2015 05-21Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting May 21, 2016
Meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission of May 21, 2015, was called to
order at 6:00 p.m. by Chairman Steven Yearsley.
Present: Chairman Yearsley, Commissioner Patrick Oliver, Commissioner Ryan Fitzgerald
and Commissioner Gregory Wilson.
Members Absent: Commissioner Rhonda McCarvel.
Others Present: Machelle Hilll, Ted Baird, Sonya Watters, Bill Parsons and Dean Willis.
Item 1: Roll -Call Attendance:
Roll -call
X Gregory Wilson X Patrick Oliver
X Rhonda McCarvel X Ryan Fitzgerald
X Steven Yearsley - Chairman
Yearsley: Good evening. At this time we'd like to call to order the regularly scheduled
meeting -- meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission for the hearing date
of May 21 st, 2015, and let's begin with roll call.
Item 2: Adoption of the Agenda
Yearsley: Thank you. At this time the next thing on the agenda is the adoption of the
agenda. I have no changes to it, so I would entertain a motion to adopt the agenda as
presented.
Fitzgerald: Mr. Chairman?
Yearsley: Commissioner Fitzgerald.
Fitzgerald: I would move for adoption of the agenda as written.
Oliver: 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 May 7, 2015 Planning and Zoning
Commission Meeting
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
May 21, 2015
Page 2 of 48
Yearsley: Next item on the agenda is the Consent Agenda and all we have today is the
approval of the May 7th Planning and -- May 7th, 2015, Planning and Zoning Commission.
Can I get a motion to approve the Consent Agenda?
Oliver: Mr. Chairman?
Yearsley: Commissioner Oliver.
Oliver: I move that we approve the Consent Agenda for May 7th.
Fitzgerald: Second.
Yearsley: I have a motion and a second to approve the Consent Agenda. All in favor say
aye. Opposed? Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Yearsley: Before we go forward on the next item, let me kind of explain how this process
is going to work. We are going to open each item one at a time and we are going to start
off with the staff report. The staff will present their findings and how every -- how the
project adheres to the Comprehensive Plan and the Uniform Development Code with staff
recommendations. After that the applicant will have a chance to come forward and to
present their case for approval. The applicant will have a chance to respond to any staff
comments. The applicant will have up to 15 minutes to present their case. After that we
will open it up to the public testimony. There is a sign-up sheet in the back for anyone
wishing to testify. We will also allow people who are not signed up to testify as well. If
they are speaking for a larger group or a show of hands, they will be given up to ten
minutes if they are speaking by themselves they are given up to three minutes to present
their case or issue that they have with the application. After that the applicant will have an
opportunity to come forth and to response to comments from the -- from the public and he
will have a -- have up to ten minutes to do so. After that we will close the public hearing
and the Commission will have the opportunity to discuss and deliberate and hopefully be
able to make a recommendation to City Council.
Item 4: Action Items
A. Public Hearing Continued from May 7, 2015: AZ 14-016 Nesting
Swan Ranch by Blossom 1, LLC Located 4617 and 4620 S.
Martinel Lane Request: Annexation and Zoning of 27.75 Acres of
Land with an R-8 Zoning District Recommend Approval to City
Council
B. Public Hearing Continued from May 7, 2015: PP 14-018 Nesting
Swan Ranch by Blossom 1, LLC Located 4617 and 4620 S.
Martinel Lane Request: Preliminary Plat Approval Consisting of
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
May 21, 2015
Page 3 of 48
Thirty -One (31) Building Lots and Seven (7) Common / Other
Lots on 10.37 Acres of Land in a Proposed R-8 Zoning District
Yearsley: So, with that I would like to open the continued public hearing from May 7th,
2015, of AZ 14-016 and PP 14-018, Nesting Swan Ranch and let's begin with the staff
report.
Watters: Thank you, Chairman Yearsley and Members of the Commission. This project
was heard by the Commission on February 5th. At that hearing the Commission
recommended denial of the application to the City Council based on a determination that it
was a leap frog development and not an orderly expansion of the city limits and services,
the location of the stub street to the north and the impact on area schools. Prior to
Council meeting on March 17th the applicant submitted a revised conceptual development
plan based on discussion at the Commission hearing. A new -- excuse me -- the new
plan no longer depicts private streets on the northern portion of the annexation area on
the concept plan. The stub street to the north has shifted further to the west and the lots
have been reconfigured accordingly. And I will get that concept plan up here for you.
Right there. That's the original one on the left and the proposed revised one on the right.
Because the concept plan that was reviewed by the City Council changed significantly
since the Commission hearing, the Council remanded the application back to the
Commission for their review and subsequent recommendation. The staff report has been
revised to reflect the changes made to the concept plan. Chairman, would you like me to
go over the request for annexation and preliminary plat or do we all feel that we remember
the -- the application?
Yearsley: Do you have preference which way we go?
Wilson: Well, what about you --
Fitzgerald: I -- Mr. Chair, I wasn't on the Council yet, that's the only thing --
Yearsley: Okay.
Waters: Let me just --
Yearsley: Absolutely.
Watters: Yeah. Okay. So, let me back up. The request before you tonight is for
annexation and zoning and a preliminary plat. The annexation area for this site consists
of 27.75 acres of land. It's currently zoned RUT in Ada County and is located at 4617 and
4620 South Martinel Lane and 3570 East Amity Road. As you can see, the boundary of
the annexation and the preliminary plat area is different. The applicant is requesting
annexation and zoning of 27.75 acres of land with an R-8 zoning district, consistent with
the medium density residential future land map designation for this site. This is an aerial
view of the property. It shows the existing homes. The preliminary plat is just for this area
right here, which is the area here to the southwest corner of the site. The preliminary plat
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
May 21, 2015
Page 4 of 48
is proposed on 10.37 acres at the southwest of the annexation area, as I stated. It
consists of 31 single family residential building lots, which includes a lot for the existing
home and seven common lots. The gross density for the subdivision is 2.99 dwelling units
per acre, with an average lot size of 6,926 square feet. The property at the southeast
corner of the annexation area, as you can see where my pointer is, is an assisted living
facility that's currently receiving city services and it is not included in the plat. The
property at the northeast corner of the annexation area, which is this piece right here, is
not included in the plat either and will remain a rural residential property until
redevelopment at some point in the future. The concept plan you see here shows how the
site is proposed to develop in the future and, then, the concept plan also shows a plan as
to how this existing residential property may be further subdivided in the future, as well as
the outparcel here owned by the Lukes. Redevelopment of these areas would require a
new preliminary plat. Access is proposed via South Martinel Avenue via East Amity Road.
Martinel is the one that runs right up there. Amity Road is along the bottom here. Private
streets are proposed internally for access to the new residential homes with a gated
entrance off Martinel Avenue. Martinel Avenue stubs to the north property boundary for
future extension. That's right here with the plat. Public street frontage is proposed to the
assisted living facility at the southeast corner of the site and is also required to be
provided to the parcel to the west owned by the Taylors with redevelopment of the
northern portion of the site. The Taylor property is this right here. Public street frontage
won't be provided until this portion of the property is redeveloped at sometime in the
future. A cross -access easement is required to be provided to the Luke outparcel at the
southwest corner of the site for access to the private street. This is a copy of the
proposed landscape plan for the plat area. Sample photo building elevations for future
homes in this development were submitted as shown, as well as for the future
development to the north. No new written testimony has been submitted on this
application. Staff is recommending approval with the conditions in the staff report. Staff
will stand for any questions the Commission might have.
Yearsley: Are there any questions? No? Thank you. Would the applicant like to come
forward? And state your name and address for the record, please.
Thompson: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, my name is Tamara Thompson.
I'm with The Land Group. 462 East Shore Drive, Suite 100, in Eagle. The -- we have
read the revised staff report and we agree with the conditions of approval, with a few
clarifications and modifications I'd like to bring up. Just a handful. The first is Condition
1.1.1.G and that is access to the Taylor property. We don't -- we don't have issue with
that, we just want to state that we will -- we will coordinate that with Mr. Taylor. The
reasons that we don't have the road on that property line currently is because the property
line is the center line of a ditch and so -- and Mr. Taylor uses that ditch to siphon irrigate,
so he needs it to be an open ditch, so that's why the right of way is over, but should he
want to take access to that we -- we are more than happy to give a right of way there. So,
that was just a clarification point. The other is 1.1.1.1-1 and this is relating to the property --
so, this is on the north portion of the property on the concept plan and this is -- does this
thing work?
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
May 21, 2015
Page 5 of 48
Watters: You need to select a color, Tamara.
Thompson: I did. I selected black.
Watters: Sorry, it must not be working right again.
Thompson: So, anyway, along -- exactly. Along that property line. And it's the same
issue there. There is a ditch along that that Mr. Taylor uses that needs to stay live and
instead of having the properties go back into the center of that ditch, we pulled the
properties to the edge of the easement and that way it can be consistently maintained by
the homeowners association and not by each individual property owner, because it does
need to stay open until such time as Mr. Taylor decides to develop his property. So, those
two items -- probably H we need relief on and, then, the other thing that goes along with
that one is 2.2.6, which talks about tiling ditches adjacent to and on the property and we
would like relief for the property line between the proposed development and Mr. Taylor's
property where he needs those ditches open for irrigation. And, then, the last item is
1.1.2.F and 1.1.3.G. These two are related in an access to Eagle Road to the south of Lot
29 and when we discussed this with City Council I thought we had addressed it already
and that -- and I went back and looked at the minutes and that it was something that they
took off that -- that we could provide access to Eagle Road and to the Taylor property to
the north and that we would do that up at the north portion above that -- that lot there
where the emergency access is. So, pedestrian access would be to the north and to the
west in that -- in that one location.
Yearsley: Can you explain that again?
Thompson: Yes. Currently the conditions of approval call for a pedestrian access to the
north where this emergency access point is and the conditions of approval have the
access to the west down at the southern portion between the Luke property and we would
like to respectfully request that that connection to the west occur up at the northern
portion. And with that I will stand for questions.
Yearsley: Sorry. I'm trying to write this down.
Oliver: While he's doing that, if I could just ask -- why the preference to north, rather than
what the Council suggested?
Thompson: No. Council did agree with the northern portion.
Oliver: Oh, they did. Okay.
Thompson: They did. And so I believe that condition should not have made it into the
staff report, because it was addressed there and -- and I believed the minutes show that.
Oliver: Okay.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
May 21, 2015
Page 6 of 48
Thompson: So, I just wanted to clarify that.
Fitzgerald: Mr. Chairman? And, Tamara, can you -- so, the boundary that goes along
Eagle Road, is that going to be a common lot that is owned by the homeowners
association, so it stays -- so you can tile it eventually or is it just going to be HOA
controlled, not individually? Is that what you said? I just want to make sure I'm clear on
that.
Thompson: Mr. Chairman, Councilman -- or Commissioner, sorry, Fitzgerald, so the
property line on Eagle Road is not -- there is not an open ditch at that location. The open
ditch is internal and if you can see -- can you see that --
Fitzgerald: Yes.
Thompson: -- arrow? So, that's not Eagle Road. Eagle Road is over on the other side.
That is an open ditch at that location and so --
Fitzgerald: That is a common lot?
Thompson: It is a common lot.
Fitzgerald: Okay.
Thompson: And the homeowners association would maintain that.
Fitzgerald: Okay. That makes sense. Thank you.
Yearsley: How wide is that lot, that piece for that ditch, do you know?
Thompson: I do. I believe it's 15 feet.
Yearsley: Okay.
Thompson: It is currently an easement, so we are -- I mean we have pulled the property
line outside of that easement.
Yearsley: Okay. Sounds good. Any other questions? I do have one. Is it the Luke
property that's on the southwestern corner? If he tries to develop that anything besides
residential, he's going to have to access off of -- onto the private street; is that correct?
Thompson: Mr. Chairman, his -- he currently takes access onto Amity.
Yearsley: Okay.
Thompson: And that is status quo until redevelopment and at that time we are giving him
an access to access the private streets. He is -- has a comprehensive plan the same as --
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
May 21, 2015
Page 7 of 48
as this one for residential. Anything that's different than that would require a
Comprehensive Plan amendment and rezone and that kind of stuff, but -- and he could,
you know --
Yearsley: Okay. Your mike cut off.
Thompson: Did it quit?
Yearsley: Yeah. The reason why it's a private street because of they are too narrow to
meet ACHD standards; is that correct?
Thompson: Mr. Chairman, it's -- that's not the only reason. They are private streets for
many reasons. They are a different concept, a variety, if you will. It's something -- you
know, the Mayor has stated that she -- she likes gated communities. They provide a
sense of community, a sense of security within -- for those owners that own in that
development and it's a different -- it's a different product type and it reaches a different
homeowner and what they like. So, I recently went to -- I'm going to digress for a second.
I recently went to a -- a presentation at the BCA, the Building Contractors Association, and
one of the things that they discussed is property values and one of the things that affects
property values the most is having too much of a like product in the same area. So,
having a variety within an area -- a variety of lot sizes and product types, that's where
property values hold their most value and too much if you just have too much inventory of
the exact same product, exact same size lots, that kind of thing, That's what brings
property values down is what -- what the BCA was presenting in their findings of property
values. So, this is just another -- you know, there is a lot of housing out in this area and
this is just a different product type and this is something that the developer has done in
other areas and it has been very successful and wants to bring this to Meridian.
Yearsley: Okay. Thank you.
Thompson: Thank you.
Yearsley: I have a couple of people signed up. Frank Shoemaker.
