2016 08-04Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting August 4, 2016
Meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission of August 4, 2016,
was called to order at 6:00 p.m. by Chairman Steven Yearsley.
Members Present: Chairman Steven Yearsley, Commissioner Rhonda
McCarvel, Commissioner Gregory Wilson and Commissioner Patrick Oliver.
Members Absent: Commissioner Ryan Fitzgerald.
Others Present: Machelle Hill, Andrea Pogue, Bill Parson, Josh Beach and Dean
Willis.
Item 1: Roll-Call Attendance:
Roll-call
__X____ Gregory Wilson __X__ Patrick Oliver
__X__ Rhonda McCarvel _____ Ryan Fitzgerald
__X__ Steven Yearsley - Chairman
Yearsley: Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. At this time we would like to call
to order the regularly scheduled meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning
Commission for the hearing date of August 4th, 2016. Let's begin with staff -- roll
call.
Item 2: Adoption of the Agenda.
Yearsley: Thank you. Next item on the agenda is the adoption of the agenda.
The only thing that we have to change on the agenda is the public hearing for the
Laurels Townhomes, file number H-2016-0065, has been asked to be continued
to September 1st for a renoticing and, then, with that could I get a motion to
adopt the agenda as presented?
Wilson: Mr. Chair?
Yearsley: Commissioner Wilson.
Wilson: I move we adopt the agenda.
McCarvel: Second.
Yearsley: I have a motion and a second to adopt the agenda. All in favor say
aye. Opposed? Motion carries:
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
August 4, 2016
Page 2 of 23
Item 3: Consent Agenda
A. Approve Minutes of July 21, 2016 Planning and Zoning
Commission Meeting
B. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval
for Walmart Drive-Through CUP (H-2016-0077) by
Sunday Bougher of SGA Design Group Located at 5001
N Ten Mile Road Request: Conditional Use Permit for a
Drive-Through Establishment in the CG Zoning District
Yearsley: Next Item on the agenda is the Consent Agenda and on that we have
to approve the July 21st, 2016, Planning and Zoning Commission meeting and,
then, the Findings of Fact and Conclusion of Law for of the Walmart Drive -Thru
CUP, file number H-2016-0077. If there are no changes to that could I get a
motion to adopt the Consent -- or approve the Consent Agenda.
McCarvel: Mr. Chairman?
Yearsley: Commissioner McCarvel.
McCarvel: I move to approve the Consent Agenda.
Wilson: 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.
Item 4: Action Items
B. Public Hearing for Laurels Townhouses (H-2016-0065)
by Northside Management Located at 2116 S Accolade
Avenue
Yearsley: So, we are going to open the public hearing for the -- file number H-
2016-0065, the Laurels Townhomes, for the sole purpose of continuing that to
September 1st, 2016. And with that could I get a motion?
Wilson: Mr. Chairman?
Yearsley: Mr. Wilson.
Wilson: I move we continue H-2016-0065, Laurels Townhouses, to the date of
September 1st, 2016.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
August 4, 2016
Page 3 of 23
Oliver: Second.
Yearsley: I have a motion and a second to continue the public hearing for the
Laurels Townhomes. All in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Yearsley: So, before we go onto the next items, let me explain the process of
what we will do on going forward. We will open each application one at a time.
We will start off with the staff report. The staff will present their findings on the
project of how it adheres to the Comprehensive Plan and Uniform Development
Code and with staff recommendations. After the staff has had a chance to
present their findings we will have the applicant to come forward to present their
case for approval and, then, comment on any changes or requests for any
changes made on the staff report. They will be given up to 15 minutes to do so.
After the applicant has had a chance to testify, we will open it up to the public.
There is a sign-up sheet in the back for anybody wishing to testify. Anyone
wishing to testify will be given up to three minutes to do so. If they are speaking
on behalf of an association or for multiple people within the audience , they will be
given up to ten minutes to do so. After the public has had a chance to comment
on the application, we will -- the applicant has a chance to -- will have an
opportunity to come back and comment on the -- the public testimony. He will
have ten minutes to do so at that time. After that we will close the public hearing
and deliberate and, hopefully, make a decision to recommend -- or to make a
decision to the Council on the project.
A. Public Hearing for CentrePoint Storage (H-2016-0069) by
Chad Olsen Located 1/4 Mile North of E. Ustick Road
and West of N. Eagle Road Approved – Prepare Findings
for August 18, 2016
1. Request: Conditional Use Permit Approval for a
SelfService Storage Facility on 18.7 Acres of Land
in the C-G Zoning District
Yearsley: With that we would like to open the public hearing for file number
H-2016-0068 for CentrePoint Storage and let's begin with the staff report.
Parsons: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. The first item
on the agenda this evening is the CentrePoint Storage conditional use permit.
The site is located on the west side of North Eagle Road and in -- excuse me --
the west side of North Eagle Road just north of Ustick Road. Currently this site
consists of 18.7 acres, but the applicant is in the process of finalizing their final
plat with the city, so once that process is done the actual storage facility will sit
on 5.31 acres of land. You can see here in the aerial that the property is
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
August 4, 2016
Page 4 of 23
currently zoned C-G. In that zoning district it does require an outdoor storage
facility and the self-storage facility required a conditional use permit approval.
Recently the developer -- or applicant received a development agreement
modification to change this portion of the site from a multi-family development --
conceptual development plan to the self -storage facility that we are talking about
this evening. In the lower left-hand corner there you can see the -- the final plat
and what the configuration will look like once it's recorded with the city and staff
has hatched out the area in which we will -- where the self-storage facility will sit.
So, on the left you can see there is a sit e plan. Again, entrance is -- with the
approval of the final plat the applicant will be responsible to construct the
remaining portion of CentrePoint Way, which will provide access to this
development. So, their first main entrance will be located centrally to the
development and, then, per these specific use standards the applicant is required
to have an emergency secondary access. Staff does have a condition in the staff
report that the gate that -- for the second emergency access be solid material, so
that it will screen any of the outdoor storage that's proposed with this application.
One other item to note, too. When this process went before the City Council it
was described to them as a phased project. So, phase one was primarily the
southern portion. Phase two was going to be this outdoor storage portion, which
is located primarily north of this development. Because of the way that the
outdoor storage facility is designed, the structures will range in height -- will be
approximately 12 feet tall. So, the outdoor storage itself will be screened by the
perimeter buildings, which is consistent with the UDC. Per the development
agreement the applicant is required to do a ten foot landscape buffer along the
residential uses on the west, which is Champion Park Subdivision. That was
negotiated with the Council back in 2006, I believe, by the applicant this evening
and so that condition remains in place. The applicant did receive alternative
compliance from the directors to reduce the number of planters. When this
project was presented to City Council as part of the development agreement
modification, Council was concerned with dense vegetation along that perimeter,
in particular with people getting back there and maybe -- with visibility so limited.
So, the applicant -- Council wanted the applicant -- Council wanted the applicant
to gate that area off and put minimal signage in there just to deter people for
hanging out in there. So, that is a requirement of this development per the
Council's recommend -- or approval. The applicant also received a reduced
landscape buffer along the northbound -- a ten foot buffer. To the north is a
county residential subdivision and a private street. So, at some point the city
envisions that properly redeveloping within our limits, so at some point that
private lane would be converted to a public street. So, staff wanted to ensure
that there as an adequate buffer along that private street in the future, so the
applicant is proposing a ten foot landscape buff er, so that we have adequate
landscape buffering along that street in the future with redevelopment. And,
then, at the time that this project came through the city North CentrePoint Way
was actually designated a local street and under the UDC local street s only
require a 25 foot -- or require a ten foot wide landscape buffer and since that time
this has been upgraded to a collector roadway and provided a backage road --
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
August 4, 2016
Page 5 of 23
it's basically going to be a backage road to Eagle Road at some point. Because
they have a vested approval with their final plan, staff honored their request -- the
original approval of just requiring a ten foot landscape buffer along that roadway.
And, then, as you recall back in 2014 on the south boundary this Commission
and Council approved a multi-family development called Timbergrove and now
that we have residential abutting this nonresidential development, the applicant is
required to construct a 25 foot landscape buffer on the south boundary between
the multi-family development on this project. So, the landscape plan that's
shown here this evening reflects the required landscape buffer per the UDC.
Elevations are -- for this site consist primarily of stucco material with some stone
wainscoting. You can see there is some decorative pilasters. The applicant will
be required to go through administrative design review. Staff did note in the staff
report -- if you look at the site plan some of these buildings do get pretty long and
monotonous, so staff is recommending that the applicant provide some type of
modulation, articulations to the front façade of those buildings as part of their
design review application. Staff cannot support just one long linear blank wall
along the perimeter of the site. So, the interior buildings won't be subject to
design review, it's really just that perimeter of the complex and, again, the
building -- the applicant is proposing to use those as , basically, the -- the
screening of -- of the storage units. Staff did receive written testimony from both
the applicant and the applicant's representative in agreement with the conditions
in the staff report. Staff is recommending approval of the project and I would
stand for any questions you might have.
