2015 12-17Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting December 17, 2015
Meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission of December 17, 2015, was
called to order at 6:00 p.m. by Chairman Steven Yearsley.
Present: Chairman Steven Yearsley, Commissioner Patrick Oliver, Commissioner
Rhonda McCarvel, Commissioner Ryan Fitzgerald and Commissioner Gregory Wilson.
Others Present: Machelle Hill, Andrea Pogue, Bill Parsons, Joshua Beach 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, ladies and gentlemen. At this time I would like to call to order
the regularly scheduled meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission for the
hearing date of December 17, 2015, and let's begin with roll call.
Item 2: Adoption of the Agenda
Yearsley: Thank you. So, the next item on the agenda is the Consent Agenda and -- oh,
sorry. To adopt the agenda. I'm getting ahead of myself. We do have a little change on
the agenda. Public hearing item number C, Citadel Storage, will be opened just for the
sole purpose of being continued to January 7th. So, with that I would -- can I entertain a
motion to approve -- or adopt the agenda as amended?
Fitzgerald: Mr. Chairman?
Yearsley: Commissioner Fitz --
Fitzgerald: I will just go with Fred.
Yearsley: Okay. Yes. Fitzgerald.
Fitzgerald: I would move for adoption of the agenda with the minor change for opening of
Item C just for continuation.
McCarvel: Second.
Yearsley: I have a motion and a second to adopt the agenda. All in favor say aye.
Opposed? Motion carried.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
December 17, 2015
Page 2 of 34
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Item 3: Consent Agenda
A. Approve Minutes of December 3, 2015 Planning and Zoning
Commission Meeting
B. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: Una Mas
Drive-Through (H-2015-0020) by Glenn Walker, NeuDesign
Architecture Located 3490 E. Tecate Lane Request: Conditional
Use Permit Approval for a Drive-Thru Establishment Within 300
Feet of Another Drive-Thru Establishment in a C-G Zoning
District
C. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: Culver's
(H-2015-0013) by Glenn Walker, NeuDesign Architecture Located
3494 E. Tecate Lane Request: Conditional Use Permit Approval
for a Drive-Thru Establishment for Culver's Restaurant Within
300 Feet of Another Drive-Thru Establishment in a C-G Zoning
District
Yearsley: Next item on the agenda is the Consent Agenda and for this we have the -- to
approve the minutes of December 3rd, 2015, Planning and Zoning Commission meeting.
Approve the Findings of Fact and Conclusion of Law of approval of Una Mas drive-thru.
File number H-2015-0020. Findings of Fact and Conclusion of Law for the approval of
Culver's, file number H-2015-0013. If there is no changes to the meeting minutes, I would
entertain a motion to approve the Consent Age nda.
Oliver: Mr. Chairman?
Yearsley: Commissioner Oliver.
Oliver: I move to approve the Consent Agenda.
McCarvel: Second.
Yearsley: I have a motion and a second to approve the Consent Agenda. All in favor say
aye. Opposed? Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Yearsley: Before we go onto the next items, let me explain how this process is going to
work today. We will open each item up one at a time. We will start off with the staff
report. The staff will prepare -- or will present their findings as an explanation of the
application, a description of the project, and present their recommendations for approval --
or their recommendations. At that point we will have the applicant come forward and state
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
December 17, 2015
Page 3 of 34
their case for approval. If there is any changes that they have against the conditions from
planning, they will present that to their -- before us tonight. 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.
After -- the individuals wishing to testify will be given up three minutes to do so. If they are
speaking for a larger group, if there is a showing of hands or an HOA, they will be given
up to ten minutes. After the public has had a chance to testify, we will open it -- the
applicant will come forward again and have a chance to rebut the comments. At that point
after the applicant is done, we will close the public hearing and, then, we will discuss and
deliberate and, hopefully, make a recommendation.
Item 4: Action Items
A. Continued Public Hearing from November 5, 2015 for Edgehill
Subdivision (H-2015-0005) by JUB Engineers, Inc. Located at 1393
& 1405 W. Victory Road
1. Request: Annexation and Zoning of 40.19 Acres of Land
with an R-4 Zoning District
2. Request: Preliminary Plat Approval Consisting of 116
Building Lots and 7 Common Lots on 40.19 Acres of Land in
an R-4 Zoning District
Yearsley: So, with that I would like to open the continued public hearing from November
5th, 2015, of file number H-2015-0005, Edgehill Subdivision, and let's begin with the staff
report.
Parsons: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. As you have stated,
this project was continued from the November 5th, 2015, Planning and Zoning
Commission, for the sole purpose of allowing the applicant time to obtain ACHD's staff
report for your consideration. If you recall there was quite a few neighbors that showed up
at that hearing and they did testify to some of the traffic concerns. So, again, this body felt
obligated to kind of postpone this project until we received that information. Tonight I am
proud to present to you that we have received the final draft report from ACHD. The
actual preliminary plat that was presented to you back on that hearing date that you see
here on the slide has not changed from ACHD's recommendation. So, everything that
was presented to you, this layout, everything has been per ACHD's policies and they have
approved the subject plat with the conditions as stated in their staff report. I do want to
touch on the three items that I heard. I had a chance to read through the minutes and
some of the transportation issues that I read through and summarized for you that was
discussed at that hearing. One was the timing for the roundabout at the intersection of
Victory and Linder and that's not planned in -- it's on the map and there is no funding or
anything for that at this time. So, it -- it won't happen for quite some time. The other item
was the alignment of south -- I believe that is High Grade Avenue, which is the -- a local
street that is tying into Victory Road here. I know a couple of these -- these residents
were concerned about the alignment of that stub street and the cars projecting headlights
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
December 17, 2015
Page 4 of 34
into their driveway. Based on ACHD's recommendation and approval, that driveway is
going to stay in that location as your seeing it before you this evening in the modifications
to that. The third item that was of concern for the residents was whether or not Victory
was going to have a left turn lane into the development off of Victory Road onto that same
intersection here and so after ACHD concluded their traffic study they did find that that did
warrant a left turn lane off of Victory into the subdivision from Victory Road. So, that was
a condition placed on the applicant to construct that as part of their development and that
is in the ACHD staff report. So, with that -- hopefully you have that in your packet and you
had a chance to look that over. Again, staff is recommending approval of the project and
I'd stand for any questions you might have.
Yearsley: Are there any questions? Bill, I just have one question. On that entrance road
with ACHD's approval, does it not get -- does it give us any leeway to move it left or right
or I guess east or west a little bit?
Parsons: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, I've had a chance to read through
the staff report that they presented. If I can go back to the aerial real quickly. As you can
see here -- and in the staff report from ACHD there is an existing road, which is I think
Model Farms Road and there is another lane -- another road here. And so typically
ACHD's policies, when you have a road typically they like to have 660 feet of separation
before the next road intersects and because of the close proximity to these two roadways,
there is no way for that to meet their policy, but they have given the applicant actually a
waiver from their policy that supported that in order for that connection to happen. There
still may be some opportunities to do that with the final plat process, but I didn't have a
chance to speak with the applicant's representative tonight and it looks like ACHD seems
to be pretty set on that location --
Yearsley: Okay.
Parsons: -- based on what I have heard, but maybe she will have something she can add
to that as well for you.
Yearsley: Okay. Thank you. With that would the applicant like to come forward? Please
state your name and address for the record.
Watkins: Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Commissioners. And Bill. Thank you. My
name is Kristi Watkins. I am from JUB Engineers at 250 South Beachwood Avenue in
Boise. I really don't have a lot to add to that. Again, we accept all of the staff conditions
and the traffic impact study was reviewed by ACHD, and we, excuse me, accept their
conditions also. The one issue I guess that I want to address is the location of High
Grade Avenue. After speaking with staff at ACHD, they said that they did have a chance
to speak to homeowners. They determined that the location of High Grade actually
comes out into alignment with their garage and there is a significant amount of
landscaping. I understand that. I have not seen it myself. But -- that will reduce the glare
as people turn out onto Victory. And, then, the property also has two driveways. So,
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
December 17, 2015
Page 5 of 34
access into and out of their property shouldn't be a problem, shouldn't be hindered by that
roadway right there. So, they didn't seem to have an issue with where it was located.
Yearsley: Okay.
Watkins: But if there is any other concerns that you guys have I would be happy to stand
for questions.
Yearsley: Are there any questions? No? Thank you very much.
Watkins: Thank you.
Yearsley: I do not have anybody signed up to testify. Is there anybody out in the
audience that would like to? Please come forward. Please state your name and address
for the record.
Mortensen: Okay. My name is Dan Mortensen. I live at 3145 South Linder Road, which
is the northwest corner of that intersection. I have several concerns. I understand that
the sewer is going to come up Linder, so is everybody going to be able to hook onto that
or is it just a straight shot. Number one. And, number two, the roundabout that was
proposed will it interfere with the irrigation system, because it -- a lateral comes down to
that corner, goes south, north, east and west all from that corner. So, I don't know how
that's going to be addressed. My understanding is that the highway district is not going to
sign off until there is a roundabout there, but the roundabout doesn't make a hell of a lot of
sense to me. I think that's all I have.