Shoemaker: Yeah. Good evening, Mr. Chairman and Commission Members. My name
is Frank Shoemaker. I live at 3497 Zaldia Lane. On this -- it's directly -- it's directly north
of this -- north of this project, the conceptual two phase and so I am opposed to the
conceptual plan as presented by Nesting Swan. I think there is some key elements to
remember here tonight. Transitional area, conformity, and not leap frog developments.
I'd like to go over the history on what's taken place to our neighborhood if I could. The
Canterbury Subdivision and the Napoli Subdivision were also zoned R-8. City Council
stated the R-8 was too high of a density for this area. Kingsbridge final plat, R-2. Lots
north of Zaldia Lane for Kingsbridge phase are 15,000 square foot lots. Those homes
also have one level in design. Extensive landscaping divides the corridor from Zaldia
Lane from Kingsbridge Subdivision and that would be this right that's -- that's this right
here.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
May 21, 2015
Page 8 of 48
Watters: Sorry. I --
Shoemaker: Sonya, that -- yeah, that one right there. Okay. That's the -- that's what
currently we have on Zaldia Lane. One story houses. Was R-8 approval to -- you can't
even see the houses. It looks very attractive. Okay. This is phase -- this over here -- the
next one up, Sonya. That one right there is the Napoli Subdivision and it was also part
two -- or, pardon me, R-8 zoning, it was approved I think they are R-4 in that subdivision
and the lots are -- along this corridor right there that you see looking at it are 12,000
square feet. Later this evening you will hear testimony on the Shelburne Subdivision.
This phase includes my property and my neighbor De Angeli properties that are on the
north boundary of the Nesting Swan Subdivision. The lots adjacent to the Nesting Swan
Subdivision as proposed in the Shelburne Subdivision are 81 feet, approximately, frontage
and 135 feet in depth. Eleven thousand square foot lots. R-4 zoning. Conform with
Napoli and also Kingsbridge. The Nesting Swan -- the Nesting Swan project that abuts
our south boundary have been identified in conceptual plan at 60 by 110 feet lots. Sixty-
six hundred square feet. Obviously, there is quite a difference in this -- in the design.
Yearsley: Can you finish up? Your three minutes are up.
Shoemaker: Can I have another three minutes for Di Angeli?
Yearsley: If you can just hurry up and kind of finish up.
Shoemaker: Okay. So -- okay. How I need to conclude here is -- is, first of all, Council --
Mr. Keith Bird stated in the closing -- the meeting we had on March 17th that the R-4
zoning should be north of Amity and east of Eagle Road. The larger the lots, the larger
the homes, the conformity we have. As you can see along this area here, this is what
they are going to end up with with an R-8 zoning on this project conceptual plan. As you
can see two story, two story, two story, two story. There has to be that size of lot in order
to have the marketability and as you can see it's not very attractive. I'm opposed to the
project. Any questions?
Yearsley: Any questions? Thank you. Next one on the list is Bradford Deadman.
Deadman: Good evening. My name is Bradford Deadman. I live at 2644 Zaldia Lane.
The reason I signed in the against column is just on the visuals of this neighborhood being
proposed with what I deem to be very little sensitivity to the density transition, just as
indicated by Mr. Shoemaker. We are in a position now, thankfully, of having a developer
come in for Shelburne who wishes to present a density with tremendous transition and
that's to the south of my property along Zaldia Lane. So, how this affects me is mostly just
by -- I guess a fear of any kind of precedent being set of development that has
considerably less sensitivity to the neighbors involved. I don't know what has been
proposed for -- or, excuse me, what has been exercised as far as neighborhood meetings
regarding the development of this property, but I can tell you that the developer of
Shelburne, who will speak later, has had a lot of neighborhood development with
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
May 21, 2015
Page 9 of 48
considerable sensitivity to the property. So, as I see it with the particular size of lots,
don't agree that the findings of the BCA are the best source for considering what sales a
variety of home sizes. I honestly think there is too much stock being placed in that as a --
as a valid source for a reason to argue against transition density. The other thing is
simply the product type presented is, frankly, one that would attract less -- if I can -- I hate
to say lower quality, but, unfortunately, sometimes smaller properties do attract builders of
lesser quality homes and from the surrounding neighborhoods of Kingsbridge, Tuscany
across from Eagle, of course, Napoli and the upcoming Shelburne properties, you will be
surrounded with hundreds and hundreds of acres of fine quality properties, encouraging
good, caring homeowners and the only other thing that wasn't address particularly, I am
just a little bit unsure of what defines a private road versus public, because I do have -- for
a private gated community. Anyway, again, it's kind of last minute. But thank you.
Yearsley: Thank you. Next on the list is -- is it Dan Luke? And please state your name
and address for the record.
Luke: Dan Luke. 3290 East Amity, Meridian. I live on the corner where the roundabout is
there. Everybody know where I live? I don't know why we are here talking about this,
because I don't see no changes on these plans at all and this is the third -- it already went
through the City of Meridian and they didn't like it. Now we are up here again and I don't
see no changes whatsoever. So, I don't see why we are even discussing this. Everybody
around -- around my place, the guys have been talking, they want -- if you're going to
have subdivisions -- you know, they are too crowded in there. It should be like three and
a half per acre, you know. Look at -- look where Roger Taylor lives. He owns that ten
acres there on Eagle Road. He's got a custom built house right there. If he puts these
houses in there he -- I will bet he will lose a hundred grand off of his -- off of his property
by putting low houses in there.
Yearsley: Can you speak into the mike?
Luke: Want me to say it again?
Yearsley: No. Just for future --
Luke: Okay. So, you know, it's just not me. It's -- other people involvement in this and if
you do put a subdivision around my place, I want -- or what I'd like to have -- I had to build
an existing fence around my back property there, just because the -- just because people
were moving in around me and they didn't like what I had, so they -- they made me put a
fence up, okay? I put a masonry fence up. I think that if they put a fence up they should
match an existing fence. That way I got a block wall around the perimeter and, then, I
don't have to deal with these people. You know, it's -- and another thing, down here on
the east -- on Amity Road I get my water down here where the old folks home is and there
is going to be an open ditch. There always will be an open ditch right there that will feed
my property. You know, if they would have bought my property outright that -- you
wouldn't have had to have an open ditch right there. See what I'm saying? They are
making things a lot harder for everybody. So, until they -- I'm just -- what I'm trying to say
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
May 21, 2015
Page 10 of 48
is -- is that's going to be a busy intersection. Five lanes on Eagle, five lanes on Amity,
and the Lukes are sitting here caught here in the middle of it. So, when they put that
second phase in my house is -- it looks like it's going to be way too close to the road, but
their laws or whatever they say, is -- it's not going to be that close is what they are trying
to say. But what I'm trying to say is there so much honking going around that roundabout
-- I really don't think my corner -- my -- where I live should be residential, you know, I --
leave it up to people like you to say, well, do you think they should have houses right in
there -- right there on the roundabout? I don't think they should. They put an Idaho
Power across the street and there is nothing to look at and there is -- all you hear is a
bunch of humming noise all the time.
Yearsley: Can you wrap it up? Your time is up.
Luke: So, what I'm trying to say is the same thing -- we are dealing with the same people,
the same subdivision, and they haven't changed nothing. Thank you.
Yearsley: Thank you. The next one Jo Luke. Did you want to -- okay. Roger Taylor.
State your name and address for the record, please.
Taylor: Roger Taylor. 4606 South Eagle Road, Meridian. My concerns is that they
haven't changed any of the plan since it was rejected last time. I mean it's, basically, the
same number of lots. It was already rejected. So, we are back here again trying to go
through it. It just doesn't make any sense. My other concern is my property along here --
right along here -- there is a ditch that I have to maintain. My question is are they going to
put that fence up there 15 feet from the -- so, I have room to maintain it or what are they
going to there? Do we know? I mean their -- their property line is the ditch. So, I have to
have room to maintain that ditch and use that ditch all the way so it's a long here and over
here and down. So, I have to maintain that ditch. So, I need 15 feet there, like this old
subdivision was, to maintain that ditch. So, is that what they are going to do; do you
know?
Yearsley: The applicant will have a chance to come up and address that comment when
she comes back.
Taylor: Now, Councilman Bird, he suggested that everything should be in R-4 all the way
through here and they haven't changed anything. So, it looks like kind of wasting our time
doing the same process over and over again and, then, right here in the middle where our
view would really be blocked, I would like to see them put them as one story houses, so
we can actually have our view if we could. I would sure like that, since we have had such
a great view all along and now it's going to change. So, right here in the middle if they
would put that single story it would make a lot of difference. And, then, the road here --
across here, they are going to have to put a fence there to -- are they going to have
enough room between the easement and the fence and the road for the highway -- I mean
for the Ada County? I don't know. So, these are my concerns. Thank you.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
May 21, 2015
Page 11 of 48
Yearsley: Thank you. I apologize in advance. Is it Susan? I can't read the writing on the
last name. Is there anybody else that would like to come up and testify? All right. That
being said, would the applicant to like come forward?
Thompson: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, again, Tamara Thompson with
The Land Group. I will address a couple of -- or the items that came up from the
neighbors' comments. First is the -- the transition to the properties to the north. So, what
I want to highlight is that we are not sharing property lines. There is a 30 foot landscape
buffer behind the backs of the properties and, then, the property line and, then, properties
is there. So, we don't have property lines of where we are going to be sharing fence lines
or anything like that. There is a 30 foot landscape above in there and that is addressed at
length in the staff report and staff has recommended that that is the -- that transition is
acceptable and I want to -- I want to point out that our Comprehensive Plan for this area is
medium density residential and that we -- our overall density is below that. We are at
2.99. If you take out the -- the larger properties we are still under four and we are asking
for R-8 for the dimensional standards, but we are well -- well under the -- the densities that
-- that allowed in this Comprehensive Plan designation. As far as the changed, there --
there are considerable changes to the northern portion of the concept plan. One of the
main issues last time when we were here was where that access road was going to go to
the north. So, we completely redesigned this thing for -- to accommodate that. You're
going to see later on the agenda the property to the north and what their -- what their
concept plan is. But we have worked closely with them in accommodating their -- their
requested access. So, there are considerable changes. The north portion with those
changes we are not able to do the private streets any longer, so that's -- that's gone. So,
all of that will be private. The other thing I want to make sure you understand is just to the
east of this property is a new high school location and that high school -- typically around
schools you get a little bit more dense and the Comprehensive Plan for this area is for
medium density is -- is definitely related to that high school site being adjacent there.
Let's see. Mr. Taylor brought up several items. He did call me. I walked him through
these before. So, the property line is the center of the ditch. The property -- the
homeowners association will maintain our -- this side of the ditch and there will be -- will
be completely outside of the easement that currently exists there. We are not proposing
to change that. The ditch will stay open. He will still have access to that for irrigation. As
far as on the side of Martinel to the east of him the -- I just want to explain that the right of
way that's shown there is not edge of payment. I think you guys have seen some cross -
sections of what roads look like in that you have -- you have the roadway, you have curb,
gutter, sidewalk and, then, you have some landscaping on the backside of that and, then,
that fence would be there. So, it's not -- it's not edge of pavement and, then, you have a
fence right next to that. I believe that was his question. And if I have forgotten any I
apologize, but I think that covers it and in conclusion I just do want to point out that we
comply with the Comprehensive Plan for this corner. It is medium density residential and
we respectfully request your approval tonight.
Yearsley: I have one quick question. The open space along that north boundary, is that --
will that have a pathway there?
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
May 21, 2015
Page 12 of 48
Thompson: Mr. Chairman, yes, it's -- that is a condition of approval.
Yearsley: Okay.
Thompson: And there is a pathway for access to the school site.
Yearsley: Okay. Any other questions?
Oliver: Mr. Chairman?
Yearsley: Commissioner Oliver.
Oliver: Just had a question as far as are all the homes in phase one planned to be two
story homes? One of the comments was there were all going to be two story homes.
Thompson: Right. Commissioner Oliver, I -- we gave some concept plans and I believe
that's going to be builder dictated. There were some single family elevations -- in fact, all
of these are single family here. So, I can't answer that for sure that they are all going to
be single story. There could be some,-- some two story, but -- but the plan is -- this is the
flavor of the homes that will be built in there.
Oliver: What we are seeing right here?
Thompson: What you're seeing there. Those are the concept plans for the homes. And
those are attached to the development agreement. So, we have to comply with those.
Oliver: And one more question. It was 1.1.3.G was the -- the one that you want to take
out before it goes to the City Council?
Thompson: 1.1.2.F and 1.1.3.G --
Oliver: Yes.
Thompson: -- are the two that are -- they are basically the same condition, just in different
sections.
Oliver: Thank you.
Thompson: Thank you.
Baird: Mr. Chair?
Yearsley: Yes.
Baird: Turn my mike on here. Just to clarify, there may have been some discussion at
City Council, but this item has been remanded without decision or findings, so you're
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
May 21, 2015
Page 13 of 48
sending out a brand new recommendation. So, anything that they said they can say it
again if they -- if they still feel the same way when it gets back there.
Yearsley: Okay. Thank you. I do want to clarify Mr. Taylor's comment. He was asking
about single level properties to the north, the phase two, and at this point we are not
asking for a plat on that portion, you will have to come back in for another preliminary plat
to develop that property; is that correct?
Thompson: Mr. Chairman, that's correct. Preliminary plats have shelf life. They are only
good for a certain period of time and the way development occurs -- we have one access
point to a public street, so development occurs at that access and we will move -- we will
move interior. The -- the preliminary plat before you is for the southwest corner and the
northeast. The concept plan will be attached to a development agreement, but a
preliminary plat for that will come back to you.