Yearsley: Thank you. Are there any questions? No? Would the applicant like to
come forward. Please state your name and address for the record.
Seel: Good evening, Mr. Chairman, Commissioners. My name is Jonathan
Seel, JRS Consulting. 2906 Haven, Eagle. I'd like to first mention I worked for
Winston Moore for approximately 18 years before I retired and didn't do a very
good job of that. But the reason I mentioned that is because one of the projects
that I was responsible for was CentrePoint Marketplace. I was involved in all the
entitlements. I was involved in overseeing the construction, the infrastructure,
the buildings. I handed the -- the property development agreements with ACHD
on Ustick Road, both east and west, and also the improvements with ITD on
Eagle Road. And the reason I mention that to you is because throughout that
entire process Mr. Moore always maintained a high standard of quality in that
project and so I think at first blush when you say, well, wait a minute, you're
saying you have got a high standard of quality, but you're talking a self-storage
facility, how do you potentially square that circle and I think Mr. Moore also kind
of shared that first reaction, but I think as I go through this project I think,
hopefully, you will recognize, as Mr. Moore has, that we are -- he is still
maintaining that quality level. He has not diminished it through the process. So,
as I go through that hopefully you will share that. A couple things I wanted to
mention before I get to that also. We had our required neighborhood meeting. In
the neighborhood meeting I think the reaction of the people who either contacted
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
August 4, 2016
Page 6 of 23
me or attended the meeting I think was positive. I think they all recognize that in
the C-G a self-storage facility is truly the least intrusive use that you could have.
In fact, if you go back to the original concept plan that we did, this corner was
intended to be a family fun center, which would have meant something open from
potentially 9:00 o'clock in the morning until 9:00 or 10:00 o'clock at night with
traffic and lights and noise. So, that the reaction we got from everyone was, yes,
you know, it can't be a horse pasture, it's not going to be residential, bu t as far as
least intrusive, noise, sound, traffic, this is probably the -- as you switch into C-C
zone, which it is. Also as Bill mentioned to you, we are in the process -- or I am
in the process of overseeing the construction of CentrePoint Way. In fact, we
just selected our general contractor today. I'm going to start my free time with --
the city's plans have been approved by Ada County Highway District in the City
of Meridian and, hopefully, within the next couple weeks we will start construction
at CentrePoint Way. So, we are committed to that. So, I wanted to mention that
also. As far as the project itself and, hopefully, this will work -- as Bill mentioned
to you, along these -- well, I guess it doesn't work. So, along the perimeter of it
he talked about at 12 foot stucco wall and every approximately 35 feet there will
be a 14 foot tower. This goes the entire perimeter of it. So, this is not only along
CentrePoint Way, but this is also on the west to Champion Park, to the south, as
well as to the north. So, one of the beauties that I think we saw on this is from a
visual standpoint you won't see anything that's inside the structure . What you will
see is I think a nice architectural design with -- with the architectural relief, which,
you know, the term is that's the right one to it. So, I think from a visual standpoint
I think it's -- it's going to be an attractive facility and, again, you're not going to
see anything. As Bill said, within the -- within the perimeter -- around the
perimeter of it that's an enclosed self-storage facility. The lower section is also
self-enclosed storage facilities, whereas the upper portion is open. But, again,
even though that's open, as you're driving down the street or if you're a resident
in the community, you won't see that. It will be blocked by a 12 foot structure -- a
wall that is made out of stucco. With respect to the entrance, Bill, if you can pull
up the entrance. Again, if you look at this entrance -- and there is -- as Bill said,
there is one main entrance and we have an emergency entrance in it. If you look
at this entrance I don't think this is typical that you customarily see within a self-
storage facility. Again, I think the time, the effort and the expense that's going to
go into creating what I think is an attractive structure I think speaks not only to
Mr. Olson, who is the developer, but I think also the demand of Mr. Moore who
wants this type of quality. And, again, as I have said, this is why we feel we are
maintaining that standard of quality. We are not diminishing it. So, I think this is
very attractive. It's certainly not typical of it. It will have a monitored gate, with a
card. It also has -- which is unusual -- is a 24-hour residential facility, so
somebody can be there 24/7. Also we will have the administrative office, so they
can, again, monitor who is coming in, who is going out, what's going on in there.
It will use the low impact lighting. So, again, this is not going to be an impact to
the residents within the community. So, I think that as you look at this project,
hopefully, you will share the same overall reaction that I think Mr. Moore did, that,
yes, this is a quality project that I think it speaks to -- to the quality of the city and
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
August 4, 2016
Page 7 of 23
what I know that the community wants. I think it speaks to the quality of
CentrePoint Marketplace and I think also it will serve a practical use for many of
the residents within the City of Meridian. So, with that, unless you have any
questions, I will sit down.
Yearsley: Are there any questions?
Oliver: Mr. Chairman?
Yearsley: Commissioner Oliver.
Oliver: If I could go back and look at the layout. Again, because the south will be
enclosed --
Seel: Yes.
Oliver: -- and looking more to the north it will be open. Is that a canopy that will
be over that for each individual --
Seel: Commissioners, it will -- it potentially will be covered, but the definition of
open storage is whether it is covered or is not covered, that's still deemed as
open storage. But, again, one of the concerns we had in the beginning is, okay,
you have open storage, how is that going to look as you're driving down
CentrePoint Marketplace. The fact that you had a 12 foot stucco wall there,
which is far higher than what you would typically have , you won't see that. So,
that may or may not be, so I can't really directly answer your question , but I will
be candid with you, I suspect it ultimately will be.
Oliver: And each unit will have lighting?
Seel: Yes. Each unit will have lighting. Essentially, it's like an enclosed garage.
You have seen those before. You roll your garage door up -- so, the beauty of it,
too, is it goes around the perimeter, so you have -- you have also got that buffer,
because in addition to the 12 foot wall that roof is going up at an angle like this,
so, essentially, that roof is -- you know, I'm estimating 14, 15 feet at the top of it,
because it goes up towards the garage door. So, you have got even more of a
buffer. So, anything within the project won't be visible. And, again, that was one
of the appeals to us -- or to Mr. Moore, that, yeah, it's not going to look like your
typical -- well, like I -- last time I was here I showed a picture of one where it had
the chain link fence and they backed the RVs up to it. We would never -- he
would never have had that.
Oliver: And it's my concern looking at the neighborhood to the west and thinking
that if you got lighting that's going to be intrusive in the backyards.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
August 4, 2016
Page 8 of 23
Seel: It will be low impact lighting. In fact, when we talked to -- when we
presented the DA modification in front of the City of Meridian Council, there was
a little -- what they were asking for originally -- they were suggesting there be
lighting back there along that buffer and what the direction now is is, no,
because, one, that's going to be enclosed. Two, with lighting there that's --
again, that's going to be an annoying thing to the neighbors to the west. So,
that's been eliminated. The lighting within the thing will, then, be low-impact,
down lighting and, again, won't be visible. Again, you go back to the fact that the
possibility that this could have been a family fun center with 20 foot lights and a
parking lot shining, in a C-C zone, which would have been an allowed use. So, I
think this is a very -- if I was living over there this -- this would be -- I would be
happy with this, so --
Oliver: Thank you.
Yearsley: Thank you. Are there any other questions? Thank you.
Seel: Okay. Thank you very much.
Yearsley: I don't have anybody signed up to testify. Is there anyone wanting to
testify on this application? With that, I don't think we need the applicant to come
forward again, so I would entertain a motion to close the public hearing on file
number H-2016-0069.
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 carries.
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Yearsley: Thoughts or comments?
Oliver: Mr. Chairman?
Yearsley: Commissioner Oliver.
Oliver: I think it -- as the gentleman testified and was speaking to the location
and the low impact it will have on the neighborhood, I think it is fine. It looks very
nice. And I think the entrance is a very modern-looking and is a very good
design as well. I think that's a perfect fit for that area, as well as like say that it
won't affect the neighborhood and the values of the property. So, I think it's a
nice-looking storage facility.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
August 4, 2016
Page 9 of 23
Yearsley: Thank you. I also agree. I am -- you know, I always try to put myself
in the neighbors and would I like that being in my backyard and I think for what --
what use could go there I think that's the very least intrusive development to go in
against of the residential. So, I think it does look good. So, if there is no other
comments, I would entertain a motion.
Wilson: Mr. Chair?
Yearsley: Commissioner Wilson.
Wilson: After considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move to
approve file number H-2016-0069 as presented in the staff report for the hearing
date of August 4th, 2016.
McCarvel: Second.
Yearsley: I have a motion and a second to approve file number H-2016-0069.
All in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT.
C. Public Hearing for Harmony Hills Assisted Living (H-
2016- 0063) by Derk Pardoe Located at 1521 and 1529 S.
Tech Lane
1. Request: Conditional Use Permit for an Assisted
Living Facility on 1.72 Acres in a C-G Zoning
District
Yearsley: Next item on the agenda is the public hearing for file number
H-2016-0063, Harmony Hills Assisted Living, and let's begin with staff report.