Yearsley: All right. Thank you. Anybody else? Please come forward.
Bird: My name is Ed Bird. 1570 West Victory. We are on the southeast corner -- or
northeast corner. My question concerning your protected turn from Victory on the south
side going into the new subdivision. Does that mean Victory is going to be widened at this
time? Because it's a very narrow road right now. So, is the developer going to take 20 or
30 feet off from the south side? So, does that mean 20 or 30 feet coming from the north
side at this time also?
Yearsley: We will have the -- actually, we will have the applicant explain how they are
going to do the --
Bird: Well, if they have it protected they have to have some kind of a wider road than they
have now.
Yearsley: Right.
Bird: So, if they are going to take it from the south side, logically they would take some
from the north side also?
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
December 17, 2015
Page 6 of 34
Yearsley: They would only take from what they actually own.
Bird: Okay.
Yearsley: They -- they can't take from property that's not theirs. So, I would imagine that
they would have to widen towards their side, but we will have the applicant when she
comes up to rebut to clarify that when she comes up.
Bird: Okay. Thank you.
Yearsley: Thank you. Anybody else? Please come forward.
C.Bird: My name is Cindy Bird and I live at 1570 West Victory Road in Meridian. And I
just want to make sure that you guys have these letters that we have written to ACHD
about the roundabout. Can I hand them to you?
Yearsley: Will you hand them to the clerk. We need to -- we have to be on the record,
so --
C.Bird: And there is one more paper there that shows how the roundabout would cut into
our homes and take our homes and I spoke this a month ago and we have three
homeowners and they are building 116 new homes and it makes -- for us as homeowners
who have been there -- Mortensens have lived there for 59 years. We have lived there for
like 25 years and our neighbors, too. And what concerns me is they are willing to take out
our three homes to put up 116 new homes. Now, in my letter, which I will hand to you
guys now, you know, I talked to commissioners, two different ones, and what I heard -- in
my letter it's like what makes sense to me is that at Ten Mile and Victory that's where they
would put the roundabout. There is no homes there. But what I heard from one of the
commissioners is that they put in a very expensive stoplight and so since they have done
that I said why wouldn't they think about that before they did the stoplight to do the
roundabout. But he said that would be the ir next move would be the roundabout. Why
wouldn't they do that first if -- that they are willing to take out three of our homes, so they --
they might be able -- they will do -- or are considering doing a roundabout at our
intersection. So, they will take out three of our homes, but they won't consider a
roundabout at Ten Mile and Victory. So, that concerns us, because those are our homes.
That's where we live. That's where we have raised our kids. That's where we have had
our lives. And so -- and I said this last time and I will say it again, they are willing to get rid
of our three homes, which we have lived in, to build 116 new homes, instead of making a
consideration of doing something different. You know, cutting more into their property,
which I understand would take away homes, but I don't -- that's what I have to say. Thank
you. Here is the letters.
Yearsley: Thank you. Is there anybody else that would like to testify? Please come
forward.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
December 17, 2015
Page 7 of 34
Thompson: Susan Thompson. 1300 West Victory Road, Meridian, Idaho. So, first of all, I
thought at the last meeting there was a discussion about water and they were supposed
to come today and not only have the transportation -- or the Ada County Highway District
traffic study, but they were also going to tell you how they were going to get water to that
subdivision, because there is no city water over there. Anyway, I haven't heard any
mention of water, so -- I am -- our property is directly across the street from whatever they
are calling High Road or something like that. The entrance that they want to put off
Victory. First of all, I'm not absolutely sure that -- that the exit is directly in front of our
garage. I think the entrance might be directly in front of our garage, but I think that the exit
is directly in front of our front window and our bedroom window. Our office window and
our bedroom. And we do have trees there and stuff and it's -- I'm sure it's not going to be
a huge obtrusiveness, but perhaps if it was scooted a teensy bit to where maybe the exit
lights -- or the exist was in front of our garage versus the front of our house. And, then,
the entrance would be -- well, a little further over toward the west. Also I had a suggestion
that there does -- that actually what if there wasn't an entrance there at all and they
connected with Cobble, like I think was supposed to be one of the original ideas was that
they connected that part with Cobble, which is over here. I realize that isn't developed,
but it's going to be at some point. This guy has his -- yeah. He has his property for sale
right now, that two acres, so at some point they are going want to develop that and he
already has like a roadway and Cobble is right across the street from that. That stub right
here that's going to go right of his property. Kentucky Ridge also has a stub that's going
to go right up to that same property and so those two stubs and, then, hook it up to
Cobble straight across the street, they will take the street into Kentucky Ridge and, then, it
would take you straight into Edgehill also and, then, there wouldn't have to even be a
entrance between Linder and Cobble at all into that. There is like 11 driveways on the
other side of the road -- on our side of the road that -- that takes you into homes. So,
anyway, that would just be my suggestion and, then, again, like I said, I do have a
question about the water, because that wasn't brought up at all, about where the city
water was going to come from, so -- thanks.
Yearsley: Thank you. Is there anybody else? Please come forward.
Bennett: I'm Terry Bennett from 3235 South Linder, on the corner of Victory and Linder.
There is two more subdivisions that are being planned and put into effect on Amity and
Linder and that's going to cause more traffic going down Linder and I haven't heard any --
any talk about the added traffic from those projected subdivisions and I was wondering --
Yearsley: Can you speak into the microphone just a little bit, so it's easier to -- everyone
to hear? Thank you.
Bennett: I was wondering why I haven't heard anything from ACHD about those, what
they would think -- how much traffic would they put on Linder, because of those planned
subdivisions also. That's just -- that's just up a section from Victory, so -- you know. And I
asked about the -- the survey that went on on Linder and they said that at this time they
haven't even gotten very many cars going up and down Linder, but if -- if you approve
those and they are already -- they seem to be already approved and -- at least the one on
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
December 17, 2015
Page 8 of 34
the west side of Amity, it seems to me that more -- more traffic would be going down
Linder. So, I'd like to -- you know, I'd like to know why or when they would think that the
roundabout would go in at Victory and Linder with that -- with those subdivisions added to
this one as proposed.
Yearsley: Okay. And we will have the applicant -- I don't know that, so we will have
applicant address that. Thank you. Anybody else? Please.
Paulson: I'm Ron Paulson. 1500 West Victory Road, Meridian. The proposed left-hand
turn lane. Are they going to go into our property to take that? Do we know or is that --
Yearsley: At this point they -- they would have to buy property from you to do that if that
was the case. But at this point they would probably go on th eir side to do that. So, they
couldn't actually use your property, they would -- they would have to stay within the right
of way or use their property to make that widened.
Bennett: Okay. Another issue I have -- and I noticed this time when I came home is
looking at that proposed entrance, because that subdivision being right across from our
driveway, we have had people use our driveway as a turnaround. How many people are
going to use our driveway, because they forgot something at their house or something
and go back into their subdivision. I think it should -- is it possible to take phase one and
switch it with phase two, possibly, since they are coming up Linder with the sewer and
whatnot and that would allow for that other piece of property to be sold and brought into
this road connection where it should be, where it was -- at Cobble.
Yearsley: We will have to ask the applicant.
Bennett: Thank you.
Yearsley: Thank you. Anybody else? Please. Oh, no. You have already testified.
You're not allowed twice. Sorry. With that would the applicant like to come forward?
Again, name and address for the record.
Watkins: Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, again. Kristi Watkins. JUB
Engineers. 250 South Beachwood in Boise. I think I have got seven notes that I took
here, so I will start at the top. Sewer will be brought down Linden. Whether or not those
neighbors will be able to hook up to it I guess is an agreement they need to come up with
the city to determine if they can get stubs and whatnot when it's being laid. Second one.
We will be widening the road from the center line of Victory 35 feet into our property. We
won't be doing anything on the north side, it will only be improved on the south side, so
the turn lane will have to be maneuvered into that space that will only be taking 35 feet to
the south from the center line of the property. That's all ACHD required us to do. As far
as the roundabout is concerned, again, it's in their capital improvement plan. It's not in
their five year work plan and according to the traffic impact study and what they reviewed,
there isn't enough traffic to even warrant a signal at that intersection, so I highly doubt that
it would warrant a roundabout at this time. So, I don't see that happening anytime in the
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
December 17, 2015
Page 9 of 34
near future. They don't have -- like Bill said, they don't have funding for any kind of a
project of that magnitude. Water, as was stated in the conditions -- let's see. I have that
written down here. 2.1.2. The parcel that's currently not serviceable with domestic water.
