, then, what was the road south of the pool disappearing and becoming green space. McCarvel: Okay. Baird: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Yes. Baird: If I could inquire -- okay. If I could inquire of Alan. There was an expressed desire to perhaps link the specifically listed amenities as part of the DA. Would that require an additional part of the motion to do that? Tiefenbach: Bill's nodding his head, so if they wanted to -- if you wanted to reference the amenities as listed in the staff report, you certainly could do that. McCarvel: Okay. Okay. We will open for discussion. Cassinelli: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Cassinelli. Cassinelli: All in all I think it's a -- I think it's a really nice product. A lot of it fits in there. Having sat through several projects that have affected Woodbridge directly, I do have concerns and I don't know if it would be in our purview to -- to condition for maybe some traffic calming measures if they have absolutely no -- not even a crosswalk in there and I think that the pool is right -- is -- is really right there on the -- on what is the collector on Woodbridge Avenue. I'm looking at -- and quite frankly -- and I have expressed disappointment in ACHD more than one time up here. I pulled up a traffic study on Woodbridge and it was from 2017 and there was a 24 hour account of -- of over 2,000 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. July 15,2021 F26] Page 23 of 43 vehicles and that's acceptable on a collector, but not on local streets and everything winds up feeding those local streets to the backside of Woodbridge and I don't live in Woodbridge, but I have used it as a cut through more than -- more than once in the past. When you look at -- at a traffic, eastbound, westbound, a.m. peak, the numbers look like, just from what I'm seeing here is, is -- is actually people going in and out of Woodbridge or going through Woodbridge into that area. So, this is going to increase the traffic and, unfortunately, there is no -- there is no other way out, other than whatever the -- up at the light there across from St. Luke's. So, people are going to naturally go through Woodbridge and, again, so I come back to that. I don't know if there is any way that we can condition for -- again, if it's in our preview or not or just recommend maybe City Council condition for some traffic calming measures if we can through Woodbridge to -- to -- to help that. But other than that I -- I think it's going to -- you know, I tend to agree with the applicant, I think it's going to attract more of a -- an older, empty nest type of situation, but I think it's -- all in all I think it's a neat project for the area. Those are my thoughts. McCarvel: I guess I would comment on that. I'm certainly not in the planning profession or legal, but I will -- I would imagine that it is not in our purview to condition this applicant to do something in another subdivision. I would encourage the people of Woodbridge to keep working with ACHD, because that is the controlling entity of that. And I will stand from correction by legal or staff if that was -- Tiefenbach: That was exactly what I was going to tell you. Unless they offered and ACHD was amenable, we can't make them do off-site improvements. We can only make them do --ACHD can make you pay into a pot of money for road improvements to widen a road or something like that, but we can't make them do traffic calming for Woodbridge, but, you know, they could offer and work with ACHD, but we can't require it. McCarvel: Okay. Yearsley: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Yearsley. Yearsley: I have to admit I'm a little torn. I did listen to the residents for the HOA of Woodbridge and, you know, they are -- they are really close I think. I understand the -- the desire not to make this deed restricted. You know, my biggest concern ultimately is you are seeing a new trend of huge developer -- or huge companies coming in and just buying the entire subdivision and, then, renting everything and so -- and at that point you don't know what you will ever get with rentals, so -- and I don't know how to fix that either. So, I mean it's -- it's not something that's -- that I expect to be fixed. I would like to see, you know, this -- the site plan has changed significantly since the initial submittal. I wouldn't mind seeing the applicant reaching out to Woodbridge one more time and at least presenting what they have, showing the parking, so they can be more comfortable with that and -- and at least try to reach out to them and help to try to figure out a solution Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. July 15,2021 F27 Page 24 of 43 before City Council. Overall I think it's a fairly good layout. Still think it's a little dense, but -- yeah. That's where I'm at. McCarvel: Okay. Grove: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Grove. Grove: I don't have an issue with the density. The layout is sufficient for me. I guess I have a couple of questions for staff, just in regards to the roads, Magic View and Wells. Are those streets -- are you allowed to park on those streets? And if -- and is that something that we can have any say over or is that out of our purview? Tiefenbach: Alan Tiefenbach. Yes, I believe you can park on those. We could suggest ACHD work with the applicant, but they are right of ways, not private roads. So, we can't tell ACHD what to do with the roads. We could say pretty please. The applicant is required to do some road improvements, sidewalks, and some widening, but it comes back down to ACHD is in charge of the roads. Grove: And, then, a second question -- and I think this was one of the first projects that I heard when I came onto the commission a year ago. Same question I guess is what is the possibility of having another connection east-west with future development? I know it had come up quite a bit during the Comprehensive Plan review a few years ago, but just knowing if there was any movement on -- on that front. Parsons: Yeah. Madam Chair, Members of the Commission, I think that -- that's what Alan alluded to in his presentation to you this evening. You know, that was -- from my perspective when this project was back in front of you a year ago, we were getting that street stub through that county subdivision with the R-1 lots and the vision -- the plan does contemplate a connection out to Locust Grove to -- to provide to Woodbridge, but, again, as you -- as this body realizes, that -- that comes with development and redevelopment of other properties and so, you know, when we analyze this project before we even brought it to you, that's something that we discussed with staff is we were concerned that now that we are taking out this five acre piece that was originally part of it and now it isn't, we have created another roadblock for having that road get extended like we want and provide some of that relief to Woodbridge. So, certainly that's something within your purview tonight. Obviously, you can't make them extend the road, but that's certainly something you should take into consideration as you deliberate on the application tonight. Grove: Thank you. All said, I -- I like the changes that we have seen tonight and I'm on board with moving this project forward. McCarvel: I will jump in. I -- it is different than what we saw originally and I think what we saw a year ago we