2015 12-03Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting December 3, 2015
Meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission of December 3, 2015, was
called to order at 6:00 p.m. by Chairman Steven Yearsley.
Present: Chairman Steven Yearsley, Commissioner Patrick Oliver, Commissioner
Rhonda McCarvel, and Commissioner Ryan Fitzgerald.
Members Absent: Commissioner Gregory Wilson.
Others Present: Machelle Hilll, Andrea Pogue, Bill Parsons, Joshua Beach and Dean
Willis.
Item 1: Roll-Call Attendance:
Roll-call
______ Gregory Wilson __X__ Patrick Oliver
___X_ Rhonda McCarvel __X__ Ryan Fitzgerald
__X___ Steven Yearsley - Chairman
Yearsley: Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. At this time I would like to call to order
the regularly scheduled meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission for the
hearing date of December 3rd, 2015, and let's begin with roll call.
Item 2: Adoption of the Agenda
Yearsley: Thank you. So, the first item on the agenda is the adoption of the agenda and I
just want to make sure that everyone noticed that they added the -- Item F, which is the --
amended to the agenda the Finding of Fact and Conclusion of Law as for the approval if
we approve Paramount. So, just wanted to -- that is on the agenda. With that I would
entertain a motion to adopt the agenda as presented.
Fitzgerald: Mr. Chairman, I will move that we adopt the agenda as amended and as
presented.
McCarvel: Second.
Yearsley: I have a motion and a second to adopt the agenda. All in favor say aye.
Opposed? Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Item 3: Consent Agenda
A. Approve Minutes of November 19, 2015 Planning and Zoning
Commission Meeting
Meridian Planning & Zoning
December 3, 2015
Page 2 of 26
Yearsley: Next item on the agenda is the Consent Agenda and on that we have the
approved minutes of the November 2000 -- or excuse me. November 19, 2015, Planning
and Zoning Commission meeting minutes. Are there any comments or questions,
changes to that? And, if not, I would entertain a motion to approve the Consent Agenda.
McCarvel: Mr. Chairman?
Yearsley: Commissioner McCarvel.
McCarvel: I move that we approve the Consent Agenda.
Fitzgerald: Second.
Yearsley: I have a motion and a second to approve the Consent Agenda. All in favor say
aye. Opposed? Motion carried.
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Yearsley: Before we go any farther I kind of want to explain how this hearing process will
go today. We will open each action item one at a time. We will begin with the staff report.
The staff will present their findings of how the application adheres to our Comprehensive
Plan and Uniform Development Code with staff recommendations. We will, then, hear
from the applicant and he will present their case to the Commission for their approval and
any comments or changes to the staff report. He will be given -- or they will be given up to
15 minutes to do so. After that we will open it up to the public. There is sign-up sheets in
the back. Anybody wishing to testify can sign up in the back. They will be given three
minutes. If they are speaking for a larger group for a show of hands or an HOA, they will
be given up to ten minutes. After the public comment has concluded the applicant has
opportunity to come back up and rebut or comment on the public testimony and at that
point they will be given ten minutes to do so. After that we will close the public hearing
and, hopefully, deliberate and make recommendations to the City Council.
Item 4: Action Items
A. Public Hearing for Paramount Northeast Assisted Living (H-2015-
0008) by Brighton Investments, LLC Located Southeast Corner of W.
Chinden Boulevard (SH 20/26) and N. Fox Run Way
1. Request: Conditional Use Permit for a 56,543 Square Foot
Residential Care Facility Consisting of 73 Units with a
Maximum of 88 Beds in a C-C Zoning District
Yearsley: So, with that I would like to open public hearing H-15-0008, Paramount
Northeast Assisted Living Center and let's begin with the staff report.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
December 3, 2015
Page 3 of 26
Watters: Thank you, Chairman Yearsley, Members of the Commission. The first
application before you tonight is a request for a conditional use permit. This parcel
consists of 19.5 acres of land. It's primarily zoned C-C and is located at the southeast
corner of West Chinden Boulevard and North Fox Run Way. Adjacent land use and
zoning. To the north is West Chinden Boulevard and rural residential undeveloped and
commercial property, zoned R-1 and MUDA in Ada County respectively. To the west is
agricultural and undeveloped land, zoned C-C. To the south are single family residential
properties in Paramount Subdivision, zoned R-8. And to the east is North Meridian Road
and a church zoned RUT in Ada County. The Comprehensive Plan future land use map
designation for this property is mixed use community. The applicant requests a
conditional use permit for a residential care facility in a C-C zoning district. A single story
56,543 square foot assisted living and memory care facility is proposed that will contain a
maximum of 88 units. The site plan was submitted as shown that depicts how the site is
proposed to develop. Access is proposed from two driveways via North Fox Run. You
can see my pointer here. An existing collector street at the west boundary of the site.
Additional access will be provided when the property to the south and east develops.
Parking is proposed in accord with UDC standards. Landscape street buffers already
exist along Fox Run and Chinden adjacent to this site. A ten foot wide multi-use pathway
is required within the buffer along Chinden. The adjacent landscaping and pathway
requirements along Chinden will be phased with a subdivision that's also in process right
now. Building elevations and a rendering were submitted for the proposed structure as
shown. Building materials consist of hardy panel lap siding, B board and shake shingles
with stone veneer accents. The amended development agreement that was recently
approved for Paramount that includes the subject property does need to be finalized,
being signed, approved by Council and recorded prior to issuance of the certificate of
zoning compliance for this site. Written testimony has been received from Mike Wardle,
the applicant's representative, in agreement with the staff report. Staff is recommending
approval. Staff will stand for any questions.
Yearsley: Thank you. Are there any questions? No? With that would the applicant like
to come forward?
Wardle: Mr. Chairman, Commission Members, Mike Wardle, Brighton Corporation.
12601 West Explorer Drive in Boise. We appreciate the opportunity to be here this
evening and appreciate staff's recommendation for approval. We did submit a
concurrence statement earlier in the week relative to the recommended conditions, but I
just want to -- for clarity to just kind of run through a series of slides to let you see a little
bit more. The area that's still as yet undeveloped was actually annexed and zoned in the
city C-C commercial and TN-C two years ago in 2013 and this is the first phase. We have
submitted, actually, an application for a preliminary plat for the overall area with a first
phase for what we are calling the Paramount Veranda Assisted Living Complex. I would
note that this -- next slide, Sonya, just to focus in a little bit more clearly. This is a project
-- joint venture between Brighton Corporation and the Gardner Company. The accesses
noted here will be shown on a couple of streetscape scenes in just a moment, but it just
shows the -- the site as it is surrounded currently by the fully improved landscape buffer
and berm and a lot of amenities on both Chinden and Fox Run and the site plan, again,
Meridian Planning & Zoning
December 3, 2015
Page 4 of 26
with those two access points. The next slide I believe -- yes. Shows the southerly -- it's
actually already in place. It was anticipated in the future that there would be access to
that particular parcel from this point. This slide and the next, which shows the other
location of the one closer to Chinden. Interestingly when you go on Google in today's --
they have everything up to date in 2015, except the street views. These street views are
actually four years old. So, the landscaping is far more advanced than what it shows now,
but -- or on these slides. The next -- as I mentioned a moment ago, we actually did
submit a -- there will be plat -- preliminary and a final plat coming through the Commission
soon relative to the -- this first phase. We did commit in the City Council action's last
week, as they amended the development agreement to include the specifics of this site,
that we would -- with this so-called first phase complete the ten foot regional pathway
along Chinden and I believe the next two slides -- actually, this is a repeat. I think we can
go past that, Sonya. Again, this is a four year old picture, but the -- the final slide that we
will look at, looking back -- we actually have the -- the bench established for that ten foot
pathway. It's just a matter of putting it in place as part of this project and, then, the
balance of the buffering and the berms along Chinden will occur as adjacent development
comes forward and we anticipate that next year that we will be bringing two projects
forward for Commission review that will complete that entire northeast quadrant of the
Paramount project. So, as stated earlier, we are -- we agree with staff's recommended
conditions of approval and request that the Commission approve the conditional use
permit for this particular use and would be happy to answer your questions.