Yearsley: Okay. I just want to try to make sure I answered his question with that
comment, so -- any other comments or questions? Thank you.
Thompson: Thank you.
Yearsley: Could I get a motion to close the public hearing on --
Fitzgerald: If I could ask a question. Sonya, do we have verification -- is that actually
owned by the school district or is it just a target for future?
Watters: Chairman, Commissioner Fitzgerald, it is owned by the school district.
Fitzgerald: Thank you, ma'am.
Yearsley: So, with that can I get a motion to close the public hearing?
Fitzgerald: Mr. Chairman?
Yearsley: Yes.
Fitzgerald: I would move to close the public hearing.
Wilson: Second.
Yearsley: I have a motion and a second to close the public hearing on AZ 14-016 and PP
14-018, Nesting Swan. All in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Yearsley: Comments? Anyone like to go first?
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
May 21, 2015
Page 14 of 48
Oliver: I will go first. I do see a difference between the plan that came to us the first time
in phase two where they adjusted the road and fixed the road and straightened it out. It
looks a lot better than it did the first time we saw it.
Wilson: One thing that I don't know that got answered and maybe someone else as we
are discussing this can talk about it, it was just the leap frogging. I remember that was a
concern last time when we denied it. I didn't see it was addressed. I mean maybe my
thinking is that's alleviated by the high school and that, in fact, being school district land.
I'm still mulling over that and the fact that a big part of our denial in February was because
of that leap frogging in terms of development.
Yearsley: I will answer that question. You know, initially we did have that concern and
that still is somewhat of a concern. However, I think the development to the north kind of
smoothed that out just a little bit, because, you know, we are actually having more
development happen down in that area. It's not as big a leap frog at this point. It can be a
concern if that's, you know, your discretion with it, so -- but I do like the layout better on
that -- that first -- that second phase. I'm -- personally I still don't care much for the phase
one. However, our development does -- or our code does allow for private streets and
there is a gate proposed in that portion of it. I don't quite know how to address Mr. Luke
with his property and depending on if he wants to come in with a different type of zoning
for annexation and how that would work in the future with private streets, if he -- if he so
desires to come in besides something different than residential. So, I do have some
concerns, but -- but for the most part I think it does look quite a bit better than what it was
proposed initially, so --
Fitzgerald: Mr. Chairman, I -- I will -- I do have some concerns in the way it's laid out.
mean it's -- it's a little challenging in that regard. It is, per Mr. Luke's comments, density
goes to those corners and that's -- whether it's hard corner for commercial or its -- or it's a
neighborhood that has density, that's kind of the way this community is developed and you
want a little bit higher density when you're getting closer to hard corners and I know that's
a strange -- the roundabout is a little bit of a wrinkle in this whole thing, especially access
for Mr. Luke. But I -- I mean I appreciate the developer coming back and saying we are
going to realign the roads and put some new thought into it and I think it's something we
don't normally see. We don't see gated communities with higher density with that --
mean it's a landowners prerogative to try to get something that might work a little
differently than what we see every day and so I do -- I do like that idea. But it's not the
same everywhere, so --
Yearsley: Okay. So, if there is no more discussion I would entertain a motion.
Oliver: Mr. Chairman?
Yearsley: Commissioner Oliver.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
May 21, 2015
Page 15 of 48
Oliver: After considering all staff, application, and public testimony, I move to recommend
approval to City Council of file numbers AZ 14-016 and PP 14-018 as presented in the
report for the hearing date of May 21 st, 2015.
Fitzgerald: Second.
Yearsley: I have a motion and a second to approve the public hearing of AZ 14-016 and
PP 14-018. All in favor say aye. Opposed?
Wilson: No.
Yearsley: Motion carries. Thank you.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE NAY. ONE ABSENT.
C. Public Hearing: CPAM 15-001 Hill Properties/Century Farm
School by Martin Hill, Hill & Hill Properties and Brighton
Investments Located East Side of S. Eagle Road and South Side
of E. Amity Road Request: Amendment to the Comprehensive
Plan Future Land Use Map to Change the Future Land Use
Designation on 87.01 Acres of Land from Low Density
Residential to Mixed -Use Neighborhood
D. Public Hearing: AZ 15-004 Hill Properties by Martin Hill and Hill &
Hill Properties Located East Side of S. Eagle Road and the South
Side of E. Amity Road Request: Annexation of 78.62 Acres of
Land with the R-8 (39.83 Acres) and C-N (38.79 Acres) Zoning
Districts
E. Public Hearing: RZ 15-007 Century Farm School by Brighton
Investments Located 1/4 Mile South of E. Amity Road and 1/2
Mile East of S. Eagle Road Request: Rezone of 8.39 Acres of
Land From the R-8 to the C-N Zoning District
Yearsley: Next we have on the list file number -- public hearing on file number CPAM 15-
001, AZ 15-004, and RZ 15-007, Hill Century -- or Hill Property, Hill Century Farm School
and let's begin with the staff report.
Watters: Thank you, Chairman, Members of the Commission. The next applications
before you are a request for an amendment to the future land use map contained in the
Comprehensive Plan, annexation and zoning and a rezone. This site is located off of the
southeast corner of South Eagle Road and East Amity Road. To the north -- adjacent
land uses and zoning. To the north is East Amity Road, an assisted living facility. Rural
residential agricultural properties and a future high school site zoned RUT in Ada County
and just to note that the property that was previously discussed at the last hearing was
this property right here, if you can see my pointer. So, we are just to the south of that
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
May 21, 2015
Page 16 of 48
across Amity Road. To the south of this site are single family residential properties that
are in the development process in Hill Century Farms Subdivision, zoned R-8. To the
east are rural residential agricultural properties zoned RUT in Ada County. To the west is
South Eagle Road and rural residential agricultural properties zoned RUT in Ada County.
And at the northwest corner of the site, right at the intersection there, is an Idaho Power
substation, zoned RUT in Ada County. The applicant is proposing an amendment to the
Comprehensive Plan future land use map, as you can see on the exhibit there on your
right, to change the land use designation on 87.01 acres of land from low density
residential to mixed use neighborhood. The applicant also requests annexation and
zoning of 78 point -- or 78.62 acres of land with an R-8 zoning, which is 39.83 acres C-N
zoning, which is 38.79 acres of land. As you can see here the total annexation area is
within the yellow dash line and a rezone is proposed for this area right down here at the
south end of the property of 8.39 acres of land from the R-8 zoning district to the C-N
zoning district and that is consistent with the proposed mixed use neighborhood future
land use map designation. A concept bubble plan was submitted by the applicant that
depicts how the property is proposed to develop with a mix of uses, consisting of medium
density residential homes on the west there in yellow at densities of four to eight dwelling
units per acre. In the green there is a neighborhood -- excuse me. In the red
neighborhood scale retail, office, and professional convenience uses and in green is the
West Ada Elementary School, a YMCA, city park, and potentially a library and health
complex. A more detailed plan is shown there on your right for the school and the YMCA
site. Approval of the rezone to C-N will allow the school parcel to be regulated under one
zoning jurisdiction, rather than two, and will allow the school to develop without approval
of a conditional use permit, which is required in the current R-4 district. As you can see
here the -- the boundary of the R-4 district is right here and the school is proposed to span
over that boundary. There are three existing homes on this site, as you can see here on
the aerial. The home along the center of the south boundary here where my pointer is, is
proposed to be zoned R-8 and is proposed to remain. The home at the southeast corner
of the site right there is proposed to be included in the C-N zone area and is proposed to
remain as long as the current owners live there, after which time the YMCA will, then,
expand into that area. The home along the north boundary of this site is also proposed to
be included in the C-N zoned area and is proposed to remain until redevelopment of that
area occurs, at which time the home and outbuildings will be removed. Because the C-N
zone prohibits single family residential uses, staff is recommending, if the applicant does
not want to remove the two existing homes, that they are annexed with a residential zone
and rezoned in the future when the site is ready to redevelop commercially. The existing
home will be required to hook up to city water and sewer service within 60 days of
services being available per Meridian City Code 9-1-4-A. The addresses of the existing
homes to remain on the site will be changed at the time of development of the property.
Written testimony has been received from Mike Wardle, the applicant's representative. He
is in agreement with the staff report, except for the following issues. And I will just run
through those real quick. The first he requests that the two existing homes are allowed to
remain in the C-N district until redevelopment occurs, rather than be rezoned -- rezoned to
R-8 and that they not be required to hook up to city services. This is in the development
agreement provision number 1.1 E. And, again, that's the home right here where my
pointer is and at the southeast corner of the site. The second request is for an extension
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
May 21, 2015
Page 17 of 48
of the hours of operation in the C-N zoning district for the YMCA to be allowed to open at
5:00 a.m., rather than 6:00 a.m. Our city code restricts business hours in the C-N district
from 6:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. So, it would be a variance of one hour difference and that is
DA provision number 1.1 B. The third request is for densities in the R-8 zoned portion of
the development, which is this area right here, to be allowed to be four to eight units per
acre, consistent with the Hill Century Farm development immediately to the south, rather
than six to eight units per acre as stated in the development agreement, which is based
on the underlying future land use map designation of mixed neighborhood in the R-8
zoning district requested and that is in provision 1.1.G.8. Last the request of the
development agreement specifically note that a landscape buffer to residential uses is not
required adjacent to the Hill property at the southeast corner of the site, as buffering will
be achieved through the adjacent city park, YMCA, and school complex and it will
eventually be part of the YMCA site. That, again, is this property right here at the corner.
Staff is recommending approval of the requested applications with a development
agreement that requires the agreement to be modified to include a more detailed
development plan prior to a plat application being submitted and any development
occurring beyond the school and YMCA and park site to insure development is consistent
with the objective and vision of the mixed use neighborhood designation. Staff will stand
for any questions Commission may have.
Yearsley: Thank you. And I forgot before we started with this. I wanted to declare --
serve on the YMCA's construction committee, but -- which is part of this development, but
don't feel that it is a conflict of interest to sit on this -- to hear this today so -- so with that
will stand for any questions for staff. I actually just have -- just some clarifications. The
DA agreement changes that they are asking for, don't really apply to us, because that's a
City Council approval; is that not correct?
Watters: That is correct, Mr. Chairman.
Yearsley: Okay. So, it's just the 1.1.1.G8; is that correct?
Watters: Yes. However, you can make recommendations to the Council if you'd like.
Yearsley: Okay. So -- all right. With that would the applicant like to come forward.
Wardle: Mr. Chairman, Commission Members, Mike Wardle representing Marty Hill and
Brighton Corporation. I office at 12601 West Explorer Drive in Boise. We appreciate --
just want to note how this came about. The West Ada School District wants to start
construction of an elementary school late this summer and so we acknowledged that
sitting down with staff to work through how all of these things can be achieved
necessitated, first of all, the Comprehensive Plan amendment. That opened the door, not
only for the school, but also for the YMCA and the other related facilities that are
proposed. In the process we also found that it was necessary really to rezone the school
site that was platted -- or was being platted with the Hill Century Farms Subdivision and
so as we sat down and worked through those complex issues timing became a great
concern and I want to commend staff for not only clarifying and working through the
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
May 21, 2015
Page 18 of 48
issues on how to make this happen, but also in finding the most expeditious way to get it
done, so that the school district will be prepared to meet its objective later this summer
when they need to start that school. Specifically Sonya was at the table helping forge this
process and we acknowledge her efforts in doing so. Just -- I won't spend a lot of time,
but I want to just put in context the master plan for Century Farms Subdivision with Amity
Road to the left -- north being to the left. Eagle Road to the south. The red boundary line
is the dividing line between the school parcel that we have created in the subdivision and
the expanded community facility complex that's being proposed. Little did we appreciate
when we came forward with the plan initially that by simply provided a school site that it
would open the door for all of these other things to come to fruition and, quite frankly, this
will be one of the most exciting projects, because I don't think there is ever been one done
-- at least not in this area -- where an elementary school and a YMCA are built together
and will share facilities together -- obviously with some of their own dedicated and
protected spaces, but what a great opportunity and, then, with the desire of Marty Hill,
who owns the 80 acres to the left or just immediately south of Amity Road, so his
contribution to help bring to pass a city park that would, then, relate to those elements and
with express interest by the library district to engage as well. So, what a great opportunity
to see something dramatic happen in this area. Sonya, the next slide I think I'm going to
just run through quickly. She's already shown this. Go to the next. She also showed this.
