2014 11-20Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting November 20, 2014
Meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission of November 20, 2014, was
called to order at 6:00 p.m. by Chairman Joe Marshall.
Present: Chairman Joe Marshall, Commissioner Scott Freeman, Commissioner Steven
Yearsley, and Commissioner Rhonda McCarvel.
Members Absent: Commissioner Patrick Oliver.
Others Present: Machelle Hill, Ted Baird, Caleb Hood, Bill Parsons, and Dean Willis.
Item 1: Roll -Call Attendance:
Roll -call
X Steven Yearsley Patrick Oliver
X Rhonda McCarvel X Scott Freeman
X Joe Marshall - Chairman
Marshall: Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. I'd like to welcome you to the regularly
scheduled Planning and Zoning meeting for November 20th, 2014, and I'd like to begin by
asking for roll.
Item 2: Adoption of the Agenda
Marshall: All right. First thing on the agenda is the adoption of the agenda. I do have one
modification to the agenda. Action Items A and B, RZ 14-007 and PP 14-017, Southridge
Estates, we are going to open that for the sole purpose of continuing to the December 4th,
2014, Commission meeting. Due to some technical difficulties they are changing the
acreage zoning description and amending that and they were renoticing for the December
12th meeting. Other than that, the agenda should be as stands. So, could I get a motion?
Yearsley: Mr. Chair, I move that we adopt the agenda as modified.
Freeman: Second.
Marshall: I have a motion and a second to adopt the agenda as modified. All those in
favor say aye. Opposed? That motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Item 3: Consent Agenda
A. Approve Minutes of October 16, 2014 Planning and Zoning
Commission Meeting
Meridian Planning & Zoning
November 20, 2014
Page 2 of 20
Marshall: Next on the agenda is the Consent Agenda and the only thing on the Consent
Agenda is the approval of the minutes of the October 16th, 2014, Planning and Zoning
Commission meeting. Commissioners, are there any comments, corrections, any --
anything to address? No? Then could I get a motion to approve the Consent Agenda?
Yearsley: Mr. Chair, I make a motion that we approve the Consent Agenda.
Freeman: Second.
Marshall: I have a motion and a second to approve the Consent Agenda. All those in
favor say aye. Opposed. That motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Marshall: Now to the Action Items and before I begin I would like to explain a little bit how
this process is going to work. I'm going to open each of these items and ask for the staff
report. The staff will, then, provide a synopsis of their report, which we have in writing,
and let us know how the application meets city ordinance and code and things like that.
After the staff has given their report I will ask for the applicant to come forward. The
applicant will be given 15 minutes to provide any additional information, any background
that they would like us to consider in deliberating on this. After the applicant has
addressed the Commission I will, then, ask for public testimony. What I'm going to start
with is the sign-up sheets in back. If you were to sign your name saying you would like to
testify, I would very much appreciate that and I will go down that list, ask each person --
and each person will be given three minutes to testify, unless they are testifying for a large
group of people, in which case I will ask for a show of hands from that group. That group
will, then, provide their time to the person up front and that person will be granted ten
minutes to testify. After everybody on the list has been called I will, then, ask for any
additional people that would like to address that may have reconsidered and wanted to
address, even though they didn't sign up, or if they walked in late, we will get everybody to
address the project and, then, I'm going to ask the applicant to come back up and address
any issues that might have arisen during public testimony. Then, hopefully, we will be
closing the public hearing and deliberating and rendering a decision.
Item 4: Action Items
A. Public Hearing: RZ 14-007 Southridge Estates Subdivision by
DBTV Southridge Farm, LLC Located South of W. Overland Road
Between S. Linder Road and S. Ten Mile Road Request: Rezone
of 3.05 Acres from R-15 to TN -R; 1.67 Acres from R-4 to R-8; and
0.83 of an acre from R-8 to R-4 (Acreage/Zoning Description
Amended and Re -Noticed for 12/4/14)
B. Public Hearing: PP 14-017 Southridge Estates Subdivision by
DBTV Southridge Farm, LLC Located South of W. Overland Road
Between S. Linder Road and S. Ten Mile Road Request:
Meridian Planning & Zoning
November 20, 2014
Page 3 of 20
Preliminary Plat Approval Consisting of 193 Single -Family
Residential Building Lots and 19 Common/Other Lots on 48.65
Acres of Land in the R-4, R-8 and TN -R Zoning Districts
(Acreage/Zoning Description Amended and Re -Noticed for
12/4/14)
Marshall: So, with that said, the first one I'd like to open is the public hearing RZ 14-007
and PP 14-017 for Southridge Estates for the sole purpose of considering a continuance
to 12/4/14 and ask if staff has any comments? No? Commissioners, at this time I think it
might be appropriate to make a motion of offer any comments if you want to continue it to
a different date if that's enough or --
Freeman: Mr. Chair, I move to continue file numbers RZ 14-007 and PP 14-017,
Southridge Estates, to the December 4th meeting, so that we can deal with this acreage
and zoning description amendment and renoticing.
Yearsley: Second.
Marshall: I have a motion and a second to continue RZ 14-007 and PP 14-017 to
December 4th, 2014. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? That motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT.
C. Continued Public Hearing from October 16, 2014: PP 14-016
Coleman by Wal-Mart Real Estate Business Trust Located
Northwest Corner of N. Ten Mile Road and W. McMillan Road
Marshall: Next item on the agenda, Item C, a continued public hearing from October 16th,
2014, for PP 14-016. I'd like to reopen that and ask for the staff report, please.