Yearsley: Are there any questions? No? Thank you.
Wardle: Thank you.
Yearsley: I do not have anybody signed up for this application . Is there any anybody
wishing to testify on this application? So, with no one to testify we don't need to have the
applicant come forward. So, at this point I would entertain a motion to close the public
hearing on five number H-2015-0008.
McCarvel: So moved.
Fitzgerald: Second.
Yearsley: I have a motion and a second to close the public hearing. All in favor sa y aye.
Opposed? Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Yearsley: So, comments?
Oliver: Mr. Chairman?
Yearsley: Commissioner Oliver.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
December 3, 2015
Page 5 of 26
Oliver: At this point I don't see any problem with the particular area where it is and I think
it looks -- the siting and the layout looks appropriate, so I'm in favor of it.
Yearsley: Thank you. Anybody else? I have a tendency to agree. I think it looks good. I
think it's a good location and so I don't have any issues with it either. So --
Fitzgerald: Yeah. Mr. Chair? I think it's -- Brighton has done a great job of bringing
Paramount forward in the way they envisioned it. I think -- I think that staff did a great job
and so I think it looks good.
Yearsley: Okay. So, with that I would entertain a motion.
McCarvel: Mr. Chairman?
Yearsley: Commissioner McCarvel.
McCarvel: After considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move to approve
file number H-2015-0008 as presented in the staff report on the hearing date of December
3rd, 2015. I further move to direct staff to prepare an appropriate findings document to be
considered at the next Planning and Zoning hearing on December 17th, 2015.
Yearsley: Actually, that should be today.
Fitzgerald: Today. Later on in the --
McCarvel: Later on? Okay. Later in the meeting today.
Fitzgerald: Second.
Yearsley: I have a motion and a second to approve file number H-2015-0008. All in favor
say aye. Opposed? Motion carries. Congratulations.
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT.
B. Public Hearing for Culver's (H-2015-0013) by Glenn Walker,
NeuDesign Architecture Located 3494 E. Tecate Lane
1. Request: Conditional Use Permit Approval for a Drive-Thru
Establishment for Culver's Restaurant Within 300 Feet of
Another Drive-Thru Establishment in a C-G Zoning District
Yearsley: Next item on the agenda is the public hearing of file number H-2015-0013 and
it's for Culver's and let's begin with the staff report.
Watters: Thank you, Chairman, Commissioners. The next application is also a
conditional use permit. This site consists of .75 of an acre of land. It's currently zoned
Meridian Planning & Zoning
December 3, 2015
Page 6 of 26
C-G and is located at 3494 East Tecate Lane, east of North Eagle Road on the south side
of East Ustick Road. Adjacent land use and zoning. To the north is East Ustick Road and
a retail store, Lowe's, zoned C-G. To the east is a Les Schwab tire store, also zoned C -G.
To the south is vacant, undeveloped land zoned C-G and a multi-tenant building with a
drive-thru that's currently proposed on the property to the south. The property to the west
is vacant, undeveloped land, zoned C-G. The Comprehensive Plan future land use map
designation for this property is mixed use regional. A conditional use permit is requested
for a drive-thru establishment for Culver's restaurant within 300 feet of another drive-thru
establishment in a C-G zoning district. A site plan was submitted that shows how the site
is proposed to develop with a 4,207 square foot building, drive-thru, and associated
parking. Also shown on the site plan to the -- is the abutting lot to the south where
another drive-thru facility is proposed under a separate conditional use permit. That item
will be heard after this item on the agenda. A blanket cross-access easement exists
between these properties. The design of the proposed drive-thru complies with the
specific use standards for drive-thru establishments. Two accesses are proposed via
East Tecate Lane, an existing private street to the south. You can see my -- my pointer
here that shows the two accesses. Parking is proposed on the site in accord with UDC
standards. A sidewalk exists along Tecate and Ustick Roads. A 35 foot wide landscape
street buffer is required to be installed along Ustick. Elevations were submitted for the
proposed building. Building materials consist of horizontal fiber cement siding with eff ice,
stone veneer accents, and canvas awnings. The p roposed elevations do not match those
previously approved for this development and included in the development agreement,
although these appear to be of higher quality and design. There is a concurrent
development agreement modification application in process that proposes to remove the
requirement for compliance with those elevations and only require design review approval.
Approval of these elevations is contingent upon the development agreement modification
being approved. If the modification is denied revised elevations will need to be submitted
for this project that complies with those in the development agreement. Written testimony
has been received from Glenn Walker, the applicant's representative, in agreement with
the staff report. Staff is recommending approval with one added condition. A 35 foot wide
landscape buffer along Ustick Road is required per UDC Table 11-2B-3 in accord with the
standards listed in UDC 11-3B-7C. Staff will stand for any of questions.
Yearsley: Are there any questions? I just have one. So, this additional condition that you
just stated, we need to actually include that in our motion if we approve this; is that
correct?
Watters: Yes, please. Staff inadvertently left that out. I thought the buffer was already
installed along Ustick.
Yearsley: Okay.
Watters: And it was just a sidewalk.
Yearsley: And that's a 35 foot landscape buffer?
Meridian Planning & Zoning
December 3, 2015
Page 7 of 26
Watters: Yes.
Yearsley: Okay.
Watters: It's an entryway corridor there.
Yearsley: Okay. Any other questions? With that would the applicant like to come
forward? Please state you name and address for the record.
Walker: Glenn Walker. 725 East 2nd Street. That is located in Meridian. Downtown
Meridian. I'm with NeuDesign Architecture. Mr. Chairman, Council Members, I appreciate
you allowing me to come up and present this to you. I really want to thank Sonya for her
hard work on both conditional use permits that we did. We feel that this would be a high
quality -- you know, it's a project that's going to meet the needs of the owner and it brings
a restaurant that's not located here in Boise to the valley and so we do feel it's a good
project and we are here to recommend the Commission approve this conditional use
permit for a drive-thru for the Culver's Restaurant.
