2017 04-06Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting April 6, 2017
Meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission of April 6, 2017, was
called to order at 6:00 p.m. by Chairman Rhonda McCarvel.
Members Present: Chairman Rhonda McCarvel, Commissioner Steven
Yearsley, Commissioner Gregory Wilson, Commissioner Treg Bernt,
Commissioner Jessica Perreault and Commissioner Bill Cassanelli.
Members Absent: Commissioner Ryan Fitzgerald.
Others Present: Machelle Hill, Andrea Pogue, Bill Parsons, Sonya Allen, Josh
Beach and Dean Willis.
Item 1: Roll-call Attendance
__X___ Treg Bernt ___X___ Steven Yearsley
__X___ Gregory Wilson _______ Ryan Fitzgerald
__X___ Jessica Perreault ___X___ Bill Cassanelli
___X___ Rhonda McCarvel - Chairman
McCarvel: 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 on April 6th, 2017. Let's begin with roll call.
Item 2: Adoption of the Agenda
McCarvel: Okay. The first item on the agenda is the adoption of the agenda .
We do have one change. Rockbury Subdivision, H-2017-0018, has requested
continued to April 20th. So, we will open that just for the purpose of continuing
the item to the regularly scheduled meeting date of April 20th. It will open solely
for this purpose. So, if there is anybody here tonight to testify on that particular
application, we will not be taking testimony this evening. So, could I get a motion
to adopt the agenda as amended?
Yearsley: Madam Chair?
McCarvel: Commissioner Yearsley.
Yearsley: I make a motion we adopt the agenda as presented.
Wilson: Second.
McCarvel: It has been moved and seconded to adopt the agenda. All those in
favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carried.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
April 6, 2017
Page 2 of 18
MOTION CARRIED: SIX AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Item 3: Consent Agenda
A. Approve Minutes of March 16, 2017 Planning and Zoning
Commission Meeting
B. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval:
Melissa’s Daycare (H-2017-0015) by Laurie Gallia
Located 523 E. Brown Bear
McCarvel: The next item on the agenda is the Consent Agenda and we have two
items on the Consent Agenda. The approval of minutes for the March 16th,
2017, Planning and Zoning Commission meeting and Findings of Fact and
Conclusions of Law for approval on Melissa's Daycare. Can I get a motion to
accept the Consent Agenda as presented?
Wilson: Madam Chair?
McCarvel: Commissioner Wilson.
Wilson: I move to adopt the Consent Agenda as presented.
Bernt: Second.
McCarvel: It has been moved and seconded to adopt the Consent Agenda. All
those in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: SIX AYES. ONE ABSENT.
McCarvel: Okay. At this time I would like to briefly explain the hearing process
for this evening. We will open each item individually and, then, start with the staff
report. The staff will report their findings regarding how the item adheres to our
Comprehensive Plan and Uniform Development Code with the staff's
recommendations. After the staff has made their presentation, the applicant will
come forward to present their case for the approval of their application and
respond to any staff comments. The applicant will have 15 minutes to do so.
After the applicant has finished we will take -- open -- we will open to public
testimony. There is a sign-up sheet in the back as you entered for anyone
wishing to testify. Any person testifying will come forward and be allowed three
minutes. If they are speaking for a larger group, like an HOA and there is a show
of hands to represent the group, they will be given up to ten minutes. After all
testimony has been heard the applicant will be given another ten minutes to have
the opportunity to come back and respond if they desire . After that we will close
the public hearing and the Commissioners will have the opportunity to discuss
and, hopefully, be able to make a recommendation to City Council.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
April 6, 2017
Page 3 of 18
Item 4: Action Items
A. Public Hearing for Rockbury Subdivision (H-2017-
0018) by Rock Harbor Church, Inc. Located 6437 N. Tree
Haven Way
1. Request: Rezone of 25.06 Acres of Land from R-
15 (8.95 Acres) and C-N (16.11 Acres) to R-15 (6.71
Acres) and CN (18.35 Acres) Zoning Districts
2. Request: Preliminary Plat Approval Consisting of
Two (2) Common Lots, One (1) Commercial Lot
and One (1) Multi-Family Lot on 23.56 Acres of
Land in the Proposed R-15 and C-N Zoning
Districts
McCarvel: So, at this time I'd like to open the public hearing for H-2017-0018,
Rockbury Subdivision, and request the continuance to April 20th.
Yearsley: Madam Chair, I move that we continue file number H-2017- 0018 to
April 20th, 2017.
Wilson: Second.