Parsons: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. First item on the
agenda this evening is the Coleman Subdivision. This item was continued from the
October 17th hearing, I believe, due to the fact that it was noticed improperly. The
applicant has renoticed, they reposted the property in accordance with the ordinance, we
are able to act on this -- at least you are able to make a recommendation on this
application this evening. The site consists 26 acres currently zoned C -G within the city. It
was annexed in with the Volterra Subdivision in 2005. The property is located on the
northwest corner of North Ten Mile Road and West McMillan Road. In 2013 the city did
approve a certificate of zoning compliance and design review application for the
construction of a Walmart store on the property. If any of you have been around that area
you can see there is quite a bit of construction activity out there. The applicant is here this
evening to discuss subdividing the property from one parcel into five parcels. The
Walmart store will actually sit on Lot 3 and currently under construction and, then, there
are two additional -- four additional parcels that they are proposing here along the
northeast corner of the development and also at the hard corner of the intersection of Ten
Mile and McMillan. The applicant doesn't need to really plat the development to have
Meridian Planning & Zoning
November 20, 2014
Page 4 of 20
additional commercial buildings on the property, but in order to convey ownership they do
have to subdivide it through the city in order to sell those lots off and have -- be free and
clear of that. When Walmart came through and was approved with their certificate of
zoning compliance. Staff did have a recorded cross -access agreement for these parcels
to use this northern drive aisle and, then, also this driveway also grants cross -access to
the property to the north. So, that easement is in place. In my staff report I have
recommended that they grant cross -access for this portion of the development, so that
these new owners will have access to Ten Mile and the McMillan Road access points.
When this property was -- went through the comp plan change and rezoned in 2008, there
was a development agreement that granted these access points that you see here. So,
there is -- the property is granted with a full access to Ten Mile along the north. The one
closer to the intersection is a right -in, right -out only access. The other access point to
McMillan Road is also a right -in, right -out access and with the development of the
Walmart store they were required to submit a traffic study to ACHD and they entered into
a cooperative development agreement not only to construct this off-site collector road
behind them, but also construct those -- the intersection improvements at Ten Mile and
Chinden Boulevard. So, if you have seen that activity, that was in conjunction with the
construction of this store. The developer adjacent to this property to the west will also be
finishing up the road segment this year with the Walmart store. So, we should have a
complete collector road network behind Walmart moving forward. The UDC does require
a 25 foot landscape buffer along the arterial streets, Ten Mile Road and, then, also
McMillan and, then, a 20 foot wide landscape buffer along the collector road and, again,
all of the landscaping and what you see here on the plan has been approved with the
certificate of zoning compliance and the design review. I don't have any elevations for you
this evening, but all of the future lots or any future commercial buildings proposed for the
commercial lots will have to go through CDC and design review moving forward, so -- and
also because of the design criteria in the development agreement staff felt comfortable
that we did not need any application -- or any elevations to present to you this evening.
did receive written testimony from Kent Brown, the applicant. He is in agreement with the
conditions in the staff report. Staff is recommending approval of the preliminary plat and
will stand for any questions you have.
Marshall: Commissioners, any questions of staff?
Yearsley: Mr. Chairman?
Marshall: Yes.
Yearsley: Bill, I just want to clarify for the record that -- I think it's Lots 1 and 2 won't have
access to McMillan Road on any of that, so they will have to access within the sub -- the
property itself; correct?
Parsons: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, Commissioner Yearsley, that is
correct. They are required to provide a cross -access agreement for those lots to use as
driveways and use those established access points.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
November 20, 2014
Page 5 of 20
Yearsley: Okay.
Parsons: And that is conditioned.
Yearsley: All right. That's all I have.
Marshall: Good question, Commissioner Yearsley. Anyone else? No? Then, could I ask
the applicant to come forward and, sir, I'm going to have to ask for your name and
address for the record.
Brown: For the record Kent Brown. 3161 East Springwood, Meridian, Idaho. Bill has
covered the application very well. The use has already been approved and majority of
that has already been built. If you have been by the site the buffer that he's talking about
is built. The access points are built. The site is paved. Water and sewer is to this. The
only purpose in this is to subdivide it and -- so, that's why there is only a preliminary plat
and shortly a final plat upon approval. So, I'd stand for any questions you might have.
Marshall: Commissioners, any questions for the applicant? Thank you very much. So, at
this time I'd like to ask -- I have no one but the applicant signed up, so is there anyone
else that would like to address this application? Well, Mr. Brown, I'm not going to ask you
to come back up and rebut -- rebut your own testimony, so at this time, Commissioners,
guess I would be looking for a motion.
Freeman: Mr. Chair, I move that we close the public hearing for PP 14-016.
McCarvel: Second.
Yearsley: Second.
Marshall: I believe I have a motion and two seconds to close the public hearing on PP 14-
016. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? That motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Marshall: So, Commissioners, thoughts? Comments?
Freeman: There is really not much to say on this one, at least from my standpoint. This is
very -- very straight forward. We can approve this pretty easily I think.
Marshall: I see a lot of nods.
Yearsley: I agree.
Marshall: Well, Commissioners, I guess we are looking for a motion.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
November 20, 2014
Page 6 of 20
Yearsley: Mr. Chairman, after considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony,
move to recommend file -- recommend approval of file number PP 14-016 as presented in
the staff report for the hearing date of November 20th, 2014, with no modifications.
Freeman: Second.
Marshall: I have a motion and a second to recommend approval of PP 14-016. All those
in favor say aye. Opposed? That motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT.
D. Public Hearing: CPAM 14-002 Tribal Fire by Clarence McLain
Located North Side of E. Overland Road and East of S. Topaz
Avenue Request: Amend the Future Land Use Map Contained in
the Comprehensive Plan to Change the Land Use Designation on
Approximately 2.92 Acres from Low Density Residential (LDR) to
Commercial Recommend Approval to City Council with no
Modifications
E. Public Hearing: AZ 14-013 Tribal Fire by Clarence McLain
Located North Side of E. Overland Road and East of S. Topaz
Avenue Request: Annexation of Approximately 1.44 Acres from
R1 Zoning District in Ada County to the C -G (General Retail and
Service) Zoning District
Marshall: All right. Next on the agenda is Items D and E, CPAM 14-002 and AZ 14-013.