Beach: Good evening, Chair, Commissioners. As you said, this is an application
for a conditional use permit for an assisted living facility. The site consists of two
separate properties with a total of 1.72 acres of land. It is currently zoned C-G.
The addresses are 1521 and 1529 South Tech Lane. To the north we have the
Overland Park Apartments, which are currently under construction, which are
zoned C-G. To the east is vacant property, also zoned C-G. To the south is
Overland Road and Sagewood Subdivision, which is currently under
construction, zoned L-O and R-8. And to the west is a vacant industrial property
zoned I-L or light industrial and is the future site of a recently approved Bish's RV
Sales. On July 19th of this year the City Council approved a development
agreement modification and, therefore, the new concept plan and conceptual
level for the proposed development -- to date the amended development agree
has not been finalized. The Comprehensive Plan future land use map for this
property is commercial. The applicant has submitted an application for, as I said,
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
August 4, 2016
Page 10 of 23
a conditional use permit for a 72 bed residential care facility. It's two-stories. It's
approximately 48,700 square feet and City Council had recently approved a
concept plan change through the development agreement modification process.
Access is proposed to the site via a -- a future access to Tech Lane and the
shared access point East Overland Road that was approved with the preliminary
plat in 2013 -- or, excuse me, 2007. It is important to note that the property to the
west has been approved to develop with a vehicle sales facility and the recorded
plat approved an access to West Overland Road and annotates a cross-access
to the property to the west. A submitted concept plan here was revised to allow
the interconnectivity of the shared acce ss and interconnectivity requirement of
ACHD, as well as staff, that the applicant work with the developer to the west of
the RV sales to combine their access points into one. They were too close
together for ACHD's requirements and we just saw there to be some potential
negative impact on the closeness of those two access points. So, this concept
plan here shows the assisted living facility here at the southwest corner, as well
as two commercial pad sites to the east and the Overland Park Apartments,
which are currently under reconstruction here, just for -- this is Tech Lane here,
just for your perspective. Off street parking is required to be provided on the site
in accord with the UDC and for age restricted or elderly housing for a one
bedroom unit half of a parking space is required, with 72 bedroom units that are
proposed, therefore, a total of 36 parking spaces are required. The proposed
landscape buffer along the frontage of West Overland Road does not show the
required mixture of vegetation. There is -- go back here to the site plan. See it
better on the landscape plan. There is an irrigation easement that roughly
follows my mouse here and so the condition in the staff report reads that the
applicant will provide an additional five feet of landscaping outside of that
easement and install the required plantings or ask for and apply for alternative
compliance to modify what would be allowed along the frontage there. The
irrigation district won't allow the trees to be planted directly in their e asements for
purposes of not destroying their tiled irrigation facility there, but there is
opportunity to modify that, so that's the condition in the staff report. The
amenities for the proposed assisted living facility include a hair salon, activity
room, heater room and entry lounge with a fireplace and an additional common
area with a fireplace. A minimum five foot wide sidewalk is required to be
provided from the perimeter sidewalk along East Overland Road to the main
building and crossing over the parking lot should be distinguished from the
driving surface by the use of pavers, colored or scored concrete or bricks.
Building elevations provided for the future building are shown here . The
development agreement requires that these elevations closely match what has
been approved for the Overland Park Apartments to the north, so staff will review
that with a future certificate of zoning compliance application and the design
review application. With that staff is recommending approval. Did not receive
any written testimony on this and with that I will stand for any questions you
have.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
August 4, 2016
Page 11 of 23
Yearsley: Thank you. Are there any questions? Would the applicant like to
come forward? Please state your name and address for the record.
Barfuss: My name is Brent Barfuss. 10100 Foothill Road, Middleton, Idaho.
And I will be representing Derk on this. I don't have really anything to add, other
than you can look at the quality of the Overland Park Apartments there and I can
-- I am the site superintendent for that project and I will be operating this one also
if it's approved and I can tell you Derk cuts no corners when it comes to the
quality. Any questions you might have?
Yearsley: Thank you. Are there any questions? No? Thank you.
Barfuss: Okay. Thank you.
Yearsley: I do not have anybody signed up to testify. Is there anybody wishing
to testify on this application? I guess with that we don't need to bring the
applicant back forward, so I would entertain a motion to close the public hearing
on file number is H-2016-0063.
McCarvel: Mr. Chairman?
Yearsley: Commissioner McCarvel.
McCarvel: I move to close the public hearing -- public comment on file number
H-2016-0063.
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: Any comments or thoughts?
Oliver: Mr. Chairman?
Yearsley: Commissioner Oliver.
Oliver: Just a quick comment is that I know where the apartments are that they
are building and to me it's just a compliment to the structures that are being
currently built to add a facility such as this along with what's being built. So, it
gives more opportunity, more balance to younger people moving into the more
assistance living. So, I think it's a natural place to put it and I think it would work
well, especially out on Overland in that area.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
August 4, 2016
Page 12 of 23
Yearsley: Thank you.
McCarvel: Mr. Chairman?
Yearsley: Commissioner McCarvel.
McCarvel: I agree. It seems like they have done something about making this
blend in with the others and I'm sure we are going to need just as much assisted
living as family residences out there. It would be nice to have something close to
the residential area out there.
Yearsley: Thank you. I agree. I think it -- it compliments the area. I think they
have done a good job and so -- so, with that, I would entertain a motion.
McCarvel: Mr. Chairman?
Yearsley: Commissioner McCarvel.
McCarvel: After considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move to
approve file number H-2016-0063 as presented in the staff report for the hearing
date of August 4th.
Wilson: Second.
Yearsley: I have a motion and a second to approve the public hearing for file
number H-2016-0063. All in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries. Thank
you.
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT.
D. Public Hearing for Roundtree Place Subdivision (H-2016-
0081) by Trilogy Development Located at 755 S Linder
Road
1. Request: Annexation and Zoning of 5.78 Acres of
Land with an R-8 Zoning District
2. Request: Preliminary Plat Consisting of 23
Building Lots and Four (4) Common Lots on 4.99
Acres of Land in the R-8 Zoning District
Yearsley: Next item on the agenda is the public hearing for the Roundtree Place
Subdivision, file number H-2016-0081 and let's begin with the staff report.
Beach: Good evening, Chair, Commissioner. The site here consists of 5.78
acres of land, which is currently zoned RUT in Ada County. It's located at 755
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
August 4, 2016
Page 13 of 23
South Linder Road and to the north is single-family residential properties in the
Tapestry Subdivision, which is zoned R-8. To the east is South Linder Road,
single-family residential zoned properties in Mallard Landing Subdivision, which
is zoned R-4. To the south are single-family residential properties in the
Primrose Subdivision, which is zoned RUT in Ada County and to the west is the
Peregrine Elementary School, which is zoned R-4. The Comprehensive Plan
future land use map designation for this property is medium density residential .
The applicant has submitted an application for annexation and zoning of 5.78
acres of land with an R-8 zoning district and a preliminary plat consisting of 23
residential lots and four common lots on five acres of land. Vehicular access is
proposed for the site to be an extension of South Flintstone, which is here, and if
--- excuse me -- a vehicular access to West Waltman Street. No direct lot access
to South Linder Road is proposed or permitted for the proposed development . A
25 foot wide street buffer is required along South Linder Road, which is
designated as an arterial roadway and is required to be landscaped according to
the UDC requirements. The applicant is proposing to construct a ten foot wide
landscaped buffer adjacent to West Walnut Street. To ensure uniform landscape
buffer alongside said roadway in a previous landscape plan the applicant had not
indicated that they were going to provide a common lot as indicated here. They
have since removed their plan. So, they are now proposing to install a common
lot all the along West Waltman Street. One condition that I would like to add -- or
have you Commissioners add is to insure that they meet the landscaping
requirements of commons lots and that they install trees along this -- along this
boundary. The landscape plan does not indicate that. So, I just wanted to make
sure that was understood. So, I guess discussing the landscape plan, as I said,
it's been revised since the staff report came out, they have now widened the
common lot. Our code requires that if there is a minimum of five foot -- or at the
five foot threshold the applicant for a subdivision is required to provide ten
percent open space, as well as at the five acres one amenity. So, they have
included the tot lot. They have since widened the common area, as well as they
widened this area. It will be a grassy area here. Code does require that there be
a five foot landscape buffer along the common drive for any property that does
not take access to a common drive. Staff is recommending -- and if you could
add this condition or consider this condition, that there be a pedestrian pathway
installed on this common lot here out to South Linder Road. Right now there is
sidewalk -- an internal sidewalk that will go through the subdivision. This is an
extension of the sidewalk that's here on Flintstone from the Tapestry Subdivision.