Yearsley: Thank you. Are there any questions? I just have one question. With the
additional condition that Sonya has asked for for the 35 foot landscape buffer, I think
you're actually already showing it, but I would just like you to just verify that you're okay
with that condition?
Walker: Yeah. We have plenty of room there for that 35 foot. In fact, even our landscape
architect had already drawn the landscaping for that area, so I think we are already in
compliance.
Yearsley: Okay. Just wanted to make sure we were there on record. Okay.
Oliver: Mr. Chairman?
Yearsley: Commissioner Oliver.
Oliver: If I could ask just one other question. Is there -- Culver is already in Twin Falls?
Walker: Yes.
Oliver: And what style of food is this that you say is --
Walker: It's a fast food restaurant. Yeah. Burgers.
Oliver: Okay. Thank you.
Walker: Uh-huh.
Yearsley: All right.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
December 3, 2015
Page 8 of 26
McCarvel: Mr. Chairman?
Yearsley: Commissioner McCarvel.
McCarvel: I was reading in the notes and it says it hasn't -- the trash enclosure doesn't
meet the requirements of Republic Service. Do you have a plan for --
Walker: Yeah. I actually spoke with Sonya on this and I don't believe she was aware of
this, because I was working with Republic Storage kind of on my own back in the early
stages of this. I sent it to Bob over there at Republic Storage and asked his opinion. He
mentioned some things that I needed to modify and I needed to change. The reason why
I sent it to him is it was behind some parking stalls earlier on and I was a little concerned
about that, but Bob mentioned to me that that was not his concern, because they come in
after hours and pick up the trash. But he was mentioning that we showed two dumpsters
and a recycle bin and at that point he said that's not going to be allowed and so I sent it
back to him with showing only a recycle bin and a trash -- or single and he said that's fine.
So, Bob has already looked at this and has already approved this.
McCarvel: Okay.
Walker: I probably did not mention that to Sonya.
Yearsley: Any other questions? Thank you.
Walker: Thank you.
Yearsley: Again on this application I do not have anybody signed up to testify for this
application. Is there anybody wanting to testify on this application? So, with that we don't
need to have the applicant come forward, so I would entertain a motion to close the public
hearing on file number H-2015-0013.
Fitzgerald: Mr. Chairman, so moved.
McCarvel: Second.
Yearsley: I have a motion and a second to close the public hearing. All in favor say aye.
Opposed? Motion carried.
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Yearsley: Any comments?
McCarvel: Mr. Chairman?
Yearsley: Commissioner McCarvel.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
December 3, 2015
Page 9 of 26
McCarvel: I think it looks like a great addition to that space, something we don't have here
already and it looks like they have done a really nice job on the elevations and the drive -
thru looks sufficient to handle their traffic.
Yearsley: Thank you.
Oliver: Mr. Chairman?
Yearsley: Commissioner Oliver.
Oliver: As mentioned I did see one of these down in Twin Falls and they are very
attractive from the road. I have never eaten at one, but they look nice and I think it makes
a good addition to the restaurants that are all right there around that area and the growth
that's happening. So, I think it's a good project.
Yearsley: Thank you. And I agree. I think it looks good. I don't -- I don't see an issue
with the -- the drive-thru. I think they have enough storage and enough capacity with the
escape lane, so I think it good. So, with that I would entertain a motion, just remembering
who makes sure -- whoever does that if we agree to this to make sure we add the
condition for the 35 foot landscape buffer.
McCarvel: Mr. Chairman?
Yearsley: Commissioner McCarvel.
McCarvel: After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to approve
file number H-2015-0013 as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of December
3rd, 2015, with the addition of a 35 foot landscape buffer along Ustick as suggested by
staff. I further move to direct staff to prepare appropriate findings document to be
considered at the next Planning and Zoning Commission hearing on December 17th,
provided the City Council approves H-2015-0016 on December 15th, 2015.
Fitzgerald: Second.
Yearsley: I have a motion and a second to approve the public hearing on file number
H-2015-0013. All in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carried.
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT.
C. Public Hearing for Una Mas Drive-Through (H-2015-0020) by
Glenn Walker, NeuDesign Architecture Located 3490 E. Tecate Lane
1. Request: Conditional Use Permit Approval for a Drive-Thru
Establishment Within 300 Feet of Another Drive-Thru
Establishment in a C-G Zoning District
Meridian Planning & Zoning
December 3, 2015
Page 10 of 26
Yearsley: Next item on the list is the -- I will open the public hearing for file number
H-2015-0020. It's Una Mas drive-thru and let's begin with the staff report.
Watters: Thank you, Chairman, Commissioners. The next application is also a
conditional use permit. This site consists of .76 of an acre of land, zoned C-G, located at
3490 East Tecate Lane. The Comprehensive Plan future land use map designation is
mixed use regional. A conditional use permit is requested for a drive-thru establishment
within 300 feet of another drive-thru establishment in a C-G zoning district. This is the site
that is just directly to the south of the previous project that was shown on that site plan.
The original site plan submitted with this application, in staff's opinion, did not comply with
the specific use standards for drive-thru establishments in regard to the sufficiency of the
stacking lane. The plan only accommodated three cars in the drive-thru. Stacking
beyond that number would block the drive aisle and affect circulation within the site. The
staff report issued last week included a recommendation of denial from staff for the
proposed drive-thru. Since that time the applicant has submitted a revised site plan that
addresses staff's concerns. The staff report has been revised to include a new site plan
and you should have that before you. A site plan was submitted that depicts how the site
is supposed to develop with a 3,097 square foot building with two tenant spaces and
associated parking. A dry cleaning business with a drive-thru will take up 1,706 square
space on the west end of the building, with a 1,309 square foot space for a future tenant
on the east end of the building. Two accesses are proposed via East Tecate Lane, and
existing private street on the south boundary. A cross -access exists between this
property and the property to the north. Parking is proposed on the site in accord with
UDC standards. A sidewalk exists along East Tecate Lane. The design of the proposed
drive-thru, as shown on the revised plan that's before you, does comply with the specific
use standards for drive-thru establishments. Building elevations were not submitted for
this application. And the future building is required to comply with design standards.
Written testimony was received from Glenn Walker in agreement with the staff report.
Staff is recommending approval per the revised staff report. Staff will stand for any
questions.
Yearsley: Are there any questions? Okay. Would the applicant like to come forward?
Again, please, state your name and address for the record.
Walker: Sure. Glenn Walker at 725 East 2nd Street, Meridian. Mr. Chairman, Council
Members, again, I want to thank you for allowing me to come here and present the
project. But I truly want to say thanks to Sonya. This one was a little more challenging
due to the fact that the first proposed site that we submitted was denied. So, we did some
scrambling and some last minute changes to the site, several e-mails back and forth to
Sonya. I think we came up with a good solution to work out the drive-thru, which will allow
several more cars to be able to be in the stacking lane of the drive thru. This project is not
designed to a point where we could show elevations. However, we worked on the dry
cleaner on the site where Culver's were located and even through all of the conditional
use -- at that time went through a conditional use, even went to a design review and even
to -- and received zoning compliance. But I can assure you that this building will look very
Meridian Planning & Zoning
December 3, 2015
Page 11 of 26
nice. In fact, it's probably going to be the same similar look that we proposed about a year
and a half ago, because it's the same owner, so he's probably going to be using the same
look to this building. In the staff report we went through it , agree to the staff report's
findings. There was one thing that was brought up that Republic Services made a
comment on the trash enclosure that they felt that that did not work. That was a last
minute item that I saw just this evening right before we came here. Talked with Sonya. I
believe we have room to kind of shift it, rotate it. That is something that we would need to
work with Republic Services on that, but I do believe very confidently that we can get that
worked out. Other than that that's really it.