McCarvel: It has been moved and seconded to continue H-2017-0018 to April
7th -- or April 20th. All those in favor say aye. Nay? Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: SIX AYES. ONE ABSENT.
B. Public Hearing for Gyro Shack at Paramount (H-2017-
0017) by Jeff Likes Located 5038 N. Linder Road
1. Request: Conditional Use Permit Approval for a
DriveThru Establishment Within 300 Feet of
Another DriveThru Establishment
McCarvel: So, now we will open the public hearing for 2017-0017, Gyro Shack at
Paramount and we will begin with the staff report.
Beach: Thank you, Madam Chair, Commissioners. As you said, this is a -- an
application for a conditional use permit for the Gyro Shack at Paramount . The
site consists of 0.493 -- .493 of an acre of land, which is zoned C-G, located at
5038 North Linder Road. Adjacent land uses and zoning. To the north is the
commercial property, the Dutch Bros Coffee, which is zoned C-G. To the east
are Linder Springs Townhomes, also zoned C-G. To the south is Kelson
Meridian Planning & Zoning
April 6, 2017
Page 4 of 18
Orthodontics, zoned C-G. And to the west is North Linder Road and the Kelly
Creek Subdivision, which is zoned R-8. A little history on this property. It was
annexed into the city in 2003. There was also a preliminary plat. And most
recently was in 2012 issued a final plan approval and the Comprehensive Plan
future land use map designation for the property is commercial and the applicant
has submitted an application for the conditional use permit, as I said, for a drive-
through establishment in the C-G zoning district. The conditional use permit is
required because the proposed drive-thru is within 300 feet of both an existing
drive-thru establishment, which would be Dutch Bros, and residential uses, which
are Linder Springs Apartments. The site plan as shown here depicts how the site
is proposed to develop with an approximately 924 square foot restaurant, with a
proposed drive-thru and indoor seating. Access to the site is proposed via a
north-south commercial driveway along the east boundary of the site, with a
cross-access easement depicted on the plat for Commercial Southwest
Subdivision No. 2, which will provide access to the property. Direct lot access is
not proposed or allowed via North Linder Road. A 25 foot wide landscape buffer
-- a 25 foot wide landscape buffer exists on North Linder Road, an arterial street
that has -- it was installed with the Commercial Southwest Subdivision No. 2.
The applicant is going to be required to provide some additional landscaping on
that to meet the requirements of the code. Parking lot landscaping is also
required to comply with the standards in the UDC. The landscape plan should be
revised to include one tree within a planter island to the south -- south end -- let
me revise that. This is a -- we had some conditions in here that the applicant
revised their -- both their site plan and landscape plan prior to Commission. This
landscape plan reflects those changes. So, they have -- they have modified it a
little bit to include trees on the north side, the required number, and, then, trees
along Linder Road. I will note that there is also a requirement in the code that
when a commercial property abuts the residential use, that they provide an
additional 20 foot wide landscape buffer. So, that would be going back to the
over shot of the property. So, this is -- these are the Linder Springs Apartments
right here. The code requires that a 25 foot wide landscape buffer be installed
against the residential use, even though there is a commercial drive aisle there
that does not meet the requirements. So, the applicant is conditioned to -- to do
so. The proposed use is subject to the specific use standards. Staff has
reviewed these standards and believes the proposed site design is consistent
with those standards, except for the following standard. Quote. The stacking
lane shall be a separate lane from the circulation lanes needed for access and
parking. Although the stacking lane separates into two order lanes -- I will go
back here to the landscape plan so you can see. So, although the stacking lane
separates into two order lanes that merge back into one pickup lane, traffic
stacking in -- in the lane during peak hours of operation may block access to the
internal parking stalls, which are located here. So, staff's concern is that stacking
in this area would limit the ability for additional cars to -- to park in this area,
funneling vehicles via the other one way drive aisle on the north. To remedy this
issue staff recommends the internal stacking be used as a one -- as a one drive
aisle into the parking area and the outer stacking lane and be used as a stacking
Meridian Planning & Zoning
April 6, 2017
Page 5 of 18
lane. Hopefully that makes sense. So, that this would not be a stacking lane
here. This would be access for parking and the outer lane would be the stacking
lane for the drive-thru. Staff would also like to make the Commission aware that
this proposed drive-thru would make the total number of drive-thru
establishments within this development to five. There are a large number of
drive-thrus in the area. I wanted to make sure that it was understood that there is
-- there is going to be a lot of traffic in and out of this development. The concerns
with -- with that in such a small area. And so building elevations provided by the
applicant show a mixture of materials that consist of stucco and -- stucco and
stone. The proposed building elevations, as shown by the applicants, comply
with the design standards and staff had indicated to the applicant that we would
like to see some additional materials provided on the elevations , which include a
decorative trim around all doorways and windows. The applicant is required to
submit a certificate of zoning compliance application for approval , as well as
design review. Did not receive any written testimony on this application . Staff is
recommending approval with the conditions in the staff report and I will stand for
any questions you have.