were all clapping for, but I think this is somewhat the same impact and Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. July 15,2021 F28 Page 25 of 43 does fit in the opportunity zone with the nursing care, but I would be in strong support that this is tied to the DA that it would be a nursing care. That they would have to come back to do anything else with it -- any other high density option. Yearsley: So, Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Yearsley. Yearsley: Is it already in the staff report that they have to -- that in the DA that it is to be an assisted living unit? Okay. McCarvel: I believe it is stated correctly. Tiefenbach: Yeah. There is a direct reference that says that's the only thing that can happen. McCarvel: All right. I'm just -- I guess I'm just making an over point of it, because it normally is allowed in the TN -- the zone we are bringing in here. Yearsley: Okay. McCarvel: So -- Tiefenbach: Which is why there is a direct note in the DA -- McCarvel: Yes. Tiefenbach: -- for that reason. Seal: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Seal. Seal: Yeah. Just looking at it, I mean at first when I was reading through this and just some of the public comment and the history of it and things like that, I was -- especially some of the wording with the memory care unit in there, it was kind of lining up in my mind like a little bit of a bait and switch, where we will put the community in there and, then, eh, we will kind of change that out later if it doesn't work out. But where I think we are writing it in -- or staff has had the forethought to write in the fact that that has to be a medical facility and, then, the feedback from the applicant on the fact that they want to start this right away, the planning is already there, the architecting is already coming into place, I feel less like that at this point in time. So, I feel that the applicant's -- although not communicating it very well, seems like this kind of came in at the last minute -- they have done everything that they have really been asked by the neighbors as far as improving the setbacks, varying the -- you know, the house scape I guess you would call it, going through there and just to provide a little bit better breakup of the -- of the lots. Fairly good Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. July 15,2021 F29 Page 26 of 43 alignment of the lots. I think that could be a little better. You know, if they dropped a -- dropped a unit or two in there and really worked on lining those things up, I think that that transition would be a little -- a little bit better for the neighbors, a little bit easier to swallow. So, I mean I kind of go back to one of our former commissioners, Ryan, where I also looked at this and where it's at -- I mean this thing is right off of Eagle Road. If this were in Ten Mile and somebody came in with single family over multi-family, we would probably be saying no way. This is where multi-family needs to go. So, the fact that it is single family and the density isn't that high and everybody can swallow that, then, but I'm okay with it, too. So, I'm definitely not somebody that likes to push multi-family and large developments. That said, land is disappearing fast in Meridian. So, there is only so many places you can put that, especially with this kind of access to the freeway. So, I think all of this is going to line up. There are other options that will become viable in the future for cut through -- or not cut through -- to avoid the cut through coming through Woodbridge. So, I think that the -- in all I think I'm on board with pushing it forward. McCarvel: Any other comments or motions? Yearsley: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Yearsley. Yearsley: After considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move to approve file number H-2021-0024 as presented in a staff report for the hearing date of July 15, 2021, with the following modifications: To add the amenities stated in the -- in the app -- the deal -- meeting today and to the design -- or development agreement. To add the five foot setbacks on the homes on the west side of the property and I would like to see the applicant to at least reach out to the Woodbridge Homeowners Association to discuss further actions for the -- before City Council. Grove: And also the concept as shown tonight. Yearsley: Yes. The five foot. McCarvel: And the concept plan dated July 13th -- Yearsley- Oh. Yes. And add the concept plan dated today. Parsons: Madam Chair, Members of the Commission, one other item that was discussed, the additional parking that Commissioner Cassinelli wanted added in the northeast corner to just kind of disperse some parking. The applicant agreed to adding some more into the development. I wasn't sure if any of the other Commissioners wanted that as well. Cassinelli: If I could jump in, just clarify that, it was -- it was more just shifting it to the east. It wasn't what I had mentioned, but if the motion wants to add more parking, but my -- my thought on that was just to shift some of that from the west to the east. Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. July 15,2021 F30 Page 27 of 43 Yearsley: I think for my motion my -- my thought was is they could try to adjust that as best as they see fit, not require. McCarvel: Okay. Grove: Second. McCarvel: Okay. Are we clear on the motion, staff? Okay. It has been moved and seconded to recommend approval of H-2021-0024, Wells Street Assisted Living and Andorra Subdivision with modifications. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: SIX AYES. ONE ABSENT. 6. Public Hearing for Brightstar Residential Care Facility (H-2021-0040) by Jeff Hatch of Hatch Design Architecture, Located at 3336 and 3340 N. Meridian Rd. A. Request: Conditional Use Permit to allow a 5,800 square-foot senior residential care facility. McCarvel: Next on the agenda is H-2021-0040, Brightstar Residential Care Facility, and we will begin with the staff report. Tiefenbach Sorry, I'm getting caught up with myself. Okay. This is a conditional use permit to allow a 5,800 square foot nursing and residential care facility in the L-O zoning district. This includes a request for a DA modification to reduce a 20 foot wide required landscape buffer and I will go through that shortly. The site consists of two lots totaling just a little less than half an acre, zoned L-O, located at 30 -- 333 -- well, basically, on Meridian Road across the street from Settlers Park northeast corner of North Meridian and Ustick. Adjacent properties. R-8 is to the north. Single family residential. East and south is L-O -- Yearsley: Before you go, can you put that up on the screen? Tiefenbach: Oh, I'm sorry. My -- my apologies I thought we were there. Did it not come up? All right. I thought I had shared it. My bad. Yearsley: Thank you. Tiefenbach: Thank you for telling me. Okay. Adjacent land use. To the north R-8. Single family residential. East and south is L-O, office and commercial. To the west is Settlers Park. This property is part of the Settlers Business Park. About half of this development has built out. There is these two lots and I believe three more commercial lots left. The future land use map recommends this property for office uses. However, this proposal includes a nursing and residential care facility. It's important to note, though, that this is Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. July 15,2021 F31 Page 28 of 43 zoned L-O and this nursing and residential care facility is a use allowed in that zone district by conditional use, which is why we are in front of you this evening. Here is a picture of the site plan. What's being proposed is at the top quadrant, I guess, at the left. That's what you see in gray. This is part of-- this is a zoom in, so this is part of what's built there now, not all of it. But, again, this is for a 5,800 square foot nursing and residential care facility. It's for 12 residents -- 12 bedrooms, 12 residents, up to two staff. It's surrounded by existing commercial. Most of it's built out. Again, three more lots left. All of the parking and the driveways are already there. Under our code you have to provide .5 space for every bed. This would be required to provide six parking spaces, not including the office for staff, which, again, would be a few extra parking for two. The parking regulation -- the parking -- it doesn't mention the parking requirements for the two staff. However, at the time of the CZC, the applicant will need to give us how big that office is. However, to mention this, the six existing buildings -- so, there is six buildings there now and I added up the square footages of all those buildings, just to guesstimate. All of the parking is shared amongst the whole business center. So, we wanted to make sure there was adequate parking there. I calculated -- guesstimate of about 2,300 square foot total gross area. That's based on the assessor's website. They give you what the square footages are. Based on that there would be 46 parking spaces required. Within this center, I counted at least 160 and 14 of these parking spaces are on the subject's property. We are talking about the parking spaces down here. Three of the lots are still vacant and as I mentioned in the staff report, although it's unknown what is going to develop on those last three lots, if and when those lots develop, they will have to go through a certificate of zoning compliance, but given the amount of developable land there and the 160 parking spaces, staff is reasonably confident that an addition -- that the additional 108 parking spaces that are there would accommodate to the other three commercial buildings. This is a landscape plan and to the north I want you to -- we are going to talk about this. To the north is a landscape buffer that you see here. The landscape buffer shown here is ten feet. The development agreement for this, when this was annexed, requires a 20 foot wide buffer to the north. Usually a reduction in landscape buffer can be done through alternative compliance administratively. However, in this case it's required by the development agreement. So, it's actually something that the City Council will have to approve. The applicant has noted that the Settlers Business Park has responded -- so, the owner of this whole business park. They responded that the original intent of that requirement was to mitigate impacts of commercial type uses to the adjacent residences to the north. The applicant and the business parks position is this is kind of a residential use, because it's an assisted living memory care. In addition to that, there is a fence that's along the northern boundary and even though they are not providing the 20 foot buffer, they are providing almost three times as many trees and, again, a fence, so -- so they believe that the -- the buffer as shown is sufficient. Staff does not have concerns with the reduction in the buffer. I haven't received any -- any other concerns from the neighbors. So, if the Planning Commission were okay with this, it could just literally be something where the Planning Commission would tell the Council they support the Council making a DA amendment just for this particular site to reduce that buffer. Here is a picture of the elevations. Very similar looking residential structures. So, the issues here are three things. A landscape buffer, easement, east-west pedestrian access and lot merger. So, I already talked about the landscape buffer going from 20 feet to ten feet. Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. July 15,2021 F32 Page 29 of 43 The easement -- you couldn't see it here, but I can show you -- there is -- this is a water easement, ten foot, by the city and it just clips this building just a teeny tiny little bit. We have already talked to Public Works. There is no water line there now. Public Works is okay with them vacating and rededicating this easement. It would have to go through City Council. So, that's one of the conditions of approval. Another issue is about east- west pedestrian access and maybe the applicant can describe this a little better, but we are concerned about there is -- there is -- in order to do this memory care, one of the requirements that they have for memory care is you have to have fencing. It's not super clear to staff and it wasn't super clear to staff in the development review meeting, whether there is sufficient unimpeded accent -- accent -- access from the west lot to the east. We wanted to make sure. So, we are just having a condition of approval that at the time of the CZC the applicant will demonstrate that there is sufficient unimpeded access along sidewalks or walkways from the northwest to the southeast. Last issue is a lot merger, which is not much of an issue, but there is two lots. This building straddles those lots. This is something that could be done administratively. So, the applicant would have to merge lots as a condition of approval. With that we recommend approval of this conditional use to allow the nursing and residential care. We recommend that you discuss whether you support the DA mod to allow a reduction to the landscape buffer and if it goes to the Council and the Council does not approve this DA mod, then, the applicant would have to revise the drawings, obviously, to meet that 20 foot buffer. With that that completes my presentation. McCarvel: Okay. Thank you. Would the applicant like to come forward? Hatch: Good evening. Jeff Hatch with Hatch Design Architecture. Address is 200 West 36th Street, Boise, Idaho. 83714. Good evening, Chair McCarvel and Commissioners. Thank you for your consideration of our conditional use permit application this evening. I do have a presentation I'm working on. While Alan is getting that up, I will -- I will just kind of elaborate a little bit. Brightstar Care is a residential business that's here in -- their -- their corporate office for the -- for the people operating this and the other agencies -- we have several different locations around the Treasure Valley. They are all operated out of Boise locally. So, these are local business owners operating a local residential care business here in the valley. So, as Alan had mentioned, this location is in a business park that's adjacent to a neighborhood and we typically like to either place these in kind of in-fill lots in neighborhood communities or in a transition area between a commercial business park and neighborhood. We found that this strategy of having neighbors on -- on one side that are residential and commercial on the southern side, creates a transition between those and a nice buffer between the more commercial use, the more residential use, and that transitional use of the residential care that we are really wanting to achieve. A couple things