Staff did not see the need for a pedestrian access to the school from this
direction. There is an existing sidewalk from the Tapestry Subdivision to the
school's property and, then, there is sidewalk along Waltman Road. Waltman
Street will also up to the -- to the school, so we did not see the need there, but
having an access out to South Linder Road may make some sense here. With
that -- as I said, the development does consist of five acres. The applicant has
submitted four conceptual building elevations. Of the four one is -- would not
likely meet our design standards. We are asking that that be taken out of the
development agreement and that these three be added, with the exception of the
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
August 4, 2016
Page 14 of 23
one down here in the bottom left corner. Because some of the lots the sides or
rear face South Linder Road, which are Lots 1 through 3 and 6 of Block 1, and in
Lots 1, Block 1, Lots 1, 7 and 9 of Block 2, these lots will all be highly visible.
Staff commends that the side of those structures that face the public streets in
these lots incorporate articulation through changes in material, color, modulation
and architectural elements, both horizontal and vertical, to break up monotonous
wall plains and roof lines planned. Provides that these standards will be verified
prior to applying for building permits for said lots. I did receive a response from
the applicant Mr. Shawn Brownlee in agreement with the staff report, with a
couple exceptions and I believe they will go over those. Staff is recommending
approval with conditions and with that I will stand for any questions you have on
the proposed application.
Yearsley: Thank you. Are there any questions? With that would the applicant
like to come forward? Please state your name and address for the record.
Watkins: Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Commissioners. Thank you, Josh. That
was very descriptive. My name is Kristi Watkins. I am from J-U-B Engineers at
250 South Beachwood Avenue in Boise. I am here tonight representing Trilogy
Development and their proposed project the Roundtree Subdivision. It's a small
in-fill project with 23 lots on five acres. We are requesting annexation with an R -
8 zoning, because our density is just slightly over that which would be allowed in
the R-4. So, are density is 4.61 dwelling units per acre. Since it's a five acre
parcel we have provided the required ten percent open space on a half-acre
parcel and various landscape buffers with a playground. Sewer and water
services exist in the street and so we will be connecting to that. Irrigation
services will be provided by Nampa-Meridian Irrigation District. The changes that
were requested in the conditions have been addressed with the new site plan
that you saw. Those were, you know, widening the landscape buffers and
adding a little more open space to our plan and the additional amenity. In
regards -- I want to draw your attention to another one -- let's see. 1.2.9
regarding tree mitigation. We did have a discussion with Elroy Huff and as of
August 1st there were no existing trees on the site, except for a cluster of
poplars, but he didn't mind those were not mitigated. According to the pictures
on Google Maps it looks like there were two trees that have been removed from
the property and so he did request that those be mitigated and my client was fine
with that. So, that won't be a problem. And we will add that to our landscape
plan also. Overall we agree with the conditions as stated. Like Josh said, there
were a couple of requests that we would like to make . The first one 1.1.1, item
C, removal of the structure upon an annexation. We would like to have that
removed from the development agreement if possible , only because mobilization
gets kind of expensive and it's easier to remove a structure when all the
equipment is already on site. So, if we could do it at the time of construction that
would be great. The Public Works Department had a condition 2.2.5, it does
require removal of structures prior to plat signature. That's -- it will be done well
before that happens. So, it would be done during the construction phase . If
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
August 4, 2016
Page 15 of 23
that's possible. The other change is to 2.2.3 that states that water and sewer
easements must be submitted and approved prior to approval of the
development plan. We would like to respectfully request that this condition be
revised to state prior to final plat signature. That gives us a chance to get all of
those easements in place and get the final plat through the approval process and
make sure that everything is where everybody wants them to be. With that we
would like to request approval for our annexation and preliminary plat
applications and I will stand for any questions.
Yearsley: Thank you. Are there any questions?
McCarvel: Mr. Chairman?
Yearsley: Commissioner McCarvel.
McCarvel: Josh, does staff have any objection to such a request on 1.1.1 and
2.2.3?
Beach: So, for 1.1.1C, I think we can work with him on that. 2.2.3 is a Public
Works conditions, so we will have to -- I don't know if Bill has any input on that,
but I don't.
Parson: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, this is a -- I know what
Bruce Freckleton is going to say, he's going to say, no, he doesn't want that
change. That's a typical requirement for development. They want their
easements in place prior to getting signature on the final plat. So, I'm happy to
wear his hat this evening and say he probably wouldn't support that. But, again,
you have the ability to change that if -- if you so choose so. And so does the
Council. So -- but I know Public Works land development would not be
supportive of that request.
McCarvel: I mean if this is the way -- is there a reason you guys need it --
Watkins: I think just knowing that the process needs to -- those easements need
to go through City Council to be approved and the process can take a little bit
longer and they want to start construction as soon as we can, we were just kind
of hoping that they would run those two at the same time. Get started on
construction and, then, run the easements through City Council.
McCarvel: That's all the questions.
Yearsley: Okay. Thank you. Sorry. I do have a question. Josh has asked to
add the two additional requirements. Are you okay with those ones to -- for the
landscape requirement in the common lots and, then, also the pedestrian
pathway, are you okay?
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
August 4, 2016
Page 16 of 23
Watkins: Yeah. I don't see a problem with that.
Yearsley: Okay. Okay. I think that's all I had. Anymore questions? Thank you.
Watkins: Thank you.
Parsons: Mr. Chairman?
Yearsley: Bill.
Parsons: Before we move forward -- move on with those conditions I just want to
chime in before you open up to the public testimony. But the one condition that
Josh was alluding to we need to change is our original recommendation to you
was that they lose a buildable lot in order to meet the ten percent. Based on the
revisions that we showed you this evening they do comply with the ten percent
open space without having to lose that buildable lot. So, we just want to go on
record and say that it's actually condition 1.1.3 be -- that we need to strike that
recommendation from losing lot -- Lot 3, Block 1.
Beach: They have since revised -- like I said, revised their site plan since the
staff report. They looked at it and made their changes prior to Commission. So,
if that would be stricken that would be great.
Parsons: Just remove the portion that says lose Lot 3 in Block 1. The other --
they comply with ten percent, which they did, they testified this evening that they
were doing that and what they were doing. So, they need to -- again, staff -- as
Josh pointed out, we would like that pathway amenity added to that common lot
and that would allow them to count that towards their open space, because it's
now a micropath lot and they would have to landscape it in accordance with the
landscape ordinance and as the applicant testified and as Josh alluded to, that
ten foot buffer along Waltman would be a great opportunity for the applicant to
mitigate for the loss of the trees, so they can definitely work with us at the time
they submit their final plat.
Yearsley: Okay. Thank you. I do have a couple people signed up , but they
have asked not to testify. Is there an ybody wishing to testify on this application?
Please come forward. State your name and address for the record, please.
Ockerman: Jeanette Ockerman. 2070 West Waltman, Meridian, Idaho. Are we
able to go back to a map? Maybe one where you see the lots and just -- and a
little bit more. Thank you. So, I have more than one concern. My first one starts
with the density on this area. The applicant said there was going to be 23 lots on
five acres or roughly 4.61 houses per acre, but if you will notice directly south,
our homes are all on acre lots and so it seems a little bit like there is not much of
a transition, we go straight to a much deeper density, four and a half houses per
lot, compared to one house per lot. My next concern is along Waltman Ro ad you
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
August 4, 2016
Page 17 of 23
mentioned there would be a buffer. I didn't hear anything about fencing or what
type of buffer that would be. So, for your information Waltman Road as it starts
in at Linder and, then, goes to the school, that is the direct path for the majority of
the students to go Peregrine Elementary School. They cross over Linder Road
with a crossing guard and they walk that sidewalk all the way to Peregrine
Elementary and so I think asking for a fence would be reasonable along there. I
also wanted to point out my other even bigger concern is the street that comes
out onto Waltman Road is not very far from the corner of Linder and Waltman
and I feel that that is a huge safety issue. As I mentioned, the majority of the kids
that walk come down that road, they congregate at the corner of Waltman and
Linder waiting for the crossing guard. There are a lot of kids there before and
after school and the traffic on that road is excessive. The parents back up. They
literally park along Waltman all the way down to L inder waiting for their turn to get
into the school to drop off their kids. So, that street that's right there will be
blocked by cars morning and night and until that -- that is a safety issue for the
students who will have to cross over it and, then, ge t to the crossing guard on
Linder, that they are just -- it's going to be like a blind spot, especially if people
want to come out of that neighborhood. I live on Waltman and I have a hard
enough time just getting onto Linder, let alone having cars that t hey are going to
try and cut through the line of traffic to get onto Waltman, to get onto Linder, you
know, or they want to get on so they can go to the school -- whatever their issues
are. I feel like the design -- the current design is a safety concern. I know that
they said the street couldn't go out onto Linder. I'm not sure what the reasoning
is for that, but there is a street that is directly across from this lot that comes out
of the Mallard Landing and comes onto Linder, so I'm not really clear o f why this
subdivision doesn't exit straight to Linder Road. I feel like that would be safer
than the current design for the children that go to that school. I think those are
my main concerns. The density, the roadway, and the buffer along Linder Road.
So thank you.
Yearsley: Thank you. Did I see somebody else wan ting to testify? Please come
forward. Name and address for the record, please.