Yearsley: Are there any questions? Okay. Thank you.
Walker: Thank you.
Yearsley: Yes.
Fitzgerald: Sonya, can you ask -- or answer a question for me? So, the design guidelines
that were on the other location, do they carry over to this location as well or is there a
design guideline within the development agreement that were originally on this whole
property or is -- how does that break down?
Watters: Chairman, Commissioner Fitzgerald, are you referring to the building elevations
or the specific use standards for a drive-thru establishment or --
Fitzgerald: I guess the design standards for external on design review components.
Because you said it was -- it impacted the other property that was just approved. Does
that carry over to this property as well? Is there a development agreement with design
standards that cover this area as well or is -- does that bring something back?
Watters: Yes. The reason I didn't mention on this building is because they did not
propose elevations at this time. So, when they do come forward with elevations they will
be required to comply with the development agreement that's in effect and the design
standards.
Fitzgerald: Okay. Perfect. Thank you, ma'am.
Watters: And if you guys are interested and didn't see a copy of the previous site plan,
the original site plan that they proposed is -- this is what it looks like. As you can see
there is a great improvement between the two.
Yearsley: Thank you. I don't have anybody signed up to testify on this one as well. Is
there anybody wanting to testify on this application? With no one wanting to testify, I
would entertain a motion to close the public hearing on file number H -2015-0020.
McCarvel: So moved.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
December 3, 2015
Page 12 of 26
Fitzgerald: Second.
Yearsley: I have a motion and a second to close the public hearing. All in favor say aye.
Opposed? Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Yearsley: So, I guess on this -- given it's such a late time frame, are we comfortable
moving this forward? Do we want to try to continue this to next week and make sure that
the Republic Storage issue is taken care of or are we comfortable with staff -- personally
are you looking at it -- it's a major improvement over the -- the other -- the original drive-
thru configuration and at this point I'm comfortable with staff making sure the trash
enclosure meets Republic Storage. So, I would be interested to hear what everybody's
comments or thoughts are.
McCarvel: Yeah. Mr. Chairman?
Yearsley: Commissioner McCarvel.
McCarvel: I think just, yeah, flipping those and having just that -- those fewer cars allowed
in a drive-thru, especially at a dry cleaners, it's not like you're going to have a big lunch
rush there as you would with a fast food establishment. I think the way they have flipped it
is sufficient for our discussion tonight.
Yearsley: Okay. Thank you.
Fitzgerald: Mr. Chairman?
Yearsley: Commissioner Fitzgerald.
Fitzgerald: I would agree. I think we trust city staff to make sure we are -- we are within
the code for the trash enclosure and that it meets Republic Services requirements. I think
the improvements were needed and they did a good job of working that out and so I thin k
it looks good. I think the impact will be significantly less than Culver's or another fast food
establishment, as Commissioner McCarvel had mentioned, and so I feel comfortable
moving forward.
Yearsley: Okay. Thank you.
Oliver: Mr. Chairman?
Yearsley: Commissioner Oliver.
Oliver: I just felt a little uncomfortable knowing that it was kind of a last minute change,
but, again, I agree with the other Commissioners that if the staff feels comfortable with the
changes and it meets what -- the standards that they have to meet, I'm in agreement, so --
Meridian Planning & Zoning
December 3, 2015
Page 13 of 26
Yearsley: Thank you. So, I guess if there is no other comments or concerns, I would
entertain a motion on this public hearing.
McCarvel: Mr. Chairman?
Yearsley: Commissioner McCarvel.
McCarvel: After considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move to approve
file number H-2015-0013, as presented in the revised staff report for the hearing date of
December 3rd, 2015. I further move to direct staff to prepare an appropriate findings
document to be considered at the next Planning and Zoning Commission hearing on
December 17th, provided that City Council approves H-2015-0016 on December 15th,
2015.
Oliver: Second.
Yearsley: I have a motion and a second to approve the public hearing -- or public -- yeah.
Fitzgerald: One question, Mr. Chairman.
Yearsley: Yes.
Fitzgerald: So, we said one three and it says two zero.
Yearsley: Two oh. Okay.
Fitzgerald: I wanted to make sure, just for clarification. At the top it says two zero and
down here it says thirteen. So, I just wanted to make sure we ar e -- we are approving the
right one.
McCarvel: Yeah. Let's do two zero.
Yearsley: Okay. So, do we have --
McCarvel: I thought that sounded odd when I said it.
Yearsley: Second again. All right. Well, we have a motion and a second to approve file
number H-2015-0020. All in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries. Thank you.
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT.
D. Public Hearing for Settlers Square Subdivision (H-2015-0014) by
Seagle Three, LLC Located Near the Norwest Corner of W. Ustick
Road and N. Venable Ave
Meridian Planning & Zoning
December 3, 2015
Page 14 of 26
1. Request: Preliminary Plat Approval Consisting of Twelve (12)
Commercial Lots and Two (2) Common Lots on Approximately
9.001 Acres in the C-C Zoning District
Yearsley: All right. Next item on the agenda is a public hearing for file number H-2015-
0014 for Settlers Square Subdivision and let's begin with the staff report.
Beach: Thank you, Chair, Commissioners. This is a -- an application for a preliminary
plat. The site consists of 9.001 acre. Currently zoned C-C or Community Commercial
and is located at the northwest corner of Ustick Road and Venable Avenue. The s ubject
site is surrounded by residential subdivisions located on the north and south sides of the
proposed development, which are both zoned. A commercial development is located east
of the subject site with a gas-convenience store and a mix of office uses, which is zoned
C-N. A little history. In 2008 the property was granted annexation and approved by the
City Council with a C-C zoning district for Settlers Square Subdivision. A development
agreement was approved with the annexation. A preliminary plat was also approved
concurrently and consisted of 12 commercial lots and two common lots on 9.001 acres.