And I'd like to ask for the staff report.
Parsons: Thank you, Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission. Next item on the agenda is
Tribal Fire Comprehensive Plan map amendment and the annexation request by Tribal
Fire. The site is located on the north side of East Overland Road, just east -- just east of
South Topaz Avenue. The Comprehensive Plan map amendment request consists of
three parcels, totaling 2.92 acres of land. Currently this property is low density residential
on the city's Comprehensive Plan. The annexation request only includes a single parcel,
which is located in between the two adjacent properties here. So, for the record the
CPAM includes three parcels. The annexation includes a single one acre parcel. You
can see here in the aerial that the site is currently surrounded by low density residential
within the county. To the south -- or kitty-corner southeast or west of this development
you do see a large business park, Silverstone Subdivision, which is currently zoned C -G
within the city and, then, primarily also on the south side is vacant or county residents,
farms, agricultural land. Comp plan for medium density residential, but it's currently just
being ag'd again and that's currently RUT in the county as well. And, then, this line -- the
blue line here marks our area of city impact, which this area is getting closer to the city of
Boise's boundary moving forward. The first part of my presentation I would like to just
focus on the comp plan amendment. I have Caleb here to assist on some -- some future
expansions or future studies we may want to undertake within the area. But here is what I
Meridian Planning & Zoning
November 20, 2014
Page 7 of 20
have highlighted for you here. The exhibit on the -- of course on the left here shows
what's happening around this property and so the property that we are discussing this
evening are the three located here. Again, as I mentioned earlier, this property currently
is low density residential, along with the surrounding properties. The applicant is here this
evening to change that or request to change that land use designation on three of the
parcels -- three of the properties. In the staff report I brought to your attention that the
property on this side of the South Rolling Hills Drive is already operating or constructed
with a single family residence and at this time we don't feel it's appropriate -- without
having enough details for that property, we don't feel it's appropriate to recommend that
land use change to you this evening. However, we do support the applicant's request for
his parcel for annexation and also this -- this adjacent parcel, because the site is adjacent
to a mobility corridor and we feel at some point with the future study that needs to occur
here, we are seeking your approval of that -- or your recommendation on that this
evening. That there may be some options to kind of look at this and analyze this further.
Because these properties are contiguous and there is a development plan for one of the
parcels, again, we are supportive to moving forward. I will let Caleb kind of go into some
of the long-term ramifications and what we envision moving forward as this application
goes through the hearing process.
Hood: Good evening, Commissioners. Just a little bit -- I don't know -- ramifications,
necessarily, but I just want to give you a heads up and if you have any concerns with this
approach -- really what we would like to do -- this application has called to our attention, at
least in my opinion, the need to reevaluate the overall vicinity of the two subdivisions
shown in the lighter green or the low density residential on the future land use map. So,
what I would like to do is undertake a project to reach out to the neighbors out there and
say is this, in fact, the best designation for your properties in whole and look at potentially
doing a bigger future land use map amendment to either -- and I don't have any
preconceived or predetermined designations, but maybe a mixed use designation that,
essentially, encircles them. But we think there is some pretty good justification with the
interstate being adjacent and Overland Road and Eagle Road being in the near vicinity, to
really look at this and see if it makes sense to change, again, the land use designation for
the entire two subdivisions here to be something other than low density residential. Now,
we will need to make sure our messaging is straight, because we are not saying you can't
live there on your existing one acre house. That is totally fine. What this is is a future
land use map. So, is it ultimately the best land use designation for this property. So,
again, what I'm asking for concurrence from is the Commission do you think this is worth
our time at the staff level to engage with this neighborhood and explore options for
another land use designation or do you believe, in fact, that save maybe a couple of the
lots with frontage on Overland, that low density residential makes sense in this particular
-- again, two neighborhoods -- or two subdivisions, which effectively are one -- one
neighborhood. So, you don't necessarily need to give me feedback, but I would
appreciate any if you have any. And, again, particularly if you have concerns with us
looking at this and you're like don't waste your time. We know a lot of people live in there
and they are happy and they don't see any reason to pursue another designation. But,
again, we think it merits just maybe a little bit more. I wasn't here back when -- in 1973
when our Comprehensive Plan was adopted, but I have been with the city 11 years now
Meridian Planning & Zoning
November 20, 2014
Page 8 of 20
and I know that we have not looked at this area since at least then and I'm going to
venture a guess it's been 20 some years since this has been evaluated and a lot,
obviously, has changed in Meridian in that time frame. So, again, in my opinion this
warrants us spending some staff resources to look into it, again, engaging with the
neighbors to see if -- if there is something here and if we hear a resounding, no, we are
happy, we don't think anything needs to be changed for the long term, we may just let it
go, but we would like -- we would like to engage, so -- again, if you have any questions or
any comments at this time or later on in this hearing, I would appreciate those.
Marshall: Commissioners, any questions of staff?
Freeman: Mr. Chair, it sounds like a parallel and related issue to the application we are
hearing at the moment. I'm not sure what the protocol is. Do we want to talk about this in
our deliberations? Is that the appropriate time to discuss this or do we want to talk about
now? I'm asking. I'm not sure how to handle this problem within a problem.
Marshall: Right. To be honest, my approach was -- I thought I would address this during
deliberations and part of the conversation is how I thought I would approach it. Any
direction, Ted?
Baird: Commissioner -- or Members of the Commission, I think that make sense, because
this is part and parcel of what you're deliberating about with this application. It's
necessarily intertwined. I would, however, make your motion on the pending application
solely on the facts as presented and, then, perhaps consider a separate motion after --
after you have disposed of the pending applications with regard staff direction for a future
study.