The development falls in pressure zone five, in which there is currently no supply in the
area. Zone five water will be available to the parcel with construction of both a city water
line project and the construction of future phases of the Biltmore Subdivision, including off -
site improvements. This city project is projected to be constructed in 2016. Biltmore
improvements are dependent upon the developer's schedule. So, we would be kind of at
their mercy as far as when that all gets finished. We are not in a big rush, so we are
willing to wait for those things to happen. We certain ly can evaluate the ins and outs at
that entrance and see if we can't line it up a little bit better. I have the diagram that shows
the dimensions and I'm not sure how much flexibility we have one way or the other to stay
within ACHD's requirements, but we can certainly look at that. As far as why there needs
to be two entrances, we can't guarantee that the other property will be developed, so we
have to provide those ins and outs ourselves. According to the fire department usually
what makes the requirements on a property you have to have two exits for safety reasons,
so that they can pull their trucks clear through and they don't have to do turnarounds or
those kinds of things. So, there are two exits out to the main road because of that reason.
We just don't have the control over when those other properties will be developed. And,
then, ACHD has reviewed all the traffic impact studies for all of the subdivisions that are
going in out there. That's part of the requirement. Something they have to do. They
know these other subdivisions are coming and they approved what we proposed based on
the amount of traffic that was proposed to come from our subdivision and I can only
assume that they take those other traffic impact studies into consideration also. I can't
answer for them, so I don't know. But that's what I wrote down. Did you have any other
questions or concerns that came up that I didn't catch?
Yearsley: That's all the ones I have got. Are there any other questions?
Oliver: Mr. Chairman?
Yearsley: Commissioner Oliver.
Oliver: If I could just get some clarity on it. When we are looking at -- you said 35 foot
from the center line? Then I can't remember from the last time we talked that there will be
a sidewalk there or not? On Victory.
Watkins: There is -- yeah. I mean we usually have to approve to Meridian's guidelines
and they usually require that we put in a sidewalk, so --
Oliver: So, since you're pushing back --
Watkins: Uh-huh.
Oliver: -- with -- for that turn lane --
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
December 17, 2015
Page 10 of 34
Watkins: Uh-huh.
Oliver: -- will that push that sidewalk into those front lots, two, three, four --
Watkins: This -- this layout here should include that 35 feet.
Oliver: Oh, it does show it?
Watkins: Yeah.
Oliver: Okay. Okay.
Yearsley: And, then, I just want to clarify to you also that -- that you have provided
enough space on your property for a future rou ndabout, so there was property taken out
of your property for a future roundabout as well; correct?
Watkins: Yeah. I believe that's why that common lot sits the way that it does right there,
so that at some point in the future it can be changed.
Yearsley: Okay.
Oliver: Mr. Chairman, if I could ask one more question.
Yearsley: Absolutely.
Oliver: I don't know if this is for you or the staff, but the water line isn't there yet.
Watkins: Right.
Oliver: But it is on Linder somewhere.
Watkins: Uh-huh.
Oliver: Okay. So, when it does reach to your subdivision, will the people that are already
residing on Linder have an option as whether they want to hook up or is it mandatory that
they hook up?
Parsons: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, it's not mandatory that they hook
up. They could request that through annexation. We typically don't like people to use our
utilities unless they are annexed into the city or if there is some circumstance where
ACHD goes in there, widens the -- widens the road in front of that home and takes their
septic or well, then, we have what we call a hook up agreement with that homeowner that
when they are contiguous to city limits or when they are ready to redevelop or annex in,
that they -- they do all of that or when they are contiguous they will annex into the city and
become part of the city. Currently right now I will let you know -- I mean recently -- about
a month ago, as you know, we came forward with south Meridian annexation, about 1,322
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
December 17, 2015
Page 11 of 34
acres. So, the extension of that Linder Road sewer main is part of phase four of that
project. So, we are looking at a minimum four -- or phase two, but it's four years out,
unless a developer buys all of these properties and resubdivides them into the cit y, then,
they would have to extend that line. So, right now that sewer is probably quite a ways out.
And going back to the resident that brought up the water issue. Currently this developer
here is responsible for that well site and that water -- water line. That's where water is
going to come, from this direction to feed this development. So, this project is contingent
on another development happening or they go in and do it and extend it themselves. So, I
mean timing on this could be a couple years out and that's -- I think that's what I
discussed the last time we had this up. It's 12 to 18 months out before they can even do
anything to service the development. So, I don't -- I don't know if that helps answer some
of the questions that the community had and kind of shed some light on that, but it's going
to be a while. Right now we are just at preliminary plat and any developer is going to
have to come back and at multiple applications, final plats, several phases to get this
done. So, you know, long story short, yeah, we can't service it right now and that is
something that we brought up at that hearing is, yeah, we can service it when these things
happen. And that's usually how development works. So, if you have any other questions
I would just go ahead and turn it back over to the applicant. Just wanted to provide some
clarity on that.
Yearsley: Anymore questions? No? I think you have answered most of mine. Thank
you.
Watkins: Thank you.
Yearsley: I would open -- I would entertain a motion to close the public hearing on
H-2015-0005.
Fitzgerald: Mr. Chairman, so moved.
McCarvel: Second.
Yearsley: I have a motion and a second to close the public hearing. All in favor say aye.
Opposed? Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Yearsley: Before we start I just want to make sure that everyone has had a chance to see
the letters provided by the public testimony and had a chance to read those. Okay.
Thank you. Any comments or thoughts? Barring that, I would go first. So, you know, it is
tough when -- when city starts to impede on country. I watched it growing up happening
into my neighborhood as a child and, you know, it happens and it's kind of tough to lose
your way of life. So, in regards to the roundabout, before any roundabout can happen
ACHD has to buy property and it's not a done deal, they have to come to you and say we
would like to put in a roundabout, we would like to buy your property. You have an option
to say yes or no to do that or workout an arrangement of somehow to make your size --
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
December 17, 2015
Page 12 of 34
yourself whole. The highway district does have the option to do eminent domain, which is
by force. But you can contest that as well. So, I mean there is some options. Opposing
the roundabout is a good start and so -- and it appears at this point that the roundabout is
not in the near future. So, you're probably five to ten years out, more than likely, with a
roundabout. They may do an interim signal initially. It's hard to say what's going to
happen as traffic gets busier out there. With the irrigation and a roundabout or even any
improvements out there, they have to keep the irrigation whole, so they just can't just cut it
off or -- because they would have to figure out how to reroute all that irrigation to make
sure it goes where it needs to go. I think the water in the entrances -- I think we are pretty
well covered. And sewer. I think it's a good -- it's a good looking subdivision. I think they
have done a good job with what they had. And so I think with that I'm -- I'm in favor for the
application.
McCarvel: Mr. Chairman?
Yearsley: Commissioner McCarvel.
McCarvel: I agree. I mean part of the ACHD and everybody having enough information
to build for the future is having these preliminary plats in place. I would guess they got to
take a look at, you know, all this and the more we get to the preliminary steps done for
them to really take a look at where these homes are going to be and what developers are
intending I think it's -- this is just the start of things that are coming in the future. So, I
think this is a good start.
Yearsley: Thank you.
Fitzgerald: Mr. Chairman?
Yearsley: Commissioner Fitzgerald.
Fitzgerald: And I would agree. I think the -- and I would let the neighbors -- I'd have you
go and take a look at the capital improvement plan that they have out there. The
roundabout isn't even listed in there and it goes up to 2031. They still don't have the
budget or the -- they have the light listed for 2021, but not -- and I hope to God by that
time they have a light. They weren't even thinking about lights for awhile. So, I -- I
understand the concerns and the applicant is also losing some of their property in this
situation as well where they are giving up to widen that road to the south, so they could
put that left turn lane in there and so I would hope you guys will go to ACHD and let them
know about your concerns and fight that process if you can and I think in that regard it is
an expansion of neighborhoods and I went through this in my neighborhood when I was a
kid as well and so I think the applicant has done a good job of laying out options and it's a
good looking subdivision. So, I will be in favor.
Yearsley: Thank you. With that, if there is no more comments, if no one else would like to
comment, I would entertain a motion.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
December 17, 2015
Page 13 of 34
Wilson: Mr. Chairman?
Yearsley: Commissioner Wilson.
Wilson: After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to recommend
approval to the City Council of file number H-2015-0005 as presented in the staff report
for the hearing date of December 17th, 2015.
Fitzgerald: Second.
Yearsley: I have a motion and a second to approve file number H -2015-0005. All in favor
say aye. Opposed? Motion carries. Thank you.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
C. Public Hearing for Citadel Storage at Ten Mile (H-2015-0026) by
Citadel Storage, LLC Located Southwest Corner of W. Chinden
Boulevard and N. Ten Mile Road
1. Request: Annexation and Zoning of 16.23 Acres of Land
with a C-C Zoning District
2. Request: Conditional Use Permit Approval for a Self-Service
Storage Facility in a C-C Zoning District
3. Request: Preliminary Plat Approval Consisting of Two (2)
Building Lots on 14.56 Acres of Land in a C-C Zoning District
Yearsley: Next item on the agenda is the public hearing for file number H-2015-0026,
Citadel Storage. We are going to open this one only for the sole purpose of continuing it
to January 7th, 2016. So, with that I would entertain a motion.
Oliver: Mr. Chairman?
Yearsley: Commissioner Oliver.
