Loading...
2012 11-15Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission November 15, 2012 Meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission of November 15, 2012, was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Chairman Scott Freeman. Present: Chairman Scott Freeman, Commissioner Steven Yearsley and Commissioner Joe Marshall. Members Absent: Commissioner Michael Rohm, Commissioner Tom O'Brien, Others Present: Machelle Hill, Ted Baird, Bruce Chatterton, Sonya Watters, Scott Steckline and Dean Willis. Item 1: Roll-Call Attendance: Roll-call X Steven Yearsley Tom O'Brien Michael Rohm X Joe Marshall X Scott Freeman -Chairman Freeman: Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. At this time I'd like to call to order the regularly scheduled meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission for this day of November 15th, 2012, and, Machelle, could we begin with roll call. Item 2: Adoption of the Agenda. Freeman: Okay. The first order of business is the adoption of the agenda. There are a couple of changes to the agenda, for those of you in the audience that wanted to listen to the request for a street name change from Englewood Way to another name, those are Action Items A and B. Those are going to be opened tonight solely for the purpose of continuing those -- those items to the December 6th hearing. We had another request for a continuance late in the week on that. That's the only change I'm aware of, so could I get a motion to adopt the agenda as amended? Marshall: So moved. Yearsley: Second. Freeman: I have a motion and a second adopt the agenda as amended. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries, even though I didn't vote on it. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. TWO ABSENT. Item 3. Consent Agenda Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 15, 2012 Page 2 of 21 A. Approve Minutes of November 1, 2012 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting B. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: CUP 12-012 Stor-It Addition by Avest Limited Partnership Located 355 N. Ten Mile Road Request: Conditional Use Permit Approval for aSelf-Service Storage Facility in a C-G Zoning District Freeman: Okay. Next item is the Consent Agend Agenda tonight. Approval of the minutes of the Zoning Commission meeting and the Findings approval of CUP 12-012, Stor-It addition. Could I Agenda? a. We have two items on the Consent November 1st, 2012, Planning and of Fact and Conclusions of Law for get a motion to approve the Consent Marshall: So moved. Yearsley: Second. Freeman: I have a motion and a second to approve the Consent Agenda. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carried. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. TWO ABSENT. Item 4: Action Items A. Continued Public Hearing from November 1, 2012: Request for a Street Name Change from N. Englewood Way to A new Name to be Decided Upon by Affected Residents OR the Spelling Changed to Inglewood by The City of Meridian Community Development Department B. Continued Public Hearing from November 1, 2012: Request for a Street Name Change from N. Englewood Place to a New Name to be Decided Upon by Affected Residents OR the Spelling Changed to Inglewood by the City of Meridian Community Development Department Freeman: Okay. At this time I'd like to open the public hearing for the Items A and B, request for a street name change of North Englewood Way for the sole purpose of continuing that to the next meeting scheduled for December 6th. Could I get a motion? Yearsley: Mr. Chairman? Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 15, 2012 Page 3 of 21 Freeman: Commissioner Yearsley. Yearsley: I make a motion that we will continue the public hearings for Action Items A and B to December 6. Marshall: Second. Freeman: I have a motion and a second to continue Items A and B, the request for a street name change from North Englewood Way to the December 6th regularly scheduled meeting. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. TWO ABSENT. Freeman: All right. Before I open the first Action Item for this evening that we are going to have a public hearing on, I just wanted to go over the process for those of you who may be new to it. As we open each item, the first thing we will do is hear the staff report on how the application adheres to the Comprehensive Plan and the Uniform Development Code. After that the applicant will have 15 minutes to come forward and present their application and, then, after the applicant's done anybody wishing to offer testimony will be given three minutes to come up and offer your testimony, whether you approve, opposed, or are neutral. There are some sign-up sheets in the back there on the table. If you would like to testify on an item it is helpful if you put your name on there. I will read those names first and call you forward. If you're not on the list you can still testify. I will remember when I go through the list to ask if anybody else wishes to testify on the item and you can come forward as well. After the public testimony the applicant, then, has another ten minutes to come forward and address additionally that they would like to address and, then, we will close the public hearing, the Commissioners will deliberate on the item and, hopefully, we will come up with a recommendation for City Council. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Agenda -Thursday, November 15, 2012Page 2 of 2 All materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. Anyone desiring accommodation for disabilities related to documents and/or hearing, please contact the City Clerk's Office at 888-4433 at least 48 hours prior to the public meeting. C. Public Hearing: AZ 12-012 Tradewinds Subdivision by SDN, LLC Located at Southeast Corner of E. Victory Road and S. Locust Grove Road Request: Annexation and Zoning of 10.42 Acres of Land to the R-8 Zoning District D. Public Hearing: PP 12-015 Tradewinds Subdivision by SDN, LLC Located Southeast Corner of E. Victory Road and S. Locust Grove Road Request: Preliminary Plat Consisting of 39 Building Lots and 3 Common /Other Lots on 9.11 Acres of Land in a Proposed R-8 Zoning District Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 15, 2012 Page 4 of 21 Freeman: So, the first item I would like to