Marshall: Thank you. Is that -- any other questions of staff? Based on that, Caleb,
believe we are going to hold you off for a little bit, but we will give you some feedback.
Thank you, sir.
Parsons: Thank you. And I will get on with the presentation. So, just to piggy back a little
bit on what Caleb said is even though we are recommending this not be part of the comp
plan amendment, we would include this parcel, if it's your desire this evening, for staff to
initiate those neighbors, we would entertain that parcel being part of the separate future
land use map in the future if that's your desire. So, as I mentioned to you, the applicant is
-- with the Comprehensive Plan change they are also requesting to annex in with the C -G
zoning district, consistent with that proposed future land use map change. So, the
applicant has provided a concept plan showing how he intends to develop the center
parcel, the one acre parcel. I would mention to you that ACHD, although this is just an
annexation and a comp plan amendment, they did provide a staff report. They didn't give
us any conditions, but one thing that I can assure you is they were supportive of the
proposed access point that they are showing on the concept plan, again, because he
fronts on the arterial we don't -- our ordinance doesn't support that. But this does meet
ACHD's policy for access off of Rolling Hills Drive and the applicant is also seeking a
reduced landscape buffer along the northern boundary to support the location of that
Meridian Planning & Zoning
November 20, 2014
Page 9 of 20
access point. So, keep that in mind. So, the proposed concept plan here has -- depicts a
5,000 square foot building footprint, some future parking, secured storage facility. The
applicant intends on developing this site with a flex space building, so, basically, office -
warehouse building. In my staff report I did point out to you his hours of operation are
typical of an office business. Any of those -- he -- his business he installs fire suppression
systems within commercial buildings and so most of the job sites of piping and all these
materials associated with that are dropped off at the job site, not brought to this particular
property. So, that's why staff felt comfortable with supporting a reduce buffer. He's also
going to have a fence along the boundary and plant that with landscaping as he moves
through the process. One thing I did point out in the staff report is staff will -- I did -- the
applicant does have future plans of making this potentially a multi -tenant building in the
future, as his business grows and he may outgrow this building space, he may want to
turn it into an income property and convert the structure into a multi -tenant facility. So, in
the staff report -- I won't go into all the changes to the concept plan, but there is a
condition in the staff report that he modify this concept plan prior to Council hearing to
show how that would work with not only his property, but with the adjacent property to the
west. Because we are recommending that Comprehensive Plan change for that property
to the west, we want to make sure that these two properties meld together and we get
cross -access between the two properties to try to restrict access to Overland Road. The
application also has provided some conceptual development -- or building elevations for
you to take under consideration this evening. Again, in the staff report I did recommend
some additional modifications to that -- to these elevations. Ultimately the applicant will
have to go through the certificate of zoning compliance and the design review process in
order to get his site design approved and his building elevations approved. But because
he's annexing with a C -G zone we wanted to get that on record -- get something in front of
you to show what he's actually proposing to do. As I mentioned to you -- because this is
an annexation staff is recommending a development agreement for this site, just because
of that C -G up against that low density residential designation. In the staff report I called
-- I think the two things that I do want to bring to your attention is staff is recommending
limited hours of operation on this property, so from 6:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m. and that's
consistent with the UDC. If other hours of operations are needing to be extended beyond
that they can go through, one, modify the development agreement and go through the
conditional use process per the UDC. The other limiting factor is we want to limit the
types of uses that will occur on this property and in the staff report I called out four specific
uses for this property and one's office, personal service, so a salon, nail salon, those
types of businesses, the flex space which you see here depicted on the first rendering of
the concept plan and then -- I think -- is that all four of them? Yeah. I hit all four of them.
Other than that I have -- to staffs knowledge there aren't any other outstanding issues to
you. I think in summary, again, there are three parcels part of the CPAM application.
Staff is recommending approval of two of those going to commercial and we are
recommending approval of the annexation of the single parcel with a C -G zoning district
with the provisions of the DA -- the DA provision stated in Exhibit B of the staff report.
This concludes my presentation and I will stand for any questions.
Marshall: Commissioners, any questions of staff?
Meridian Planning & Zoning
November 20, 2014
Page 10 of 20
Freeman: Mr. Chair, I have --
Marshall: Commissioner Freeman.
Freeman: -- one, maybe two. Bill, elevations we are looking at -- I noticed this when I
was looking at my hard copy, too. I'm seeing the same thing twice it seems or are there
differences between these? Was that just a clerical error that we are not seeing the other
two elevations?
Parsons: Correct. I think that's what I took out of the staff report, so I probably cut and
pasted the same thing in there.
Freeman: Okay. I didn't know if we were supposed to understand a couple of alternatives
or a development or something in the two plans. Okay. Second one is I noticed in your
report there were several modifications to the site plan at your request and I was just
curious. It sounds like staff is comfortable with that, but as a Commission I -- I feel this is
every now and then when I see these things -- okay, I'm seeing this, but this isn't actually
what we are recommending approval for, because it's going to change before City Council
sees it. It doesn't appear overly complex, I guess. I just -- I feel like we are
recommending approval in kind of a gray area. We are not -- we don't really know what's
going to be shown here. If staff is comfortable that those changes will be made before
City Council that's -- that's enough to satisfy staff.
Parsons: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Freeman, I believe so. I mean, you're right, it is a
one acre site, but there is enough detail -- and the reason why I recommended the change
is because I see conflicts with the way it's designed right now and I don't want to send the
applicant down the wrong road when he comes in with his certificate of zoning compliance
and design review. So, I called out the obvious in the staff report, so I was, one, not only
trying -- trying to set up a flex space building in accordance with our code, but also tell that
story in the future, if you do intend to convert this to a multi -tenant building, then, show us
what your ultimate plan is, because we need to know the entire picture.
Freeman: Yeah. I agree with your recommendations a hundred percent.
Parsons: If you want me to go through them very quickly I'm more than happy to do that.