Hohnstein: My name is Ron Hohnstein. I live at 1655 West Waltman Street,
which is the second lot west of the corner of Linder and Waltman . My big
concern is the proposed road coming out to Waltman, like the other one lady
said. There is a lot of traffic through there morning and in the evenings with the
school and I'm wondering why the -- if that subdivision was approved why the
traffic can't go out through the Tapestry Subdivision. There is about 22 homes in
there and if a proposed subdivision was approved to be back an additional there
is, A, which would maybe be 44 going out through the Tapestry Subdivision.
Presently the Whitestone Estates Subdivision, which is approximately a quarter
of a mile north of Linder and Waltman there is somewhere between 95 and 100
homes in there and they all exit with one exit to Linder. So, that's -- that's what I
would like to bring up and see if there is a possibility of almost eliminating that
road coming out to Walton. Thank you.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
August 4, 2016
Page 18 of 23
Yearsley: Thank you. Is there anybody else that would like to testify on this
application? Please come forward.
Gowens: Andrew Gowens. I live at 1701 Waltman Street. My neighbors really
voiced all that very well. I don't have a great deal to add to it, I have two
daughters that have completed all the grades at Peregrine Elementary. It is
running at capacity, so as you consider this, with the homes that are going there,
the homes will be going over from the Primerose Subdivision all the way over to
Ten Mile, we are going to be trying to pack all those kids into Peregrine probably.
They don't have room for it. The other one was also the street coming out onto
Waltman. I think they failed to say that all of the buses use that road as well
going into drop off the kids, as well as all the parents, as well as all the kids. It is
a serious safety concern. So, maybe it can be explained why it can't exit onto
Franklin or farther down the road.
Yearsley: Thank you.
Gowens: Thank you.
Yearsley: Anybody else? I guess with that would the applicant like to come
forward?
Watkins: Thank you again, Mr. Commissioners, Chairman -- or Mr. Chairman
and Commissioners. Excuse me. I will just go down these in order. As far as
density goes, an R-8 zoning exists to the north and we wouldn't be filling at
capacity, so it wouldn't necessarily be out of line with what the surrounding
properties are zoned. Fencing -- the majority of the projects that we do all have
fencing around them. I imagine there would be a six foot vinyl fence around the
entire project and the street location, as you know, ACHD does not allow access
onto main arterials like that in such close proximity to one another, so we were
not allowed to do another access onto Linder. Each property is responsible for
its own ingress-egress and so because this is an individual development from the
one that was there previously, we are required to provide some sort of access to
the property. I can't speak to school capacity. We did get a letter from the
school district stating that, you know, their usual -- this is how much it's going to
increase and we are all aware that that's going on all over the valley. Other than
that I think that was all of their questions. Do you have any other questions for
me?
Yearsley: I think one of the questions was on like the roadway coming out onto
Waltman so close to the intersection of Linder. Can you address that one?
Watkins: Yeah. The way that property is laid out and where Flintstone comes
down from the north, to be able to access all the lots and still be able to have
them meet the city standards for minimum lots sizes and those kind of things, the
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
August 4, 2016
Page 19 of 23
configuration -- we tried it 16 different ways and this was the only way we could
get it to come out to meet those minimum lot size requirements.
Yearsley: Thank you. Did ACHD review this and they are okay with the
intersection right there?
Watkins: They did. They have got conditions in the staff report and, you know,
they are pretty standard dedicated 48 feet of right of way on Linder and make
improvements. Add the sidewalk on Linder. Construct the internal streets at 33
feet. Repair any deficient sidewalks on Waltman. Their standard conditions for -
-
Yearsley: And, then, you're required -- because you will actually also have an
access into the subdivision to the north; correct?
Watkins: Correct.
Yearsley: So, you will have two ways of in and out of that subdivision and that's
required by ACHD; correct?
Watkins: And the fire department.
Yearsley: And the fire department. Okay.
Watkins: Yeah.
Yearsley: Just want to make sure that -- I think trying to address the comments
that were out there to make sure that we understand.
Watkins: Oh, absolutely.
Yearsley: Any other comments or questions you might have? Well, with that --
thank you.
Watkins: Thank you.
Yearsley: With that I would entertain a motion to close the public hearing for file
number H-2016-0081.
McCarvel: So moved.
Oliver: Second.
Wilson: Second.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
August 4, 2016
Page 20 of 23
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 or thoughts?
McCarvel: Mr. Chairman?
Yearsley: Commissioner McCarvel.
McCarvel: I think as far as the comments on density, I think, yeah, it's going --
it's going to be an R-8, but, like you said, it's a 4.61, so it's kind of closer to an
R-4 and, really, those lots that back up to the R-1, you're almost -- just the way
those are designed you're almost looking at a wider lot there anyway and it's --
the transition kind of flows nicely through there and I'm guessing on that street -- I
mean I'm very sensitive to kids and maybe, you know, an extra crossing guard
-- if they have got one at Linder already, have an extra crossing guard right there
-- I'm guessing at those residents, if it's really that busy out there, are probably
going to funnel out the other way directly to Linder anyway if that traffic is backing
up there. But it might be helpful to have an extra crossing guard there just at
those peak times.
Yearsley: Okay.
McCarvel: Might be a solution to that. I'm not so sure -- on the request for
changing from plan -- plan approval to final plat signature, you know, going
through all the reviews and specs on it, there is probably a reason that all that
takes time and that's the time to catch all that , but it will give staff and the people
that have -- that commented on that, the time to do that. I'm thinking that one
should probably stay in there, but the rest of them -- the 1.1.1C and the other
staff requests are probably more reasonable.
Yearsley: Just one clarification. So, the 2.2.5 for the easements was one that
you were saying that should -- that you would say Bruce Freckleton would want
to keep the way it is, but the 2.2.3, is that the same thing or -- or was that a
different --
Parsons: Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission, I think the 2.2.3 was the
condition for the easement. The 2.2.5 was the requirement that said that
structures need the city engineer's signature and that's why staff is supportive of
striking that DA provision C because we have got it covered in the Public Works
comments.
Yearsley: Okay.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
August 4, 2016
Page 21 of 23
Parsons: So -- but, yeah, 2.2.3 is to remain -- staff's recommendation is to leave
that as it's written in the staff report.
Yearsley: Okay. I just want to make sure I understand that clarification . Any
other comment?
Oliver: Mr. Chairman?
Yearsley: Commissioner Oliver.
Oliver: I agree with Commissioner McCarvel as far as the way the lots are set
out. I think it -- it won't be a problem. I think it's a really good in-fill for that area.
I think it will be a nice fit. I just -- I'm saying this is just sad is that if they make a
landscape plan -- by the city, stay with 2.2 points, really, leaving that end as well
and making sure that's a designated pathway put in, which they already agreed
and I think pretty much everything looks fine.
Yearsley: Thank you.
Wilson: I agree. I think in-fill is difficult and I think that they have come forward
with a plan I think that works with the neighborhood and -- and, then, I also think
that we should keep 2.2.3.
Yearsley: Okay. Thank you. You know, the density -- you know, it's hard to
match densities on a one acre lot and I understand -- I grew up on a one acre lot,
so I know what it's like and watched everyone develop around you. So, it's
coming and I apologize for that. It's just catching up to you guys. So, we try to
make the best we can with those conditions. I do think that the -- the subdivision
actually looks
-- and it is laid out fairly well and I think with the way the side lots are there on the
-- on the Waltman -- it does try to mitigate for some of that acre lots and with the
two exits either out to Waltman or out through the north -- subdivision to the
north, I find traffic kind of flows like water, you know, the path of least resistance
and so if Waltman gets busy people will find additional ways to get out . So -- so,
we do actually -- they do provide another way in and out of the subdivision. So, I
think it looks good and I also agree keeping the 2.2.3 as well. So, with that I
would entertain a motion.
McCarvel: Mr. Chairman?
Yearsley: Commissioner McCarvel.
McCarvel: After considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move to
recommend approval to the City Council of file number H-2016-0018 as
presented in the staff report for the hearing date of August 4th , 2016, with the
following modifications. That landscape meets all staff recommended plans
CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION & ORDER
CASE NO(S). H-2016-0077
Page 1
CITY OF MERIDIAN
FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
AND
DECISION & ORDER
In the Matter of the Request for the Conditional Use Permit for a Drive-Through Establishment
within Three Hundred Feet (300’) of a Residential Use, Located at 5001 N. Ten Mile Road, by
Sunday Bougher, SGA Design Group.
Case No(s). H-2016-0077
For the Planning & Zoning Commission Hearing Dates of: July 21, 2016 (Findings on August 4,
2016)
A. Findings of Fact
1. Hearing Facts (see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of July 21, 2016, incorporated by
reference)
2. Process Facts (see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of July 21, 2016, incorporated by
reference)
3. Application and Property Facts (see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of July 21, 2016,
incorporated by reference)
4. Required Findings per the Unified Development Code (see attached Staff Report for the hearing
date of July 21, 2016, incorporated by reference)
B. Conclusions of Law
1. The City of Meridian shall exercise the powers conferred upon it by the “Local Land Use
Planning Act of 1975,” codified at Chapter 65, Title 67, Idaho Code (I.C. §67-6503).