that make it a little unique, because we really try to design these homes to be just that, dwellings. They have a residential feel, they have a residential look, and the people that live there enjoy that, you know, it's like living in house, because that's the intent and it's a very different model that you see elsewhere and that was presented previously. This is about being able to live and feel comfortable in a space that feels like a home. That's -- that's kind of the -- the key to Brightstar. So, as mentioned by staff, to the east and the south and the west we have part of that business park. The interesting Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. July 15,2021 F33 Page 30 of 43 thing is -- is -- as Alan said, there is a fair amount of parking from our neighborhood meeting there is not enough parking. In many cases in business parks that is a concern we found. The good news is -- and especially in this case, our proposed use is very complementary to that concern, mainly because none of the 12 people that live there drive. So, the only people that are going to be occupying parking spaces on a consistent basis are the two staff members that are there at all times. You will on occasion have an additional couple of nurses and people that come to help on occasion, which really comes to maybe a maximum of four and on occasion on weekends you will have visitation. That visitation has to be staggered due to the age and nature of the occupants. We can't have a half dozen people run around these dwellings. One, it doesn't maintain that residential feel and kind of community that Brightstar wants, but also they can't manage that. So, they have to regulate the amount of vegetation that they have. So, in talking with the neighbors there was some concerns, because directly east of us is a daycare. The daycare has an influx of a fairly extensive amount of parking needs, especially early in the morning and in the afternoon. After hearing our parking dialogue, they seemed very excited that that wasn't going to be an issue. The other consideration is this particular proposed project takes up two lots of this business park. So, not only are we only taking up two parking spaces consistently, it could be two totally different businesses taking up way more parking. So, we feel that the -- the nature of this being kind of nestled up to the neighborhood, but also meeting the needs of the commercial business park is important. Looking at the concept site's plan, we have a range of porches and deck space. Many of these individuals are in walkers or wheelchairs and are mobility impaired and so having that ability to be able to go out onto a porch, go out onto a deck and experience being outside, we also have interior spaces, we have what's called the rocker alley where you can rock and look outside as well -- are important and so part of the -- the joy and excitement we have about this particular location is being next to a daycare, because, especially, you know, a lot of these elderly individuals don't necessarily see their family every day, but being able to hear little kids having a good time and laughing and playing helps them have a more positive experience and more positive outlook on life and on -- on a day-to-day basis and so you feel that being next to that -- that daycare facility, one, will help the individuals living at this community, but also lends itself nicely as a complementary business to that daycare facility. As staff had mentioned, a couple conditions of approval. We are in agreement with everything staff had mentioned. As far as the access path, as not currently shown, that can be easily proposed and adjusted and that's something that we can do through our CZC. We feel very competent in design review. Again, you can see here and the site plan -- there we go. You can see this is where that designated properly-- line is between the two. That's okay. Kind of a blending of the residential style to the north and the -- and the commercial business park. We are keeping it the same language that we have and most of the branding of this community. It's one story, low profile, very residential in nature with the porches. We did go to a stucco, because the business park is predominantly stucco and part of the -- you know, the architectural language of that business park is to do something that -- that ties in. So, we did want to make sure that we were complimentary to that. As far as an example of what these residents look like, this is one that was recently finished. So, we wanted to show you that as kind of a comparison. It is very residential in nature and in some cases, Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. July 15,2021 F34 Page 31 of 43 such as this location, we actually use the word resimercial, because it really is that transition between the two. With that I will stand for any questions. McCarvel: Okay. Any questions for the applicant or staff? Yearsley: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Yearsley. Yearsley: You show a garage door. Can you show me on your plan where that's supposed to be located and how we are going to access that? Hatch: So -- good question. The garage door is not a garage. The garage door is for servicing and delivery. So, it's predominantly used for storage. It's not -- it's not even deep enough to store a car. Yearsley: Okay. Hatch: So, again, the intent with that is to make it feel like a residential dwelling and look like a residential dwelling and function as a residential care facility. Yearsley: Would you show me on your plan where that's -- Hatch: It would be on the far western side. Yearsley: Okay. Thank you. Cassinelli: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Cassinelli. Cassinelli: I have two questions. Number one, without the reduction in that 20 foot landscape buffer down to ten foot will this not work? Hatch: Commissioner Cassinelli, the state has certain requirements on square footages that we have for bedrooms, spaces and also commercial space, dining room areas, and so for the proposed 12 beds, this functions very well. It is a very -- you know, a fairly compact site and land is limited in the City of Meridian and so we talked with, you know, the --the commercial association and they said, well, it's not really intended for residential uses, it's intended for commercial uses, because we don't want to have, you know, commercial businesses within that buffer for the residents. What we found in the past is we typically in-fill these in residential neighborhoods. So, not only are we actively having projects that are in residential neighborhoods, in many cases we do the same thing where they are nestled up next to residences and we feel that working with staff and requesting that the City Council -- that it would be appropriate to reduce this, because we are not Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. July 15,2021 F35 Page 32 of 43 intending to have any kind of commercial operation. We have people using this as a residential dwelling just --just as the houses to the north. Cassinelli: I guess the square footage that's required -- if you don't have that -- if you don't reduce that down to ten feet, this building will accommodate 12 beds, is that -- Hatch: Yeah. It would reduce it by approximately six or seven beds. Cassinelli: Okay. And, then, if I may, another question, Madam Chair. All the buildings there -- I live