Freeman: No. I understand them. Again, I guess I'm just commenting more than
anything. This isn't actually the final design that we are recommending approval for and I
guess that's okay, because it's a -- a comprehensive plan amendment and a -- and an
annexation and rezone.
Parsons: Yes. Staff wants assurances that the correct plan is in the development
agreement and that's why I recommended that that happen before Council.
Freeman: Okay. Thanks.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
November 20, 2014
Page 11 of 20
Baird: Mr. Chair?
Marshall: Yes, sir.
Baird: Members of the Commission. I might be stating the obvious, but it's always your
choice. If there is something in the report -- a change that you can't visualize and you
want to see it, you can always direct that the matter be continued or make a motion with
that regard. That -- if it becomes an issue with the -- perhaps the neighbors also want to
visualize it, that might be one reason to consider it. It might not be necessary for this
application, but I just want to remind you you have that as an option.
Marshall: Thank you.
Freeman: Thank you. That's all.
Marshall: Any other questions, Commissioners?
Yearsley: Mr. Chairman?
Marshall: Commissioner Yearsley.
Yearsley: Bill, go back to the land use map. Okay. So -- oh. Go back one more. The
other way. Right there. So, they are wanting changes for all three, but we are only going
to annex the middle one. Are we contiguous enough to be able to annex? Because I
don't think that any three of these are actually in the city's limits; right? I just want to make
sure that we are contiguous, that we can annex that property.
Parsons: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, Commissioner Yearsley, we are.
Yearsley: Okay.
Parsons: By a margin, but they are there. They are adjacent with Silverstone there and
that's why they could still request annexation.
Yearsley: Okay. Thank you.
Marshall: Commissioner Yearsley, I see what you're talking about, because that's like
corner to corner, isn't it?
Yearsley: Yeah.
Marshall: It's like I can place this stud on this one with glue, but it's not going to hold
anything.
Yearsley: Yeah.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
November 20, 2014
Page 12 of 20
Marshall: Got you. All right. Commissioners, any other questions of staff? All right.
Could I ask the applicant to come forward, please, and I'm going to have to ask for your
name and address for the record. Thank you.
McLain: Thank you. Cherese McLain with Moore, Smith, Buckman and Turcke. 950
West Bannock Street, Suite 520. Thank you for hearing us tonight. Bill did a great job on
summarizing what the issues are and the applicant -- we believe that that is -- you know,
the future land use map it -- low density residential is not appropriate, especially on the
frontage of Overland and one thing that's kind of unique about this parcel in particular is
it's bare land. So, these -- the homes of the 1970s subdivision that exist there that, then,
grew -- you know, Overland grew into it. This is actually land that was never developed
and it's right off of Overland. So, we do believe that it's not really appropriate to try to
build a home there at that time for safety reasons, amongst others, of trying to turn onto a
very busy arterial street. The applicant bought that property late last year and has since
been working through the development. Currently his business is located in Kuna in a
leased building. He would like to get closer to the city center, which is I think put forth in
the application. We have reviewed all of Bill's conditions and we are fine with all of them.
We do plan to make those site plan changes. The cross -parking access agreement we
are fine with. So, we are not asking for any modifications of any of those conditions. As
far as the question of why annexing one versus the comp plan amendment of the others,
some of that was actually at the request of staff, trying to get more parcels, so it didn't just
be the one. So, the applicant worked really hard with the neighborhood, held a
neighborhood meeting, had several interested, but they weren't contiguous and so it
would have been just a bunch of spots. So, there is interest and so we would actually
support and encourage that reach out to the -- to the public around there to ask what they
think, you know, should be in that future land use map, because I think you may find that
low density residential may not be the best course of action, just because that area is just
naturally growing into more of a commercial area. Further, you know, it is our
understanding that land south across the street, the large parcel, is just gearing up and
cuing up to be developed. So, it no longer really will be bare land, you know, here in the
near future, so -- anyone, tonight we request that you guys provide a recommendation for
that annexation and the comp plan amendment and at this point I will stand for any
questions.
Marshall: Commissioners, any questions of the applicant? No?
Yearsley: Mr. Chairman?
Marshall: Commissioner Yearsley.
Yearsley: So, what I understand is the reason why the other two lots are requesting being
commercial as well is because the staff has asked and, then, owners had agreed to that?
Is that what I understood?
McLain: The applicant approached the city originally and the staff -- and rightfully so --
recommended that this be kind more of a -- they were looking for the consensus and as
Meridian Planning & Zoning
November 20, 2014
Page 13 of 20
you heard from their presentation, the applicant's application kind of triggered a question
of, hey, should this stay low density residential and so it was -- it was a soft request,
definitely you should see if you can get some other properties that would be supportive. It
would -- it would be better just from a natural planning and future planning philosophy.
So, that's what the applicant did and, like I said, what you're seeing is actually a smaller
portion than what's actually out there of interest, we just couldn't get them to be all
connected together. So, we did get the three parcels. I don't disagree with Bill's
conclusion personally that -- that the one stay, since it's in the other subdivision, but -- but,
yes, I mean we are certainly of the opinion that all of the frontage for certain should
probably go to some sort of flex use, -as opposed to low density residential. I don't know
of very many people that would want to move into homes on that road given that traffic
right there. But, yes, to answer your question, Commissioner Yearsley, it was requested
more of we should see -- and I think they just wanted to kind of get a temperature check
from around there and see whether or not there was support for that and I would think that
you will find there is. But we did get the three parcels to agree to want to come in with
that comp plan change.
Yearsley: Okay. Thank you.
Marshall: Commissioners, any other questions of the applicant? Thank you.
McLain: Thank you.
Marshall: All right. At this time I have Clarence McLain. The applicant has been spoken
for I take it. All right. And Matt Rhees. Rhees. I'm going to have to ask for your name
and address for the record, please.