The preliminary plat expired in 2010, but the development agreement for the property
does not expire and is still in effect. In the development agreement that was signed in
2008 the applicant was granted direct access to Ustick Road. Due to policy changes at
ACHD the applicant is no longer allowed to have direct access to Ustick Road. However,
city staff and ACHD are supportive of a temporary access to Ustick Road until such time
as the property to the west develops with an access to Ustick Road that aligns with north
of Blairmore Way, which if you look at the site plan here, this is where the -- the road
would be constructed to stub with the property here. The Comprehensive Plan future land
use map designation for the property is mixed use community. The applicant requests a
preliminary plat approval consisting of 12 commercial lots on 9.001 acres of land in the
community commercial zoning district. There are no minimum setbacks, lot sizes or street
frontage requirements for lots in a C-C zone. The maximum building height allowed in the
zone is 50 feet. Future buildings proposed on the subject lot shall meet the minimum
dimension standards listed in the UDC. In the development agreement that was signed in
2008 the applicant was granted direct access to Ustick Road, as I mentioned, and ACHD
has agreed to temporary access. The access shall be removed at such time as that road
to the west is developed. The site consists of shared -- shared cross-access easements
here to the north to Buckstone Lane, to Venable, and, like I said, a temporary access here
on Ustick. These are proposed for a private drive. In the previous approval for this site in
2007 ACHD granted -- sometimes they require a turnaround. Because of the public and
private connection here ACHD is not requiring that, similar to the -- as they approved it
back in 2007. So, as the preliminary plat shows two shared driveways into the
development, there is a missing north-south public stub street to this property of the north
property line, as I mentioned here, Buckstone Lane or Buckstone Avenue. This street is
located 330 feet west of Venable. The applicant is proposing to provide access to the site
through the extension of Buckstone, with an access easement driveway. The proposed
shared driveway will run from the existing stub of Buckstone all the way down to Ustick
Road on the south boundary of the site. The p roposed east-west driveway -- private
driveway aligns with the existing commercial development to the east across Venable and
Meridian Planning & Zoning
December 3, 2015
Page 15 of 26
should stub to the western boundary of the site for future connectivity. Submitted concept
and landscape plans do not show this driveway extending all the way to the west
boundary. Further, the cross-access easement will need to be provided to the property to
the west and that is the staff report that staff has submitted. On the revised preliminary
plat there was a note that states the proposed access to Ustick is temporary. The draft
staff report for ACHD also requires the applicant to enter into a development agreement
with ACHD for the temporary access to Ustick Road and provide a financial surety for the
closure of the driveway. The buffer to the existing proposed residential land uses to the
north and west from future commercial uses on the site, a minimum of 25 foot wide
landscape buffer should be installed. According to the UDC, the submitted landscape
plan indicates a 25 foot wide landscape buffer adjacent to the residential subdivision to
the north and a 20 foot buffer along the western property boundary. The applicant is to
provide an additional five feet of landscaping to the west property and construct material
in accordance with the UDC and seek a waiver from City Council. We rec eived written
testimony from Mac Myers, who works for the Settlers Irrigation District and from the
applicant Lance Warnick. Staff will stand for -- or staff is recommending approval and will
stand for any questions you may have.
Yearsley: Are there any questions? With that would the applicant like to come forward?
Please state your name and address for the record.
Warnick: Thank you very much. For the record my name is Lance Warnick. I'm a
professional engineer with Aspen Engineers, business address is 485 West Main, Suite B
in Kuna. 83634. Here tonight on behalf of the Seagle Three, LLC, to ask your approval of
this preliminary plat. I appreciate the work that Josh and Bill have worked with us on this
project. Bill has history on this clear back to 2007 and as Josh stated, we had had a plat
approval on this property and it expired just due to the slow down in the economy, so we
are trying to get that back into place. The initial application we submitted to the city
showing a preliminary plat that was identical, essentially, to the previous one, but, as Josh
said, due to some ACHD policy changes they asked us to eliminate the public roads we
have interior on the project and to use these private service drives and also to just have
the driveway accessing Ustick as temporary, with the condition that we remove it when we
are granted access on the west side. We are agreeable to all these conditions and ask for
your recommendation tonight for the Council to -- of approval of the preliminary plat. With
that I would stand for any questions.
Yearsley: Thank you. Are there any questions? All right.
Warnick: Thank you.
Yearsley: Thank you. I don't have anybody else signed up to testify on this application.
Is there anybody wanting to testify? So, I guess with that we don't need to have the
application come back up on this one and so I would entertain a motion to close the public
hearing on file number H-2015-0014.
McCarvel: So moved.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
December 3, 2015
Page 16 of 26
Fitzgerald: Second.
Yearsley: I have a motion and a second to close the public hearing. All in favor say aye.
Opposed? Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Yearsley: Any thoughts on this one?
McCarvel: Mr. Chairman?
Yearsley: Commissioner McCarvel.
McCarvel: I think it looks just fine. It looks like they have just brought everything up to
current code. I don't see any problem with it.
Yearsley: Thank you.
Fitzgerald: Mr. Chairman?
Yearsley: Commissioner Fitzgerald.
Fitzgerald: I would agree, yeah, I think it looks fine. It's a -- a return to what we said in the
past during the slow down. I understand that that's -- I think the removal of the Ustick
access is interesting, but I understand where the temporary component comes in and I
think that I applaud the staff and the applicant for working together with ACHD to make it
happen. So, I think I'm good in that regard.
Yearsley: Thank you.
Oliver: Mr. Chairman?
Yearsley: Commissioner Oliver.
Oliver: I just had one question to ask staff if I could. At that point where that is going to
be or will probably be is currently a two lane road on Ustick?
Beach: I believe there is concurrent some widening procedures.
Oliver: Will be happening in the future?
Beach: I believe next -- next year. Soon.
Oliver: Okay.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
December 3, 2015
Page 17 of 26
Beach: So, the applicant -- or the property owner has sold some right of way to ACHD to
facilitate that.
Oliver: That would be my concern as far as opening up that much land is to -- if you have
driven down Ustick you know that that particular area is very difficult to go down and
without having a private lane road in that section I wouldn't approve that, you know,
because to me that would -- that makes it even tougher to get to that section. I know that
they have approved it through Locust Grove -- up to Locust Grove and Ustick. But I was
wondering if there would be -- at the same time it could concurrently happen to where they
would open up --
Beach: I'm not a hundred percent sure on the time frame for -- on widening that section,
but we had a meeting with ACHD, staff, the applicant , and ACHD and had some
discussions on specifically the access to Ustick Road and whether or not they would be
agreeable to a temporary access and ACHD determined that they would be, as along as
they were agreeable to having it temporary and closing it and moving access to the -- a
road that's not yet constructed on the west boundary.
Yearsley: And I think, according to ACHD, they were already planning a five lane there
and as they developed this phase they requested the right of way for the five lanes prior to
construction and so they are -- they are designing their -- their -- basically their frontage to
be back far enough to accomplish that five lanes, so --
Parsons: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, the applicant just brought up
ACHD's draft staff report and it looks like they are p lanning on widening that in calendar
year 2017. A couple years out.
Oliver: It kind of runs right along with what they are doing.