McCarvel: Thank you. Are there any questions for staff? Okay. Would the
applicant like to come forward. And, please, state your name and address for the
record.
Wilmot: Richard Wilmot. ALC Architecture. 1119 East State Street. Eagle,
Idaho. 83616. Good evening. I'm here representing the -- the owner in this
project and I think in general we agree with all of the staff 's recommendations
with the exception of item 1.3B, which is that of the landscape buffer along the
internal street and the additional trim or decorative trim around the windows.
Reason being with the landscape buffer that -- consistent with what's going on --
sorry. The reason for the -- the landscape buffer and wanting to get forgiveness
there was it's not very consistent with what's going on on adjacent properties and
we are providing a landscape buffer that's set in along -- along that edge. But we
would like to have the ability to park additional cars there to serve the internal --
internal operation of the restaurant. And, then, as far as the -- the trim itself or
the decorative trim around the windows, this -- these projects all have a very
consistent look. It's a very contemporary, clean looking building. I think we -- if
we could just discuss what sort of decorative trim would be preferred . If one is
absolutely necessary, then, you know, would something like a slim profile blue
metal or something complimenting the existing trim be acceptable and if that's
the case, then, we wouldn't take any exceptions to -- to that -- that comment
either. But other than that I think we are -- we are in general agreement with --
with the comments, except for those two. I will take any questions.
McCarvel: Any questions for the applicant?
Perreault: Madam Chair?
Meridian Planning & Zoning
April 6, 2017
Page 6 of 18
McCarvel: Yes. Commissioner Perreault.
Perreault: Josh, could you bring back up the slide that shows the landscape --
can you bring that slide back up that shows -- yeah. There we go. I'm sorry, I
didn't hear what you said about the -- what you were disagreeing with. Can you
show me on here.
Wilmot: Sure. So, there is one, two, three -- five parking stalls along the existing
street.
Perreault: Okay.
Wilmot: The internal street with the trash enclosure there.
Perreault: Uh-huh.
Wilmot: We believe what's being asked for is, basically, that we provided a 25
foot landscape buffer there and, basically, eliminating five parking spaces. This
isn't really consistent with either development on both sides of us, plus we
already separated from the residential development by the street and the
landscape buffer on the other side of the street, plus we are providing one
obviously right -- right next to the five parking stalls. So, we just want the ability
to, you know, park the site appropriately, alleviating some of those traffic
concerns, so that there is not a continual search for parking in the area to serve
the restaurant. So, we think, you know, what we are providing here is -- is
adequate and would, in effect, meet the intent, even though it's not a full 25 feet,
we are still giving some buffer from the drive-thru, the building, the operation, the
facility to the residential, plus we are putting the building as close to Linder as
possible. So, we would -- we would like forgiveness of the actual 25 feet in lieu
of what we are presenting.
Perreault: So, with the parking stalls, the intention is for them to come through a
drive-thru, get their items, come back around and park and eat in the car or --
they are not going to be parking and walking to the -- to the building or are they?
Wilmot: They would, yes.
Perrault: Oh. Okay.
Wilmot: We would -- we are providing both outdoor and indoor seating within --
within the --
Perrault: The tables there on the north side?
Wilmot: Uh-huh. Those are the tables on the outside. There is a large patio.
And, then, we have some -- even bike racks and, then, the connection to this -- to
Meridian Planning & Zoning
April 6, 2017
Page 7 of 18
the sidewalk at Linder and, then, within the restaurant itself I believe there is 15
or 20 seats inside of the restaurant. So, realistically, you could park -- walk to the
building, order inside, sit down.
McCarvel: Any other questions?
Yearsley: Madam Chair?
McCarvel: Commissioner Yearsley.
Yearsley: Josh, maybe you can help me. On these other projects that we have
approved in the -- in the other areas, did we allow a reduced landscape buffer or
we -- did we require the 25 foot on the rest of them as well?