Rhees: My name is Matt Rhees and I have a property on 4240 Overland, which is just
right adjacent east and in general -- I wrote down neutral on the whole thing and
probably have just more questions than anything and I don't know if you can answer them
or not, but I think the proposed use is very appropriate for Overland. Ever since it was
widened it's -- that's a major arterial road and so everything that fronts Overland needs to
be some sort of commercial or mixed use. I don't think you should force property owners
to change their zoning or change their use, but certainly is very appropriate for all the
property owners that front Overland Road. My question or my concerns -- a little self
interest -- is that the house that I have on 4240 is a kind an early '60s ranch style house
and it's on its own well and septic and so my concern is -- I have been told that it's city
policy that to hook up to city water or city sewer you have to be annexed into the city, but
that's only if you are adjacent to a property that's been annexed into the city and I don't
know if that's true or not. I tried calling the city and I got transferred around several people
and got several different answers or no answer really. So, my concern is is that if the
property next door to me gets annexed into the city, then, if I want to hook up to city sewer
does that mean I have to be annexed? Is that city policy? I don't -- I'm not really sure if
that's a good thing or a bad thing at this point. It's just a concern. My neighbor to the east
is pretty adamant about not being annexed into the city. He just recently hooked up to the
sewer and did not have to be annexed to the city, so -- and I don't know if you're --
Meridian Planning & Zoning
November 20, 2014
Page 14 of 20
Marshall: Mr. Rhees, we will get that question answered for you here in a few minutes.
Rhees: Okay.
Marshall: Okay? Right now is your opportunity -- I appreciate your providing us with that
question and we will try to get that answered here in a few minutes.
Rhees: Okay.
Marshall: Do you have any other thoughts or comments about this? I take it you're
neutral on it, but --
Rhees: Yeah. There is different opinions of whether being annexed into the city -- you
know, when you're kind of a rural property, whether that's a good thing or bad thing
taxwise and all of the other stuff and I'm just that's just a matter of opinion. I don't -- I don't
know. I do know that it gets kind of spendy, you know, if I were to hook up to the sewer,
that the whole fees and everything being forced to being annexed in is quite expensive for
just a single family residence versus my property was being redeveloped into something
commercial or something and, then, that's, I think, a different situation. So, I'm not sure
why the property next door is requesting that annexation, what the point of that is, if it's not
being developed or if there is no plan other than just -- just being vacant land. That's all
have.
Marshall: Thank you, sir. At this time is there anyone else who would like to address this
project? Seeing no one else, would the applicant like to come up and address anything
further? I can't have you talk from that -- I'm sorry, we have got to be on the record.
McLain: Thank you, Chair and Council -- or, excuse me, Commission. I didn't hear
anything to objection -- or too -- in objection with this application, so I don't think there is
anything for us to respond to at this time. It seems more of a staff question regarding the
septic and the sewer hookup, so -- but I'm glad to hear he does support the frontage being
in commercial as well. So, any questions?
Marshall: Thank you. Commissioners?
McClain: Thank you.
Marshall: Thank you very much. All right. So, Caleb, I -- Bill, I would like to ask if you
could address that for Mr. Rhees a little bit. I think there is some confusion there as to
what would be required and what hooking up to city services versus annexation and
what's required and --
Hood: Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission, the city's policy is basically related -- a
way to think about it anyways, is a three legged stool and all three of them go together.
To be annexed you need sewer and water and you don't get any one of those typically in
Meridian Planning & Zoning
November 20, 2014
Page 15 of 20
and of itself. There have been some cases where a septic system fails and city services
are within 300 feet and the property is not contiguous and we will extend services to that
property. What's required in that situation is they sign a paper saying when I am
contiguous I agree to annex into the city and that does happen occasionally. Again, when
you get properties that are within 300 feet of services, but aren't contiguous and eligible
for annexation. But, again, we don't -- historically we don't force or initiate anybody to
annexation into the city. It's you want or need our services and, therefore, you sign
papers saying I agree to receive the service and, therefore, become part of the city. So,
the policy would be -- again, here, depending on the situation. If Mr. Rhees' septic system
failed and he did have serviceability within 300 feet, DEQ will not issue a new well permit
on that site and they will say you have got services within 300 feet. Again, if it is what it is
today, he wouldn't be eligible for annexation, so we would provide that service at his cost
to allow him to hook up to that service and, then, when the properties to the south or
whatever property is first to be contiguous. But, again, these all three go together.
Sewer, water, and annexation and if water is not available or sewer is not available, we
typically don't annex you. There has only been a couple of times that I know of where that
situation has even come into play and typically what we will say is it's not the right time to
annex you. One of the reasons to annex is that we can provide sewer and water service
to that property. So, hopefully, that -- and, Matt, you can feel free to -- we can follow up
and talk some more if you would like, but -- but, again, that's the city's policy that they all
go together. It's really an exception to the rule; right? So, there are some exceptions.
But most of the time that's how it plays out.
Marshall: Thank you. Commissioners, any other questions or comments? Then I think at
this time it might be appropriate to close the public hearing.
Yearsley: Mr. Chairman, I move that we close the public hearing on CPAM 14-002 and
AZ 14-013.
Freeman: Second.