This is kind of just a generic bubble breakdown of how the -- the land uses will form in the
future. Sonya noted specifically that -- that Marty Hill's desire for the medium density
residential is to be consistent with the type and size of the parcels in Hill Century Farms
immediately to the south. So, staff had noted in compliance with the MUN
Comprehensive Plan land use designation typically it would be a six to eight units per
acre. We don't know that meeting Mr. Hill's objectives will get us there unless we look at it
in the context of net density, rather than gross density. So, that's one of the stipulations
that we have asked for consideration. The next slide, again, defines how the zoning will
work and I would just take this opportunity to talk a little bit about the two residences that
will remain in this proposed C-N zoning and it's our belief that the City Council, with an
affirmative recommendation from the Planning and Zoning Commission, can, by
development agreement, allow those to remain until redevelopment to the one up on
Amity and the one in the southeast where Marty's parents live currently, then, is
incorporated into the YMCA complex. I would just note specifically, though, that that -- the
latter that -- his parents' home will actually be acquired by the YMCA and they will be
allowed to remain until they vacate the property at some point in the future and at that
time, then, it would be incorporated into the YMCA complex. Let's -- yeah. This just
reiterates, again, the uses. Dwelling A is Marty Hill's residence. It is -- will be
incorporated into the R-8 zone and will be when we plat that property to the west over to
the intersection of Amity and Eagle Road there will be provided access through a public
street system and utilities provided at that point. Parcel B -- or dwelling B is the one that
will go away when the land to the north of the public use complex redevelops and, then,
C, of course, is the one that I just noted that will be actually acquired by the YMCA. So,
just to reiterate what Sonya noted, we would simply ask that the Commission, in your
recommendation, for approval of not only the Comprehensive Plan amendment, but also
the annexation and zoning, that you also affirm to them that the residences be allowed to
remain in a C-N zone through the development agreement, that the YMCA hours of
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
May 21, 2015
Page 19 of 48
operation be allowed to begin at 5:00 a.m. That the density be -- net densities ranging
from four to eight units per acre and that no additional buffering would be required by -- for
either Marty's A or C, because of the public use complex, city park, and so forth that would
surround them. I would be happy to answer your questions, but I appreciate the
opportunity.
Yearsley: Any questions? I do have one. Going back to the plat that we had for Hill
Century, won't, potentially, that house C -- is it C on the corner the parents live in? Won't
that actually end up being where the road will actually go through in the future?
Wardle: It will be just immediately west of the road. There is a private lane that's adjacent
to them that take access from that's called Howry Lane --
Yearsley: Okay.
Wardle: -- and whether Howry gets incorporated into that public road or whether the road
goes immediately to the east, but that's the corridor that will be the mid -- mid mile
collector roadway connection to Amity.
Yearsley: Okay.
Wardle: And it will be extended from -- our second phase is currently -- well, the plans are
in for approval, but we will be extending the roadways to the school site this year, so it
would facilitate not only the access, but also the utility extensions.
Yearsley: Okay.
Oliver: Mr. Chairman?
Yearsley: Commissioner Oliver.
Oliver: Sonya, could you go to the one that shows the three different bubbles -- the colors
that -- the develop -- there. Being an educator I guess I'm a little worried about -- I kind of
wrap my brain around how that works with the Y and the school there together and how
that's going to work for the safety of the children, but, then, adding in a neighborhood retail
along with it, how will that be -- how will that be separated to make sure that we still have
some safety for the kids, as well as transportation, because there is a lot -- going to be a
lot of people going into the Y, as well as you're putting in retail. I'm thinking about safety
of the kids.
Wardle: I understand. There are actually many examples in the community where -- and
let's be clear that the MUN and the C-N zoning are the smallest and least intensive type of
commercial options that there are in the city. So, these will be more services than there
will be a lot of retail. It's not to say that there couldn't be some retail opportunities, but
they will be small and discrete types of uses compared to the larger -- because there is
actually a -- I believe a 20,000 square foot footprint limitation for the retail type uses and
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
May 21, 2015
Page 20 of 48
that's -- so -- but I don't know that there will be even that type of use coming forward. The
types of things that we do envision, though, are the services that would relate -- for
instance, when my children were going to both junior high and elementary schools in
another community, there was a gold mine location of an orthodontist right between the
junior high school and the elementary school and the high school is only a couple more
blocks down the road. I can see those types of things with the high school directly to the
north, elementary school to the south, services that would -- would function, frankly, in --
as complimentary to the types of uses that are there. YMCA is a very unique -- it brings a
clientele of active users that sometimes would find other services immediately adjacent
and available a very beneficial thing. So, I just want to stress that that's the least intensive
type commercial option that there is in the city, but we need that -- we need that flexibility,
because this is going to be kind of wedged between a high school and this public use
complex and with that roadway connection being a collector roadway, it's not like it's going
to be isolated on some type of a minor street, there will be good buffering and so forth
along that that will give visibility and protection to all I'm confident.
Oliver: Same thing with the Y, that there will be a definite --
Wardle: Yes. And the Y will be on the northerly side of the -- of the site. The school
district -- the school -- the school site will begin actually on the Century Farms side of the
line and kind of spread over it and that's why we had to bring the rezone for our parcel into
this application, so that they wouldn't be dealing with two zones and two separate types of
standards, so -- I hope I clarified it a bit for you.
Oliver: Yeah. That helped. Thank you.
Fitzgerald: Mr. Chairman? And maybe one of the two of you can answer it. The concept
plan for the school and the Y are -- is that the way it is in the development agreement?
Watters: Yes, it is.
Fitzgerald: Thank you, ma'am.
Wardle: Mr. Chairman, my assistant just wanted to note that the school access, if you
look at the -- the screen that is available right now, the school access will be on the south
side. The YMCA's access will be on the north side. You see a fairly complex set of
parking. Obviously, this is not any kind of a final, but it's as close as they are currently.
So, the elementary school will have a totally different front window, even though they will
share those common core facilities between the two structures. So, the kids are going to
have the buffering of the YMCA complex and those are pretty responsible citizens
typically.
Oliver: Thank you.
Wardle: Thank you.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
May 21, 2015
Page 21 of 48
Fitzgerald: Mr. Chair, one more question.
Yearsley: Absolutely.
Fitzgerald: Mr. Wardle, can you -- on that median distance -- or medium density, he's
looking at just more I guess options from four to eight; correct? Gives you more options
for density across that -- that second part of the project?
Wardle: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Fitzgerald, we have the flexibility -- and, obviously,
the time in the future that Mr. Hill's property comes in with a preliminary plat we will have a
lot more understanding of how all of these other uses might encourage something towards
the higher density elements, but this interest is to kind of carry forward, because he's a
cousin to the Hill family that the property was owned by that we are developing to the
south. His intent is to see that type of thing continued to the north. So -- but we have the
flexibility if -- if the market and if his desires -- particularly as you get up closer, probably,
to the substation, might do something a little bit more intense up there, but around his
home and immediately to the north of Hill Century Farm, he wants to carry on that same
concept. Hence, we don't want to be put in position where we have to have the higher
density that would typically get into some attached type of units that may not be his
preference.
Fitzgerald: Okay. Thank you.
Yearsley: Any other questions? Thank you.
Wardle: Thank you.
Yearsley: I don't have anybody signed up to testify. Is there anybody who would like to
come up and testify on this application? With that I don't think we need to bring the
applicant forward to rebut no one's comments. So, can I get a motion to close the public
hearing on CPAM 15-001, AZ 15-004, and RZ 15-007?
Wilson: Mr. Chairman, I move that we close the public hearing.
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: Comments?
Wilson: I mean I'm excited about sort of the development in with the Y. I think -- I think
some of the concerns with the proximity of the YMCA to the -- the new elementary school
have been assuaged and I think this is a good project.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
May 21, 2015
Page 22 of 48
Yearsley: Thank you.
Oliver: Mr. Chairman?
Yearsley: Commissioner Oliver.
Oliver: I think it's a wonderful opportunity for those kids to be sitting right next to a YMCA.
The advantages are tremendous and I -- if I had children that age I would be the first one
signed up to get my kids in that school, because the opportunities are incredible. So,
think it's a wonderful -- wonderful development and I'd like to thank Mr. Hill for putting it to
us. Thank you.
Yearsley: Thank you.
Fitzgerald: Mr. Chairman, I would duplicate or kind of agree with comments already
made. I think giving the developer the flexibility -- I know this is not something that we
have purview over, but I think the recommendation is to help them move this forward.
think the Hill family has been exceptionally gracious in their systems in moving this thing
forward. It's a great project. I think we will see more of it moving forward, but I think
giving them the flexibility to do some density adjustments to the get some flow from the --
the farm project that's already out there towards -- towards Amity and Eagle I think would
give them -- that would be my thought as we move forward is to give our recommendation
with some flexibility for the developer.
Yearsley: Thank you. And I have a tendency to agree. I think that the way they have laid
it out is really good and having that professional office retail at that location is actually a
great location for that. My kids go to Mountain View High School and you see that same
issue right in front of that. You have a lot of medical and orthodontist and dental right
there as well, so I think that works out really well. And I do agree, I think giving those --
giving them those options is -- it's beneficial. So, with that I would entertain a motion.
Oliver: Mr. Chairman?
Yearsley: Commissioner Oliver.
Oliver: After considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move to recommend
approval of file numbers CPAM 15-001, AZ 15-004, RZ 15-007, as presented in the staff
report for the hearing date of May 21 st, 2015.
Yearsley: Are you going to make any modifications as expressed?
Oliver: What was the -- I didn't write those down. 1.1.G?
Yearsley: I think that's the landscaping buffer.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
May 21, 2015
Page 23 of 48
Oliver: This one?
Yearsley: That's -- can we just basically make the modifications as recommended by the
applicant?
Watters: Yes.
Yearsley: Okay.
Fitzgerald: Second. Based on that.
Yearsley: Okay. I have a motion and a second to approve the public hearing of CPAM
15-001, AZ 15-004 and RZ 15-007. All in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carried.
Congratulations.
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT.
F. Public Hearing: AZ 15-003 Shelburne Subdivision by Shelburne
Properties, LLC Located 3405, 3497 and 3801 E. Zaldia Lane
Request: Annexation and Zoning of 30.21 Acres of Land with an
R-4 Zoning District Recommend Approval to City Council
G. Public Hearing: PP 15-005 Shelburne Subdivision by Shelburne
Properties, LLC Located 3405, 3497 and 3801 E. Zaldia Lane
Request: Preliminary Plat Approval Consisting of Seventy -Eight
(78) Building Lots and Fifteen (15) Common Lots on 30.2 Acres
of Land
Yearsley: We have the next application on public hearing for AZ 15-003 and PP 15-005
on the Shelburne Subdivision and let's begin with the staff report.
Watters: Thank you, Chairman, Commissioners. So, as you can see all of my projects
before you tonight are right in the same half mile area. This project Shelburne Subdivision
is directly to the north of Hills properties and Nesting Swan. The applications before you
with this is an annexation and zoning and a preliminary plat request. This site consists of
30.21 acres of land. It's currently zoned RUT in Ada County and is located at 3405, 3497,
and 3801 East Zaldia Lane. Adjacent land uses. Zoning to the north are single family
residential properties, zoned R-2 in the city and RUT in Ada County. To the east are rural
residential properties zoned RUT in Ada County. To the south are rural residential and
agricultural property, zoned RUT and a future high school site and proposed Nesting
Swan Ranch Subdivision. And to the west are single family residential properties, zoned
R-2 in the city. The Comprehensive Plan future land use map designation for this
property is medium density residential. The applicant has applied for annexation and
zoning of 30.21 acres of land with an R-4 zoning district, with a request for a step down in
density shown on the future land use map for this property from medium density
residential to low density residential. The Comprehensive Plan allows requests for other
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
May 21, 2015
Page 24 of 48
residential densities in residential areas to be considered without the requirement of an
amendment to the future land use map, provided that the change is only one step. For
example, from medium density residential to low density residential. Since this application
was submitted and the staff report was written, the applicant has submitted a revised
preliminary plat exhibit based on some of the changes recommended by staff and Ada
County Highway District. The plat before you is the original plat and landscape plan that
was submitted with this application. If you note the alignment of the streets are different
here. This is a copy of the propose revised plat exhibit. The staff report has not been
revised according with this new revised plan and ACHD has not yet finished their report,
so the staff report is not up to date with the proposed plan. The Commission may want to
hear the project tonight and continue the project in order to see the revised staff report
and ACHD's staff report or if the Commission is comfortable make a recommendation
tonight based on the proposed plan and staff will update the report in accord with the
revised plat prior to the Council meeting. The preliminary plat before you depicts 79
building lots and 13 common lots on 30.21 acres of land. The property is proposed to
develop in two phases as shown on the phasing plan here. The gross density for the
subdivision is 2.58 dwelling units per acre, with a net density of 4.33 dwelling units per
acre, with an average lot size of 10,090 square feet. Access is proposed for this
development via one access at the northwest corner of the site from East Zaldia Street via
South Eagle Road. A secondary emergency access will be required prior to development
of phase two or as determined by the Fire Department. Direct lot access to the proposed
collector street is prohibited and just to clarify, the collector street, if you can see my
pointer here, runs through here and, then, also along the east boundary of the site. The
existing home proposed to remain on Lot 3, Block 4, is proposing an access via East
Elliana Drive, the collector street and that is this home right here, due to existing
topography of the land in this area. Council approval of the access is required. An ACHD
report has not been completed for this development, as I stated. However, ACHD has
communicated to staff that the following modifications will require ACHD commission
approval. The first is the mini cul-de-sac on the Stockingham Place and Newbridge Place.
That is this one here and this one. No temporary turnaround at the terminus of the Howry
Lane and Martinel Avenue. That would be here and here. And removal of the
roundabout at the Elliana-Howry Lane intersection from the master street map. Originally
there was a roundabout planned for right here, the northeast corner of the site. Block 4
where the pond and a large common area is located right here exceeds the maximum
block length allowed of 750 feet. The applicant is requesting Council approval of a block
length up to 1,200 feet as allowed by the Unified Development Code due to the block
design being constrained by the pond. The original plan complied with the open space
requirements and the developer proposes to provide a gazebo on the island in the pond
with some picnic tables on the north side of the pond as amenities for the subdivision.