Beach: So, let me go back to the -- so, he is right that it would be at least two
other drive-thrus that were not required to do a 25 foot landscape buffer, but the
property just to the south where the orthodontist is, he did provide that and I think
-- I don't know the exact details as to whether or not -- well, it would have been a
requirement. So, likely in this case Council -- what we have indicated to this
applicant is in order to get that condition waved he would have to get Council's
approval to do so, so -- I don't know the history as to whether or not both of those
did, but I guess I assumed that they didn't, since we don't see a 25 foot
landscape buffer there.
Yearsley: So, I guess my question is -- so, we are just -- we are -- we are going
to approve the conditional use permit for the 300 -- or for the drive-thru; correct?
That's -- that's really all we are doing. But he would have to go to Council to get
the waiver for the -- the reduced landscape buffer; correct?
Beach: Absolutely.
Yearsley: Okay.
McCarvel: Thank you. And I -- could you go back to that landscape slide, Josh?
Explain -- can you talk a little bit more about how that drive-thru stacking works
with what -- staff's recommendation or how are you feeling about that?
Wilmot: Sure.
McCarvel: Is that something you want --
Wilmot: Basically -- what we had initially -- the intent was to have a full double --
double lane drive-thru, but, then, funnel down into a single -- a single lane.
Through the process of, you know, just looking at the logistics of the site, I -- we
agree with the idea to at least reduce the second lane to the point at which is
beyond the access to the parking.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
April 6, 2017
Page 8 of 18
McCarvel: All right.
Wilmot: So, really it could just be a one car stacking situation and it would be
identified and be marked as such.
McCarvel: Right. So, would there -- there would be markings on there. It's kind
of like wait here for the next available line kind of thing.
Wilmot: Sort of. Yeah.
McCarvel: Yeah. Okay.
Wilmot: We wouldn't encourage additional -- additional vehicles to block what
would be the access to the majority of the parking. Parking area.
McCarvel: Okay. Have you ever -- have you had that work in other areas? Do
people recognize that -- wait here and don't form two lines kind of thing?
Wilmot: Yes.
McCarvel: And, then, I had one other question. Do you have other buildings in
Meridian that do not have the -- I mean what do your other buildings look like?
Do they have the trim or not?
Wilmot: So, the intent with -- there is another -- there is another building by the
same owner on Fairview -- next to Smoky Mountain on Fairview and effectively
Main Street. Major cross -- and that's -- that's an example of -- of kind of the
intent of what this building would be also. Obviously, this building is different --
different shaped. A little bit larger. But there is a -- there is a common -- there is
a common design aesthetic with all of the Gyro Shack facilities and we are just --
we want to try to keep that same -- that same aesthetic, which in most cases
doesn't include any trim around the windows, because it's just a smooth, clean,
modern surface. However, you know, if -- if -- if a trim is -- is needed, you know,
we could -- if it would appease the Commission and design review, that we -- that
we, basically, take a -- using a blue metal trim that matches the soffit and the --
and the roofing material and the parapet cap, that -- that basically we surround
that around the windows and these photos here -- I believe it is -- it's my
understanding that a lot of this texture on the facility -- façade here --
McCarvel: Uh-huh.
Wilmot: -- isn't actually going to be the case. I think it's just a smooth surface.
McCarvel: Okay.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
April 6, 2017
Page 9 of 18
Wilmot: So, that would be also our intent.
McCarvel: Okay.
Perreault: Madam Chair?
McCarvel: Commissioner Perreault.
Perreault: Could staff elaborate a little bit more on the concern with having the
multiple drive-thrus? Is it because of the existing street there on the east side?
Is your concern about back up with that?
Beach: Maybe I can draw on here, show you what we were thinking. So, I don't
know if you have seen this in a drive-thru. So, it's kind of what -- I guess what we
are thinking is I don't really necessarily have a problem with the two order
locations that they have for the drive-thru here if you look at the plan, it's that if
you have got cars stacked from the speakers all the way out to the existing drive
aisle there is no ability for cars to pull into the parking lot.
Wilmot: And we agree with that.
Beach: So, if we stripe it such and if you have seen this other places.
McDonald's, for example, does that where they -- they stripe the asphalt in front
with arrows and show where it would split. So, the car should veer from the one
lane into the two. So, I think there is the ability to do that, so that we don't impact
folks getting into the parking lot, with the understanding that if you look at the
north side of the landscape -- I guess I'm drawing on it and you can't see what
I'm doing. It doesn't really help. So, if you look on the north side that would be a
one way exodus from what I'm understanding or we would like them to do it that
way, so that you have got your entrance on the south into the parking lot and
your exit on the north side out to the drive aisle.