open this evening is AZ 12-012 and PP 12-015, Tradewinds Subdivision, beginning with the staff report. Watters: Thank you, Chairman Freeman, Members of the Commission. The first application before you tonight is for an annexation and zoning and a preliminary plat request for Tradewinds Subdivision. This site consists of 10.42 acres of land. It's currently zoned RUT in Ada County and is located on the southeast corner of South Locust Grove Road and East Victory Road. Adjacent land use and zoning. To the north is Victory Road and residential properties in Sageland Subdivision, zoned R-8. To the east are rural residential properties zone RUT in Ada County, as well to the south. And to the west are rural residential properties zone RUT in Ada County. There are -- there have been no previous applications on this site. The applicant requests annexation and zoning approval of 10.42 acres of land with an R-8 zoning district. The proposed zoning is consistent with the future land use map designation in the Comprehensive Plan of median density residential, which anticipates residential densities between three and eight dwelling units per acre. The proposed density is 3.74 dwelling units per acre, consistent with the MBR designation. A preliminary plat is proposed that consists of 39 building lots for single family detached residential homes and three common area lots. The proposed plat is to develop in two phrases as shown there in the -- on the right. Access to the site is proposed via one access point from South Locust Grove Road. A stub street is shown at the east boundary for future interconnectivity. There are a few irrigation ditches traversing this site that are required to be piped, as they are not proposed as water amenities. No multi-use pathways are designated for this site. Open space and five amenities are proposed on the site in accord with UDC standards. 10.3 percent open space is proposed consisting of open space, parkways, and street buffers along Victory and Locust Grove Roads. A half basketball court is proposed as an amenity on this lot right here where my pointer is. The applicant has also agreed to construct a pathway connection from Fathom Drive to Victory on this lot right here across Lot 16, Block 1, for access to the sidewalk along Victory. Conceptual building elevations for the residential homes were submitted. To insure the site develops as proposed staff is recommending a development agreement as a provision of annexation. The development agreement includes a provision for future development to comply with the preliminary plat, landscape plan, and building elevations submitted with this application. Staff recommends the Commission add a provision to the development agreement that is not in the staff report currently for cross- access to be provided to the property to the south owned by the city where a future water tank is proposed. Through these access points via Locust Grove Road an arterial street as required by UDC 11-3A-3. Written testimony was received on this application in opposition from Kristen Thompson. She had concerns regarding increase in traffic at the Victory and Locust Grove intersection. Proximity to the Ten Mile Creek, which actually does not run along the boundary of this site. If you look on the aerial here it's actually to the south of the city-owned property here. Another concern was only one ingress-egress for emergency access to the subdivision. A local amendment to the fire code does allow up to 50 homes with a single access point. And, lastly, assurance that the subdivision would be completed with all the public services if approved. Second written testimony was received from Kevin McCarthy, the applicant's representative. He Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 15, 2012 Page 5 of 21 had one concern does the city intend to pay for the up sizing of the water lines as required in Condition No. 2.2. And the answer is, yes, the city is prepared to do that. Staff is recommending approval of the proposed annexation and zoning and preliminary plat applications with the development agreement and the provisions in Exhibit B of the staff report. Staff will stand for any questions the Commission may have. Freeman: Thank you, Sonya. Any questions for staff? Yearsley: I do. Freeman: Commissioner Yearsley. Yearsley: Sonya, in Section two point -- or Exhibit B, two point -- 2.2 -- or 1.2.2, sorry, it doesn't show a requirement for a five foot sidewalk along Locust Grove. Is that implied or is that -- Watters: Chairman Freeman, Commissione condition in Exhibit B of the staff report. It is standards as set forth in UDC 11-3A-17. r Yearsley, Commissioners, there is a number 1.3.6, comply with the sidewalk Yearsley: Okay. Watters: The applicant has shown sidewalks on the site plan -- on their landscape plan preliminary plat along Locust Grove and Victory and the applicant will be required to construct those sidewalks. Yearsley: Okay. And we can specify if it should be in phase one or phase two or does that make a difference? Because they are doing the interior phase first. Watters: Yeah. There will be just one small section here. If you look on this phasing plan -- I think it's got a 40 foot wide or so in there -- section along Victory. We could probably get that -- I would imagine the applicant would probably be agreeable to constructing that. We can ask them if it's the first phase. Yearsley: Okay. Thank you. Freeman: Commissioner Marshall. Marshall: I'm good, chair. Thank you. Freeman: Okay. Would the applicant like to come forward and, please, state your name and address for the record when you reach the microphone. McCarthy: My name is Kevin McCarthy. Address 9233 West State Street in Boise. We worked through the majority issues that we had with the initial submittal and the help of staff were able to accomplish something and we pretty much agree with everything in Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 15, 2012 Page 6 of 21 the staff report, so we don't have really any issues to bring up. The one thing that did come today was the access point from our public road on the south side to the city's property where the water tank is going to be located and we don't have any issue with that. One point of clarification, though, on the sidewalk question that was just recently asked, we