Staff has not had an opportunity to review the revised plat for compliance with the open
space requirements. The pond is required to have recirculated water and to maintain
such that it does not become a mosquito breeding ground. As a water amenity the pond
is also required to have banks no steeper than one foot vertical for every four feet
horizontally, with a depth and velocity in accord with UDC standards. There are three
existing homes and associated accessory structures on the site that are proposed to
remain on building lots within the subdivision. There is an existing structure -- existing
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
May 21, 2015
Page 25 of 48
accessory structure on the existing Shoemaker property that is proposed to be located on
the adjacent Lot 4 while their home is proposed to remain on Lot 5, Block 2, and that is
this property right here. The Shoemakers plan to build a new home on proposed Lot 4,
which is directly to the south and retain their existing accessory structure. However, city
code does not allow an accessory structure to be located on a property without a primary
structure. Therefore, staff recommends a common lot line between which Lots 4 and 5 as
reconfigured to include the accessory structure on Lot 5, which is the existing home lot,
which would allow the Shoemakers to construct a new home and later apply for a property
boundary adjustment to shift the lot line between the two properties to include the
accessory structure on their new property. They are asking for a Council waiver to allow
them to not do what I just stated and allow the accessory structure to be located on this
property prior to the primary structure being constructed. The applicant has submitted --
well, let me back track just a little bit here. This is the existing home that is located here
next to the pond, just requesting access to the collector street and this sort of
demonstrates the topography in that area and the slope and why they are not providing
access via this street right here and are proposing a street from the collector instead.
The applicant has submitted seven photos of sample building elevations for future homes
in this development. Building materials consist of a mix of stucco, board and bat and lap
siding and cultured stone wainscot with architectural shingles. Written testimony has
been received by Janie Teeter, Cindy Pixley, and Lonnie and Bonnie Stiles. Staff is
recommending approval of the development agreement per the provisions in the staff
report. Staff will stand for any questions.
Yearsley: Are there any questions? Thank you. Would the applicant like to come
forward? Please state your name and address for the record.
Clarno: Good evening. My name is Randy Clarno. I'm the managing partner for
Shelburne Properties and with me tonight is Breckon Land -- representatives from
Breckon Land Design and Engineering if we have any technical questions for them. Let
me just start by just saying that what we are proposing to do here is a very nice project
that takes advantage of the natural features that are there, particularly the pond and also
the slopes that are to the south. There are a number of vistas that are achieved on this
property, both to the north and to the south. We are trying to do a project that will mirror,
for example, Kingsbridge with slightly smaller lots. I am the developer of Kingsbridge, so
I'm familiar with the area and the success of that project. I will just talk a little bit about the
neighborhood meeting. We reached out to the neighbors. Obviously had a neighborhood
meeting. There was significant concern about lot size, about the character of the homes
and the project, about common area, about Zaldia Lane. As you know, Zaldia Lane is
actually a private drive from our west boundary all the way over to the east boundary and
along the north line and we originally looked at a concept that extended that road per
ACHD and the City of Meridian's neighborhood collector plan and found that it was very
disruptive to the pond. The grade change there was significant. We would have had to
have taken out more than half of the pond and it would create a situation where not only
do we not have neighborhood support, but it just didn't make economic sense to do that.
So, we went back to the drawing board and said let's keep the pond as it is and let's move
the collector road south. So, we did that, as you can see in this plan, and, then, as Sonya
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
May 21, 2015
Page 26 of 48
has explained we have had some challenges on the east side, their meeting, because of
the grade, meaning the intersection site distance and trying to provide access to the
adjoining properties. The zoning that we are asking for is R-4. I know that it's slightly
under the three to eight units per acre that you want to try to achieve, but we are running
about 2.6, 1 think, or 2.7, but I really believe that if we got any denser we would really miss
the character that we are trying to achieve and we would also lose the transition that we
want to try to achieve from the properties to the north to the properties to the south. We
want to build it in two phases, as Sonya explained, with the west half being built first and,
then, as far as values go, everybody is curious about values. I mean I don't really see --
today's numbers I don't see anything in here less than three, three hundred fifty thousand.
I know we have encouraged people to go up as high as maybe a half a million in terms of
the homes that could be built in there. I think there a lot of opportunities to build some
nice homes in here. You can see in this -- this illustration that we have here -- we have
given some pictures. These are all pictures taken on the site. The vistas to the north
around the pond there on the left and, then, the picture on the right was taken by a drone
-- a friendly drone. It's a beautiful feature and we want to take advantage of that. Let me
just address some of the -- I have seen two of the comment letters. I didn't see the letter
from the Teeters, although I know the Teeters. But the letter from Cindy Pixley talked
about drainage. We understand what's happening there on that west line with the Napoli
Subdivision and that we will accommodate drainage that's coming onto our site that needs
to be accommodated. Plus we will also have positive drainage out of our lots into an
acceptable storm system. She also talked about the irrigation and the capacity. We won't
be affecting the capacity of the pond, so that -- that would have negatively affected their
irrigation system. Obviously, building Kingsbridge I was involved in that agreement
between those two developments. There is a chance -- I don't know that answer to this
tonight, but there is a chance that we may have a better solution for the irrigation for
Napoli and we will explore that and see if there is an opportunity there. The letter from
Lonnie and Bonnie Stiles, who live up in the northeast corner of the project, we -- you
know, we have tried to do a design there that is sensitive to their needs and they may talk
about that a little bit more here in a minute, but we believe that's the right solution there
and one of the items in the staff report that Sonya mentioned is the block length. The
topographic constraints there are more significant than they appear, plus there is a pond.
I think it's -- you know, the existing home that's there, the pond, the topography makes it
really impossible to get a road through there in that location, plus it would be directed right
into the Stiles home and we don't think that made any sense. So, the variance that we are
asking for there, which is possible, it's not a significant distance in our minds. I mean it's
maybe a few hundred feet, but I don't think it really changes the functionality of block
length and I don't think we have disadvantaged any of those lots to the north in terms of
future access that they may be able to achieve when they want to develop their
properties. Other issues they raised were the height of homes, particularly there in Block
4 1 believe it is. I don't -- I'm not too excited about restricting those homes in terms of
heights. I think there is already about 150 feet or more between their home and what will
be future homes on those lots. I don't know that there is a height restriction that's
necessary. I will also note that the topography slopes to the south, so there is very likely a
possibility for daylight basement homes where from the street it looks like a single level,
but there will be a second story below. They talk about solid fencing. I'm more than
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
May 21, 2015
Page 27 of 48
willing to work with them on putting the right fencing around those -- that area of the lots or
maybe even next to the street. I understand they may want to talk about that later, but
also on that fencing on the north side there was concern that -- that we don't put a solid
fence along the pond,
so there is vistas into the pond. We will not be putting a solid fence there. We will have
an open fence, some kind of a split rail decorative fence, maybe even wrought iron. We
don't know yet at this point. They had concerns about the trees. There are a lot of trees
along the north side -- existing trees on the north side and east side of the pond. We don't
want to disturb any of those. We want to leave those alone. That was another reason
why we didn't want to put a road up through there, because we would have had to tear
most of those out and we don't think that was being sensitive to the site. So, just to talk
about some of the specific concerns that Sonya raised in the staff report. We are
generally in agreement with the staff report. We know that there has been some -- some
changes, but to kind of go through this list a little bit, the accessory structure on lot four
that she mentioned, the Shoemakers, we are more than willing to incorporate language
into a development agreement that restricts us, so that the intent of the code is achieved
there. We don't think that there is any need to do a lot line adjustment later, that just
becomes problematic and we think it's really unnecessary. But we are willing to bind
ourselves by a development agreement to not have -- or to -- anyway, to make sure that
the primary structure is built on that lot. Lots 1 and 2, Block 3, the staff report talks about
putting in a private drive, although that's not preferred and most -- most new home buyers
don't like the idea of a private drive, even if it's a 20 foot concrete drive or 25 foot concrete
drive, they don't like that. You know, we are willing to accept that for Lots 1 and 2, but we
would rather not. If there is a way that we can get an exception to that we would prefer
that.
Yearsley: Can you point to those two lots that you're talking about?
Watters: I'm trying to remember which one they were now, Randy.
Clarno: Right there.
Watters: Right there? Right. Yeah.
Clarno: Uh-huh.
Yearsley: Okay.
Clarno: One is a flag lot. One is a -- I think as I understand it the standard -- the code
correctly, if we were on a 90 degree angle there we could have a 30 foot frontage or just
slightly less than 90 degrees and so we have to have a 60 foot frontage. But as a
practical matter I don't think it matters. I don't think -- I don't think the builders are going to
care and I don't think the buyer will care. Otherwise, we have to build a short little
concrete drive and they are kind of like you have seen at the other locations that we have.
We have tried to, you know, turn the lot design -- builders and buyers want north -south
lots, as you can imagine here and they want them rectangular. So, we are really trying to
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
May 21, 2015
Page 28 of 48
avoid pie shaped lots and trying to get them more rectangular. Should be the lot lines on
Lots 8 and 9, Block 2, there just at the entry there by that common area. That's fine. We
are okay with that. That's also in the staff report. The block length south of Fratello where
we need -- where staff is recommending that we put a pathway into the school, we are
okay with that. We have met with the school on a number of occasions. You have -- they
are in a transition. Their land management that have transitioned over there, so it's been
a little difficult to keep -- stay coordinated on that, but, obviously, we don't want a street
stub there. My preference is not to put a pathway there, although we will put one there,
because I don't think it's -- I don't think it's wise to put pathways into open field areas into a
school. I think we want to keep kids on the sidewalk all the way to the building if we can.
I know I have seen the school site plan or -- you know, the initial plan for the property and
these are all ball fields that are going to be in that location if they follow through and do
that plan. So, I don't like that, but if the Commission feels like we need to have it there we
will go ahead and put it in. Block 4 1 talked about the -- the constraints that we have with
the block length there. I don't see a need to do that. Secondary access will be provided.
We did -- we have spoken with the fire marshal and we have alternatives for a secondary
access as we develop this. That shouldn't be an issue. The access to the existing home
off of Elliana Drive -- the reason for that mainly is because of topographic reasons and
because the house is oriented to the south and that's a pretty steep wall there on the right-
hand side of that driveway. It's about ten feet. And to try to snake a driveway down the
back side of that thing on one side and into the front just doesn't make any sense. So, we
actually also need a driveway access off of that road into the common area for
maintenance purposes, because we are going to have a gazebo in there on that island.
We also are going to have some picnic tables and some other things on the north side of
the pond, so we will need to get vehicles in there. So, we believe that it just makes sense
to have a driveway that's going to be there. We will go ahead and execute the proper
reciprocal access agreement between that homeowner and the HOA that will manage that
common area and that they could use the same driveway. The sidewalks that are on
Elliana Drive, being a neighborhood collector, we know that the city wants those
separated and not attached to the curb, which we are proposing along the entire south
side. We have a nice row of trees that you can see from that one drone aerial there that
are on the south side of that pond and we would like to attach the sidewalk to the curb just
along that pond frontage and not separate it, otherwise, we got to take all those trees out
and replant them. We don't think that that's necessary. So, we are asking for that
exception. There has been some recommendations in that staff report on fencing and
where that fencing should be and we are fine with that. We will fence -- I don't have a
fencing plan here that I could show you, but as you can imagine there is a lot of fence that
will be built on this. We will put in some nice fencing, from lattice top fencing, some nice
decorative fencing. We have got some really nice plans for some very nice entry
monuments and so forth and the locations that the staff is recommending fencing, we are
fine with that. And, then, finally, we have reviewed ACHD comments, as Sonya
mentioned, and we are fine with their comments. We have seen, you know, draft -- their
draft comments and report and we don't -- you know, we have had a number of meetings
with them as you can imagine on this and I think we are both on the same page right now,
so -- with that I will take any questions you might have for me.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
May 21, 2015
Page 29 of 48
Yearsley: Thank you. Are there any questions?
Fitzgerald: Mr. Chairman?
Yearsley: Mr. Fitzgerald:
Fitzgerald: Sir -- and where are -- in talking with the fire department where are you
proposing your emergency access or secondary accesses for the second phase?
Clarno: The -- well, the first phase that we are proposing is approximately 40 lots and so
the -- the temporary access would come back out to Zaldia Drive. I can't -- maybe you
can help me here, Sonya, point to that. I can't do that here. So, further east -- further
down the road there, right -- right where that little cul-de-sac is. I can't see what the name
of it is on this. The little cul-de-sac that's on Fratello there that we would propose a
secondary access -- temporary access out there for -- with the first phase and, then, as far
as the second phase goes, the fire marshal -- you know, we have a couple of options
potentially. If they can either come back out to Zaldia, there will be two access points out
there, but if that's a challenge for him and we did talk through that the other day, there is a
-- you know, an access potentially through the school to the south along Howry and
extension. There is an existing agricultural road there right now that might need a little
support, might need some additional gravel or whatever that a fire truck would be
supported on it. So, there is options. We have another option to the east that we looked
at. So, we are willing to accept a condition that requires us to get his approval.
Fitzgerald: Okay. Thank you.
Yearsley: Sonya, can you go back to -- this one. Can you explain -- there is the
Kingsbridge Subdivision and, then, there is that first home. How is he going to take
access off of this?
Clarno: Well, he currently has access off of Zaldia. His driveway is right there.
Yearsley: Okay.
Clarno: And we will just maintain that.
Yearsley: So, you will have that driveway and, then, the driveway to the private road to
access those other three lots; is that correct?
Clarno: That's correct.
Yearsley: And now coming back to that cul-de-sac on -- over by the Stiles house, will
there be an access to that private road there as well or will that just be closed off?