Oliver: I move that we change the hearing date for --
Yearsley: Continue.
Oliver: Continue the hearing date for Citadel Storage at Ten Mile, H-2015-0026, to
January 6th?
Yearsley: 7th.
Oliver: 7th.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
December 17, 2015
Page 14 of 34
Yearsley: 2016.
Oliver: 2016.
Fitzgerald: Second.
Yearsley: I have a motion and a second to continue public hearing H-2015-0026. All in
favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
B. Public Hearing for Cherry Crossing Drive Thru (H-2015-0023) by
Jeff Hatch, Erstad Architects Located Northwest Corner of N. Linder
Road and Cherry Lane
1. Request: Conditional Use Permit for a Drive-Thru
Establishment in the C-N Zoning District
Yearsley: So, apparently I missed the public hearing B, so we will start -- go back to that
one right now. So, let's open the public hearing for file number H-2015-0023, Cherry
Crossing Drive-thru and let's begin with the staff report.
Beach: Good evening, Chair, Commissioners. This is a -- as you said is a conditional use
permit. The site is -- consists of 2.01 acres of land, zoned C-N, which is located at 1756
West Cherry Lane, at the northeast corner of West Cherry Lane and North Linder Road.
The adjacent land use and zoning. North there are single family residences, zoned R-4.
East is the Total Woman's Fitness, zoned C-N. South is the West Cherry Lane and a
multi-tenant commercial building, zoned C-N. And west is single family residences, again,
zoned R-4. A little history on the property. The subject property received preliminary plat
and conditional use permit approval in 2001 and, then, final plat approval in 2002. And in
2005 the subject property also received certificate of zoning compliance for the site to
construct the existing multi-tenant building and although the drive-thru is constructed, the
city does not have any records of a drive-thru use being established on the property, thus,
the reason for the conditional use permit this evening. The Comprehensive Plan for the
future land use map designates this property as commercial. The occupant has applied
for a conditional use permit for a drive-thru establishment within 300 feet of a residential
use. Access to the site is from West Cherry Lane and from West Emerald Falls Drive here
to the north. The applicant is proposing the hours of operation for the drive-thru from 7:00
a.m. to 10:00 p.m., Monday through Saturday and 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. on Sunday. The
UDC restricts the hours operation in the C-N zoning district from 6:00 a.m. to 10:00 and
the applicant, like I said, is proposing 7:00 to 10:00. Therefore, staff is recommending a
restriction on that and we have done so in our staff report. But they are proposing -- what
they are proposing is in compliance with the UDC. Building elevations were not required
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
December 17, 2015
Page 15 of 34
as part this project. Staff is in approval -- or is recommending approval of this application
and staff will stand for any questions you have.
Yearsley: Are there any questions?
Fitzgerald: Mr. Chairman?
Yearsley: Commissioner Fitzgerald.
Fitzgerald: Josh, is there a -- is there a drive-thru working right now? Is it --
Beach: There is.
Fitzgerald: And it just didn't go through the process --
Beach: Correct.
Fitzgerald: -- initially? Okay. Thank you.
Yearsley: Any other questions? Do we have a site plan showing the drive-thru area?
Beach: We do. It's a fairly rough site plan here, but -- so this is the -- this is the drive-thru.
This is -- north is to the left. The drive-thru is here. The applicant will have to come back
through for a certificate of zoning compliance to make sure that this site meet the UDC.
Some improvement is showing the drive-thru window, the menu board, the speaker
location, those types of things. Those are noted in the staff report as well. There is
currently an approximately 35 feet landscape buffer to the homes on the west, as well a
block wall. So, there is a fairly -- a fairly good size buffer there. Did receive one phone
call from a property owner on the north with some concerns about traffic. Mostly she
indicated that the pizza delivery drivers were cutting through there at a fairly rapid pace,
but it didn't have anything to do specifically with this application, so --
Yearsley: Okay.
Fitzgerald: Mr. Chairman?
Yearsley: Yes.
Fitzgerald: Josh, is there a speaker box that is there and how high is that wall?
Beach: Two questions I am not sure I have the answer to. I know there is -- there is a
speaker location, because the actual -- the application received conditional approval to
operate and is operating now, so I'm assuming that they have a speaker and I don't know
exactly. Typically they are a six feet tall block wall.
Fitzgerald: Okay. Thank you.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
December 17, 2015
Page 16 of 34
Yearsley: Any other questions? Would the applicant like to come forward? Please state
your name and address for the record.
Hatch: Jeff Hatch with Erstad Architects. Our address is 310 North 5th Street, Boise,
Idaho. 83702. Chairman Yearsley and Commissioners, thank you for reviewing the
consideration of this drive-thru this evening. As the staff indicated, this drive-thru was built
when the facility was constructed, because it's -- in talking with the client it was actually
operated in a couple previous businesses. I don't know if they were aware that it hadn't
gone through the correct proper paperwork to actually make it official. Something that's
been brought to the attention of the current property owner and this is something that he
wants to address -- one, for resolution with the city, but also for future tenants to provide
the opportunity of use. The speaker box was also installed at -- at the time of the existing
construction of the facility as well, so the median and everything that was derived for that
facility is all existing. We are not proposing any construction at this time, other than the
function of the facility. Are there any specific questions that I can address?
Yearsley: Are there any other questions? No? Thank you.
Hatch: Thank you.
Yearsley: Is there anybody wishing to -- I don't have anybody signed up for this one. Is
there anybody wishing to testify on this application? With that I don't think we need the
applicant to come forward. So, I would entertain a motion to close the public hearing on
file number H-2015-0023.
Fitzgerald: So moved.
McCarvel: Second.
Yearsley: I have a motion and a second to close the public hearing. All in favor say aye.
Opposed? Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Yearsley: Any comments?
Oliver: Mr. Chairman?
Yearsley: Commissioner Oliver.
Oliver: I happen to live just right down the street from there and I was just right in that
very vicinity tonight before the meeting and I never seen a problem with that area. Never
seen a problem with it. And so I think the -- the facility of the person that's occupying that
right now I think will be a nice addition to the community and I can't see a problem with it,
so I'm in favor of it.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
December 17, 2015
Page 17 of 34
Yearsley: Okay.
Fitzgerald: Mr. Chairman?
Yearsley: Commissioner Fitzgerald.
Fitzgerald: I would agree. I think -- I appreciate the applicant coming in and getting their
ducks in a row in regards to working with the city to make sure they have all their I's dotted
and T's crossed and I think the speaker box is pointing towards the commercial building
and parking lot, so I think you're -- we are in a good spot there, so --
Yearsley: Thank you. If there is no other comments I would entertain a motion.
McCarvel: Mr. Chairman?
Yearsley: Commissioner McCarvel.
McCarvel: After considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move to approve
file number H-2015-0023 as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of December
17th, 2015. I further move to direct staff to prepare an appropriate findings document to
be considered at the next Planning and Zoning Commission hearing on January 7th,
2016.
Wilson: Second.
Yearsley: I have a motion and a second to approve file number H-2015-0023. All in favor
say aye. Opposed? Motion carries. Thank you.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
D. Public Hearing for Shine Bright (H-2015-0030) by NeuDesign
Architecture Located at 2825 S. Meridian Road
1. Request: Conditional Use Permit Approval to Construct a
2,001 Square Foot Indoor Arts, Entertainment and Recreation
Facility in the L-O Zoning District
Yearsley: Next item on the agenda is a public hearing for file number H-2015-0030, Shine
Bright, and let's begin with the staff report.
Beach: Very good. This is a -- another conditional use permit. This is -- the property
consists of 0.48 acres of land, which is zoned L-O, and located at 2825 South Meridian
Road, which is north of Victory Road. The area property is developed with commercial
businesses, retail, professional services. It's also zoned L-O, as well as a church to the
north -- to the north, excuse me, which is zoned C-G. A little history on this. In 2004 the
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
December 17, 2015
Page 18 of 34
property received annexation, preliminary plat, and conditional use permit approval for
what is called the Strata Bellisma Subdivision. The subject property also received CZC
and design review approval in 2014 for the site and building. The Comprehensive Plan
future land use map designation for the property is low density residential. The applicant
is requesting a conditional use permit approval to operate a 2,100 square foot indoor arts,
entertainment and recreation facility on the .408 acres of land in that zoning district, which
is the L-O. Access to the site -- is provided to the site via West Maestra Street, which is
the street here and from West Galvani Drive, which takes access from Victory. The hours
of operation that are proposed from the applicant at 8:00 to 5:00, Monday through Friday,
and L-O zoning district restricts the hours from 6:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m., so the applicant is
well within that range. And due to the fact that the proposed use is within an existing
building and no site or exterior building modifications are proposed, a full certificate of
zoning compliance application will not be required to commence the proposed use on the
site. Planning staff will review and approve the commencement of the use through a
tenant improvement application submitted to the Community Development Department.
All interior modifications associated with the use must receive all required permits and
inspections from the building division of the Community Development Department prior to
the operation of the dance slash fitness studio. Staff will stand for any questions you may
have on the application.