are providing sidewalks to tie into whatever -- we are, basically, providing stubs, we are not going along the whole frontage of Victory or Locust Grove with sidewalk. The intent is that we are providing something that can be tied into the future. We have worked with -- I have spoke with ACHD about it and you can see we have dedicated a fair amount of right of way through there and that's to accommodate a roundabout that they have planned in this area. So, we are trying -- in talking with them we said let's not put that in, we will have to tear it out here in a year or two, go ahead and, you know, to accommodate what the city was looking for, we are providing a stub, but we are not going to go all the way with putting in a sidewalk with the intention that this roundabout may be coming. So, hopefully, that clears that one up a little bit. And I -- sorry, I missed the other question you had. Yearsley: Just the timing of when that sidewalk was supposed to go in. McCarthy: Oh. Okay. So, there you go. Really, we don't have much to -- we are pretty much in agreement with everything else in the staff report and I will answer any questions you may have right now. Freeman: Okay. Are there any questions of the applicant? Marshall: Mr. Chair, if I could? Freeman: Commissioner Marshall. Marshall: So, when you say you're stubbing the sidewalks, we are talking from the southern boundary at your ingress-egress north and you're stubbing short of the intersection because of the roundabout; correct? McCarthy: Correct. Marshall: And, then, also coming from the east going west you're stubbing short of the intersection and you have worked out those distances with ACHD? McCarthy: No. And I would propose we work that out at final design with ACRD, but we are at a good breaking point. We haven't gotten that far with them. So, on the other side there is that little out parcel there where we are anticipating putting sidewalk on the little slip that we have that we are tying -- you know, we are going to put that micropath to tie in, we anticipate putting it there, but, you know, along Locust Grove, you know, they have worked that out of final design. We showed something there now, but the actual distance isn't determined at this point. Marshall: All right. Thank you. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 15, 2012 Page 7 of 21 Freeman: Is that all? Yearsley: I have a question. Freeman: Commissioner Yearsley. Yearsley: Do you know when ACHD is planning to build that roundabout? Freeman: No, I don't. I believe it was in their five year plan, but I would have to -- you know, I don't know for sure. I understand they just put lights up at that intersection, but my understanding is it is planned for a roundabout and that's why we are dedicating a large amount of right of way through there. Yearsley: But not putting any sidewalks? McCarthy: Correct. Yearsley: Okay. Because would you be amenable to be putting in sidewalks? Because it's my understanding that it's five to seven years out before they put that roundabout in and without providing access for pedestrians and stuff like that I feel it's unsafe for kids to be walking along that side of the street, so I would recommend that we put sidewalks in. McCarthy: Okay. Freeman: Any other questions? Yearsley: No. Watters: Chairman Freeman? Freeman: Yes. Watters: May I respond to that question? We did get a draft report from ACHD stating that it is in the capital improvement plan to be widened to a dual lane roundabout with a southbound right turn bypass lane between 2017 and 2021. It is a UDC requirement with development that detached sidewalks be put in adjacent to arterial streets, so we can't just waive that requirement. I might suggest that possibly an asphalt pathway be put in in that area, rather than concrete. Freeman: So, Sonya, if I understand it correctly, the sidewalks are required -- Watters: Yes. Freeman: The only question here is which phase would they be constructed in. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 15, 2012 Page 8 of 21 Watters: Yes. Freeman: That's -- that's what's on the table -- Watters: Yeah. And it's -- and you see -- Freeman: Is that what you're worrying about, Commissioner Yearsley? Yearsley: Yes. Freeman: Okay. Yearsley: So -- and I would recommend it being part of phase one, instead of phase two. Freeman: Okay. Watters: Yeah. And, actually, when I spoke earlier I didn't realize that this was phase one, other than this side, so, yeah, this is -- this only little piece would be constructed as phase one if we do it that way, so -- McCarthy: And the reason we broke the phasing up that way, if I may interject there, is just for turnaround purposes for fire trucks as well. Just made the most sense, kind of a natural hammerhead right there for a turnaround, so that's the way we broke up the phasing that way. Yearsley: Okay. McCarthy: So, we agree -- I mean the intent -- obviously -- well, regardless of when the roundabout is built, it's temporary, whatever sidewalk we put in there. So, something that's a little easier -- potentially asphalt would be more agreeable than putting in concrete or something like that, if that's agreeable to you guys. Yearsley: And I'm amenable to asphalt. McCarthy: It will have to come out. Freeman: Okay. Well, let me ask staff, then, since that's being discussed. Is a temporary sidewalk something that would comply with the UDC that's not a permanent concrete sidewalk? Watters: Yes. Freeman: Okay. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 15, 2012 Page 9 of 21 Watters: Yes, Chairman Freeman. Freeman: Okay. Any other questions? Thank you. McCarthy: Thank you. Freeman: All right. At this time if there was anybody wishing to testify on this application now is the time to raise your hand. I didn't have anybody signed up. Was there anyone who wished to? No? Then I guess I need a motion to close the public hearing. Marshall: Mr. Chair? Freeman: Commissioner Marshall. Marshall: I move we close the public hearing on AZ 12-012 and PP 12-015. Yearsley: Second. Freeman: I have a motion and a second to close the public hearing on AZ 12-012 and PP 12-015, Tradewinds Subdivision. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. TWO ABSENT. Freeman: Discussion? Who shall we start with? Commissioner Yearsley, you want to start? Yearsley: I think it looks good. I think it's a good fit and it meets the requirements. My only concern was not having segments where we didn't have sidewalks within the city system. So, that was kind of my major concern with the application and with an asphalt sidewalk, understanding that it's temporary, but, you know, it could be five to seven years or longer before that actually gets built, so -- the final sidewalk. So, I think it's something that works well. Freeman: You're agreeable to the idea of a temporary -- Yearsley: Yes. Freeman: -- asphalt sidewalk? Yearsley: Yes. Freeman: So, if you make the motion you will need to add that to the requirements. Commissioner Marshall? Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 15, 2012 Page 10 of 21 Marshall: First off, I simply wanted to say that I did read Christen Thompson's letter and thoroughly went through it and felt that the vast majority of the points are actually addressed in the process. So, you, know, the fire department turnarounds are approved by the fire department and that the fire department approved that they -- they believe they have plenty of access. DEQ and water quality, those things are addressed in the process and each one of those agencies does have approval and the ability to not approve a project and place certain requirements on it. ACHD. Again, ACHD reviews this and makes recommendations. Obviously, they have been in discussion with ACHD about the roundabout. I have also heard on traffic task force that that will be, potentially 2112 is -- or, excuse me, 2012 is -- or 2021 is quite a few years out and as we have seen with other projects, even though they do get posted on there out five years, ten years, things like that, they will often be extended much longer than that, so I, too, am very pleased to hear that -- that there will at least be an asphalt walkway. I would assume that concrete will go to the stub points and, then, an asphalt -- temporary asphalt walkway placed in there, because that could be short term, it could be a long term thing and at least some paved walkway needs to be in place if it's on the longer range of those things. Those were my comments. And other than that, yeah, I'm -- think it's appropriate for the location and I'm all for it. Freeman: Thank you, Commissioner Marshall. I also read that letter pretty thoroughly and I agree with your assessment that those things are all addressed either by their agencies or throughout the process, so can I get a motion? Yearsley: Mr. Chairman? Freeman: Commissioner Yearsley. Yearsley: After considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move to recommend approval to the City Council of file numbers AZ 12-012 and PP 12-015, as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of November 15th, 2012, with the following modifications: That a temporary asphalt path be placed on Locust Grove and Victory Road -- let me back up. A separated -- a detached sidewalk -- temporary sidewalk be placed on Locust Grove and Victory Road as part of phase one. Freeman: There is also the addition that staff wished to add. Yearsley: Oh. Freeman: Across-access to the south that we need to include -- Yearsley: And also the cross-access to the south. Marshall: I will second that. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 15, 2012 Page 11 of 21 Freeman: I have a motion and a second to recommend approval of AZ 12-012 and PP 12-015, Tradewinds Subdivision as amended. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries. Thank you very much. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. TWO ABSENT. E. Public Hearing: CUP 12-015 Meridian High School Addition by Joint School District No. 2 Located at 1900 W. Pine Avenue Request: Conditional Use Permit Approval to Construct a New 40,000 Square Foot Addition to Meridian High School Freeman: At this time I'd like to open the public hearing for CUP 12-015, Meridian High School addition, beginning with the staff report. Watters: Thank you, Chairman Freeman, Members of the Commission. The next application before you is a conditional use permit. This overall school site consists of 49 acres of land, currently zoned R-4, and is located at 1900 West Pine Avenue. Adjacent land use and zoning. To the north is part of the school property, a baseball field, and residential properties in the Vineyard Subdivision, zoned R-4. To the west are rural residential agricultural property zoned RUT in Ada County. To the south is also school property, Pine Avenue, and residential properties in Merrywood Subdivision, zoned R-8. And to the east is school property zoned R-4 and Linder Road. Over the years multiple applications have been approved for this school site. Currently the subject portion of the site is developed with a 289,000 square foot building area. The applicant requests conditional use permit approval of a 40,000 square foot building addition to Meridian High School. Public education institutions and additions thereof require conditional use permit approval in the R-4 district. The existing and proposed use is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan future land use map designation for this site. The proposed addition is shown on the site plan in gray. It will connect the existing high school building to the cafeteria building. The proposed addition is less than 25 percent of the site or floor area, therefore, the UDC does not require additional landscaping. However, the applicant is proposing to add several new landscape islands to the parking lot in front of the school as shown there outlined in red and also landscape a strip in front as shown there. Parking on the site has been evaluated with the proposed addition and the site still exceeds the required number of spaces for the total area of the buildings on the site. Building elevations have been submitted for the proposed addition as shown. Development should be consistent with the dimensional standards of the R-4 district and the specific use standards for public utility institutions listed in UDC 11-4-3-14. Written testimony was received from Clint Sievers, applicant's representative. He gave verbal agreement with the staff report. Staff is recommending approval of the proposed conditional use with the conditions in Exhibit B of the staff report. Staff will stand for any questions. Freeman: Thank you. Questions of staff? None at this time? Would the applicant like to come forward and, please, state your name and address for the record. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 15, 2012 Page 12 of 21 Sievers: I'm Clint Sievers with Hummel Architects. 2785 Bogus Basin Road, Boise, Idaho. I think the only comment I would have is that we agree with the staff recommendation and the conditions in Exhibit B and C and I would just stand to answer any questions you have. Freeman: Okay. Are there any questions at this time? No? Marshall: Not at this time. Freeman: Okay. Thank you. Sievers: Thanks. Freeman: I didn't have anybody signed up to testify on this. Was there anybody that wished to? I'm seeing nobody signaling me, so -- Marshall: Mr. Chair? Freeman: Commissioner Marshall. Marshall: I move that we close the public hearing on CUP 12-015. Yearsley: Second. Freeman: I have a motion and a second to close the public hearing I CUP 12-015, Meridian High School expansion. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. TWO ABSENT. Freeman: Discussion? We will start with Commissioner Marshall this time. Marshall: The school is getting pretty big. I do -- I do appreciate they are putting in some landscaping islands and the like. I'm guessing this is going put it on par with some of the other schools within the district, which has nothing to do with anything. And it seems appropriate. I'm glad we are expanding, as opposed to building a whole new high school. Freeman: Commissioner Yearsley? Yearsley: I agree with Commissioner Marshall. I like the new face lift. I think it will make the place look really nice. So, I think it's look good. Freeman: Thank you. I also -- I like the design. I'm not really here to comment or make decisions on the design, but I like what's being presented there and I hope it's able to move forward sooner rather than later. With that I need a motion. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 15, 2012 Page 13 of 21 Marshall: Mr. Chair? Freeman: Commissioner Marshall. Marshall: After considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move to approve file number CUP 12-015 as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of November 15, 2012, with no modifications. I further move staff to direct -- move to direct staff to prepare an appropriate findings document to be considered at the next Planning and Zoning Commission hearing on December 6, 2012. Yearsley: I'll second that motion. Freeman: All right. I have got a motion and a second to recommend approval for CUP 12-015, Meridian High School expansion. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries. Thank you. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. TWO ABSENT. F. Public Hearing: AZ 12-011 Citadel Self-Storage Facility by B1, LLC Located Southwest Corner of Chinden Boulevard and N. Saguaro Hills Avenue Request: Annexation of 5.46 Acres of Land from RUT in Ada County to the C-C (Community Business District) Zoning District G. Public Hearing: CUP 12-016 Citadel Self-Storage Facility by B1, LLC Located Southwest Corner of Chinden Boulevard and N. Saguaro Hills Avenue Request: Conditional Use Permit Approval for aSelf-Service Storage Facility Consisting of Fourteen (14) Buildings on Approximately Five (5) Acres of Land in a Proposed C-C Zoning District Freeman: All right. The next item on the agenda. At this time I'd like to open the public hearing for AZ 12-001 and CUP 12-016. Citadel Self-Storage Facility, beginning with the staff report. Watters: Thank you, Chairman Freeman, Members of the Commission. The next applications and the last applications before you tonight are an annexation and zoning request, conditional use permit, and a variance also accompanies these applications for Council approval. This site consists of five acres of land. It's currently zoned RUT in Ada County and is located on the southwest corner of Chinden, Highway 20-26, and North Saguaro Hills Avenue. Adjacent land use and zoning. To the north is Highway 20-26 and across that is Castlebury Subdivision, zoned R-1 in Ada County. To the east are commercial and residential uses, zoned C-C and R-15. To the south is Hightower Subdivision, a residential subdivision zoned R-8 and to the west is a church, zoned RUT in Ada County. The applicant requests approval to annex and zone 5.47 acres of land with a C-C zoning district, consistent with the Comprehensive Plan future land use map Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 15, 2012 Page 14 of 21 designation of mixed use community for this site. The applicant proposes to develop this site with aself-service storage facility, consisting of 13 storage structures and an office building. Staff is of the opinion the proposed use, along with adjacent residential, commercial, and civic uses combine to form a mix of uses as desired in the mixed use community designated areas such as this. A conditional use permit is requested for the development of aself-service storage facility in a C-C zoning district. There are specific use standards listed in UDC 11-4-3-34 that apply to the proposed use. One such standard requires a sound attenuation wall be provided along the boundaries adjacent to a residential district. In this case along the southern boundary. When a wall is provided the code also states landscape buffers, which are typically 25 feet between commercial and residential uses, may be reduced to ten feet. The applicant did submit an exhibit here shown in the lower right that shows the relationship between the residential homes along the southern property boundary and the proposed storage facility. There is an existing six foot tall vinyl fence along the southern boundary of this site, the northern boundary of a residential subdivision. The rear walls of the storage units are shown at eight foot nine inches. Building elevations of the proposed storage units and office buildings were submitted as shown. Metal buildings are proposed along the south and west boundaries and are not approved, as they do not comply with the design standards and do not provide sound attenuation as required along the southern boundary. All street facing walls are proposed to be constructed of masonry block. The office building is proposed to be constructed of stucco. A 35 foot wide buffer is required along