Parsons: I don't want to give you a lot of the history on the access, but when this property
-- since I did originally work on it back in 2007 with the city, originally when the applicant
came through, as Josh mentioned, that development agreement ties them to a specific
concept plan and a layout and that access was part of that. When the applicant met with
us at our pre-application meeting they were told that the city would have to allow them that
access, but ACHD didn't and so that's what facilitated the meeting between the city and
ACHD and the applicant. So, I do want to applaud the applicant for working with the city,
because, really, as you know with commercial development, access is everything to them
and so for them to even come to the table and enter into a temporary access for that point
until -- until another access point is provided for them, I think that is a win for all three
parties, not only the city and ACHD, but also the applicant. So, some of that history going
through again -- we didn't want to pit the city's requirements against ACHD, so the
applicant stepped up, was willing to work with us and give us a temporary -- at least
accept that as a temporary access, so that they could at least get this development
moving forward, get some tenants in there and, then, understandably they would have to
close that at some point. I would mention to you that one of the conditions in the staff
report does require the applicant to seek a development agreement modification from City
Meridian Planning & Zoning
December 3, 2015
Page 18 of 26
Council and providing us a revised concept plan showing the closure of that access point.
So, ACHD has the same requirement, they want money up front. They want some
assurances that that's going to be closed. The city does, too. So, certainly we have
conditions in place to make sure that that happens and that whatever happens, whether
that drive aisle or whatever it is, has to be inte grated back into the proposed development,
either through parking, seating area, plaza, who knows what it could be. We will get those
details once the applicant comes forward with that DA modification application.
Oliver: Thank you very much.
Yearsley: Thank you. So, I'm in agreement as well. I think it looks good. It fits the area.
So, with that I would entertain a motion.
McCarvel: Mr. Chairman?
Yearsley: Commissioner McCarvel.
McCarvel: After considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, move to recommend
approval to the City Council of file numbers H-2015-0014 as presented in the staff report
for the hearing date of December 3rd, 2015.
Fitzgerald: Second.
Yearsley: I have a motion and a second to approve the public hearing on file number H-
2015-0014. All in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT.
E. Public Hearing for Falconers Place Subdivision (H-2015-0015) by
Summit Equity, LLC Located East Side of Eagle Road, South of
Victory Road
1. Request: Preliminary Plat Approval Consisting of Twenty-
Three (23) Single-Family Residential Lots and Six (6) Common
Lots on Approximately 4.69 Acres in the R-8 Zoning District
Yearsley: All right. Next one on the list is the -- opening the public hearing on file number
H-2015-0015, Falconers Place Subdivision and let's begin with the staff report.
Beach: Very good, Chair, Commissioners. This is an application for a preliminary plat
and for development agreement modification. This site consists of 4.69 acres of land. It's
currently zoned R-8 and is located on the east side of Eagle Road, south of Victory Road.
To the north are single family residential properties in the Golden Eagle Estates
Subdivision, which is part of Ada County, zoned RUT. So, if you follow my pointer that's
this property here. East is a single family residential property in the Accommodation
Subdivision, which is zoned R-4. Single family -- the south single residential properties
Meridian Planning & Zoning
December 3, 2015
Page 19 of 26
has not been platted and is one part of the Dartmoor Subdivision. Both are located in
unincorporated Ada County, zoned RUT, which is these properties here. And to the west
is the Sobe Subdivision, recently approved this year, which is zoned R-15. The property
again has some substantial history. In 2005 City Council approved an annexation,
preliminary plat and a conditional use permit to construct and operate an assisted living
facility, comprised of five individual facilities on the property as part of the anne xation
approval. The developer and the city entered into a development agreement, recorded
under instrument number 105152708, under which the property was tied to an assisted
living facility, which is why the applicant is coming forward with the development
modification. In 2008 City Council approved a new preliminary plat and conditional use
permit for the same use on the property. However, the developer at the time failed to
submit the time extension application or record the plat and establish the use on the site
within the time limits of the UDC. Currently the recorded DA restricts the use of the
property, as I said, to the assisted living facility. In 2013 City Council denied a new
preliminary plat and development agreement modification to construct 36 condominium
units in two buildings. Council denied the application, because the changes, quote, are
not improvements or the contemplated use of the subject property. City Council elected
not to deviate from specific use as an assisted living facility as approved in the conditions
governing development of the subject property as outlined in the existing development
agreement, dated September 27th, 2005. The Comprehensive Plan future land use map
designation is low density residential. The proposed plat consists of 23 building lots and
six common lots on 4.69 acres of land. The R-8 zoning district exists with a step up in
density that is allowed for -- within the bounds of the Comprehensive Plan. This works for
the proposed development. The gross density for the subdivision is 4.9 dwelling units per
acre and with the request of the step up in density from a low density residential to
medium residential, is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. And the minimum lot size
proposed is 4,004 square feet, with an average lot size of 5,717 square feet. As drawn
the 4,000 square foot lots would require attached homes. However, the city is in the
process of modifying the UDC to reduce the dimension standards within an R-8 district to
allow for detached single family homes, but that would -- but for the final plat the applicant
would be tied to whichever code was in effect at the time. There is an existing single
family home on the site that will remain and become part of the proposed Falconers Place
Subdivision. The existing home will be connected to city utilities at the time of final plat
approval. Development of this site is required to comply with the dimension standards
listed in the UDC. Staff has reviewed the proposed plat and found it to be in compliance
with the R-8 dimensional standards. Access to the development will be provided from
East Falcon Place Drive, which is the road here. It's an existing local street. The existing
single family residence on the proposed Lot 29, Block 1, which is this home here, will
continue to take access from this roadway, as well as the future residence on the
proposed Lot 4, Block 1, which is this lot here. The remainder of the development will
take access from the extension of South Falconers Place and staff is supportive of the
public street access proposed for the development. There are two common drives
proposed. The applicant is proposing Lot 16 through 19 and Lots 21 through 23 of Block
1 to take access from a single common driveway. Per UDC, common driveways shall
serve a maximum of six dwelling units. So, one of the conditions in the staff report was
that the applicant reconfigure these lots here to take access from the cul-de-sac and not
Meridian Planning & Zoning
December 3, 2015
Page 20 of 26
from the private drive, because that would result in greater than six. Sidewalks are
required along all public streets, as set forth in the UDC, and the applicant proposes to
construct a five foot wide detached sidewalk along West Falcon Drive, including in front of
the existing home. So, extend this sidewalk here, as well as along the proposed South
Falconers Place. Because the plat is under five acres minimum, the UDC does not
require compliance with the common open space and site amenity standards set forth in
the UDC. However, the applicant is proposing to co nstruct a micropath -- it's kind of
difficult to see, but this micropath here was all on the common driveway and connected to
an existing pathway in the Accommodation Subdivision just to the east. The o nly required
landscaping for the development is the 25 foot wide landscape buffer adjacent to Eagle
Road. The landscape plan as submitted provides the required 25 foot wide landscape
buffer in accord with the UDC and the City of Meridian requires that pressurized irrigation
systems be supplied by a year around source of water. The applicant shall be required to
utilize any existing surface or well water for the primary -- as the primary source. If a
surface or well source is not available, a single point connection to the culinary water
system shall be required. The owner is, in fact, requesting the use of domestic water to
serve as the primary water source for the proposed development with irrigation water.