Clarno: Well, we can't -- we can't legally access it unless they get permission to it.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
May 21, 2015
Page 30 of 48
Yearsley: Okay.
Clarno: So, the plan would be that we would not access it --
Yearsley: Okay.
Clarno: -- and have some kind of a -- you know, I don't know if that would be a fence or
some kind of barrier. They want a barrier there and I'm happy to give them something that
-- that works without it being too restrictive. You know, sometimes we put a fence right on
that the edge of pavement or shoulder, it's not safe. It gets knocked over and run into.
But there could be some other kind of barrier that we could put up there that meets their
need.
Yearsley: Okay. And that's -- I just wanted to clarify that before we move forward. Any
other comments? Thank you.
Clarno: You bet.
Yearsley: I have a couple of them signed up. Bradford Deadman. Please state your
name and address for the record, please.
Deadman: Hello again. Bradford Deadman, 3644 East Zaldia Lane. I am -- my property
is indicated on this picture right under the word Shelburne. So, that is the lower half of my
five acre property. Something that I love is the view -- the bottom right corner there, the
legal drone view and I'm kind of proud of this, because I'm the one with the green fields
with the driveway cutting up through on the far left side of that picture. I'm in support of
the project and so this will be a little bit of a different tone for me than you're used to.
Mostly because Mr. Clarno has clearly tried to communicate and work with the neighbors.
That goes a far way with me. Kingsbridge, you might recall, some of you, was -- started
off very scary and it became one of the most successful, for its size, type of development
that I'm sure you have seen as far as developers working with and neighbors, to maintain
the integrity of the neighborhood as close as possible and still meet their objectives. I
have every bit of confidence that Mr. Clarno is going to repeat again, because he has
been sensitive to not only the neighbors, but highly sensitive to the natural beauty of this
area, especially along my -- my southern border, but the whole northern border of his is --
has wonderful topography that is really hard to photograph. He was absolutely accurate,
because the private lane on Zaldia as it shoots east it rises I'm hunching maybe ten or 12
feet in elevation from where it starts down by my property. I know it rises a good three
feet just along my 300 feet of frontage. So, his proposal for preserving the mutual view of
the property is also something I'm in favor in -- in favor of, because it's as important to him
to have his new homeowners have a view of the surrounding beauty as it is for him to be
sensitive to the -- the surrounding beauty that the rest of the current homeowners have
enjoyed for many years. So, I'm very pleased with this. So, the only remaining issues, of
course, are the fine details in my eyes for the Zaldia neighbors as it is -- as it boils down to
the use of fencing up toward my neighbors, the Stiles, home. A little bit of question there,
but I'm quite confident that given the examples we have seen so far and Clarno's
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
May 21, 2015
Page 31 of 48
professionalism throughout this whole process that it will go smooth. I'm very confident
that the development agreement will be something that he will depart to some of the other
developers in working very closely with the neighbors on, so -- thank you.
Yearsley: Thank you. Next on the list is Lonnie Stiles. And, again, please state your
name and address for the record.
Stiles: I'm Lonnie Stiles. I live at 3822 Zaldia Lane. I wasn't going to talk today, because
I did send in a letter, so most things in there have been addressed and Mr. Clarno has
mentioned those. You have already seen where I live -- I'm not -- I put down that I'm
neutral for this subdivision, just because I couldn't -- I couldn't really just put down for,
because I'd like to see no development there, obviously. And I can't really say against,
because I think Mr. Clarno has done a -- done a pretty good job of working with us and,
you know, platting out something that looks like a pretty -- pretty good subdivision.
Something that's a little bit different than maybe the normal that you see. That being said,
-- he did mention the height restriction we had asked about. I think that's important. It
was important when they put in Kingsbridge to the north and those homes that border the
northern part of our subdivision that were right across the canal from them. We told them
probably a little bit closer to us and I think it's probably important -- as important to us as it
was to them. I can see homes on the north side of us that are the two story and they are
big homes and he -- there is going to be some big homes in this subdivision and that's a
good thing, but even being 600 feet away to our north, homes that are two stories high
and a big solid wall and we get -- have any control over whether there is a window in that
home or not and how it looks, it makes a difference whether it's two stories or one. So,
that's one thing we requested and -- and I know Mr. Clarno is aware of that and is trying to
address that. One thing I wanted to say in general -- not this specific subdivision, but --
and noted as these subdivisions pop up and this one also, in our mile block there is
probably eight to nine subdivisions right now. There is another two to three that are -- that
are going up right now. There is another three to four that are probably on the docket to
be developed and by the end of the day I anticipate we will have 20 subdivisions in our
mile block and all kind of piecemeal and I know people have the right to develop their
property and I don't fault them for that, but if you look at some of the subdivisions around
us and there are two to three subdivisions per mile block. I'd just like to see some
development in Meridian that seems like some of our surrounding communities where
instead of it's a private -- it's a private road and a gate that distinguishes your subdivision,
maybe it's a bigger lot, more estate style lots. That's what I would like to see. Just real
quick another thing that hasn't been mentioned yet is with these subdivisions going in a lot
more traffic is going to be there. With a high school going in, an elementary school, too --
I don't know that I have ever seen any school -- I can't think of one in the valley where
there is a high school right across the street from an elementary school and I don't know
what kind of traffic that's going to bring, but I think it's going to be pretty horrendous, plus
with all these subdivisions going in, but I haven't heard anything addressed about what
happens on Eagle Road, traffic, that sort of thing, so I'm a little bit concerned about that.
So, thank you for your time.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
May 21, 2015
Page 32 of 48
Yearsley: Thank you. Next one is Dave Loots? Is there -- is there anybody else that
would like to come forward and talk? Please come forward. Please state your name and
address for the record, please.
Shaw: John Shaw. 4210 Tindaris Avenue at the corner of Zaldia and Tindaris. My
concern -- I think we are having -- thanks. My concern is the properties that are on the
west side of -- butt up to -- yes. Right in there. All the property in Napoli -- in the back
fence right there, the side facing east and west, and, then, the properties on the new
subdivision are going north and south. My home over to the left here in the corner has a
property -- a lot next to it that's going to be facing north and south and mine's east and
west, and it completely blocks my entire view out my backyard, as it does mostly people
along that fence line. We are kind of open -- at least I am. They could change that in a
way that they could make that more conducive to the standard of homes, that we could
have some kind of break, we would be able to see to the east, but right now my house has
no view whatsoever of the east -- other than a wall of houses. Same with probably most
of those houses along the fence line and I don't think there is any consideration for the
folks that are in the existing houses there. Ours are east and west and theirs are north
and south and there is no way to get a break in for my house and probably several that
wouldn't be able to see anything to the east. So, that's my concern and if anything could
be done I would be appreciative.
Yearsley: Thank you.
Shaw: Okay. Thank you.
Yearsley: Anybody else? Please come forward.
Oldham: My name is Doug Oldham. 4236 South Tindaris. I am the second lot south of
Zaldia on the west -- from the east side of the Napoli Subdivision and I will have -- my
backyard will be with a common border with the west part of this development and I agree
with the applicant, it's a beautiful vista. If you look at the center that's what I see currently
pictured. One of my concerns would be if the Commission allows two story homes there
that that vista will disappear from myself and my neighbors. I would urge at the very least
single story only on those lots that join us. Also, to echo the previous person, without
ACHD's report being finished, I don't see how the traffic can be addressed. My concern is
with probably hundreds of young, inexperienced drivers on Zaldia, getting out of our
subdivision at a certain time of the day and ACHD has not completed their report. I don't
know how the Commission can go forward with this and I urge you to -- to not approve
this, that is as it is submitted until all the information has been given. Thank you.
Yearsley: Thank you. Anybody else? Barring that, would the applicant like to come
forward?
Clarno: Randy Clarno. Shelburne Properties. Concerning the comments about the lots
just to the east of Napoli, the east line of Napoli there. I tried to be sensitive there, as best
I could. I have the same number of lots back up as are currently there. All those homes
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
May 21, 2015
Page 33 of 48
built within Napoli are two stories. I have two lots that are east -west facing and three that
are north -south facing. I have given each of those lots extra width and I -- you know, it's
south ground, I really don't know how else we could, you know, try to improve upon that.
could have gone more dense and I chose not to, obviously. I want to try to be sensitive to
that. I knew that that was potentially going to be an issue. So, I think I did the best I could
on that side. I'm open to any ideas or suggestions you might have there, but I tried. The
other thing I will just mention is is that I -- I would encourage you not to continue this.
don't want to be continued. There has been a lot of hard work go into this by staff and by
ourselves and consultants to prepare for this and I know that since the last one that there
was some changes made, but I think the staff report is adequate and those issues that --
that still may remain I think you're aware of. We have discussed them and I would
recommend that you approve it with staffs conditions, subject to the Council's final
approval.
Yearsley: Can you address Lonnie Stiles' comments. At least around his -- and I know
you initially talked about it. Can you just re -address that again?
Clarno: Yeah. You know, I know he's got 700 feet there to the north, I think
approximately, and these two story homes there -- I know that's a long ways and, like
said, I think in Block 4, Lots 2, 3, 4, 6 and 7, they have a pretty good slope from the north
to the south and I think people could likely take advantage of that and do a daylight
basement, but I can't control that. That -- the front of that house to the front of his house
will be almost 200 feet and I will -- I'm sensitive to what he's saying there. I don't think that
this value will be deterred at all, to be honest with you. He may disagree with me on that,
but we are going to have some pretty nice -- those are some really nice lots there next to
that pond and I would expect there to be some very nice homes there.
Yearsley: Any questions? Thank you.
Clarno: You bet.
Yearsley: Can I get a motion to close the public hearing on AZ 15-003 and PP 15-005,
Shelburne Subdivision?
Fitzgerald: Mr. Chairman?
Yearsley: Commissioner Fitzgerald.
Fitzgerald: I move we close the public hearing on AZ 15-003 and PP 15-005.
Oliver: Second.
Yearsley: I have a motion and a second to close the public hearing. All in favor say aye.
Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
May 21, 2015
Page 34 of 48
Yearsley: Comments? I guess I will go first. I really like the change that happened from
when they submitted the application to the way it is now. I think it flows a lot better.
think it looks a lot cleaner with that. I think he'd done a marvelous job trying to fit the -- the
neighborhood and to address the neighbors' concerns and stuff. With regard to the
homes in the Napoli Subdivision I think he's tried very hard to not obstruct views. You
know, if you look at the one next to -- the one the first -- the first house, you know, my
guess is that -- that house will be a little farther up towards the driveway and have more of
the backyard there, so he will be actually looking at the backyard. The second lot he splits
the two lots and so he's tried to create view corridors and -- and I struggle with homes on
the one side being two story asking for one story on the other side. It doesn't seem fair to
me. I understand the concern. I have two stories in my backyard as well and it's just
something that we have to live with. With regarding to the Stiles property and asking for
single level there, again, you know, I struggle trying to restrict that. I understand his
concerns, but I do -- I do believe that there is a significant amount of buffer between the
road and -- the two roads and stuff that I think would provide enough buffering there
personally. So -- so, with that I like the subdivision. I struggle to decide do we continue it
to wait for that or do we want to move it forward. I'm just not quite sure there yet on that
one. So, any other comments?
Fitzgerald: Mr. Chairman, I would -- I agree with all of your comments. I think up on the --
next to the south property I -- I think it's mutual on both parts. I think they still have a view
of the pond. I think you will -- I think I would agree with the applicant that you would have
some daylight basements put in there. I think it's -- with the slope change there I think it's
an exceptional layout with the pond there. I think he took a significant amount of effort to
keep that amenity there, which I think it's a good thing. I -- I guess -- I guess could we ask
Ted or ask Sonya is it impacting us to make a decision tonight -- is it significant enough
that we have to continue it? Because I think what they have brought to us is a -- is a very
nice project. They took a step down in density. I think the neighbors should be pleased,
with what could be from the future land use land it could have been a significantly more
dense product and so -- can I ask that question?
Yearsley: Absolutely. Sonya, do you want to --
Watters: Chairman, Commissioner Fitzgerald, I don't expect there to be any other major
issues from ACHD other than what I stated. Like I said, they did give me kind of a heads
up as to what the issues would be, but those will have to be approved by their
commission, so I don't know -- and I have advised the applicant that I don't know if we will
have a report back in time for Council even, so it may get delayed yet before Council,
but --
Fitzgerald: But we have another shot. So, we can make a recommendation based on
what we -- the information we have and that goes to the Council --
Watters: Certainly.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
May 21, 2015
Page 35 of 48
Fitzgerald: Thank you.
Yearsley: Any other comments? Okay. With that I would entertain a motion.
Wilson: Mr. Chairman?
Yearsley: Mr. Wilson.
Wilson: After considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move to recommend
approval to the City Council of file numbers AZ 15-003 and PP 15-005 as presented in the
staff report on May 21 st, 2015.
Fitzgerald: Second.
Yearsley: Was there any modifications to that or -- or --
Fitzgerald: I don't think so.
Yearsley: Okay.
Fitzgerald: The only thing I was -- and I guess this is maybe another question for Sonya,
would be if -- do we include the -- whatever the fire department brings back, do they
include that in the development agreement? Whatever recommendation -- as the
applicant said they would agree with? Whatever the fire department recommended?
Watters: Chairman Fitzgerald, we can do that if you would like. You mean a maximum of
X amount of homes that can be built with the first phase? Is that what you're referencing?
Fitzgerald: This is an emergency exit. That would be my only thought.
Yearsley: That was already a condition in the application.
Watters: Yeah. It's in the staff report, so it will -- the staff report will be included as an
exhibit in the development agreement, so I think we are covered.