2. The Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission takes judicial notice of its Unified Development
Code codified at Title 11 Meridian City Code, and all current zoning maps thereof. The City of
Meridian has, by ordinance, established the Impact Area and the Amended Comprehensive Plan
of the City of Meridian, which was adopted April 19, 2011, Resolution No. 11-784 and Maps.
3. The conditions shall be reviewable by the City Council pursuant to Meridian City Code § 11-5A.
4. Due consideration has been given to the comment(s) received from the governmental
subdivisions providing services in the City of Meridian planning jurisdiction.
5. It is found public facilities and services required by the proposed development will not impose
expense upon the public if the attached conditions of approval are imposed.
6. That the City has granted an order of approval in accordance with this decision, which shall be
signed by the Chairman of the Commission and City Clerk and then a copy served by the Clerk
CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION & ORDER
CASE NO(S). H-2016-0077
Page 2
upon the applicant, the Planning Department, the Public Works Department and any affected
party requesting notice.
7. That this approval is subject to the conditions of approval in the attached staff report for the
hearing date of July 21, 2016, incorporated by reference. The conditions are concluded to be
reasonable and the applicant shall meet such requirements as a condition of approval of the
application.
C. Decision and Order
Pursuant to the Planning & Zoning Commission’s authority as provided in Meridian City Code § 11-
5A and based upon the above and foregoing Findings of Fact which are herein adopted, it is hereby
ordered that:
1. The applicant’s request for a conditional use permit is hereby approved in accord with the
conditions of approval in the staff report for the hearing date of July 21, 2016, attached as
Exhibit A.
D. Notice of Applicable Time Limits
Notice of Two (2) Year Conditional Use Permit Duration
Please take notice that the conditional use permit, when granted, shall be valid for a maximum
period of two (2) years unless otherwise approved by the City in accord with UDC 11-5B-6F.1.
During this time, the applicant shall commence the use as permitted in accord with the
conditions of approval, satisfy the requirements set forth in the conditions of approval, and
acquire building permits and commence construction of permanent footings or structures on or
in the ground. For conditional use permits that also require platting, the final plat must be
signed by the City Engineer within this two (2) year period in accord with UDC 11-5B-6F.2.
Upon written request and filed by the applicant prior to the termination of the period in accord
with 11-5B-6.F.1, the Director may authorize a single extension of the time to commence the
use not to exceed one (1) two (2) year period. Additional time extensions up to two (2) years as
determined and approved by the Commission may be granted. With all extensions, the Director
or Commission may require the conditional use comply with the current provisions of Meridian
City Code Title 11.
E. Notice of Final Action and Right to Regulatory Takings Analysis
1. The Applicant is hereby notified that pursuant to Idaho Code 67-8003, a denial of a conditional
use permit entitles the Owner to request a regulatory taking analysis. Such request must be in
writing, and must be filed with the City Clerk not more than twenty-eight (28) days after the
final decision concerning the matter at issue. A request for a regulatory takings analysis will
toll the time period within which a Petition for Judicial Review may be filed.
2. Please take notice that this is a final action of the governing body of the City of Meridian.
When applicable and pursuant to Idaho Code § 67-6521, any affected person being a person
who has an interest in real property which may be adversely affected by the final action of the
governing board may within twenty-eight (28) days after the date of this decision and order
seek a judicial review as provided by Chapter 52, Title 67, Idaho Code.
F. Attached: Staff report for the hearing date of July 21, 2016
Exhibit A
Walmart – CUP H-2016-0077 PAGE 1
STAFF REPORT
Hearing Date: July 21, 2016
TO: Planning & Zoning Commission
FROM: Josh Beach, Associate City Planner
208-884-5533
SUBJECT: Walmart – CUP (H-2016-0077)
I. SUMMARY DESCRIPTION OF APPLICANT’S REQUEST
The applicant, Sunday Bougher/SDA Design Group, has applied for a conditional use permit (CUP)
for a drive-through establishment for a retail store on 26.08 acres of land in the C-G zoning district. A
CUP is required because the proposed drive-through is within 300 feet of a residential district and
residential uses, per UDC 11-4-3-11 and the development agreement. See Section IX Analysis for
more information.
II. SUMMARY RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval of the proposed CUP with the conditions listed in Exhibit B, based on the
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law in Exhibit C of the Staff Report.
The Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission heard this item on July 21, 2016. At the public
hearing, the Commission moved to approve the subject CUP request.
a. Summary of Commission Public Hearing:
i. In favor: Yong Cho
ii. In opposition: None
iii. Commenting: None
iv. Written testimony: None
v. Staff presenting application: Bill Parsons
vi. Other staff commenting on application: None
b. Key Issues of Discussion by Commission:
i. None
c. Key Commission Changes to Staff Recommendation:
i. None
III. PROPOSED MOTION
Approval
After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to approve File Number H-2016-
0077 as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of July 21, 2016, with the following
modifications: (Add any proposed modifications.) I further move to direct Staff to prepare an
appropriate findings document to be considered at the next Planning and Zoning Commission hearing
on August 4, 2016.
Denial
After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to deny File Number H-2016-0077
as presented during the hearing on July 21, 2016, for the following reasons: (You should state specific
reasons for denial and what the applicant could do to gain your approval with another application.)
Exhibit A
Walmart – CUP H-2016-0077 PAGE 2
Continuance
I move to continue File Number H-2016-0077 to the hearing date of (insert continued hearing date
here) for the following reason(s): (You should state specific reason(s) for continuance.)
IV. APPLICATION AND PROPERTY FACTS
A. Site Address/Location:
The subject property is located at 5001 N. Ten Mile Road in the SE ¼ of Section 27,
Township 4 North, Range 1 West, B.M.
B. Owner(s):
Walmart Real Estate Business Trust
2001 SE 10th Street
Bentonville, AR 72712
C. Applicant:
Sunday Bougher, SGA Design Group
1437 S. Boulder, Suite 550
Tulsa, OK 74119
D. Applicant's Statement/Justification: Please see applicant’s narrative for this information.
V. PROCESS FACTS
A. The subject application is for a conditional use permit. A public hearing is required before the
Planning & Zoning Commission on this matter, consistent with Meridian City Code Title 11,
Chapter 5.
B. Newspaper notifications published on: July 4 and July 18, 2016
C. Radius notices mailed to properties within 300 feet on: July 1, 2016
D. Applicant posted notice on site by: July 11, 2016
VI. LAND USE
A. Existing Land Use(s) and Zoning: The subject property is developed with a Walmart store.
B. Character of Surrounding Area and Adjacent Land Use and Zoning:
1. North: Vacant commercial property, zoned C-G and C-C
2. East: Developed/vacant commercial development, zoned L-O and C-G
3. South: Vacant commercial property and Bridgetower Heights Subdivision, zoned C-G and
R-8
4. West: Vacant residential (Volterra Subdivision) and commercial properties, zoned R-15 and
C-C
C. History of Previous Actions:
In 2005, the subject property received annexation (AZ-05-040), preliminary plat (PP-05-039), and
conditional use permit approval (CUP-05-041) for a mixed use development consisting
commercial, office and single family residential. As part of the annexation approval, the site was
subject to a DA (instrument #106034786).
In 2008, this property received comprehensive plan map amendment, rezone and development
Exhibit A
Walmart – CUP H-2016-0077 PAGE 3
agreement modification approval (CPA-08-003, RZ-08-004 and MDA-08-002) with the vision to
develop a large scale business park in which this property was to be a part. The project is known
as Volterra Mixed Use. A new development agreement (instrument #110051282) was required
with the approval and excluded the subject property from the requirements of the original DA
noted above.
In 2013, the property received certificate of zoning compliance and administrative design r eview
approval (CZC-13-047 and DES-13-046) to construct a 158,848 square foot retail store on the
property.
In 2014 and 2015, this property received preliminary plat and final plat (PP-14-016 and FP-15-
002) approval consisting of five (5) commercial lots, known as the Coleman Subdivision.
D. Utilities:
1. Public Works:
a. Location of sewer: Sanitary sewer mains serving the existing store were installed at the
time of development, and no new service is required as part of this application.
b. Location of water: Water mains serving the existing store were installed at the time of
development, and no new service is required as part of this application.
c. Issues or concerns: None
E. Physical Features:
1. Canals/Ditches Irrigation: No major facilities transverse this property.
2. Hazards: Staff is not aware of any hazards that exist on this property.
3. Flood Plain: NA
VII. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN POLICIES AND GOALS
The subject property is currently designated “Commercial” on the Comprehensive Plan Future Land
Use Map. Per the Comprehensive Plan, commercial designated areas provide a full range of
commercial and retail to serve area residents and visitors. Uses may include retail, wholesale, service
and office uses, multi-family residential, as well as appropriate public uses such as government
offices. Within this land use category, specific zones may be created to focus commercial activities
unique to their locations. These zones may include neighborhood commercial uses focusing on
specialized service for residential areas adjacent to that zone.