Marshall: I have a motion and a second to close the public hearing on CPAM 14-002 and
AZ 14-013. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? That motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Marshall: So, I will throw my hat in the ring. I have reservations and I -- but at the same
time it seems appropriate. I'm very -- I'm in agreement that this area probably in the next
-- anywhere from five to 20 to 50 years it will probably not look like it does today and my
guess is that in '93 we anticipated this all to be rural. If you remember in '93 Eagle Road
was still a two lane highway that hadn't developed. There was an interchange there, but it
was just a two lane highway with -- the commercial business -- it was just a way to get to
Eagle. There really wasn't the commercial business or anything else around it and so it
seemed appropriate I think at that time to be low density residential. It was out in the
farmland. It really was. It was out in the middle of nowhere. That's not true today and,
personally, my preference would be for the city to revisit this area to identify whether or
Meridian Planning & Zoning
November 20, 2014
Page 16 of 20
not the local people -- people living there should think it should change. To be honest,
agree that by -- by changing the zoning -- even changing the land map designation would
probably increase the value of those lots along Overland Road. That's my guess. I'm not
a real estate agent. I don't know. But it would seem that that would be appropriate and
businesses are going to pay for it. I don't think you're going to get low density residential
people wanting to build a house there. I don't. And I would guess slowly but surely over
the years this whole area will morph into more of a maybe be mixed use, maybe
residential. I don't know. But it would be interesting to see what the people there feel and
what the city envisions. I'd like to see a lot more citizen input on that. I do feel it's
probably going to be commercial right there along Overland Road. That makes sense to
me. I think you're all very aware of my hesitation to approve C -G next to residential.
Freeman: Mr. Chair, we are very aware.
Marshall: Yeah. I don't like C -G against residential, although -- so, I'm very torn on this
project, because it seems appropriate there. I do think that this -- this is an area that we --
I would like -- personally I'm going to voice my opinion that I'd like the city to study this a
bit. I like the project. I'd like to see it go forward. At the same time I'm not -- I do
appreciate the fact -- again, in one of my questions earlier to staff would be why are we
going to C -G? Couldn't we go C -C or C -N and I believe C -C would allow all of the
activities as -- as designated on there to move forward and he could use the land just as
he has identified he'd like to. But at the same time I think staff has done a very good job
in the development agreement in locking things down to just specific uses and this is all
that's allowed and trying to lock it down, because I do think -- I mean that's quite a bit of
C -G just up the street from there and going to grow into this area and I do personally see
this area slowly morphing into maybe some industrial up against the interstate and some
C -G and things like that. I do see businesses that the value of the land is just going to rise
as far as business goes. As far as residents go, I think it's going -- I think it's going to
drop, mostly because of all the growth around it, and the city's lack of identifying this
earlier on -- I mean this city has done I think a phenomenal job of planning for the future
and we did maybe miss this one little spot. You know, make -- you miss little things
sometimes. And do we punish this person by saying no simply because we failed to plan
around that and failed to -- I like how the staff -- personally I like how the staff's handled it.
I do appreciate the zoning only on the one lot and maybe the Comprehensive Plan
amendment on all three and trying to have some continuity there. Those are my thoughts.
Freeman: Mr. Chair?
Marshall: Commissioner Freeman.
Freeman: I think I'm on. I agree with you. I don't -- I don't have quite the concerns that
you have. I agree that it's -- this is an appropriate zoning for this particular property and
do appreciate staffs caution in proceeding and also your interest in looking into this further
and I also favor a recommendation to investigate this further and see what -- if there is a
more appropriate designation for -- for this area. The project itself -- I have no issue with
it. I'm fine. Just the question that I brought up earlier. It's just -- it's more difficult for us
Meridian Planning & Zoning
November 20, 2014
Page 17 of 20
sometimes to see what's being proposed when the site plan isn't quite where it needs to
be to see City Council. Under different circumstances I might -- I might say, hey, we need
to -- we need to have more definition to this before we approve it. I think we can see -- at
least I can see pretty easily how those adjustments are going to play out on this -- on this
site. So, I'm in favor of recommending approval of the project. I will leave it at that.
Yearsley: Mr. Chairman?
Marshall: Commissioner Yearsley.
Yearsley: I will agree with the -- with the applicant and the staff with making the C -G.
like how they -- they move it down -- kind of ratcheted it down with the development
agreement. I almost -- the two parcels on either side of it, I would almost consider letting
them stay low density residential until they come up and ask for -- for a redevelopment
portion of it. But I could live with just the one parcel onto the west being commercial as
well. Just kind of has some contiguous with that. But I agree, I think it appropriate and
will address the rezoning of that area or the future land use map of that after we make a
motion on this one, so --
Marshall: Commissioner McCarvel?
McCarvel: Mr. Chairman, I agree, I think Overland is -- by far is going to be commercial
use along there. I don't see a problem with that particular -- my own curiosity, what -- how
many of those lots are really -- have houses on? I mean as far as the replotting of all
that? I mean the overhead it doesn't look like there is that many houses as there are
plots. Are all those really -- there is really houses on all that? I think going forward they --
they are going to be of more value if they are used as something else. I don't -- I mean a
lot of one acre houses I don't think are going to build with all of that traffic all around there
now. That would be coming forward. But I don't see any problems with getting this one
through.
Caleb: Mr. Chair, I just confirmed with Bill, I mean just doing some high level analysis, I
would say 90 percent or so of those lots are occupied already with single family homes.
So, it's not like you will get a whole -- there is not a whole bunch of vacant lots, this -- this
lot is somewhat of an anomaly and most of them are occupied lots and I would venture a
guess that most of them were built in the '50s or '60s as Mr. Rhees' home was, but the
couple few that are out there that don't have homes, I don't know that someone is going to
purchase and build a home knowing what's going on around them today. But that's why
we would like to look at it. But most of them are -- there are homes on most of the lots.
The vast majority of lots.
McCarvel: And that's something for you guys to --
Marshall: Well, Commissioners, I guess I'm looking for a motion.
Freeman: Mr. Chair?
Meridian Planning & Zoning
November 20, 2014
Page 18 of 20
Marshall: Commissioner Freeman.
Freeman: After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to
recommend approval of file numbers CPAM 14-002 and AZ 14-013 as presented during
the hearing on November 20th, 2014, with no modifications.
Yearsley: Second.
Marshall: I have a motion and a second to recommend approval of CPAM 14-002 and AZ
14-013 as presented in the staff report with no modifications. All those in favor say aye.