Yearsley: Is there any questions? Was there a site plan for this one as well?
Beach: There is. I apologize. It's a little bit difficult to see. They have also given us a
floor plan. It made it a little bit blurry. My understanding is this is the dance here. The
applicant can address this a little bit further. There is two separate businesses that are
going in. One is what they are calling a learning center. My understanding is that it's
similar to a preschool-type use, as well as the dance studio and they are working with an
architect to design the space so that it can accommodate both uses, so --
Yearsley: All right. Thank you. Any questions? Would the applicant like to come
forward?
Pogue: Mr. Chair?
Yearsley: Yes.
Pogue: I have a question for Josh. On the agenda it indicates that it's approval to
construct a 2001 square foot indoor arts, but I noted in your staff report that it's a 2,100
square foot --
Beach: Yes. They are not constructed -- correct. And I believe it's -- the building itself is
2,100 square feet, which includes the space I believe directly to the south. So, that was
an error on staff's part.
Pogue: Okay.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
December 17, 2015
Page 19 of 34
Yearsley: All right.
Parsons: Mr. Chair, for clarification, the building itself is approximately 4,300 square feet.
So, they are only taking up a portion of that -- in that building, so just for the record.
Yearsley: Okay. Would the applicant like to come forward? Please state your name and
address for the record.
Gaines: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Commissioners. My name is Pam Gaines and I am
with NeuDesign architecture and we are 725 Northeast 2nd Street, Meridian. We are in
agreement with what the staff has had to say. It is -- it's 2,001 square feet. It's the vacant
space of an already constructed facility and it's strictly a tenant improvement. It -- we are
adding an emergency exit door for the classroom area where they are going to be
teaching skills like music and art and that sort of thing. But the reason we are here is
because of the exercise facility in an L-O zone, so -- and they are one business, they just
have two different uses.
Yearsley: Okay. Is there any questions? Thank you.
Gaines: Thank you.
Yearsley: Again, I have no one signed up for this application. Is there anybody wanting to
to testify? If there is no application -- or no one to testify, we don't need to have the
applicant come forward, so with that I would entertain a motion to close the public hearing
on file number H-2015-0030.
McCarvel: So moved.
Fitzgerald: Second.
Yearsley: I have a motion and a second to close the public hearing. All in favor say aye.
Opposed? Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Yearsley: Any comments?
Fitzgerald: Mr. Chairman?
Yearsley: Commissioner Fitzgerald.
Fitzgerald: I think it fits into the neighborhood well. I don't think I see a problem with it at
all. So, I think it fits with what's going on there in the surrounding community.
Yearsley: Thank you.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
December 17, 2015
Page 20 of 34
Wilson: Mr. Chair?
Yearsley: Commissioner Wilson.
Wilson: I will also be voting in favor. I think there is a value added to the community and I
like the looks of the project.
Yearsley: All right. Thank you. With no other comments, I would entertain a motion.
Fitzgerald: Mr. Chairman?
Yearsley: Commissioner Fitzgerald.
Fitzgerald: After considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move to approve
file number H-2015-0030 as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of December
17th, 2015, with -- as stated.
Wilson: Second.
Yearsley: I have a motion and a second to approve file number H-2015-0030. All in favor
say aye. Opposed? Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
E. Public Hearing for Birkdale Estates Subdivision (H-2015-0021) by
EGC Development, LLC Located Northeast Corner of N. Meridian
Road and E. Chinden Boulevard
1. Request: Annexation and Zoning of 10.06 Acres of Land
with an R-2 Zoning District
2. Request: Preliminary Plat Approval Consisting of Nineteen
(19) Building Lots and Four (4) Common Lots on 10.06 Acres
of Land in a Proposed R-2 Zoning District
Yearsley: So, at this point we would entertain a motion -- or sorry. I would like to open
the public hearing on file number H-2015-0021, Birkdale Estates Subdivision, and let's
begin with the staff report.
Beach: Very good. This is the -- it's called Birkdale Estates Subdivision. They are
applying for annexation and zoning, as well as for a preliminary plat. The site consists of
10.06 acres of land, currently zoned RUT in the county, located at the south corner of
North Meridian Road and East Chinden Boulevard. To the north is a commercial property
also zoned RUT within Ada County. The east residential and agricultural property, zoned
RUT again in Ada County's jurisdiction. To the south is single family residential property
in Saguaro Canyon Subdivision, which is zoned R -4. And to the west is single family
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
December 17, 2015
Page 21 of 34
residential properties in the Hacienda Subdivision, zoned R-8. And to the northwest of the
property is an agricultural property slash church, which is zoned RUT again in Ada
County. The subject property is platted as part of the Blythe Estates Subdivision within
Ada County. The Comprehensive Plan future land use map designation is medium
density residential for the property. The applicant has submitted an application for
annexation and zoning, again, 10.06 acres of land, with a proposed R-2 zoning
designation. A preliminary plat is proposed consisting of 15 single family residential
building lots and five common lots on 10.06 acres of land for the Birkdale Estates
Subdivision. Show you the plat here. I apologize. So, the applicant has applied to annex
and zone a total of 10.06 acres of land with, again, the R-2 -- proposed R-2 zoning
designation. The proposed zoning is consistent with the corresponding future land use
map designation of medium density residential. The applicant has requested what's
called a step down in density, which is allowed by the Comprehensive Plan. And the lega l
description submitted with the application shows the boundaries of the property proposed
to be annexed and zoned. The property is contiguous to land that has been annexed into
the city and is within the area of city impact. Because this is a low densit y development
staff is not recommending a development agreement with the annexation of this property.
The proposed plat consists of 15 single family residential building lots and five common
lots on, again, 10.06 acres of land. The average lot size in th e proposed development is
21,893 square feet. A step down in density is allowed by the future land use map, as long
as the change is within one step of the map designation, of which this is. Medium to low
in this instance. The proposed growth density of the subdivision is 1.49 dwelling units per
acre, which is consistent with both the step down in density and the proposed R-2 zoning
designation.
Staff has reviewed the proposed plat for compliance with the -- excuse me -- the
dimensional standards listed in the UDC and have found the plat to be in compliance with
those standards. The minimum lot size for a single family detached dwelling in the R -2
zoning district is 12,000 square feet, with 80 feet of frontage. The plat as submitted
complies with the dimensional standards of the UDC, with a minimum home size of 1,500
square feet. The proposed plat does not comply with the maximum block length
standards listed in the UDC. Specifically the UDC allows a cul-de-sac to be up to 450 feet
in length. The cul-de-sac here -- and I believe I have a slide where it's blown up a little bit
better and it's approximately 680 square feet in length. So, the proposed length of the cul-
de-sac is too long. In order to meet this requirement the applicant must provide a stub
street to the property to the north. Now, the understanding that the proposed Bull Ranch
Subdivision was denied last week, the applicant has expressed some interest in altering
their plat. Originally they came forward with an application where the cul-de-sac was on
the south and the through street was a stub to the -- to the property to the east and, again,
the applicant has shown some interest in altering their plan, but that's up to the
Commissioners' comfort level as to whether or not they would allow that this evening.
Access to the site currently is from the Elk Ranch Lane, which is a private drive that
connects to Chinden Boulevard, which staff has conditioned to be vacated as part of this
plat and with a similar condition we have with the Bull R anch Subdivision, that that be
vacated and will take access from the Hightower Subdivision and from Saguaro Canyon
here to the south. At this time there is an existing six foot tall privacy fencing along the
south portion and the west portion of the proposed subdivision and the applicant shall
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
December 17, 2015
Page 22 of 34
provide six foot tall fencing along the border -- the entire border of the subdivision, so the
north and the east. The applicant has proposed 6.6 percent open space, 4.67 acres.
Currently this does not meet the requirements of the UDC, with the understanding that the
applicant knows that there is a -- a current proposal from staff to alter the UDC, with the
understanding that this current proposal will only work if the UDC is approved and they will
be tied to whichever code is in effect at the time of their submittal for their final plat. So,
the applicant is proposing several amenities, including a pool, barbecue area, and as you
see here a micropath connection. If the application does -- and is granted permission to
alter their plan, so the cul-de-sac is on the south, staff would be in support of a micropath -
pedestrian connection to the east from the cul-de-sac, which, then, the applicant for the --
for reapplication of Bull Ranch would be required to continue tha t pathway with their
project. The North Slough runs across the site and will be tiled as part of the
development. I'm not sure if you can see here, but this is where the -- the slough is
proposed. These four lots would be encumbered by that and that are a would not be a
buildable area. Staff did not indicate in our staff report, but it makes some sense to staff
that the open space be included in this lot, since the -- I shouldn't say a majority. It's a
fairly large lot, but a large section of that lot would be nonbuildable, so it would make
sense for some of that open space to be in that area, as opposed to this corner down
here. But, again, staff did not indicate that in the staff report. I just thought I would
mention that this evening. Again, because staff is not recommending a development
agreement. We did not, in our staff report, tie the applicant to the proposed elevations,
which I have in this slide here and staff would recommend that the Commissioners include
a condition that this development be tied to the proposed concept elevations that the
applicant has provided. Again, staff is recommending approval of the project and will
stand for any questions you may have.