fairly close, so I'm familiar with this. Park here. They are all kind of a tan or brown color in there. You are showing blue and I know-- I mean the design is -- is a staff issue. But are you going to -- is your intent -- and is there an agreement through -- with the other business there to kind of go in with color schemes or are you looking to be blue and standout in there? Hatch: The current proposed color is blue. I think we are open to suggestions. We wanted to make sure that we had complimentary materials and there are other commercial businesses in that business park that they all kind of tend to be brown, but there are other pad sites in there that may change colors. There is no real color restrictions on that, but if-- if the Commission would like us to go into the browns, I think the owners would be fine making that more complimentary to the area. Cassinelli: Thank you. Lorcher: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Lorcher. Lorcher: Out of all the half acre places that you could put your facility, why did you choose this one when it's clearly all commercial? I realize that there was an adjacent subdivision, but what -- what drew you to this particular space? Hatch: Yeah. I think when they were looking at it they got excited about the daycare. They got excited that it was right up to the -- to the residents, so we are kind of tucked in next to them. And it has fairly easy access on -- onto Meridian, just for -- for ease of use of the employee staff. So, I think, you know, looking at, you know, the -- the ability to have an adjacent complimentary neighbor that's going to complement not only the people that live here, but also help assist in the parking needs or the parking demand on that business was beneficial and, then, being able to be that transition between the -- the commercial to the south and the residential to the north, that resimercial concept, was the other thing that we were looking for. We have another conditional use that goes in about three weeks that is almost the verbatim in Boise. You know, north is the residents. South is the commercial. We are kind of tucked up right next to it and a nice little landscape buffered area. This is -- is where we find kind of a nice blending and a very complimentary transition. So, yeah, this would be kind of an ideal location in our mind. Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. July 15,2021 F36 Page 33 of 43 McCarvel: Okay. Any other questions for staff or the applicant? Thank you. Baird: Sorry to interject and this is something I probably should have caught before the meeting and talked to Alan, but I do have a question for Alan, if I can ask him about the easement. McCarvel: Go ahead. Baird: Your site specific condition number five about vacating and rededicating the easement that's shown here on the site plan, is the intent just to get rid of the offending portion that invades the building footprint? Tiefenbach: Yes. I mean it's encroaching onto the easement, so he would just have to work with Public Works to erase and rededicate. Baird: Okay. A suggestion -- you don't need to change the condition, but routinely we will see that the engineer will just do a legal description of the part that needs to come out and we have a form for a partial vacation of an easement. That will satisfy the condition. I just wanted to -- Tiefenbach: Would that need to go to Council? Baird: No. It's submitted through the Accella portal. Tiefenbach: As much as it pains me to not have to take this to Council and write a staff report, somehow I think I will manage. Baird: Okay. Thank you, Madam Chair. McCarvel: Thank you. Madam Clerk, do we have anybody signed up to testify on this application? Weatherly: Madam Chair, we do not. McCarvel: That being said, is there anybody in the room or on Zoom who wishes to testify on this application? Come forward. Sullivan: Good evening. I'm Chris Sullivan. My address is 3429 South Osterly Place in Eagle, but I am the owner of the daycare right next door. First of all, I was very much opposed to a big facility. I feel that that's a big facility for that spot. But the proposal came through and they had a meeting of all of the people in there and I was pleasantly surprised, once I got to talk to them, about how willing they were to work with us. Right now currently we have about 200 kids in and out of our building during a week. So, I am concerned about the parking. We have a lot of people in and out and we do preschool classes, so they are not all there at the same time. So, once I spoke to them about that, you now, the fact that that could be two different businesses generating a lot more traffic Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. July 15,2021 F37 Page 34 of 43 than what they are going to generate, made it a little bit easier for me to swallow and go, gosh, this might be a really good relationship. We walk our kids quite often -- I don't know how many of you are familiar with that area, but kitty corner from us is another nursing home on the other side of Ustick and Meridian and we walk our kids over there to visit and to sing Christmas songs and take Valentines and so the idea of having a care facility right there really does appeal to us as much as it feels to them. It always makes me laugh when they say, oh, it will be great to hear the kids laughing and talking and I said so what about when they are not laughing and talking, how is that going to work, because there is a lot of that in childcare and I was reassured that that is exactly what their staff is there for, you know, when things are -- if they are out on the patio and they start hearing a child crying or throwing a fit outside, then, they know to intervene and direct them back into the building and kind of, you know, figure that one out. So, I'm encouraged with this. I just wanted to speak up, because I kept hearing the preschool and the daycare and the only reason I came is I wanted to make sure that what we had been told a month or so ago is really what was being proposed, because I do think it would be a fairly good relationship and the parking in that facility is crazy. It just is. Since I think the original plan there, Dave Evans has already started, there is a lot directly across from the preschool and I went out there, being the nosy neighbor that I am, and said so what's planned for here and they are like, oh, it's going to be another office building. Do you know who that's going to be? No. We are just going to build it and, hopefully, they will come. The other one is that there is physical therapists that built down by the dentist. So, we are all kind of, you know, low office buildings, but I -- I think that their proposal would go well in there. So, that's just what I wanted to add. Do you guys have any questions for me? Cassinelli: Do you care about the color? Sullivan: I wanted blue when I started and I was told I couldn't, but, no, I don't -- I don't think it really matters. McCarvel: Okay. Does the applicant have any other comments? Hatch: Yeah. I would -- I would just add -- and, Chris, thanks for coming. In the neighborhood meeting, the -- the owner actually -- actually got on to answer those questions about the operation. They wanted to personally be able to say, you know, this is how we would handle those situations and this is why we are excited about being at this location and so, you know, you can build residential in a lot of different ways, but the intent of Brightstar is to make sure that this is part of the community and that every one of these has a residential feel. McCarvel: Okay. Cassinelli: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Cassinelli. Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. July 15,2021 F38 Page 35 of 43 Cassinelli: I know there was no -- there weren't any comments or anything from the neighbors directly to the north. Did you have a neighborhood meeting with them at all and did you get any comments from -- how many homes? It looks like -- are there two lots or three lots there on the north side? Hatch: There is approximately three lots, which you can see on the site plan, that would have dwellings adjacent to us. They were noticed for our neighborhood meeting. We had a -- the gentleman directly south to us come on and we did have a couple neighbors just kind of hop on briefly, but no real comments. Cassinelli: Thank you. McCarvel: Okay. With that being said, can I get a motion to close the public hearing on H-2021-0040. Lorcher: So moved. Cassinelli: Second. Seal: Second. McCarvel: It has been moved and seconded to close the public hearing on H-2021-0040. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: SIX AYES. ONE ABSENT. Lorcher: Madam Chair, I will start. McCarvel: Great. Thanks, Commissioner Lorcher. Lorcher: When I first was looking at the map I was very confused of why someone would want to build a residential area among the asphalt of office buildings and, you know, looked at the proposal before we came tonight, but I went on the internet a little bit as presentations were being made to see how that facility looks and works and considering there is an assisted living facility literally less than a half a mile away across the street, it seems that these types of facilities are kind of popping up where you can put them and this community type of living seems to be in favor, especially with older adults. My -- my own mother is in a community, but it's a high rise type community and I think if you can sell it and they will come, then, more power to you. The daycare -- the adjacency of the other businesses don't really concern me. I would -- maybe your residents --they wouldn't come there if they didn't like it, so -- and with only 12 it's a pretty limited space to offer residency, but if your back decking and your community and it was something that would be a benefit to these seniors and it can work. I'm in favor for it. McCarvel: Thank you. Commissioner Grove. Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. July 15,2021 F39 Page 36 of 43 Grove: Madam Chair. I would just like to say having the two facilities close to each other, something that I -- I really like young children in daycare and having them be able to go to one of these facilities that's close to their care facility is a big benefit to the children being able to go, you know, do the Christmas carols and things like that, but having the -- watching the faces of people living in one of those places just light up when those kids are around is -- is something that, you know, I'm happy to go with the kids and -- and see every year. So, I think this -- this fits and I don't see any issues with the application. McCarvel: Okay. Yearsley: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Yearsley. Yearsley: I like the blue. Cassinelli: It's not that I don't like the bluish -- Yearsley: I have to admit I'm grateful that you came out to show your support for this project, because it -- you know, one of the things that for me that I look at is, you know, for projects like this is their -- you know -- you know, what effect is it to the surrounding community and to have you come up and say that I really appreciate you stopping by for that and I think it's a good project. I think it's a good fit. I think it will help with the usage, especially with the parking. I have to admit I'm not too concerned about losing the ten feet on the buffer. So, I would be in support of this project. McCarvel: Any other comments or motions? I guess I would -- I'm in agreement with what's recently been said here by Commissioner Grove and Commissioner Yearsley and Commissioner Lorcher. I think it's a good fit for all the above reasons, so -- Seal: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Seal. Seal: First I would like to thank the applicant for covering parking enough that Commissioner Cassinelli just didn't have it in on it. Cassinelli: I got nothing on that. Seal: After that -- after considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move to approve file number H-2021-0040 as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of July 15th, 2021, with no modifications. Grove: Second. Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. July 15,2021 F40 Page 37 of 43 McCarvel: It has been moved and seconded to approve file H-2021-0040. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries. Congratulations. MOTION CARRIED: SIX AYES. ONE ABSENT. 7. Public Hearing for WRRF Map Amendment (H-2021-0041) by City of Meridian, Located Approximately '/4 Mile South of W. McMillan Rd., Midway Between N. Black Cat Rd. and N. Ten Mile Rd. A. Request: Amendment to the Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map to change the designation from Mixed-Use Non-Residential on 40.9 acres of land to Medium-Density Residential and 39.8 acres to Industrial, based on the results of the most recent Odor Study. McCarvel: Next we have H-2021-0041, the WRRF Map Amendment and we will -- boy, do we have staff here tonight. Boy. We will start with the staff report. Hood: Thank you, Madam Chair, Members of the Commission. It has been a while, so it's my pleasure to be back before you presenting on WRRF, our Wastewater Resource Recovery Facility out near Ten Mile and Ustick, as you can see on the first slide. Before I get into the presentation too much I do want to thank Bill Parsons, Sonya Allen, who is out right now, but they helped draft the staff report and work with us, but I have been working with Public Works over the past couple of months on this application, but they have done a lot of the heavy lifting to get the items you see in your packet. So, thank you to staff for that help. As I mentioned in my opening remarks, this is near our wastewater treatment plant is yet another way -- it's -- it has several names that we refer to it as, but it's where our wastewater is treated out near, again, the northwest corner of Ten Mile and Ustick. This -- earlier this year the city did purchase an additional 40 acres, just north and I don't know if you can see my cursor or not -- just north of the existing facility and that prompted Public Works to, again, start talking with Planning staff about a change to the future land use map. What you see on the top of this exhibit is the current designation on our Comprehensive Plan future land use map. The designation of that 40 acres and several of the properties, actually, around the wastewater treatment plant is designated mixed use nonresidential. So, as you would anticipate in the name, it doesn't allow anyone to live in those areas and I will let Laurelei McVey, who is in Public Works, speak to you a little bit about this more. She has a couple slide presentation. But they recently completed an odor study and based on that study Planning staff is recommending some changes to our future land use