Opposed? That motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Marshall: Commissioners, we have one last motion.
Yearsley: Mr. Chairman, can I comment? I kind of didn't want to muddy the waters on
this. I agree that I think we should look at that and I also wonder if we ought to look at the
property to the south -- include that medium density residential to see of that might want to
be considered breaking that up into, you know, a staggering as well, because not sure if
you're going to want to have homes that close to Overland on the other side of the street
as well. So, that would be kind of my thought is if we are going to look at this area, let's
look at the whole area in general and make sure that we -- we look at it correctly and
identify how that may want to play out in the future.
Freeman: Mr. Chair, do we need to --
Marshall: Commissioner Freeman.
Freeman: I'm in agreement that we should recommend as a Commission that staff look
into this further. I'm not sure exactly -- do we need to make a motion and vote on that?
Hood: Mr. Chair, Commissioners, no, I don't need a formal motion. Again, if you had any
concerns and this is a nonstarter for you, I would like to hear why you think so.
appreciate Commissioners Yearsley's comment. We can certainly involve them in this
process, because that does make some sense, too. We need to consider what's going on
in Boise, that -- because they are right on the other side there as well. But, no, I do not
need a formal motion. I felt a little bit awkward even including some of that analysis,
because I didn't want to put the applicant in a position where this was -- you know, this
muddied up the waters. You know, we did ask them kind of on the back side to see how
many folks would be interested in hopes that -- because we don't like to spot zone, we
don't like to spot comp plan either. So, that was the idea. The more you can get to justify
your request -- so we weren't asking them to do our leg work necessarily, but they really
have brought -- brought forward that this is an issue, but we are going to move forward
Meridian Planning & Zoning
November 20, 2014
Page 19 of 20
with it unless you have -- have problems with that. Again, no preconceived notions, don't
know the outcome of that, but we think it's something that is worth looking into.
Freeman: Agreed from my standpoint.
Yearsley: I agree as well.
Marshall: Okay. And I see Commissioner McCarvel shaking her head. So, I believe you
have a unanimous agreement --
Hood: Thank you.
Marshall: -- and, please, yes, we'd like to see this area studied and updated maybe and --
and maybe left alone, depending on --
Hood: And if I can, just one reason why we weren't comfortable at this point just piggy
backing on the applicant's request or refunding their money and saying, hey, let the city do
this, we haven't looked into services and services are a big thing. Don't know -- right now
our sewer and water folks have planned for low density out here. If we put industrial, it
may need a whole bunch of water, can we even -- you know most of the lines servicing
this area are in the ground. So, if we all of a sudden add a bunch of homes or businesses
out there, can we actually service them. So, there is a lot of things we need to do on the
back side -- schools. I mean if we have talked about putting homes out here, can the
schools handle it? Or do we -- now all of a sudden do we need another elementary
school in the area? So, there is a lot of things we need to look at -- traffic being another
one -- before we just -- let's change this hundred acres to something more intense. So --
or I think, you know, it passes somewhat of the sniff test or the -- some common sense, if
you will, to say, you know, low density probably isn't the best, but we need to think that
through all the way.
Marshall: So, my quick question and comment was -- is that I would suspect that the city
staff will recommend very stringent requirements on development agreements or anything
prior to that whole process evolving and coming about, because that's kind of an involved
process, takes a long time, and if any other landowner come forth on either side of this,
which that does concern me, that before we are even getting off the ground with that
process that other people in close proximity are going to come forth with proposals,
because, to be honest, I'm making a guess here -- again, I'm not a real estate agent -- that
C -G will increase the value of the land right up there against Overland, that there may be
additional things there, so I'm making a guess that staff will recommend very stringent
requirements and that's why we tied this one down, simply because we haven't completed
the rest of that study.
Hood: And, Mr. Chair, just to be clear, staff will not propose or even look at annexing
these properties, that's when you're going to see the development agreements and we
want these folks or whoever acquires them or as redevelopment occurs to come forward
with a concept plan, like this applicant did. We are simply looking at what is the ultimate
Meridian Planning & Zoning
November 20, 2014
Page 20 of 20
vision for this area and at a higher level what would we allow and what do we want to
encourage in this area and I don't think we want to necessarily encourage more low
density out here for ever and ever. So, no, we will not be exploring tying anything down
necessarily, but at a high level we will be establishing the vision -- because I could see
mixed use. In a mixed use you can do a whole variety of things, depending on how many
parcels you come in with. If they are just one lot, someone comes in and does something
like they did out at Franklin and Eagle at Portico and buys up all those acres and develops
a hospital, you know, that's -- those are different situations. So, with our endeavor we will
not be necessarily tying anything down. What we will explore is what is, again, the higher
level vision for these properties in whole.
Marshall: I think a reference with probably a little more specific like this project -- you
know, our development agreement. We were very specific as to what could go in there
and we will continue to do that until we have --
Hood: Oh, sure.
Marshall: -- gone further on that evaluation of the overall project.
Hood: I'm sorry. Mr. Chair, yes, if someone comes in in the interim before we are there --
and that's pretty common place with all projects throughout the city, so --
Marshall: I just wanted to put that on the record for anyone else to come forth in the not
too distant future. Thank you. Commissioners?
Freeman: Can I make a motion?
Marshall: Commissioner Freeman, please.
Freeman: I move to adjourn.
McCarvel: Second.
Marshall: I have a motion and a second to adjourn. All those in favor say aye. Opposed?
That motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT.
MEETING ADJOURNED AT 7:01 P.M.
(AUDIO RECORDING ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS.)
APPROVED
JOE MARSHALL - CHAIRMAN
DATE
0 6- cc., 41w,)
c �i2e,�12
JAY EE HOLMAN, CITY CLERK
M
Gs,
P)fkCIt r
4z of w
ID
�l
S ° ON
TRFA SURE