The applicant states that the use of surface water from Nampa -Meridian is not feasible
and surface delivery to his property is on a ten day rotation and cannot provide adequate
water. The building elevation depicts a mix of building materials, lap siding, and cedar
shake siding, decorative window or door trim, decorative corbels, covered entries and
stone wainscot consistent with the surrounding development. Staff is of the opinion the
future single family homes will compliment the existing homes in the area and
demonstrate high quality materials. Because lots on -- lots on -- homes on lots that back
up to South Eagle Road, as well as West Falcon Drive will be highly visible, staff
recommends that the sides of any structures that face the public street on these lots
incorporate articulation and changes in material, color, modulation and architectural
elements to break up monotonous wall plains and roof lines. Written testimony was
received by Laren Bailey, the applicant, and st aff is recommending approval. Stand for
any questions.
Yearsley: Are there any questions?
Fitzgerald: Mr. Chairman?
Yearsley: Commissioner McCarvel -- or Fitzgerald.
Fitzgerald: Josh, so the irrigation issue, there is -- so, did we get feedback from Nampa-
Meridian Irrigation of whether that -- what their statement was?
Beach: They have not provided a letter to the -- they will need to and that's something
that can be approved by City Council to access the culinary system for irrigation. So,
that's one of the requirements in the staff report is that they -- they demonstrate that they
are not able to do that by providing that letter.
Fitzgerald: Okay. Thank you.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
December 3, 2015
Page 21 of 26
Yearsley: Any other questions?
McCarvel: Mr. Chairman?
Yearsley: Commissioner McCarvel.
McCarvel: Just for my own personal -- I have not ever lived in this valley where there is
not water supply to pressurized irrigation, so if they are not paying Nampa-Meridian
Irrigation, does it cost them -- each house use of city --
Beach: Theoretically it would be more expensive.
McCarvel: City water would be very expensive. Okay.
Yearsley: And also I believe that this is still part of the Nampa-Meridian Irrigation, so they
still have to pay irrigation tax whether they get water or not and so more than likely. But
that's probably between the irrigation company and the homeowners.
McCarvel: Thirty-five bucks a year is going to be the least of their worries.
Yearsley: Yeah.
Fitzgerald: Mr. Chairman, could I ask one more question?
Yearsley: Absolutely.
Fitzgerald: Josh, the -- on Falcon Drive is that an improved sidewalk on the road at all
right now or is it just a rural street?
Beach: I don't believe there is sidewalk on the road currently.
Fitzgerald: Okay. Thank you.
Yearsley: It is a rural street. I drive by it every day, so -- I guess with no more questions,
would the applicant like to come forward? Please state your name and address for the
record.
Bailey: Good evening, Commissioners. My name is Laren Bailey. My address is 30
South Lemhi Drive, Nampa, Idaho. 83651. I'd like to thank you for hearing our application
tonight. And, again, thank staff for their help. We have -- it's been kind of a long road on
this project. Just wanted to answer a couple of the questions that maybe came up. One
of the things about the irrigation, we have talked to Nampa-Meridian, we have talked to
some of the neighbors and this is the end of the line, so to speak, on this delivery and the
problem is it's not that water can't get there, it's that the duration between rotation to get
the water doesn't -- wouldn't work for a pressurized irrigation system. It would be pretty
Meridian Planning & Zoning
December 3, 2015
Page 22 of 26
hard to only water your lawn every ten to 12 days. So, that's why we are asking for some
relief from that. The other issue is this site is rather small and there is not really room to
put a pond or something to store water in between those times and so that's why we are --
we are asking for that. Let's see. One of the items in the staff report that I don't think was
brought up -- I do want to point out we agree with the recommendations from staff. One of
them was on fencing and we do plan to provide perimeter fencing similar to the
neighboring developments. The other thing I want to point out is the existing home that
needs water and sewer supplied to it -- we have actually already brought a sewer line up
to the property line that came -- the Accommodation Sub to the east, when -- they needed
to come through our property with their sewer to get to Eagle Road, so they worked with
the owner to develop an easement and actually stubbed in a sewer service for that
existing home already. It's not connected to the home, but it's to the property line and,
then, water is available on West Falcon Drive. So, that will be fairly easy to connect them.
The other item that came up -- staff mentioned that we were going to -- we were
proposing separated sidewalk on West Falcon Drive. That is originally what we proposed.
The Accommodation Subdivision actually constructed attached sidewalk, so I don't know
that we care one way or the other, but we would propose actually to do attached, just so
it's consistent. But that's -- that would be up for your recommendation. With that I will
stand for any questions.
Yearsley: Are there any questions? So, I had one. I believe in the condition even though
there is not surface water that you provide a secondary line, like an irrigation line, so if
water did become available at a future date. Are you proposing not to install a secondary
water system for irrigation? I don't know if I heard that right or not. In the condition I
thought it said that there should be a single point connection for the irrigation system,
which I'm assuming is a separate irrigation line connected to city water at a single point.
Parsons: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, certainly our preference is that
they take -- take advantage of the surface water delivery. That's your first point. And,
then, your second would be domestic water. That's what we require. In this particular
case if the applicant is successful in obtaining the use of city water there wouldn't be dry
lines put in for him to take advantage of a secondary connection, he would only have the
one point connection, which would be the city water. That's all they would ever have ou t
there. So, no, I don't believe there is a condition that says put in --
Yearsley: Okay.
Parson: -- dry lines in case water becomes available. That's the intent behind that.
Yearsley: All right. I just wanted to make sure I understood that, so -- okay. I didn't -- that
was my only question. Any other questions? Thank you.
Bailey: All right. Thanks.
Yearsley: I do have one person signed up for this one is Bob Aldridge. If he would like to,
please, come forward. And, please, state your name and address for the record.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
December 3, 2015
Page 23 of 26
Aldridge: My name is Bob Aldridge and my address 3300 Falcon Drive. I'm the house
immediately to the north across Falcon. We have been working on this literally with
Darrell Max and so forth since 2005 or so. The last time around with the proposal we
were totally opposed to that. Since that they have worked into single family dwellings and
we think that that's a great improvement. ACHD is totally unprepared on what they are
going to do with that section of Eagle Road, it's so horrendous, d ifficult, and dangerous.
They are going to have to come to grips with that. On the situation with the irrigation I
think I can clarify that. I have been running that system since 1983. If you look clear up
on Victory Road up -- it would be further to the right on what now is the Carmel
Subdivision, that's the diversion point and I will admit to spending way too much money to
convert over to pressurized irrigation, but that's the only site that's available and -- and my
pump is going to be putting out 220 gallons of water per minute probably every two weeks
or so. There is simply no way to get that from there to here. You just can't do it. And that
is the end of the line. My pump is literally a hole in the ground off of the main lateral there.
So, there is no way to flow through and there is going to be some work, obviously, for the
corner there. You have had that before you as well coming in on a commercial
development. I'm concerned on what they do as well on that situation. In any event, it's
certainly not my dream of what I want to have across the road, but vastly better than what
we had before and I think that given the realistic state of affairs this is what is going to be
there. It's going to provide much better accommodations than we had with the multi-family
dwellings that were there. So, I think with that I think this is going to solve a number of
problems. We have had the single family house sitting there going through a resolving
door of people because it's not a legal split and that's caused some real problems and it
will solve that and I think they would prefer to have that problem solved as well. So, I
would be happy to answer any questions.