map that would allow some of that area to be opened up to residential uses in the future, again, because the odor, the nuisance, essentially, isn't there or it's there very very minimally throughout the year and, again, I will let her get into some of those statistics. In the application what Public Works applied for -- and it is partially my fault I feel. I think, eventually, a lot of what the city owns will be zoned industrial, their application was actually to change it from mixed use nonresidential to industrial. After we talked about it a little bit more internally what staff recommends you approve this evening -- or recommend to Council approval is actually a civic designation. That matches and it is truly the intent of our Public Works Department is to keep this civic Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. July 15,2021 F41 Page 38 of 43 in city hands for what is green, at least the lower two-thirds of the 40 acres that Public Works owns. We have collaborated with Brighton, who is working on a project called Quartet just to the west and they wanted to come alongside or we asked them if they were interested in coming alongside this application to also help us protect some of that area that they currently own and, then, open up some of what they could develop further with residential kind of shown in the yellow. So, medium density residential for the northern roughly a third of the -- of the properties and, then, civic on the southern part. There is another request to this application. I think I'm going to pause, though, before get into some of the administrative or cleanup things that we were asking you to recommend approval to the City Council of tonight and let Laurelei do her presentation on the odor study and maybe answer any other questions you have regarding this part before I jump into that. McVey: So, good evening, Madam Chair and Members of the Commission. My name is Laurelei McVey and I'm the deputy director for the City of Meridian Public Works Department. Our address is 3401 North Ten Mile Road. I wanted to give you a brief update on the city's recent odor study and answer any questions that you might have about that and the proposed land use designations. So, as Caleb mentioned, we are looking to change a portion of the proposed area from mixed use nonresident residential to civic and a portion to medium density residential. As Caleb mentioned, we have also been working with Brighton and they are in support of this for the non-city-owned parcels that are impacted by this. So, the proposed land changes will allow the city to continue to have adequate nonresidential buffer zone around the wastewater facility, but it doesn't over restrict future land use where it's not warranted based on the study -- the odor study results. We did hold a neighborhood meeting on July 30 and 13 attendees attended that, as well as one property owner contacted me by phone. Most property owners were okay with the changes. A couple of the things they wanted to ensure, though, was whatever future development occurred at the WRRF that their properties were buffered from any of our activities and, then, the other concern that they shared was ensuring that high density housing or apartments were not considered for the residential areas, due to access and traffic through the surrounding neighborhoods. We made sure to let them know that this change was only the future land use designation and that any development, annexation, or rezoning of these parcels would be noticed and their participation would be solicited in that. So, as far as our odor study, so what an odor study is -- it is a scientifically based study that uses several variables, including odor sampling at the facility and, then, it also looks at local wind and temperature data. So, when those are combined in an EPA approved model, they predict worst case odor conditions. It's important to remember that this predicts total odor, not just good or bad odor and as you can imagine odor is very subjective, but what this study will do is will show you where the highest total odor is, where that odor is expected to go and how frequently that odor is expected to go there. So, a couple of things are important to note. The last odor study was completed in 2004, but what's also important is that that odor study didn't set the land use designations around the WRRF. Those were set in 2002 prior to that study. A couple of other additional important things is the original 2004 odor study only used best known industry values. For this odor study, we took 43 actual samples in the field and at the wastewater plant to give us the best data possible and, then, since 2004 the city has also installed significant Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. July 15,2021 F42 Page 39 of 43 odor control upgrades at the facility, which has greatly reduced odors and one of the really cool things for us was at the neighborhood meeting, the neighbors echoed that odors have significantly reduced over the years and how rarely they actually see odors anymore. So, that was exciting for us to see that our odor control investments have made an impact and are doing what we expect them to do. So, when looking at an odor study values are shown as the number of hours in a year that an odor could be detected above background conditions. So, we converted those into percentages, because it's a little bit easier to visualize and as we look at this it's important to note that this is total odor, not bad odor, and it's worst case conditions, but two percent is equivalent to about eight days per year that an odor could potentially be detected. So, today we generally allow residential development in the two to three percent zone with very little complaints. As evidence, the wastewater plant has only received four potential odor complaints in the last five years in total. So, the city is also -- sorry. The city is also currently installing several more odor control upgrades in the next few years, which will pull our odor profile in by another 67 percent. So, this is what our odor map will look like once those upgrades are complete. One thing we also did, though, is we wanted to model full -- conditions at full plant build out, so that we didn't make decisions today that could potentially have negative long term impacts. So, at full facility build out, which is estimated to occur in 2074, and with additional planned odor controls at the facility, we can pull those odor rings in even further and have really little impact on any of the surrounding areas outside of the wastewater plant property, which is really what our ultimate goal is. So, in summary, based on the findings from our recent odor study, we feel the proposed land changes will still retain enough future buffer space for the wastewater plant, but not over restrict additional development in the area in the future. So, with that, I appreciate your consideration and stand for any questions. McCarvel: Have any questions for staff or staff? Cassinelli: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Cassinelli. Cassinelli: What are potential plans for this civic? Is that going to be park space or -- I guess to the north of the -- of the treatment plant. McVey: Great question. So, we don't currently have any plans, but what we intend is that that area would be used for either future wastewater process equipment. So, two things kind of change why we need to expand the wastewater plant. Growth. So, the volume of wastewater received -- we receive and, then, also regulations. So, if EPA or DEQ came with future regulations that required more equipment, we would potentially use that land for future plant equipment, but primarily our goal right now is just to retain that open buffer space, knowing that we don't want anything too close to our facility. Cassinelli: Another question if I may on the odor. You said it was subjective that odor is bad. Can you find me somebody that thinks that wastewater would be a good odor? Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. July 15,2021 F43 Page 40 of 43 McVey: That's another good question. I do have a -- kind of a good example for that. So, in our wastewater process at the very beginning of our plant it's a very raw sulfur type odor and most people tend to find that the most offensive. One of the things we did is we covered our headworks building, which is where all of that very raw wastewater comes in and that has been the most significant reduction. As you go further into the process other people have described it as earthy smell, which is generally less offensive. So, you know, kind of interesting for sure when you talk about perception, but, generally, the worst of our odors is in the very beginning, which is now all covered. Cassinelli: That's all under cover? McVey: Yeah. McCarvel: Okay. Any other questions? Seal: I was just -- Madam Chair, I was just going to add that I live directly southwest of this and -- and have been there for about a decade and I can tell you that it -- we rarely, if ever, get any smell in that area. Obviously, it's one of the areas that was low in those rings, but we tend to smell the sugar beet factory at least once a month, so -- so far so good. McCarvel: Okay. Grove: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Grove. Grove: Not really a question, but just wanted to congratulate you on the work you have done out there. I was lucky enough to get a tour with Leadership Meridian earlier this year and that--that first step, like --you are like, oh, okay, that's a little rough. But outside of that, like, I don't know, 50 foot radius, it's really not that bad anywhere, like further into the site and they have done an amazing job at really reducing some of those odors and -- and making some major advances in how they have done things and it's -- if you haven't been out there it's rather impressive. They have like a hundred structures out there and so it's quite intense in what they do and how they do it. So, appreciate the work that you have done. Cassinelli: Madam Chair, I have got -- there is storage units just to the -- I guess to the east here and I have a storage area in there and I have never -- I have never smelled it. Not the earthy smell or the sulfur. McCarvel: Okay. Thank you. Madam Clerk, I'm guessing we don't have anybody signed up to testify on this application? Weatherly: Madam Chair, that's correct. Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. July 15,2021 F44 Page 41 of 43 McCarvel: And just on the outside chance is there anyone in the room who would like to testify on this application? Great. Hood: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Oh. Okay. Oh. Caleb. Hood: I don't know if Mr. Wardle wants to -- wants to testify. You do have a letter from Brighton in the packet as we both alluded to in our presentation supporting the sub -- subject application. I did just have -- like I said, it's kind of a two part application. That's the big one that we just went through. There are a couple of administrative changes that I just wanted to call their attention -- McCarvel: Oh. Sorry. Hood: -- real quick before you move any further. And, again, these are pretty much administrative changes. There are seven or eight of them. For example, is Keith Bird Legacy Park today still has a halo around that park. That park exists. So, it's not a future park, it's an existing park. We have a couple of those. Discovery Park exists. So, some clean-ups like that where schools have come online in the past couple of years and we just want it to be accurate on our future land use map that those aren't planned, that they actually are on the ground. So, again, pretty -- you know, very administrative or clean-up in nature. No substantive changes there. But there are a handful of those changes to the map itself, too, that we saw the opportunity to piggyback on what Public Works was doing and make some additional changes and, then, the one other on the face of the future land use map, that note that is slightly tweaked with the addition of that one line in green that you see in the middle of the screen here. That just basically says that those -- you know, the halos are general locations and they may need to be changed periodically. So, we thought that might help clarify for the public. So, with that I would stand for any questions you have on either of the administrative changes or, again, back to the Wastewater Resource Recovery Facility map amendment. McCarvel: Any further questions? Okay. Thank you. Can I get a motion to close the public hearing on H-2021-0041? Seal: So moved. Cassinelli: Second. McCarvel: It's been moved and seconded to close the public hearing on H-2021-0041. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: SIX AYES. ONE ABSENT. Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. July 15,2021 F45 Page 42 of 43 McCarvel: I'm not seeing any real issues with this and it's great that -- yeah, cleaning up some of the land use options that are available now that maybe weren't even ten years ago. Lorcher: Madam Chair? Cassinelli: Madam Chair? Go ahead. McCarvel: Commissioner Lorcher. Lorcher: I think the only strange thing that was going to happen -- and it may not happen in our lifetime -- but, you know, as the community needs to grow, especially with Brighton -- I think has plans from Ustick to McMillan all the way up and down Black Cat, the community is going to wonder why did we put a wastewater treatment in the middle of subdivisions. You know what I mean? I mean it's -- it's going to be in the middle of town. Whereas when they started it was in the middle of nowhere. So, that's just an observation. McCarvel: It's there and we can't move it. Cassinelli: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Cassinelli. Cassinelli: I'm going to make a motion if -- McCarvel: Absolutely. Cassinelli: Okay. After considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move to recommend approval of file H-2021-0041 as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of July 15th, 2021. Seal: Second. McCarvel: It has been moved and seconded to --are we recommending or-- sorry. Move approval of WRRF Map Amendment, H-2021-0041. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: SIX AYES. ONE ABSENT. Seal: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Seal. Seal: I move we adjourn. Yearsley: Second. Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. July 15,2021 F46 Page 43 of 43 McCarvel: It's been moved and seconded we adjourn. All those in favor say aye. Opposed. Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: SIX AYES. ONE ABSENT. MEETING ADJOURNED AT 8:17 P.M. (AUDIO RECORDING ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS.) APPROVED 8 112 2021 RHONDA MCCARVEL - CHAIRMAN DATE APPROVED ATTEST: CHRIS JOHNSON - CITY CLERK