Fitzgerald: I would maintain my second then.
Yearsley: Okay. So, there is no modifications and there is a second. So, I do have a
motion and a second to approve file number AZ 15-003 and PP 15-005. All in favor say
aye. Opposed? Motion carries. Congratulations.
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Yearsley: With that can we take a little five minute break.
(Recess: 8:02 p.m. to 8:15 p.m.)
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
May 21, 2015
Page 36 of 48
H. Public Hearing: CUP 15-008 White Water Saloon by Stan Cole,
Cole Architects Located 1646 N. Meridian Road Request:
Conditional Use Permit for a 673 Square Foot Expansion to the
Existing Drinking Establishment in a C-C Zoning District
Yearsley: All right. We'd like to resume the Planning and Zoning meeting. Let's begin
with public hearing of CUP 15-008, Whitewater Saloon. Let's began with the staff report.
Parsons: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. Next item before you
this evening is the Whitewater Saloon conditional use permit. The subject property is
located at 1646 North Meridian Road. Currently the owner of that establishment is
operating a drinking establishment within the existing 1,850 square foot tenant space here
and they are requesting your approval this evening to expand their business into the
adjacent tenant space, which is approximately 673 square feet. You can see here on the
site plan that the applicant is in a multi -tenant complex that clearly does not meet the UDC
standards. I mean it's a dirty word this evening. It's nonconforming. But at some future
date this property is Old Town on the future land use map and so at some point we
envision this redeveloping in the future. The property this evening, though, is zoned
commercial, C-C zoning district, so it is a commercial zoning district. The conditional use
permit for a drinking establishment is required in the C-C zone, as well as the Old Town
zone. So, if the applicant was going to come forward and -- or the property owner would
come forward and redevelop that and keep this drinking establishment on the site, it would
still be an allowed use in the Old Town zoning district. Because this property -- or one
item that I pointed out in my staff report was that the city did approve a church within 300
feet of this drinking establishment, since -- and, however, the bar has been there
previously to the church. However, in our specific use standards it does state that
drinking establishments are -- are prohibited from being located within 300 feet of a
church, but in looking at the state statute it's clearly defined that you have the authority to
approve the conditional use permit, because the drinking establishment does predate the
church use. So, that is under your purview this evening as you take this application under
advisement. The applicant is not proposing any exterior modifications this evening, so
what you see here is what is to remain on the site. Staff is recommending that the
applicant go through a change of use or apply for a certificate of zoning compliance for
change of use to establish the drinking establishment within the new tenant space.
Because the site is lacking a bike facility out there for bike parking, we are recommending
that they add a bike rack for the entire complex and I have also received confirmation from
the applicant that the site does, in fact, have shared parking throughout the whole entire
development and that was a concern that we raised in the staff report. So, I did receive a
copy of the lease agreement for this development and it does state that every tenant in
there has the right to shared parking or use parking, unless otherwise defined by the
property owner. So, there is shared parking in place and this site is currently developed
with 124 stalls. So, it is in excess of what the UDC requires. Staff has not received any
written testimony on this application. We are recommending approval and I would stand
for any questions you may have.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
May 21, 2015
Page 37 of 48
Yearsley: Thank you. Are there any questions? Would the applicant like to come
forward? Please state your name and address for the record.
Bull: My name is Ernie Bull and I'm with C&E Construction, representing Whitewater
Saloon, and we have contacted the city here and done everything that was requested by
us and the highway district we have contacted them and everything was cleared with
them. We have confirmation on that. And as far as parkingwise goes, parking can't be
anymore than what is already -- what's already there from the -- we were already in the
other unit that we are taking that's going to be part of it. There is only like five parking lots
for that, because when they changed that intersection they took five parking lots away
from the Whitewater Saloon already. So, we can't add to, because is all it is it's just the
existing building that has already been there for I don't know how long. Forty years.
don't know. But, anyhow, there was the parking -- we are not trying to add parking, we
are not building onto the building, all it is -- we are just taking over the existing unit that
was already there. They stopped their lease and they moved out and we are just trying to
open that up to make it just so we have room for the pool tables, make it more convenient
for the patrons that come in. Not -- we are not trying to add, because we are not adding
onto the bar, we are not doing nothing else. There is no adding to the bar, it's just staying
just like it is. The other is just for a game room. So, it's -- do you have any questions?
Yearsley: I guess are you in agreement to the staff report? Are you in agreement to the
staff report?
Bull: Yes.
Yearsley: Yes. Are there any other questions? No? Thank you.
Bull: Okay. Thank you.
Yearsley: I do have a few people signed up. Joe Palmer.
Palmer: Mr. Chairman, my name is Joe Palmer. I'm here representing 3P, LLC, which is
a family corporation, which I am one of the members of. Our property starts at 1522 North
Meridian Road and continues on to 1608 Meridian Road, plus one lot and it has its own
separate address now that it's been developed out. The property is just south of what is
proposed right now. I am a neutral testifier, even though my testimony today is going to
seem somewhat negative. It's, basically, just to give you information. I would support
whatever your decision is. I would not want to restrict business or plan owners in any
way, but I do want to give you some information of the current situation there. Myself I am
currently working with Sonya to enlarge our parking lot to the south of our building that we
have. We own the lot to the south of us. It's empty, which is not part of our building. And
we have built our building to the standards of the city and we have found out that it's not
enough parking which we -- we went with the minimum, which is what every developer is
going to do, because in order to make a property pay that's what you have to do and we
have found out that we are short on parking and we have one space left in our building
that is empty at this time. We have been a little reluctant to rent it out. We have had
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
May 21, 2015
Page 38 of 48
people interested in it. Because we don't want to overload our current tenants. We have
eight tenants currently in our building and we have 51 parking spaces, which was the
minimum for the square footage. Actually, it's a little bit more than what the minimum was.
I think -- I don't remember what it was at the time. I think it's about 45 or 46. 1 have
owned that property there. I lived there before we developed it and I have run a business
there for the last 25 years and in that time the Whitewater Saloon has been there I believe
the whole time. Or a saloon, whether it the same one or not. We have had numerous
occasions where cars have been left there, not ever been recovered until I have had them
towed away. They have been there. They have blocked the entrance to where I have
called the police the next day and say people can't get in our businesses, they would say,
well, we got to have -- we have to wait 72 hours. So, now I have it posted so that I can
get them towed immediately so people can access those businesses. If you went through
and listed our surveillance there has been several miscommunications on how -- where
people weren't exactly getting along. The police have been -- had to come several times.
There is constantly garbage in our parking lot, which I clean up. That's the way it goes as
a business owner and having property there next to it. If -- I don't know if more people
would come. I don't have all the information on the saloon or whether it's just an expanse
of the current one. But I would stand for any questions.
Yearsley: Are there any questions?
Oliver: Just a quick question. Just as the -- the little center there that had the second
hand shop, I believe it is, and the Rock Harbor and the barbershop -- is that the one that
we are talking about?
Palmer: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner, absolutely that is.
Oliver: All right.
Palmer: Cherry's Consignment Home Furnishings --
Oliver: Cherry's.
Palmer: -- is my business, which is the anchor store. And, then, there is 11,000 feet of
rental space and part of it is Rock Harbor.
Oliver: So, some of the people attending Whitewater are parking in your --
Palmer: Yes. That's -- it's just -- they were there first, so, you know, I hate to say they
have to go away. That's not what I'm saying. But it is -- it is an issue that we deal with.
We have helped people out of the parking lot several times. We have went out and
helped them to solve their problems with each other. We try and not call the police if it's
not necessary and we try and convince people to move on and be nice, because we have
had our windows shot out a few times and I don't know where that came from. I'm not
saying it came from there. But what we try to do is be as nice to Paul as we can, because
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
May 21, 2015
Page 39 of 48
-- and that was probably -- had nothing to do with them, it was probably more of my other
position which I hold. We all know how that goes.
Oliver: Thank you.
Palmer: You bet.
Yearsley: Thank you. Next on the list is Vicky Long. Please state your name and
address for the record, please.
Long: I'm Vicky Long. I'm the owner of the Whitewater Saloon at 2696 West
Sandalwood, Meridian, Idaho. As far as his concerns are, I do my best to keep people
parking -- from parking over there. I really don't like it and I'm sorry that they do. I will
take care of that. My concern is -- I -- really don't have a lot of trouble out of the
Whitewater, because they know I don't tolerate it. I will 86 them. They can go to any
other place. I'm too old for that. I -- I'm a family bar. We are like a Cheers. And the
reason I want to add on is so people can be more comfortable playing darts and not worry
about sitting at a table and might get a plastic dart threw by accident. I just want to move
that over. I will take care of the concerns, I guarantee you that. And hopefully you will let
this go. I have worked hard to clean this place up and try to make it the way it is now.
also give my people incentives not to drive home on Friday and Saturday nights. I have
them take a cab and I'm in with B&W and they are there all the time to pick up the
customers so they don't drive home. And as far as parking is concerned, his church is
probably -- the people is probably -- the people that go to that church also park in my
parking lot on Sundays and, you know, that's something we have to share and hopefully it
will work out the best. And I don't know where you expect me to put a bicycle rack. It's
not a -- and I don't have a place, really, because the ACHD took all the extra space we
had, so -- but thank you and I -- I hope everything goes okay.
Yearsley: Thank you. Ty Bull. No comment. Ernie. Okay. Do you want to come back
up and respond to Joe's comments? I know Vicky took care of a lot of those, but I will just
give you an opportunity to talk again, since you were the applicant.
Bull: What we have tried to do is make it the best for patrons and as far as parking goes,
they come and park their rigs over in our parking spot, so it's not like -- I won't -- I have
never seen one of our patrons parking in their parking spots and going over next door and
parking there. They bring their vans. They leave them in the middle of the alley, which is
-- you know, that's okay, because we understand how business is. You have to have
patience with each other, because if you don't work together things just don't work and
that's -- that's what we are trying to do, we are trying to make it so it's the best for
everybody. We are not trying to make it bad. When they come over there and park their
vans over in our place nobody ever says nothing. Whatever. But that's my -- that's what
I'm trying to say for that part. So, it's not -- we are trying to work together and not against
each other. So, thank you.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
May 21, 2015
Page 40 of 48
Yearsley: Thank you. I apologize. I forgot to ask -- no. You're done. I -- was there
anybody else that wanted to testify? Please come forward. I apologize.
T.Palmer: My name is Ty Palmer. My address is 653 Fulmer Court in Meridian. Just a
couple points of clarification. The property immediately south is a really skinny property.
That's not property that my family owns. I don't know if they are represented here tonight.
The other thing -- what was the thing? Oh, right. The church. There is a church across
the street from our building as well. They have services on Sunday and the church that
rents from my family's building does not have services on Sunday, they just have activities
throughout the week. That's all I have.
Yearsley: All right. Thank you. Do you want to address those comments? We want to
give the applicant the last rebuttal. If you want to say anything you're more than welcome
to comment if there is anything you -- if you don't want to come up you don't have to.
Okay. All right. Sorry about the confusion with that. With that is there anybody else that
wanted testify? Barring that I would entertain a motion to close the public hearing on CUP
15-008.
Wilson: Mr. Chairman?
Yearsley: Commissioner Wilson.
Wilson: I move that we close the public hearing on CUP 15-008.
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: Comments? Any questions? Barring none, I -- I don't see really any issues
with this. It's just expanding into the existing spot. It sounds like there is some issues, but
it doesn't sound like they are insurmountable to the expansion. So, I don't -- personally
don't see any issues with this and if no one else has -- Commissioner Oliver.
Oliver: I just want to say that I think that if the owner of the Whitewater would work with --
them closely with the residents -- or the buildings -- Cherry's and whatnot, that would be
great to work a little bit closer to be more compatible. However, noting that, I see no
reason not to let you expand it.
Yearsley: Right. So with that I would entertain a motion.
Fitzgerald: Mr. Chairman? After taking all public testimony and comments of the
Commission, I would move for approval of CUP 15-008 as stated in the staff report.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
May 21, 2015
Page 41 of 48
Oliver: Second.
Yearsley: I have a motion and a second to approve CUP 15-008. All in favor say aye.
Opposed? Motion carries. Thank you.
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Yearsley: Next on the list is the public hearing of CUP 15-007 --
Bull: I appreciate you guys spending your time listening to us. We appreciate it. Thank
you.
I. Public Hearing: CUP 15-007 Carl's Jr. at Chinden and Linder
Crossing by John Nelson Located Northwest Corner of Chinden
Boulevard and N. Linder Road Request: Conditional Use Permit
Approval for a Drive-Thru Establishment in a C-C Zoning District
Within 300 Feet of a Residential District and Existing Residence
Yearsley: Thank you. We'd like to open the public hearing on CUP 15-007, Carl's Junior,
and let's begin with the staff report.