Yearsley: Are there any questions?
Fitzgerald: Mr. Chairman?
Yearsley: Commissioner Fitzgerald.
Fitzgerald: Josh, where is the pool?
Beach: So, they are proposing the pool to be -- sorry, you can't see where I'm pointing on
the screen. I will use the mouse. Here.
Fitzgerald: Okay. So, is there parking for the pool?
Beach: They are not -- they have not shown that. They will have to come forward with a
CZC approval for the -- how the pool will be laid out and they are not proposing anything
up to this point. We have seen some renderings, but not the -- the design has not been
approved yet.
Fitzgerald: Okay. If there is a parking lot does that take away from open space?
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
December 17, 2015
Page 23 of 34
Beach: Yes.
Fitzgerald: Okay. Thank you.
Yearsley: Any other questions? Just for clarification, in our recommendation if it is a
favorable recommendation do we need to add a condition to tie the elevations? Okay. I
just want to make sure that it --
Beach: Correct. Because it was not in the staff report, so that will be for the
commissioners to add that condition.
Yearsley: Okay. With that would the applicant like to come forward? Please state your
name and address for the record.
Tealey: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, my name is Pat Tealey. Office
address 12594 Explorer in Boise. Rather than go back through all the stated facts, I will
try to bring you up to how we ended up at this layout and this is not our preferred layout,
but it was sort of dictated by the development to the east, which I understand has been
turned down. So, we are back in the position of telling them where the roads ought to go.
This is a lower density subdivision, a step down from the -- the anticipated three to eight
units per acre. The applicant -- the owner has done market studies and they feel that this
is the way they want to develop the ir ten acres. They have done a fairly good job of it. I
believe most of the lots are under what they call reservation now. They have got -- they
have got quite a bit of interest in this thing, so the sooner we can build it the sooner they
can sell it. To go back, in our pre-application meeting with the city we had the northern
road, the one that's shown with the cul-de-sac now, extended to the east and a cul-de-sac
on the south road. The reason we did this was because if you -- if that south road is
extended through the property to the east, we are going to end up with a road that's,
basically, over a half a mile long straight out to Meridian, you know, and as it goes through
their subdivision, which they propose, our sub, and, then, out to Meridian, we didn't think
that was a good idea. That's why we proposed a cul-de-sac -- our road on the south. We
had several meetings with the adjacent neighbor, thought we had an agreement and,
basically, he -- he got his application in before we did and he sort of turned 180 degrees
from what he was telling us he was doing at first and so we -- the only way he could
respond, then, was show the road connection on the south and the cul -de-sac on the
north. We would prefer they consider this thing and it's really fairly simple in my mind,
back to our original concept where we put the cul-de-sac on the south and the connection
to the property to the east on the northern road. This would satisfy, then, the -- staff's
concern about -- well, the cul-de-sac length, basically. We are providing, as stated, a
swimming pool and barbecue area as part of our common area. We understand that as it
stands right now it doesn't meet the ten percent requirement, but we believe that the
action that's going through the city right now we will bring this into compliance when we
get to that point. All utilities are being provided. Sewer and water from the City of
Meridian. The other utilities from the different utility companies and we are providing a
pressure irrigation system for the -- or for the new owners. I guess at that I would stand
for questions from the Commission.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
December 17, 2015
Page 24 of 34
Yearsley: Are there any questions? I actually have one. So, just clarification. Are you
requesting that -- that we approve this based on swapping the two roads around?
Tealey: That's correct.
Yearsley: Okay.
Tealey: A couple of reasons. One, like I stated, I think for a traffic pattern it is much
better and the actual -- now, in our neighborhood meeting the plat that we presented to
the neighborhood showed the cul-de-sac on the south and the connection to the north and
I just think it's a better situation -- design situation.
Yearsley: Okay. And I understand that. I just wanted to make sure that I -- I understood
what you were saying is that that's what you wanted it to do. I guess my -- and I can't
speak for the other Commissioners, it will be discussion after we close the public hearing.
If we ask for a continuation for you to show us a new map, I don't know -- that may be an
option. I don't know how fast you're wanting to move this forward. They may ask for that.
Are you okay with that continuation if we -- I'm just making sure we understand the look
and the feel of it.
Tealey: Certainly. And that's a good question. A member of the ownership team is here.
I guess maybe he could address that. I think it would depend on how long you're going to
delay it. There are some considerations on timing. But as far as for the approval process,
we don't really want to have you approve what we presented to you, so --
Yearsley: Right.
Tealey: Because of the traffic and the connections that we prefer. So, if you could give
me an idea of what you -- how long you're --
Yearsley: I would assume -- and this would be -- it would be January 7th, just to give you
enough time to reconfigure the lot and we can have the owner come up in the public
hearing process and have him testify to that. But I guess, you know -- and I won't know --
like I said, I'm just wanting to bring this out now, because I don't know the level of comfort
to the commissioners, speaking for them, but all we would do is just continue it to January
7th.
Tealey: Just in -- I got the nod from the owner. I guess January 7th would work for us.
Yearsley: Okay.
Tealey: And I think it's -- it's probably prudent that you do that.
Yearsley: Okay.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
December 17, 2015
Page 25 of 34
Tealey: You know. As much as I would like to get your approval tonight, it is probably
prudent that you do look at it.
Yearsley: Okay. Are there any other questions?
Fitzgerald: Joshua, I mean having different conditions of approval with the swap -- I mean
micropaths and --
Beach: So, Chair, Commissioners, I was looking through the staff report as we were
talking about this. There is some very minor changes that we would take -- we would
remove, actually, several conditions. One, the stub street to the north will no longer be an
issue, because that would be a through street, so that 450 foot the condition would be
removed. We would remove the requirement that -- essentially, there is two conditions
that are contingent on the existing micropath that they are proposing and we would
remove both of those conditions. Everything else would stay the same. There really isn't
-- there really isn't a whole lot of change, but this would affect the staff report and if you
feel comfortable that those are things that you could remove this evening from --
conditions you could remove this evening from the staff report.
Yearsley: Okay. And we can discuss that when we close the public hearing. Thank you.
Beach: Thank you.
Yearsley: I have Tom Riekea? Is that -- was that you? Okay. Sorry. Please come
forward. Please state your name and address for the record.
Riekea: My name is Tom Riekea. Spelled R-i-e-k-e-a. I live with my wife at 270 East Rio
Colinas. Our home is the fifth one to the west of where this subdivision would begin . I
didn't come out to deny anybody a nice new house. We moved here from El Paso and
other places about three and a half years ago and we love it. We are natives of
Minneapolis and in many ways, including the snow tonight, this seems a good deal like
home. I didn't come here expecting to change your minds. I couldn't -- there were people
that were going to come with me and they said, well, it won't matter what we say, they are
just going to approve it anyway, because it's tax money. I understand the truth behind
that, but I'm not content to just let it be like that. This looks to those of us who have pulled
up to the back of a pickup truck that was loaded with some blueprints and so forth, had
asked all kinds of questions and made all sorts of comments. What -- if you approve it, it
-- it seems to us like it's kind of a dead end subdivision that there is nowhere that anybody
can go, except through the two subdivisions that already exist. Probably in the long run I
don't care if somebody else drives on the street. That doesn't -- that isn't part of my
concern. The concern is the -- the mess that you make of two fully developed
subdivisions while you're trying to put all of this together and, then, the fact that what I
assume is Rio Colinas Drive, doesn't go anywhere. It probably will some day and it would
seem to make a lot of sense to have that egress available now if you're putting all of this
in. Nobody that I know in the subdivision is against progress or against nice new buildings
and that kind of thing. The one concern that keeps coming up to my mind -- you will
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
December 17, 2015
Page 26 of 34
probably write it off as being trivial, but it isn't in my mind. We lived in the Oakland,
California, area at the time of what was called the Oakland fire -- Oakland Hills fire. That
may not have been important news here, but the subdivisions that were built in the hillside
were all built with one narrow road in and out within site of a freeway -- six lane freeway.
Nobody expected a fire to jump six lanes, but it did, and there were people who were
trying to get out of their homes who found it just absolutely impossible, because there was
no moving traffic. It's all this narrow road. When you sit here tonight that probably seems
like the last concern you ever have, but we know of scores of people who have died
because they couldn't get out and I look at this and I see it's just dead end the way it is.
Why not build the street all the way through to the east and use that for construction
purposes and, then, whoever lives in these homes has got a way to the east, which would
be quite normal for them to use and they can go through two other subdivisions that are
fully developed and all built up. That's the kind of concern I have come with and, as I said,
I don't expect that it's going to make any difference, but I'm just another somebody who
cares about it and wishes that you would make some adjustments in this, so that it would
be more viable. Thank you.
Yearsley: Thank you. I don't have anybody else to testify on this application . Would
somebody else -- please come forward.