Yearsley: Are there any questions? Thank you.
Aldridge: Thank you.
Yearsley: Is there anybody else that would like to testify on this application? I guess
based on that question does the applicant want to come forward or does he need to come
forward? He's shaking his head no. So, at this point if there is -- barring any other
questions, I would entertain a motion to close the public hearing on file number H-2015-
0015.
McCarvel: So moved.
Fitzgerald: Second.
Yearsley: I have a motion and a second to close the public hearing. All in favor say aye.
Opposed: Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
December 3, 2015
Page 24 of 26
Yearsley: Comments? Thoughts?
McCarvel: Mr. Chairman?
Yearsley: Commissioner McCarvel.
McCarvel: I think it looks like a good transition from what's around it. The single dwelling
homes verses apartments, I mean if it's got to be something else. I think the assisted
living was a nice thought there, I mean just -- I'm still wondering about the burden that is
going to be on these homeowners with having to water their yards in a desert with city
water. A commercial -- somewhat commercial use might have been better that -- for that
reason, but I think the R-8 and the -- the homes looks like, even with the shared driveways
I think it looks okay.
Yearsley: Thank you.
Oliver: Mr. Chairman?
Yearsley: Commissioner Oliver.
Oliver: I like the idea as well. I know the lots are small and I would much rather see them
detached than attached, so I appreciate staff working on that to get that to that point
where they are a little bit nicer looking home . Also I want to appreciate Mr. Aldridge for
coming up and sharing his feelings about it. It helped me to understand a little bit more
about what you're dealing with out there, so I appreciate that. Other than that I think it
looks all right.
Yearsley: Thank you.
Fitzgerald: Mr. Chairman?
Yearsley: Commissioner Fitzgerald.
Fitzgerald: I would agree. I think -- I very much appreciate Mr. Aldridge coming and
giving us his thoughts, so I think that helps the thing that impacts him greatly and he has
worked on this for a number of years. The applicant has a right to -- or the owner has a
right to develop with the buyer beware with the water situation. I think it's -- that's a rough
gig, but if that's the direction they want to go I think that's their right and I think it's a good
project, I think the applicant and Mr. Bailey should be commended for working through it.
So, I am in agreement with the commissioners.
Yearsley: Thank you. Actually, I was on the Commission when we recommended denial
of the apartments and I do believe that this is a step up from that previous application. I
do understand the issue with the irrigation and the -- and the lots sizes are small enough
that hopefully it won't be as big a burden, so -- but I do agree with the buyer beware and
so -- but I do like it. I was a little concerned that some of the -- the private driveways, but
Meridian Planning & Zoning
December 3, 2015
Page 25 of 26
they meet conditions and are allowed, so -- so I'm in favor for it. With that I would
entertain a motion.
McCarvel: Mr. Chairman?
Yearsley: Commissioner McCarvel.
McCarvel: After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to
recommend approval for file number H-2015-0015 as presented in the staff report for the
hearing date of December 3rd, 2015.
Fitzgerald: Second.
Yearsley: I have a motion and a second to approve file number H-2015-0015. All in favor
say aye. Opposed? Motion carries. Congratulations.
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT.
F. Amended onto Agenda –Findings of Fact and Conclusions of
Law for Approval: Paramount Northeast Assisted Living H-2015-
008 Conditional Use Permit for a 56,543 Square Foot Residential
Care Facility Consisting of 73 Units with a Maximum of 88 Beds in a
C-C Zoning District
Yearsley: So, next item on the agenda is the approval of the Findings of Fact and
Conclusion of Law for Paramount Northeast Assisted Living Center, file number 2015-
0008, if I'm not correct. It's an approval. So, could I get a motion to approve the Findings
of Fact and Conclusion of Law.
Fitzgerald: So moved.
McCarvel: Second.
Yearsley: I have a motion and a second to approve the Findings of Fact and Conclusion
of Law for file number 2015-0008. All in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Yearsley: Made it through. One last --
Fitzgerald: Mr. Chairman?
Yearsley: Commissioner Fitzgerald.
Fitzgerald: I would move for adjournment, even though I should let Commissioner
McCarvel continue her motions.
Pl
a
n
n
i
n
g
&
Z
o
n
i
n
g
Pl
a
n
n
i
n
g
&
Z
o
n
i
n
g
Pl
a
n
n
i
n
g
&
Z
o
n
i
n
g
Pl
a
n
n
i
n
g
&
Z
o
n
i
n
g
Co
m
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
M
e
e
t
i
n
g
Co
m
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
M
e
e
t
i
n
g
Co
m
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
M
e
e
t
i
n
g
Co
m
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
M
e
e
t
i
n
g
De
c
e
m
b
e
r
3
,
2
0
1
5
De
c
e
m
b
e
r
3
,
2
0
1
5
De
c
e
m
b
e
r
3
,
2
0
1
5
De
c
e
m
b
e
r
3
,
2
0
1
5
It
e
m
#
4
A
:
P
a
r
a
m
o
u
n
t
N
o
r
t
h
e
a
s
t
A
s
s
i
s
t
i
n
g
L
i
v
i
n
g
-
V
i
c
i
n
i
t
y
/Z
o
n
i
n
g
M
a
p
Landscape Plan
Si
t
e
P
l
a
n
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
s
It
e
m
#
4
B
:
C
u
l
v
e
r
’
s
D
r
i
v
e
-
T
h
r
o
u
g
h
Zo
n
i
n
g
/
A
e
r
i
a
l
M
a
p
La
n
d
s
c
a
p
e
P
l
a
n
Ov
e
r
a
l
l
S
i
t
e
P
l
a
n
It
e
m
#
4
C
:
U
n
a
M
a
s
D
r
i
v
e
-
T
h
r
o
u
g
h
Zo
n
i
n
g
/
A
e
r
i
a
l
M
a
p
Si
t
e
P
l
a
n
RE
V
I
S
E
D
S
i
t
e
P
l
a
n
It
e
m
#
4
D
:
S
e
t
t
l
e
r
s
S
q
u
a
r
e
S
u
b
.
Pr
e
l
i
m
i
n
a
r
y
P
l
a
t
Zo
n
i
n
g
/
A
e
r
i
a
l
M
a
p
Si
t
e
P
l
a
n
La
n
d
s
c
a
p
e
P
l
a
n
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
s
It
e
m
#
4
E
:
F
a
l
c
o
n
e
r
s
P
l
a
c
e
S
u
b
.
Pr
e
l
i
m
i
n
a
r
y
P
l
a
t
Zo
n
i
n
g
/
A
e
r
i
a
l
M
a
p
Si
t
e
P
l
a
n
La
n
d
s
c
a
p
e
P
l
a
n
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
s
1
PARAMOUNT “VERANDA” ASSISTED LIVING
2
“VERANDA” SITE
ACCESSES
CHINDEN
3
4
SOUTHERLY FOX RUN WAY ACCESS
5
6
7
8
CHINDEN / FOX RUN INTERSECTION
9
CHINDEN BERM, EAST TO FOX RUN INTERSECTION
10
QUESTIONS
and
DISCUSSION