Parson: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. Next item on the
agenda is the Carl's Junior at Chinden and Linder Crossing, conditional use permit. It's
located near the south -- or northwest corner of Linder Road and Chinden Boulevard. It's
currently zoned C-C within the city. In 2014 this property was before you as -- for
subdivision approval called the Chinden and Linder Crossing Subdivision. It was platted
with nine commercial lots and a concept plan and development agreement was also
approved subsequent with this preliminary plat, that it approved this site for a mix of
commercial uses on the site in conjunction with the surrounding residential uses. The
Comprehensive Plan for this property is mixed use community and at the time that this
came before you the Commission and staff both found that the site was consistent with
that designation. So, this drive-thru use that is before you this evening is consistent with
the concept plan and that mixed use community designation. You can see here that the
property is surrounded by residential development to the west and a county subdivision to
the north and, then, across the street we have some commercial development in the
process, some C-N and C-C. Because this project is before you this evening it is because
the drive-thru is within 300 feet of the adjacent residence, which is just north of this -- of
this proposed development. So, the applicant wants to develop this site with a 2,800
square foot restaurant and associated drive-thru facility. In that zoning district the
applicant -- or with the drive-thru use the applicant has to comply with specific use
standards in the UDC. In my staff report I did call out some modifications to the site plan
that I will not go over this evening in depth, but quickly run through those for you. As you
can see here the applicant will come off a right -in, right -out access from Chinden
Boulevard and, then, enter the site from a commercial driveway. So, really, there are no --
there aren't any site circulation as far as stacking in the main drive aisles, but as you turn
into the site and as you enter the parking area staff has some concerns with some
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
May 21, 2015
Page 42 of 48
congestion here with the way the traffic would function through the parking area. So, we
have required that the applicant stripe the drive-thru lane and stripe the adjacent drive
aisle one way, so that all traffic that comes in and enters this way to the first entrance into
the parking area will be a one way circulation through the site. That will allow vehicles to
stack up and keep congestion away from the parking area. If folks want to go into the
restaurant and sit, they can certainly just drive through and come back and park this way.
So, that was the primary concern. As you know with any drive-thru lane or stacking area
that's over a hundred linear feet they have to provide an exit lane, which they have done
here, and so if anyone comes in has to order here and doesn't have their wallet or their
money, they can actually enter out here and exit out of the development. So, that does
comply with the UDC standards. Staff had some concerns with how the cross -access
would look with the adjacent property to the east and the application -- there is a condition
of approval that they either provide an additional landscape island in this general area or
get something from the adjacent property owners stating they will construct that when the
property to the east is developed. Here is the proposed landscape plan. What you see
here is consistent with the UDC. The applicant is actually providing a greater landscape
buffer along the roadway to the north to provide a greater buffer to the adjacent single
family residential, although this development is approximately 290 feet from the nearest
residence. So, it's not like it's really on top of the adjacent residence, but the applicant
has gone above and beyond what code requires as far as buffer along the street. Again,
this site -- this landscape plan before you does comply with the UDC. I'd also mention to
you that a portion of the landscape buffer along the roadway -- so with Island Drive -- with
Island Green Drive here to the north and Chinden Boulevard, a portion of that was
approved with the subdivision that the city acted on and that would have to be completed
and the plat has to be recorded before the applicant can get a building permit for the
drive-thru restaurant. The elevations before you this evening are consistent with the UDC
standards and the development agreement. There are no modifications to the elevations
before you this evening. Primary building materials will consist of stucco and brick
veneer. Staff did not receive any written testimony on the applicant. However, I did
receive a phone call from the adjacent neighbor to the north and he wanted me to go on
record on his behalf stating that he has concerns with the odors from the drive-thru -- from
the restaurant portion of the -- in the vicinity of his home and I told him I would pass that
message along to you. Other than that verbal confirmation from the adjacent neighbors
staff has not received any other testimony on this application. I haven't heard anything
from the applicant on the revised changes in the staff report. I will complete my
presentation with the fact that staff is recommending approval of the application before
you with modifications in the staff report and I would stand for any questions you have.
Yearsley: Thank you. Just for clarification, the Carl's Junior is an approved use, the only
thing that we are really acting upon is the drive-thru; is that not correct?
Parsons: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Council -- or Commission, that is correct. The
drive-thru, because it's typically accessory to the drive -- the restaurant use, however,
since they are within that 300 foot of that existing -- existing residence it triggers the
conditional use permit. But, yes, the restaurant is principally a permitted use in that
zoning district.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
May 21, 2015
Page 43 of 48
Yearsley: Okay. And, then, the next one -- on that exit lane will there be a sign from the
private drive saying exit only or do you know?
Parsons: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, staff has placed a condition that
this be signed -- striped one way, do not enter signs and striped one way for exit only.
Yearsley: Okay.
Parsons: Do not enter. So, it will be signed and taken care of appropriately to make sure
no one is entering there.
Yearsley: That's perfect. I wanted to make sure that that happened. Are there any
questions?
Fitzgerald: Mr. Chairman?
Yearsley: Commissioner Fitzgerald.
Fitzgerald: Bill, is it -- what Green -- or Island Green Drive, is it connecting into Spurwing?
Is that -- is that part of this condition? Is that part of the -- into the new -- that goes over
kind of at the end of it, kind of stubbed over right now. Is that part of the condition? Is that
road going to be completed?
Parsons: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, Commissioner Fitzgerald, it is a
condition of the final plat that that road be constructed.
Fitzgerald: Okay.
Parsons: And that's why they can't move forward on a building permit until that
improvement is done.
Fitzgerald: Okay. Thank you.
Yearsley: Any other questions? With that would the applicant like to come forward?
Erstad: Commissioners, my name is Andy Erstad. 420 Main Street, Suite 202, in Boise.
I'm here representing our client John Nelson and we have had a chance -- and Jason
Smith, who is my project architect, much better looking and smarter than I, usually is up
here and has been dealing with Bill a lot. Jason and I went over the conditions of
approval and I was questioning a couple of -- a couple of the conditions and what we
typically do, because we think with our hands and paper. We lay trace out and we -- we
sort of clarified I think the intent of the conditions and, then, I had Jason send over a quick
sketch to see if we were close. At the end of the day we have no -- no issues with any of
the conditions of approval and we appreciate your time and we always like being last. I
will stand for questions.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
May 21, 2015
Page 44 of 48
Yearsley: Are there any questions? Thank you.
Erstad: Thank you.
Yearsley: I do have a few people signed up, Victor -- and I won't do the last name. My
apologies. Please state your name and address for the record.
Zadorozhny: Okay. I'm Victor Zadorozhny and I live at 6551 Barney Lane. Unfortunately
for me, they build in there Carl's Junior just in my backyard, my property, and just behind
me. And, like I said, it's unfortunately for me we have very beautiful property and now
their window 200, what, 35 feet from my property and if -- as you know that the drive-thru
open until midnight and if you see this plot you will have this when they driving in they just
use their headlights they flash in my windows. When they driving out again they flash in
my windows and consider this: it's a smell. It's a greasy smell. And, like I said, the
headlights when they shining out it's hard to see from my property and back in my
windows and what I'm trying to say, we are going to lose our quality of life there. They are
not allowed to build in the residential area the drive-thru. I'm completely opposed and
plead my case before you. Please, don't allow them build this. Thank you very much.
Yearsley: Thank you. I think it's your wife. She signed up as well. Okay. She's against it
as well. Andrew Lawrence. All right. Is there anybody else that would like to testify?
Would the applicant like to come forward and --
Erstad: Mr. Chair and Members of the Commission, again, Andy Erstad, 420 Main Street,
Suite 202. Is it getting late or what? I appreciate the neighbor's concerns and the
challenges in an adjacency exist and the development was approved in the master plan
and we are developing one of the parcels on the property. I think the thing that -- that
bodes well for -- I think a clear decision and a straight forward decision is the fact that the
property -- the restaurant is up towards Chinden and as I told the neighbor, it's -- I used a
really simple, very sophisticated scale where I take tick marks and I counted them up.
Our engineer was here and confirmed that I was pretty darn close. We are about 235 feet
to the property line on the north side of the street and in between that 235 feet that's from
the -- the ordering window or the ordering speaker, then, you go around the restaurant
and the pick up window. They are about the same distance away from the property line.
But between those two events is 235 feet to the property line of the neighbor and in
between there is another 25 feet buffer -- landscape buffer. You were shown that on the
-- Bill put that up for review. The buffer is enhanced. It's a larger buffer than we are
required. That's the imagery. And think that's -- that's done for two reasons. One, we
recognize that we are adjacent to a residential neighborhood and we also recognize that
the way we have oriented the drive-thru -- even if the drive-thru was oriented differently
you would still have that circulation of traffic on there. So, we felt this buffer gave that a
greater protection for the neighbors. The neighbor did also ask about that the -- about the
trash enclosure and I'm not sure -- and I don't think I can -- that's the trash enclosure right
there and, again, screened to the north was the -- was the landscape buffer and any
buffer that the developer is required to put on the north side of the road. So, I think taking
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
May 21, 2015
Page 45 of 48
the distance, taking the enhanced buffer, taking the site plan and we worked closely with
staff to be the best site plan possible, I think, is all sort of trying to be good neighbors and
if we were -- if the trash enclosure was ten feet from the property line and the residence
was right on the other side of the fence, which, believe me, I think we have all seen that
scenario, I -- I couldn't stand up here and tell you that I think this is a very workable and a
fair solution. If we don't have odors coming out of this building -- it may periodically,
depending on the winds and whatnot, traverse the property, it would be another
restaurant. But I think -- again, I don't want to make light of it -- that distance is really -- is
really great for the -- for the residences across the way, so -- I don't -- I don't have any
other questions or comments, unless you do.
Yearsley: Are there any other questions? I'm sorry, you have already had a chance to
speak. I'm sorry, we have already had that opportunity. Thank you.
Erstad: Thank you.
Yearsley: Can I get a motion to close the public hearing on CUP 15-007?
Fitzgerald: Mr. Chairman?
Yearsley: Commissioner Fitzgerald.
Fitzgerald: I would move we close the public hearing on CUP 15-007.
Wilson: 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: Comments? Anybody want to go first?
Oliver: I think it works. I think it's nicely landscaped. I think the plan looks fine. I think
the drive up will work, especially with the exit that they -- the emergency exit they put in.
Yearsley: And I agree. It's unfortunate that we ended up putting the C-C next to -- or
allowing this use next to residential, but it has -- it is an allowed use. The only thing that
we are really acting upon is do we allow the drive-thru. So, I think they have done a good
job orienting the building and orienting the drive-thru as far away from the residents as
possible to make this as palatable I guess as possible for the residents and so -- so with
that I think it's -- I think it's fairly well done, so --
Fitzgerald: Yeah. I tend to agree, Mr. Chairman. I think Mr. Erstad and his staff should
be commended for moving the speaker box away from the -- towards Chinden where it's
going to be noisy, pushing it as close as we can to Chinden to not impact the -- the
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
May 21, 2015
Page 46 of 48
neighbors and bring in additional landscaping where need be and so I agree with you it's a
little bit of a challenge, it's a hard corner and it's -- but it is a commercial zone and so
think we -- based on that we kind of have to move forward from there.
Yearsley: Thank you. Any other comments? So, with that I would entertain a motion.
Wilson: Mr. Chairman?
Yearsley: Commissioner Wilson.
Wilson: After considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move to approve file
number CUP 15-007 as presented in the staff report on May 21st, 2015.
Fitzgerald: Second.
Yearsley: I have a motion and a second to approve file number CUP 15-007 as
presented. All in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries. Congratulations.
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Item 5: Other Items
A. Request for Approval to Change Certain Planning Application
Checklists by the Planning Department
Yearsley: Oh. One last item. The checklist.
Parsons: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, I won't belabor this evening too
much longer, but I will summarize it very briefly and very quickly. Our UDC requires us to
bring forward -- if we have substantial changes to our checklist our UDC requires that they
come before you for action and so I did prepare a memo for you and highlighted which
changes are -- that we are proposing to the checklist and quickly going through this, the
first one would be our annexation and rezone checklist. Where ever we require someone
to submit an annexation application we require basically a legal description and exhibit
map and this change on this checklist basically just tells -- better informs the applicant on
how to prepare that document and submit it to staff, so we don't get bogged down with the
application submittal process waiting for the correct documents and that's really what the
process of all of these checklist changes are this evening. And the next one pertains to
our final plat checklist and our short plat checklist and this request came from our land
development division in which they want to receive those plans in a certain -- a certain
number of copies in a certain way so they can review plans accurately for the applicant.
So, we have worked closely with them to make those changes happen. With that I would
stand -- we are asking for your approval of these changes that I presented to you as far as
strikeouts, underlined format, and I'd stand for any questions you might have.
Yearsley: Are there any questions?
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
May 21, 2015
Page 47 of 48
Fitzgerald: Mr. Chairman?
Yearsley: Commissioner Fitzgerald.
Fitzgerald: Random question. But do you take this to a developer and say what do you
think when you do these?
Parsons: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, Commissioner Fitzgerald, we do
not. I mean if it's something substantial we would, but not for a checklist.
Fitzgerald: Okay. Thank you.
Yearsley: Any other questions? Well, with that can I get a motion to I guess to approve, if
that's your choice, the application?
Fitzgerald: Mr. Chairman?
Yearsley: Commissioner Fitzgerald.
Fitzgerald: I make a motion that we approve per UDC 11-5A-3132, the planning
application checklist changes.
Wilson: Second.
Yearsley: I have a motion and a second to approve the planning application checklist. All
in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Yearsley: I have one last motion.
Oliver: Mr. Chairman?
Yearsley: Commissioner Oliver.
Oliver: I move that we close the meeting.
Fitzgerald: Second.
Yearsley: I have a motion and a second to adjourn. All in favor say aye.
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Yearsley: We stand adjourned.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
May 21, 2015
Page 48 of 48
MEETING ADJOURNED AT 8:54 P.M.
(AUDIO RECORDING ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS.)
APPROVED
STEVEN YEARSLEY - R
ATTEST:] a
Ajn&
AYCEE H LMAN, CITY CLERK
I_�I4-zO/S
DATE APPROVED