Fremgen: Hi. My name is Bill Fremgen. 5252 North Papago Place, Boise, Idaho, and I'm
the owner of the property to the east of this subdivision, the one that you approved the
development for called Bull Ranch. First off, I want to clarify the record. We did have a
meeting with the Birkdale folks to try to conform our subdivision to their subdivision,
because we believe their original proposal to have a cul-de-sac on the south end and a
through road on the north side, was going to be substantially detrimental to our -- the
economics of our subdivision and we proposed a shared drive via an easement on their
property as a way to alleviate the impact on our property. They wrote us back a letter and
declined, saying that it would impact the value of their lots and so, therefore, they weren't
going to agree with the meeting that I held in my engine ering firm's office to try to reach an
agreement. So, we had one meeting. They declined, said no thanks, so we are going to
go our way. We got our application in, as he stated, before them. You guys in planning
recommended -- you guys approved it. Council, for whatever reason, declined. We are
seeking, you know, remedies to that at this -- at this time, but I -- I'm against the swap on
the north to the south, because it will have substantially detrimental impact to my property
without some kind of agreement for them to allow me to build out the lots on my south
end, because the Hightower stub street I'm dealing with is a hundred foot depth and if I
have to cul-de-sac there it's going to -- it's going to cause a huge problem if I'm building a
subdivision that's consistent with the Comprehensive Plan as it currently exists , which is
R-8. So, we did have -- the ACHD was finished. We had traffic calming in the middle of
our through street on the southern end to deal with the concerns about a long, straigh t
street, so that was already addressed and ACHD was very comfortable with that proposal.
Also, we have, you know, plans to vacate the Elk Ranch Road going onto Chinden, which
we also have rights to, so that will not be done until we get our development a pproved and
through. I'm meeting with Bill and his boss tomorrow to try to understand where we take
the process from here. Thank you.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
December 17, 2015
Page 27 of 34
Yearsley: Thank you. Anybody else? Would the applicant like to come forward?
Tealey: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. There was a meeting at his office --
at his engineer's office. I did not attend. The owner attended. He can give you firsthand
knowledge of it if you would -- if you would like. His layout at that time was dependent on
us giving him 30 feet of ground, so that he could have a turnaround, so he could get more
density down on the south. From what I understand, the reason that that subdivision got
turned down is because there is too much density to begin with. So, again, I just think the
cul-de-sac on the south serves the community better, there is -- you can see from the
existing land use map or the assessor's type map in front of you, there is going to -- there
would end up being over just about three -quarters of a mile of straight road up from --
from the east end of their subdivision out to Meridian and we just think it's a better layout.
They thought theirs was a better layout, so I guess that's where we started to knock
heads.
Yearsley: Actually, just the gentleman in the back, he talked about building the road to the
east for a different entrance on somebody else's property. Can you at least address that?
Tealey: Our northern road will -- will provide access through that -- part of the Bull Ranch
parcel to the east and, then, it will connect with roads that end up going out to Chinden
Boulevard.
Yearsley: But also just -- I want to explain that you can't actually build a road on
somebody else's -- on property that you don't own as well.
Tealey: Correct.
Yearsley: Yeah. It's a building block situation. I mean they can't all develop at once and
it can't all be done by one person, so --
Yearsley: Okay. Thank you.
Tealey: Thank you.
Yearsley: I guess were there any other questions? Thanks. I would entertain a motion to
close the public hearing on file number H-2015-0021.
McCarvel: So moved.
Oliver: Second.
Yearsley: I have a motion and a second to close the public hearing. All in favor say aye.
Opposed? Motion granted.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
December 17, 2015
Page 28 of 34
Yearsley: Comment? I guess for me I'd kind of like to poll Commissioners' consensus.
The applicant is asking to swap the roads around. What's your level of comfort of
approving that and making the changes to the conditions or do we want to continue this to
January and come back with a new layout for us to review?
Oliver: Mr. Chairman?
Yearsley: Commissioner Oliver.
Oliver: I just have a real quick question again. Is it Elk Run?
Beach: Elk Ranch Lane is a private lane that is available for use by both this ten acre
parcel and the one to the east, so it was a condition that they re move access as part of
the proposed Bull Ranch Subdivision. It's also a condition of approval that that be
vacated. But, again, since the subdivision was denied it -- it takes both of them to vacate
it, because they both have access to it, so --
Oliver: Yes. My question.
Beach: Correct.
Oliver: Can you go ahead and go forward with that without --
Beach: No. It would take both of them to redevelop in order for it to be --
Yearsley: And, then, I guess all we are doing is making them give up their access to that
roadway I guess is what we are doing. We are not -- we are not saying that we have to
get rid of it, we are just saying they are giving up their right to that access.
Beach: So, the condition of approval for this takes away the access from this property,
not from the property to the east.
Oliver: But it would take both parties to communicate with each other to come to an
understanding?
Beach: Not necessarily, no. This -- so -- sorry. Let me explain a little further. The
applicant to the east -- or the property owner that spoke to you would still, then, have
access.
Oliver: Uh-huh.
Beach: And, then, once that property develops they would, again, have to remove their
access and, then, it would be completely vacated. So, whoever comes in second to
develop would have to completely vacate the property. But, again, it takes both of those --
both of those property owners who have rights to that private lane currently.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
December 17, 2015
Page 29 of 34
Oliver: Okay. Thank you. Go ahead?
Yearsley: Oh, absolutely.
Oliver: It's my opinion that I do like the reversal. I do like -- I would like to do this tonight,
but I'm still more comfortable with seeing it brought back January 7th to look at it and get
that kind of final feeling that this is the proper way it should look, then, I think we should go
forward.
Fitzgerald: Mr. Chairman?
Yearsley: Commissioner Fitzgerald.
Fitzgerald: I agree completely. I think that is a long road with -- the traffic calming can
only do so much. That's a pretty -- and I know that there is -- when you get out towards
Meridian Road there is some -- as the gentleman mentioned, there is elder couples and
there is a lot of people walking and I think that's going to become a drag strip, so I'd rather
see it reversed as well. So, I think I would be in favor of us continuing it to the 7th and
taking a look at the final proposal and having it move from there.
Yearsley: Okay. Commissioner Wilson or Commissioner McCarvel, just to kind of get
your thoughts as well.
Wilson: Yeah. I'm in that camp, too. I'd like to see it in the next P&Z meeting.
Yearsley: Okay.
McCarvel: Mr. Chairman, I agree. I think it seems like an easy flip, but, you know, there
might be some things you notice when it's a nice picture in front of you.
Yearsley: Okay. So, I guess with that I have a tendency to agree. I think I would like to
have it come back. I do agree, I think that the swap is the better alternative. I know it's
unfortunate to the adjacent property owner wanting to develop on his side, but given the
conditions the way they are, I think it is in a more appropriate condition, so I guess with
that I would entertain a motion.
Pogue: Mr. Chair?
Yearsley: Yes.
Pogue: Just a comment. The public hearing was closed.
Yearsley: Yes.
Pogue: So, if you continue it will you reopen it? Will it be reopened?
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
December 17, 2015
Page 30 of 34
Yearsley: Yes, it will.
Pogue: Yes.
Yearsley: So, I would entertain a motion.
McCarvel: Mr. Chairman?
Yearsley: Commissioner McCarvel.
McCarvel: I move to continue file number H-2015-021 to the hearing date of January 7th
to allow time to get the plat redrawn.
Wilson: Second.
Fitzgerald: Do we need to open the public hearing first?
Yearsley: Do we need to open the public hearing to do that?
Pogue: I think so.
Yearsley: Oh. Sorry. At that point I guess we need to have a motion to open the public
hearing. So, I would entertain a motion to open the publ ic hearing on H-2015-0021.
McCarvel: So moved.
Fitzgerald: Second.
Yearsley: I have a motion and a second. All in favor say aye. Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Yearsley: Now I would entertain that motion.
McCarvel: Mr. Chairman?
Yearsley: Commissioner McCarvel.
McCarvel: I move to continue file number H -2015-0021 to the hearing date of January
7th, to allow for the preliminary plat to be redrawn for our viewing.
Fitzgerald: Second.
Yearsley: I have a motion and a second to continue file number H-2015-0021. All in favor
say aye. Opposed? Motion carries. Thank you.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
December 17, 2015
Page 31 of 34
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Item 5: Other Items
A. Discussion on Ordinance No. 15-1664 by Andrea Pogue, City
Attorney
Yearsley: Last on the agenda is discussion from our city attorney Andrea Pogue on the
new ordinance that was put in place, number 15-1664. So --
Pogue: That's correct. Thanks, Josh. So, on October 27th City Council approved an
update to the city code regarding commissions. The purpose for the update was to create
greater uniformity across all of the city commissions in term of primarily membership and
length of term and absence requirements. It also was to enhance the public notice and
access when vacancies occur or seat terms end and vacancies occur. So, the question
for you primarily is what is the effective date for the rules I'm going to talk about and that is
that they will only apply to you when your current term ends. So, nothing is really going to
change the length of your term right now. Although the -- the new rules regarding
absence or attendance is effective now. So, the prior code set forth Chapter 4, Title 2, for
the Planning and Zoning Commission. It is now in Chapter 5. The new Chapter 1 is a
section that pulls together all the relevant information regarding membership, rules and
responsibilities, budget related information, that kind of thing. There was a lot of different
information in each commission and it was really hard for the clerk's office I think t o
oversee, you know, whose seat was coming up for, you know, a new term or not and what
rules applied. So, hopefully, this new code really sorts this out. W ith regard to P&Z, the
old size for this Commission was five members. Now it is a minimum of three to a
maximum of nine. The appointment process is the same as it was for the prior code to the
present code as to a first appointee. The Mayor's office will select and appoint forward an
appointment to City Council for approval and it's a majority vote to approve that applicant.