Chinden, State Highway 20-26, and a 20 foot wide buffer is required along North Saguaro Hills Way. Because the proposed storage facility abuts the residential district, the hours of operation of the facility are required to be limited from 6:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m. As part of this application the applicant also requests Council approval of a variance to UDC 11-3H-4 for an emergency access to the site via Chinden, State Highway 20-26. Right here. The director approval of alternative compliance has also requested to the parking standards listed in UDC 11-3C-6B. Staff requests a modification to condition number 1.2.15. The code section cited 11-3H-4C.3 is not correct. It should read -- it should read UDC 11-3H-4C.4. If we could just make that change to the recommendation of the staff report. Written testimony was received in opposition to these applications from the Cosentino family. In favor of the application written testimony was received from Fred and Linda Sanz, Ed Caron, Rebecca Tesavick -- excuse me if I mispronounce your names. Hugh and Odessa Keckler, Paula Workland and Karen Degrazia. John Wardle did submit written testimony in response to the staff report. And I might just add the folks that testified in favor of this application, most of them -- four of them abut the southern boundary of this proposed development. So, that's four out of nine of the existing homes there. Staff is recommending approval of the proposed annexation and conditional use permit with the conditions in the staff report. Staff will stand for any questions the Commission may have. Freeman: Thank you, Sonya. Any questions of staff at this time? Yearsley: No. Marshall: Mr. Chair, I do. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 15, 2012 Page 15 of 21 Freeman: Commissioner Marshall. Marshall: Sonya, you say that the use of metal is restricted. Could you expand on that to explain what the restriction is? Watters: Yes. Commissioner Marshall, Chairman Freeman, the standards in the -- in the UDC for design 11-3A-19, prohibits metal as a primary building material. It may be used as an accent material, but not as a primary material. And, you know, in addition -- that's in general. But in addition to the south boundary it doesn't provide any sound attenuation to the residential. Marshall: Right. Just wanted to clarify that. Thank you. Freeman: Okay. Is that it for questions? Yearsley: Yeah. Freeman: All right. Would the applicant like to come forward? And, please, state your name and address for the record. Again, you do have up to 15 minutes if you would like to use those. Wardle: I will try not to. Freeman: Fine. Wardle: For the record, I'm John Wardle. My address is 1627 South Orchard Street, Boise, Idaho. 83705. I am here tonight representing the applicant of the project. Staff did -- did describe the project very well. We are requesting annexation and zoning into the City of Meridian. This property currently is in the county and zoned RUT, but it is in a zone or the city Comprehensive Plan to come in as a -- under a mixed use designation and C-C is -- is one of those uses which could be applied to this property. This property in particular, as you will know, the primary access for this property is now off North Saguaro. It's no longer on Chinden. As the use changes and in compliance with the city's ordinances, that primary access is now off North Saguaro and not off Chinden. We have asked with this application for a variance for emergency access, which is also required for this type of use. So, that's the purpose of the variance and all that's in front of City Council, but I wanted to clarify what we are asking a variance for specifically. And I can answer questions that you have, but I did want to just tell you quickly that, yes, we have discussed with staff regarding the building design, specifically the design of the building south and west boundaries. We are aware now of the condition that metal cannot be the primary material. We also discussed with them about modulation of that southern boundary. Right now we propose it as a straight building, but through the design review process we will come back with a change of materials, which will likely probably include some metal, but some other materials as well and there will be some modulation to that. Also one of the things that we have discussed Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 15, 2012 Page 16 of 21 with staff and we are going to do is the requirement is for one tree for every 35 feet, which is about 13 or 14 trees. We have actually made a decision to put a tree every 25 feet to 26 feet and to look at that southern boundary. Basically that puts a tree on every property corner and the middle of each lot. So, every property owner will have about three trees when they look out the back of their property. We did spend some time with those neighbors who are directly adjacent to this property and we did have a neighborhood meeting, but we went out last week again to visit those that are right against the property. Four of those did provide us with a written letter saying that they did agree to it. And I also spoke to the property owner yesterday. I do not have a letter from him, but I did speak with him. His name is Marty. He owns the first three lots. Two of those have homes on them and there is one vacant lot. He, too, did verbalize to me that he was in support of the project. So, you know, there is seven or eight of those owners along there that are directly adjacent to this property who are supporting us this evening. We have -- I did submit a -- an e-mail today regarding the issue on a water line. There is a condition in here about connecting to Saguaro and to Boulder Bar. In working with staff throughout the day we have, basically, come to the position that we will continue to work with them as it comes to development plans to have a water program or system that works for them. So, we wanted to put on record that we don't agree that a dual connection is necessary for this specific project, but we will work with staff to come up with a solution that accommodates what they would like for the city and will also accommodate this project. With that said we -- as the conditions of approval that are before you tonight, we can comply with those as written and we will work with staff on the water line issue and I'd stand for any questions that you have this evening. Freeman: Thank you. I actually have one question. You mentioned the trees and I guess my question is actually of staff. You're proposing fewer trees, correct, than what's typically required? Wardle: Mr. Chair, the requirement is my understanding of UDC is one tree per 35 feet. The landscape plan that we submitted shows one tree per 35 feet, we are making a commitment tonight to do one tree per every 25 feet. Freeman: Thank you for clarifying that. I misheard. Appreciate that. Wardle: It will probably increase it by five, maybe six trees along that southern boundary, but I think the key point is every lot owner that is adjacent to it will, in essence, see three trees out their backyard. Freeman: Okay. Thank you. Any other questions of the applicant? Marshall: Mr. Chair? Freeman: Commissioner Marshall. Marshall: Mr. Wardle. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 15, 2012 Page 17 of 21 Wardle: Yes. Marshall: Considering this is a very highly visible location, originally the idea was to be coming at a C-C. The first thing I'm going to ask is you are recommending CMU, at least at this point in time on the east and north; is that correct? Or west and north? And I believe we are talking about CMU or something else as well on the south and east. But when I ask CMU, what type of CMU brick are you talking about? Wardle: Well -- Marshall: The typical -- Freeman: Mr. Chair, Commissioner Marshall, we did submit a board on the CMU that we provided and we are not -- and we recognize that this is a very highly trafficked corridor in the City of Meridian and we want to make this look very nice. This is not your standard CMU. This would be -- it's a flat finish. There will be some -- the other CMU that we proposed had a little bit of texture to it as well. But we can guarantee you that it's not going to be just your typical CMU that you pull out now having any treatment to it, so I think we can work with staff on that. I don't really believe they had any objections to the CMU or the design that we submitted to them, but we will continue to work with them through the design review process to get this right so that this is a very nice looking project. Marshall: So, you're saying it is an architectural style such as a split face or something like that? Wardle: Yes, it is. There is elements of it that are split face and there is other elements that are smooth, but it's not going to be, you know, your basic CMU. Marshall: All right. Thank you. Freeman: Any others? Yearsley: No. Freeman: Okay. Thank you very much. Wardle: Thank you. Freeman: All right. I did have some -- some sign up here. I can't read -- is it Paul? Did you want to testify? Okay. You can come on forward. Please state your name and address for the record when you reach the microphone. Swidecky: Good evening. My name is Paul Swidecky and I live at 854 Martello Lane, Meridian, Idaho. 83646. I will keep this as brief as possible. I am not really in favor of the idea of having a storage unit facility as part of my neighborhood. That area, as Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 15, 2012 Page 18 of 21 mentioned by the people presenting the project, is very highly trafficked. My wife and I can both attest to the fact that at peak traffic times it can take anywhere from three to five minutes to get out onto Chinden from Saguaro. I don't like the idea of there being a business entrance on Saguaro. I understand that there are some businesses already located there, such as the coffee studio and apparently Summit Yoga. That one is new to me. However, I can say that my wife and I, Hillary, who signed in directly below me and I'm speaking for the both of us, purchased our home in April in Hightower Subdivision and had we known that there was an idea for a storage unit to be presented and built on the vacant lot that was previously occupied by a garden shop, essentially, I don't know that we would have purchased a home in that area. That's about all I can say. I don't like the idea of additional traffic. I understand that they have done their homework and have taken the time to talk to adjacent landowners and I appreciate that greatly. But all in all I don't stand in favor of there being a commercial business of that nature there. I certainly don't want to see something like apartments go in there. If it was up to me I would prefer to see something that matches the current residential area, which I believe was mentioned as RU-8 and so those are my thoughts and my feelings on this and have a good evening. Thank you. Freeman: Thank you very much. Was there anybody else that wished to offer testimony? I understand that, Hillary, your husband spoke for you, so that's the end of my list. Come on forward and, please, state your name and address for the record. Keckler: My name is Hugh Keckler. 806 East Boulder Bar. My property borders on this land and all I can say is we would be pleased to have it there. I don't want a 24 hour service station there or something like that. A bar. I think -- I think this would be very appropriate. Thank you. Freeman: Thank you. Was there anybody else? No? Would the applicant like to come forward? You have another ten minutes if you would like to respond to anything. Clarify. I need your name and address for the record again, actually. Wardle: For the record my name is John Wardle. 1627 South Orchard Street, Boise, Idaho. 83705. Freeman: Thank you. Wardle: I do appreciate Mr. Swidecky comments tonight about increased traffic. Any change in land use does bring traffic. However, this area is designated as a mixed use area. There are a variety of uses that could go here and I think that a mini storage is probably the least intrusive and least amount of traffic that would be generated from the site, even if you were to do residential and if you made a zone of R-8, that's potentially 40 more homes, which is an additional 400 trips a day. I believe that you would see much fewer trips with a mini storage and a very low profile as well. We want to be good neighbors. We feel like we can be good neighbors to a good design through increased security. I mean this -- this area will have a lot of security to it and we just respectfully request your approval this evening on these applications which are before you. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 15, 2012 Page 19 of 21 Freeman: Okay. Thank you. Wardle: Thank you. Freeman: I think I need a motion to close the public hearing and, then, we can discuss this. Marshall: Mr. Chair? Freeman: Commissioner Marshall. Marshall: I move that we close the public hearing on AZ 12-011 and 12 dash -- CUP 12-016. Yearsley: I will second that. Freeman: I have a motion and a second to close the public hearing on AZ 12-011 and CUP 12-016. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? Hearing is closed. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. TWO ABSENT. Freeman: Who would like to start with discussion? Yearsley: Go ahead. Freeman: Commissioner Marshall. Marshall: Mr. Chair, first off, I have lived near storage facilities. To be honest, they are pretty quiet. Tend to be. They generate very little traffic for the most part relative to all the other potentials that could be in this site, which it is really intended to be a commercial site there. If we look at the FLUM -- that's future land use map, that is and has always intended to be a commercial facility and I think you will find this is a much lower intensity and going to be a much better neighbor than potentially a convenience store or -- a million things I could list. My biggest concern with this is the articulation and (noticed -- and the CMU units (want -- I -- because this is a very highly visible corridor, I appreciate the fact that we are going to have some split face, some flat, I'm not -- I think it's going to be a step up from what we would normally see, simply because of the visibility of the corner and, to be honest, I think the articulation shouldn't only be on the south and east, but on the west and on the north as well. That's my personal feeling, because both the west and the north are even more so visible than the south and the east. All those are extremely highly visible all the way around. Again, this is not off the beaten path in an industrial district, this is, essentially, an area that's going to be very highly visible and in an entryway corridor to the city. I think this could be a fantastic project if it is -- there is some architectural sensitivity to it. That's all. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 15, 2012 Page 20 of 21 Freeman: Thank you, Commissioner. Commissioner Yearsley. Yearsley: I knew there was a reason why I let Commissioner Marshall go first. He's very eloquent in what he says. I have to agree with Commissioner Marshall. I think it is a good use. I -- of all the uses for a potential business I think this, again, is probably one of the least impacts to the adjacent neighbors. So -- because you could have all sorts of different types of businesses there. So, other than that I think it looks good. Freeman: Thank you. My own comments are I do believe we can comfortably leave the design issues in the hands of our staff. They do a good job of upholding the standards that Meridian -- the City of Meridian has -- has set and I do believe -- and as we have seen in their report, they understand that there is some things that need to be done architecturally to make this project more suitable. The project itself -- it's interesting hearing the different opinions of different neighbors. The fact is the land use designation does allow for this use and -- and a wide variety other commercial uses. I understand the hesitancy to accept such a project. I do think it's going to be one of the lower impact projects for that area and I find it especially interesting that a lot of the neighbors -- their opinion was that, you know, given what this could be, they were very quick to support this particular one over what could be and also they were quick to support this as being developed versus leaving it open for much longer, because there are problems even with -- with open lots next to -- next to your neighborhood. So, I am in favor of the project. I think the architectural issues will be suitably handled by staff, so I am in favor. I won't be the one making the motion, however. I will leave that to one of you. Yearsley: Mr. Chairman? Freeman: Commissioner Yearsley. Yearsley: After considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move to recommend approval of file number AZ 12-011 and CUP 12-016 and VAR -- Variance 12-003 and ALT 12-007 as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of November 12th -- no. November 15th, 2012, with the following modification: That Section 1.2.15, the Code cited, be changed to UDC 11-3H-4C.4. Marshall: Mr. Chair? Freeman: Commissioner Marshall. Marshall: I am going to second that, minus the variance and the alternative compliance issues. I -- while I find that maybe we should recommend those, I will say second to the rest of it. Baird: Mr. Mayor, does the maker -- or -- excuse me. Freeman: Not quite. But -- Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 15, 2012 Page 21 of 21 Baird: Mr. Chair. Does the maker of the motion agree with that, with the understanding that you really haven't heard testimony on that and those two issues are reserved for Council consideration. Yearsley: I agree. As I started reading it I thought that didn't sound right, so -- but -- so, I agree with Commissioner Marshall. Freeman: I was going to ask if Commissioner Marshall, didn't clarify that anyway. So, I'm glad we got it covered. I have a motion and a second to recommend approval of AZ 12-011 and CUP 12-016 for the Citadel Self-storage facility. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carried. Thank you. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. TWO ABSENT. Freeman: Anything else from staff? Sometimes we have -- no? So, I need one more motion from a Commissioner. Yearsley: Mr. Chairman, I move that we adjourn. Marshall: Second. Freeman: I have a motion and a second to adjourn Opposed? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. TWO ABSENT. Freeman: We are adjourned. Thank you all. MEETING ADJOURNED AT 7:51 P.M. All those in favor say aye. (AUDIO RECORDING ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS.) APPR TT FREEMAN - ATTEST: JAY~E HOLMAN, CITY CL ~~pTED A UCUST 44 { Go ~~, o~, ~~~ City of ~~ ' ~ IDAHO a NrEp r<<1r T9E ASUP~,! ~ ~W ~ ~~'1 Z.___ DATE APPROVED