Staff finds the following Comprehensive Plan policies to be applicable to this application and apply to
the proposed use of this property (staff analysis in italics):
1. “Require all commercial businesses to install and maintain landscaping.” (2.01.03B)
The existing parking lot and perimeter landscaping appear to meet the standards listed in
UDC 11-3B-8C.
2. “Locate industrial and commercial uses where adequate water supply and water pressure are
available for fire protection.” (3.04.02A)
There is adequate water supply and pressure available to the site for fire protection.
3. “Minimize noise, odor, air pollution, and visual pollution in industrial and commercial
development adjacent to residential areas.” (3.06.01B)
The proposed drive-through is located on the south side of the building facing W. McMillan
Road and a commercial use; the nearby residential uses should not be affected by odors and
Exhibit A
Walmart – CUP H-2016-0077 PAGE 4
noise generated by the proposed use.
4. “Plan for a variety of commercial and retail opportunities within the Area of City Impact.”
(3.05.01J)
The proposed drive-through business will contribute to the variety of services available in the
northwest portion of the City.
5. “Protect existing residential properties from incompatible land use development on adjacent
parcels.” (3.06.01F)
Residential development is very limited in the area therefore, staff finds that the proposed
drive-through use will not impact the adjacent residential homes which are approximately
280 feet away.
For the above stated reasons and analysis, staff is of the opinion the proposed project is consistent
with the goals and objectives in the Comprehensive Plan.
VIII. UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE
A. Purpose Statement of the Zone(s):
COMMERCIAL DISTRICTS (C-G): The purpose of the Commercial Districts is to provide for
the retail and service needs of the community in accord with the Meridian Comprehensive Plan.
Six Districts are designated which differ in the size and scale of commercial structures
accommodated in the district, the scale and mix of allowed commercial uses, and the location of
the district in proximity to streets and highways.
B. Schedule of Use: Table 11-2B-2 lists the principal permitted (P), accessory (A), conditional (C),
and prohibited (-) uses in the C-G zoning district. A drive-through establishment is a conditional
use in the C-G zoning district when located within 300 feet of a residence, residential use, or
another drive-through establishment, subject to the specific use standards set forth in UDC 11-4-
3-11.
C. Dimensional Standards: Development of the site shall comply with the dimensional standards
listed in UDC 11-2B-3 for the C-G zoning district.
IX. ANALYSIS
A. Analysis of Facts Leading to Staff Recommendation:
The applicant has submitted an application for a conditional use permit (CUP) for a drive-through
establishment in the C-G zoning district. A CUP is required because the proposed drive-through
is within 300 feet of an existing drive-through, per UDC Table 11-2B-2.
Though the proposed application does not meet the traditional definition of a “drive-through”,
staff’s interpretation of the definition of a drive through is based on the definition as found in
UDC 11-1A-1:
DRIVE-THROUGH ESTABLISHMENT: The use of a portion of a structure where business is
transacted, or is capable of being transacted, directly with customers located in a motor vehicle.
The term drive-through establishment shall include, but not be limited to, providing food or
beverage service, bank service, and/or film processing. The term drive-through establishment
shall not include "fuel sales facility" or "vehicle washing facility" as herein defined.
In particular, the business plan as presented by the applicant is that the groceries would be
ordered and paid for online and that the store would give the customer a specific time in which to
Exhibit A
Walmart – CUP H-2016-0077 PAGE 5
go to the store to retrieve the ordered merchandise. The customer would (as interpreted by the
applicant’s description) interact with employees of the store, and never leave their vehicle.
Site Plan: A site plan included in Exhibit A.2 depicts how the applicant proposes to construct the
drive-through. The applicant will construct a canopy over the parking stalls that will be used as
part of the grocery pick-up service. The applicant will also be constructing a building addition to
add a walk-in cooler to store the grocery orders prior to customer pick-up. The site plan also
shows a marked pedestrian walkway from the proposed building addition, to the proposed
grocery pick-up parking stalls. This walkway should be marked with pavers or scored concrete.
The site will be required to meet the standards of UDC 11-4-3-11, and will be required to obtain a
CZC for the design of the drive-through.
Access: Access is from W. McMillan Road, and from N. Ten Mile Road. These access points
were approved with the development of the Walmart store.
Landscaping: Landscaping is installed on site and not subject to review as part of this
application.No changes are proposed to the existing landscaping as part of this application.
Specific Use Standards: The proposed use is subject to the specific use standards listed in UDC
11-4-3-11, Drive-Through Establishment as follows:
A. All establishments providing drive-through service shall identify the stacking lane, speaker
location, and window location on the plans submitted with the Certificate of Zoning Compliance
(CZC) or the Conditional Use Permit (CUP) application.
B. There are no stacking lanes, speakers or drive-through window associated with the drive-
through. The concept provides a specific parking area for customers who have ordered groceries
online and utilize the drive-through service. Stacking lanes shall have sufficient capacity to
prevent obstruction of the public right-of-way by patrons.
C. See comments above.The stacking lane shall be a separate lane from the circulation lanes needed
for access and parking.
Existing parking stalls are being converted to accommodate customers waiting to pick-up there
online order.
D. The stacking lane shall not be located within ten feet (10’) of any residential district or existing
residence.
NA
E. Any stacking lane greater than one hundred feet (100’) in length shall provide for an escape lane.
NA
Hours of Operation: The proposed hours of operation for the drive-through establishment are
from 6:00 am to 12:00 am Monday through Sunday. The UDC does not restrict hours of
operation in the C-G zoning district when the property does not abut a residential use or district.
Therefore, staff isn’t recommending a restriction on the business hours of operation with this
application.
Building Elevations: Conceptual building elevations were submitted for the proposed drive-
through, included in Exhibit A.4. The proposed canopy structure will need to meet the
requirements of the Architectural Standards Manual. Detailed review of the structure will take
place with the Certificate of Zoning Compliance and Design Review application; the proposed
elevations are not approved with this application.
Certificate of Zoning Compliance (CZC): The applicant is required to submit a CZC
Exhibit A
Walmart – CUP H-2016-0077 PAGE 6
application for approval of the proposed drive-through from the Planning Division prior to
submittal of a building permit application.
Design Review: The applicant is required to submit a Design Review application concurrent with
the CZC application for final approval of the site layout and building elevations. The proposed
site layout and structures are required to comply with the design standards listed in UDC 11-3A-
19 and the Architectural Standards Manual.
Staff recommends approval of the proposed CUP with the conditions listed in Exhibit B.
X. EXHIBITS
A. Drawings
1. Vicinity Map
2. Proposed Site Plan (dated: 05/26/16)
3. Proposed Elevations (dated: 05/26/16)
B. Conditions of Approval
1. Planning Department
2. Public Works Department
3. Fire Department
4. Police Department
5. Sanitary Service Company
6. Ada County Highway District
7. Parks Department
C. Required Findings from Unified Development Code
Exhibit A
Walmart – CUP H-2016-0077 PAGE 7
Exhibit A.1: Vicinity Map
Exhibit A
Walmart – CUP H-2016-0077 PAGE 8
Exhibit A.2: Proposed Site Plan (dated: 05/26/16)
Exhibit A
Walmart – CUP H-2016-0077 PAGE 9
Exhibit A.3: Canopy Elevations (dated: 05/26/16)
Exhibit A
Walmart – CUP H-2016-0077 PAGE 10
B. Conditions of Approval
1. PLANNING DEPARTMENT
1.1 The applicant shall comply with all previous conditions of approval associated with this site (
CPA-08-003, RZ-08-004, MDA-08-002, DA Instrument No. 110051282, , CZC-13-047, DES-13-
046, PP-14-016 and FP-15-002).
1.2 The applicant shall comply with the specific use standards listed in UDC 11-4-3-11, Drive-
Through Establishment.
1.3 Development of this site shall substantially comply with the approved site plan, and building
elevations and the conditions of approval listed herein.
1.4 The applicant is required to submit a Certificate of Zoning Compliance application for approval
of the proposed use and site layout from the Planning Division prior to submittal of a building
permit application.
1.5 The applicant shall submit a Design Review application concurrent with the Certificate of Zoning
Compliance application for approval of the site layout and building elevations. The proposed site
layout and structures are required to comply with the design standards listed in UDC 11-3A-19
and the Architectural Standards Manual.
1.6 Staff’s failure to cite specific ordinance provisions or terms of the approved conditional use does
not relieve the applicant of responsibility for compliance.
1.7 The Applicant shall have a maximum of two (2) years to commence the use as permitted in
accord with the conditions of approval listed above. If the use has not begun within two (2) years
of approval, a new conditional use permit must be obtained prior to operation or a time extension
must be requested in accord with UDC 11-5B-6F.
1.8 The applicant shall complete all required improvements prior to issuance of a Certificate of
Occupancy. It is unlawful to use or occupy any building or structure until the Building Official
has issued a Certificate of Occupancy.
2. PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
2.1 Public Works has no comments on this application.
3. FIRE DEPARTMENT
3.1 The Fire Department had no comments on this application.
4. POLICE DEPARTMENT
4.1 The Police Department had no comments on this application.
5. REPUBLIC SERVICES
5.1 Republic Services has no comment on this application.
6. PARKS DEPARTMENT
6.1 The Parks Department has no comments on this application.
7. ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT
Comments have not yet been received from ACHD on this project.
Exhibit A
Walmart – CUP H-2016-0077 PAGE 11
C. Required Findings from Unified Development Code
1. Conditional Use Permit (UDC 11-5B-6E)
The Commission shall base its determination on the Conditional Use Permit request upon
the following:
a. That the site is large enough to accommodate the proposed use and meet all the
dimensional and development regulations in the district in which the use is located.
Commission finds that the subject property is large enough to accommodate the proposed use
and the dimensional & development regulations of the C-G district as required by the UDC
(see Analysis Section IX for more information).
b. That the proposed use will be harmonious with the Meridian Comprehensive Plan and
in accord with the requirements of this Title.
Commission finds that the proposed use is consistent and harmonious with the UDC and
Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map designation of Commercial for this site if
designed in accord with the conditions listed in Exhibit B.
c. That the design, construction, operation and maintenance will be compatible with other
uses in the general neighborhood and with the existing or intended character of the
general vicinity and that such use will not adversely change the essential character of
the same area.
Commission finds that if the applicant complies with the conditions outlined in this report,
the proposed use should be compatible with other uses in the general neighborhood, with the
existing and intended character of the area, and with other existing and future uses in the C-G
zoning district.
d. That the proposed use, if it complies with all conditions of the approval imposed, will
not adversely affect other property in the vicinity.
Commission finds that if the applicant complies with the conditions outlined in this report,
the proposed use will not adversely affect other property in the area.
e. That the proposed use will be served adequately by essential public facilities and
services such as highways, streets, schools, parks, police and fire protection, drainage
structures, refuse disposal, water, and sewer.
Commission finds that sanitary sewer, domestic water, refuse disposal, and irrigation are
currently available to the subject property. Commission finds that the proposed use will be
served adequately by all of the public facilities and services listed above.
f. That the proposed use will not create excessive additional costs for public facilities and
services and will not be detrimental to the economic welfare of the community.
If approved, the applicant will be financing any improvements required for development.
Commission finds there will not be excessive additional requirements at public cost and that
the proposed use will not be detrimental to the community’s economic welfare.
Exhibit A
Walmart – CUP H-2016-0077 PAGE 13
g. That the proposed use will not involve activities or processes, materials, equipment and
conditions of operation that will be detrimental to any persons, property or the general
welfare by reason of excessive production of traffic, noise, smoke, fumes, glare or odors.
Commission finds the proposed use will not be detrimental to any persons, property or the
general welfare of the area.
h. That the proposed use will not result in the destruction, loss or damage of a
natural, scenic or historic feature considered to be of major importance.
Commission finds that there should not be any health, safety or environmental problems
associated with the proposed use. Further, Commission finds that the proposed use will not
result in the destruction, loss or damage of any natural, scenic or historic feature of major
importance.
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
Au
g
u
s
t
4
,
2
0
1
6
It
e
m
#
4
A
:
C
e
n
t
r
e
P
o
i
n
t
S
t
o
r
a
g
e
Zo
n
i
n
g
M
a
p
!(
!(
Ú Ú dÚÚd3541
32
4
5
35
4
7
3305 3475
2
5
5
9
2
5
8
1
2
5
2
6
38
4
2
37
5
6
36
6
7
36
3
6
2
4
9
3
36
7
4
37
4
0
37
6
3
37
0
5
2
4
8
2
37
0
7
26
8
0
2
5
2
3
34
9
0
2
5
3
7
34
6
8
36
9
3
2
5
6
1
36
7
1
2
5
0
8
36
5
9
2
5
0
1
33
5
0
2
5
2
9
25
9
6
2
5
5
6
2
5
3
6
2
7
0
0
2 7 1 8
27
3
7
2 7 3 6
33
5
7
35
5
9
3311
27
1
0
3319
35
6
3
35
4
2
35
0
6
34
7
0
15
9
8
34
1
5
3421
2
5
1
5
2
4
9
3
2
5
1
7
3
8
5
8
37
9
2
36
6
8
35
8
6
35
3
0
34
2
4
34
0
2
36
5
8
2
5
0
9
2597
33
1
4
33
3
8
3
3
6
2
2
5
9
3
27
2
4
27
4
8
27
2
2
36
3
7
35
7
8
35
3
0
34
9
4
24
9
8
32
2
3
33
2
1
24
8
4
36
4
5
37
7
3
26
5
4
36
8
2
36
2
6
26
6
3
26
8
9
2
5
9
3
2
5
7
8
2
5
7
0
2
5
3
0
2
5
0
2
2
7
1
3
2
7
0
7
36
4
0
36
0
2
34
5
8
34
1
0
33
7
4
32
0
0
2
4
8
7
34
2
3
2
4
7
7
34
6
7
35
1
7
25
1
2
38
1
0
3263
27
1
8
37
3
8
35
6
4
35
1
2
2
5
4
9
32
6
4
32
8
6
33
0
2
2
4
8
4
2
5
1
5
2
5
6
7
27
0
5
27
3
5
27
0
1
27
0
8
35
9
0
35
5
4
33
3
8
33
2
0
32
5
0
14
1
2
0
2
5
9
9
2
4
6
9
37
2
2
36
2
4
37
1
5
37
9
5
3270 3450
36
9
6
36
3
7
2
5
8
8
2
5
7
4
2
5
6
0
2
5
4
8
2
5
7
9
2
5
8
6
27
2
1
1
3
9
9
9
35
3
9
35
8
5
40
4
2
40
3
7
27
5
4
36
2
6
34
8
2
34
4
6
34
2
2
27
4
0
33
5
6
24
9
9
24
7
5
32
7
5
25
4
5
26
1
0
3230 3420
40
2
6
26
0
1
24
5
3
33753251
25
4
5
3510 3339
15
9
9
3327
33
4
9
2
5
4
1
2
5
6
5
2
5
8
9
2
5
9
7
2
4
9
8
40
1
9
2
4
7
0
38
2
6
37
8
4
37
3
3
37
5
1
26
7
2
27
0
6
37
2
4
2
4
9
5
2
5
2
2
27
5
3
2
5
4
1
27
2
5
27
1
9
26
5
1
36
5
2
35
6
6
33
0
0
3380 3560
30
5
5
26
4
5
26
4
5
3340
40
1
2
40
0
1
26
2
7
40
2
5
27
0
3
26
7
7
28
0
0
35
0
3
2
5
3
7
2
5
9
8
2
5
9
2
2
5
7
0
2
5
4
8
25
2
3
37
3
8
36
9
0
36
4
0
36
2
7
36
8
5
3 7 1 6
36
4
8
35
4
8
34
4
6
2
5
7
5
2
5
8
3
2
5
8
9
33
2
6
2
5
5
3
2
5
4
2
2
5
1
6
33
4
9
35
1
8
34
3
4
33
9
2
40
2
4
3085
C-
N
R-
2
R1
RUT
RU
T
C-G N Eagle Rd
E U s t i c k R d
N
P
a
n
k
r
a
t
z
W
a
y
N
C
e
n
t
r
e
p
o
i
n
t
W
a
y
E N a k a n o D r
N
R
o
g
u
e
R
i
v
e
r
A
v
e
E
S u m m e r
D a w n
S t
N
D
a
s
h
w
o
o
d
P
l
E S a t t e r f i e l d S t
N
P
e
t
t
y
W
a
y
E J a s m i n e L n
E O M e r a S t
N
L
e
s
l
i
e
W
a
y
N
L
e
s
l
i
e
W
a
y
N
G
a
v
i
o
l
a
A
v
e
E M a h o n e y S t
N
J
u
s
t
i
n
A
v
e
Ap
p
r
o
v
e
d
P
r
e
l
i
m
i
n
a
r
y
P
l
a
t
Si
t
e
P
l
a
n
La
n
d
s
c
a
p
e
P
l
a
n
Co
l
o
r
R
e
n
d
e
r
i
n
g
Bu
i
l
d
i
n
g
E
l
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
s
It
e
m
#
4
C
:
H
a
r
m
o
n
y
H
i
l
l
s
A
s
s
i
s
t
e
d
L
i
v
i
n
g
Zo
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
Co
n
c
e
p
t
P
l
a
n
Bu
i
l
d
i
n
g
E
l
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
s
It
e
m
#
4
D
:
R
o
u
n
d
t
r
e
e
P
l
a
c
e
S
u
b
d
i
v
i
s
i
o
n
Zo
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
Bu
i
l
d
i
n
g
E
l
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
s
Th
i
s
e
l
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
is
n
o
t
a
p
p
r
o
v
e
d