So, that's the same for when the first person is appointed. Going forward what has
changed for P&Z especially is that up until now -- and your current terms are six year
terms and that remains true for you. At the time your seat -- your term ends, though,
should you seek to reapply, it would be for a three year term. So, that is the difference for
Planning and Zoning. Other commissions always had three year terms. So, this is new
for you. What happens is a little different also. When an incumbent term ends, they may,
of course, reapply for it, but what will occur automatically is that a notice of vacancy will be
published and the public will be invited to apply. That is the way the Mayor and City
Council hopes to continue growing commissions, getting new blood in or at least getting
the word out that these commissions turn over. If the incumbent wants to reapply they will
most likely get reelected -- or reselected, of course, but, on the other hand, there may be
some other commission that the Mayor is aware will be having a vacancy and from that
potentially interested applicant that pool that she can maybe recruit someone, you know,
to fill another vacancy on a different commission. So, it's just to get interest and kind of
promote seats and locally do to the public. So, as I said, what is a little different is that --
so, I -- Mr. Chair, can I use your -- you as an example?
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
December 17, 2015
Page 32 of 34
Yearsley: Absolutely.
Pogue: Okay. So, your chairman's term has expired or is going to expire and he has
indicated interest in reapplying. So, he will submit the short note that's required to inform
the Mayor of his interest to do so. But his seat will be noticed as a vacancy to the public
and there will be a short period during which time other -- anyone else interested can
submit a letter of interest to the Mayor' office. Now, for -- because of the rule change Mr.
Chair will, hopefully, be reappointed and for this new code he will be in term one. That's
how this will be viewed. So, the fact that he has previously served doesn't count. It
doesn't affect the way we are going forward. So, he will be a term one incumbent, only
requiring a majority vote by City Council to be approved. At the end of his new three year
term, should he want to reapply again, which we will say he will, he would submit his letter
of interest, successfully selected from the Mayor's office. He, then, goes into term two. It
still would be a majority vote of City Council to approve him. When a commissioner gets
to applying for term three, reapplying for term three or any term thereafter, there is a
higher standard of approval by City Council. It must be unanimous approval. So, that's a
slight change and that's the way that's going to go forward. Okay. So, now we get to our
attendance. Yes. So, this commission has never had an attendance requirement. Other
commissions have. Going forward it's all going to be uniform and the rule is that anyone
who misses half the number of meetings held in any 12 month period will be automatically
terminated. So, this is -- the other commissions were always vary bogged down between
having an excused absence and an unexcused absence. So, it was hard to administer
and hard for the clerk's office to track and so this sets a way to go forward with, you know,
conditioning absences. So, we are putting sideboards on absences. If you're not going to
meetings that will just be a checkmark in a box and we don't even -- aren't even sure who
is really keeping conscious track of it. I think if you get to missing six meetings probably
someone on the Commission or the chair, you know, will bring it up to the chair most likely
and say do we need to do something or other, you know, and maybe it's kind of -- for the
fifth meeting absence there might need to be -- you know, amongst yourself just like, hey,
remember, you know, you don't want to get half the -- for you guys that would be nine or
ten, you know, half the number of meetings that maybe you will work on and keep track of
it yourself. You will have the burden on you than what this Commission has had to worry
about in the past, but hopefully the track records being what they are there won't be a
problem and, you know, it's just something to keep in mind.
Yearsley: Can I just ask a question on that?
Pogue: Yes.
Yearsley: It says -- in the present code it says excused or unexcused for the half of the
number of meetings. So, wouldn't that push us up to 12 automatically?
Pogue: Correct. And after we talked I realized that.
Yearsley: Okay.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
December 17, 2015
Page 33 of 34
Pogue: So, you have 24 meetings, so it's half the number of meetings held, so that's 12
for you guys. It would be six for the commissions that meet once a month. But also I
don’t know if you ever have to hold special meetings, sometimes other commissions do,
so it's really the total number of meeting held. They are not even going to care about a
regular or a special meeting, it's just however many were held. But it's in any 12 month
period. So, keep that in mind. Things will fall off, you know, as you go along, you know,
so it's not a calendar year.
Yearsley: Okay.
Pogue: Any questions? That's it then.
Yearsley: So, just so you know, I did ask to be reapplied. That doesn't mean that I'm
guaranteed, because the Mayor may not select me. So, I asked if I could go through an
interview again, so -- I believe next week -- or next commission meeting we will have
elections, just heads up, so be thinking about that.
Pogue: And I know that -- I just want to say the desire for this change was really to reach
out to the public and bring the commissions and the work and, you know, the fact that
there are vacancies happening over -- you know, just to keep it out there, because we do
need new blood. There are those instances where, you know, we might be losing -- I
know on our solid waste advisory commissions I have two commissioners who have
collected institutional knowledge for that commission that goes back, you know, a decade
and a half or longer really and, you know, you want to be creating maybe an applicant
pool where just because an incumbent gets reselected, having had somebody express
interest gives us the opportunity to maybe reach out to that person and say, hey, we do
have a vacancy, are you still interested. So, it isn't for any current incumbent to get
nervous about and I don't even know if there is going to be a -- I don't think so.
Yearsley: I was joking.
Pogue: Yeah. I hadn't heard that.
Yearsley: Okay. So --
McCarvel: What's the likelihood of this Commission getting expanded?
Pogue: I was wondering that as well. I think if the Commission desires that discussion to
occur, let the chair know and I think you would, then, bring that to the Mayor's office for
discussion would be what I would recommend or mention it to me and through me I could
-- I could get it out there and get the discussion going. I think it would have to be -- that
extra seat would have to be approved by City Council.
Yearsley: We would actually have to go to two seats, wouldn't we, so -- don't we always
need an odd number?
Pl
a
n
n
i
n
g
&
Z
o
n
i
n
g
Pl
a
n
n
i
n
g
&
Z
o
n
i
n
g
Pl
a
n
n
i
n
g
&
Z
o
n
i
n
g
Pl
a
n
n
i
n
g
&
Z
o
n
i
n
g
Co
m
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
M
e
e
t
i
n
g
Co
m
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
M
e
e
t
i
n
g
Co
m
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
M
e
e
t
i
n
g
Co
m
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
M
e
e
t
i
n
g
De
c
e
m
b
e
r
1
7
,
2
0
1
5
De
c
e
m
b
e
r
1
7
,
2
0
1
5
De
c
e
m
b
e
r
1
7
,
2
0
1
5
De
c
e
m
b
e
r
1
7
,
2
0
1
5
It
e
m
s
#
7
A
:
E
d
g
e
h
i
l
l
S
u
b
d
i
v
i
s
i
o
n
Zo
n
i
n
g
&
A
e
r
i
a
l
M
a
p
s
Ed
g
e
h
i
l
l
S
u
b
d
i
v
i
s
i
o
n
-
P
r
e
l
i
m
i
n
a
r
y
P
l
a
t
&
P
h
a
s
i
n
g
P
l
a
n
(
R
E
V
I
S
E
D
)
La
n
d
s
c
a
p
e
P
l
a
n
Co
n
c
e
p
t
u
a
l
B
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
E
l
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
s
It
e
m
#
4
B
:
C
h
e
r
r
y
C
r
o
s
s
i
n
g
Dr
i
v
e
T
h
r
u
C
U
P
Vi
c
i
n
i
t
y
/
Z
o
n
i
n
g
M
a
p
Si
t
e
P
l
a
n
La
n
d
s
c
a
p
e
P
l
a
n
It
e
m
#
4
D
:
S
h
i
n
e
B
r
i
g
h
t
C
U
P
Vi
c
i
n
i
t
y
/
Z
o
n
i
n
g
M
a
p
Si
t
e
/
L
a
n
d
s
c
a
p
e
P
l
a
n
Fl
o
o
r
P
l
a
n
It
e
m
#
4
E
:
B
i
r
k
d
a
l
e
E
s
t
a
t
e
s
S
u
b
.
Vi
c
i
n
i
t
y
/
Z
o
n
i
n
g
M
a
p
Si
t
e
P
l
a
n
Si
t
e
P
l
a
n
La
n
d
s
c
a
p
e
P
l
a
n
La
n
d
s
c
a
p
e
P
l
a
n
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
s