Perreault: Uh-huh.
Wilmot: Or vice-versa.
Beach: Or vice-versa. There is one way in, one way out. If you did it the other
way you would have to flop the -- the entrance into the facility would be on the
south side.
Parsons: Madam Chair, Members of the Commission, one of the specific use
standards for drive-thru establishments requires that the stacking lane be
separate from the access into the parking -- into the parking lot and so if that
area gets congested and this is designed to be a one way circulation, no one is
going to be able to park and we are going to have people parking on that north-
south cross-access drive and it's going to be a cluster, especially with it being
Meridian Planning & Zoning
April 6, 2017
Page 10 of 18
next to a high school and with the fact that we have other drive-thrus in this
development and that's why we bring it to your attention this evening. So, they
can't have two drive-thru lanes there. They are not -- they are not separating
access per our code. They have to have a separate stacking lane and they have
to have separate lanes to get people to that internal parking area.
McCarvel: Any other questions?
Cassanelli: Madam Chair?
McCarvel: Mr. Cassanelli.
Cassanelli: Question for the applicant. Ryan, you're showing 16 parking stalls; is
that correct? Sixteen parking stall?
Wilmot: Yeah. Sixteen. Uh-huh.
Cassanelli: Based on other locations, other Gyro Shack locations, if there were
-- if we had to remove five to put that landscape buffer in there, is that going to
negatively impact the ability to park there for -- for what -- the volume of
business?
Wilmot: So, the way that we have this -- the building and the site plan now is
based on approximately 45 seats. So, that's patio seating, as well as internal
seating to the -- to the building.
Cassanelli: Okay.
Wilmot: And the parking ratio -- that basically equates to 15 parking stalls.
Cassanelli: Okay.
Wilmot: So, you know, we are in such a location that -- with the residents so
close we are encouraging sort of the walk-up activity. But as we all know it's
much easier to get there in a car. So, we just want to be able to encourage that if
-- if -- if the opportunity, because if there is nowhere to park it makes it difficult for
patrons to frequent the facility.
Beach: Madam Chair, if I could real quick?
McCarvel: Yes.
Beach: Just as a matter of procedure -- and I think legal -- Andrea can correct
me if I'm wrong. The Planning and Zoning doesn't have the ability to remove that
condition of code. The way that it would work is the applicant would appeal the
decision and that would go to Council for their review, so --
Meridian Planning & Zoning
April 6, 2017
Page 11 of 18
McCarvel: Okay. So, what we are doing --
Beach: You don't have the ability to waive it.
McCarvel: Yeah. All we are doing is okaying the drive-thru, because it's within
300 feet of another drive-thru.
Beach: You got it. You can talk about the layout, parking, that kind of stuff.
McCarvel: Then he goes to City Council for the landscape issues. Right.
Wilmot: Just for clarity would they be recommending approval as we have it to
City Council?
Beach: So, with the conditional use permit -- sorry to speak directly to the
applicant, but they have the ultimate say with the conditional use permit, so they
recommend -- or they approve or deny those and, then, there is a -- there is an
appeal, so you would need to appeal the decision to City Council to -- and ask for
them to waive that condition.
McCarvel: Okay. Any other questions for the applicant? Okay. Okay. Thank
you.
Wilmot: Thank you.
McCarvel: At this time we would take any public testimony if there is any to be
had. Okay. At this time could I get a motion to close the public hearing for item
number H-2017-0017?
Bernt: So moved.
Yearsley: Second.
McCarvel: It has been moved and seconded to close the public hearing. All
those in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: SIX AYES. ONE ABSENT.
McCarvel: Okay. Discussion? Or all discussed?
Yearsley: Madam Chair?
McCarvel: Commissioner Yearsley.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
April 6, 2017
Page 12 of 18
Yearsley: You know, I think it looks really good. I like the -- the conditions that
the staff has put on. You know, I understand that we are not moving on the
recommendation, but I think the parking, the way it's shown, is appropriate and I
think it would benefit the -- the area and so with that I'm in favor of this
application.
McCarvel: Okay.
Cassanelli: Madam Chair?
McCarvel: Commissioner Cassanelli.
Cassanelli: I, too, am in favor of it. I -- with regards to the -- the additional trim, I
-- I don't know that I necessarily see that as a -- as that critical. I mean if they
could do blue around the windows I suppose to match -- to line up, but I think
with some of the other buildings around I don't think -- I mean it looks like there is
stone, there is stucco, there is nice -- it looks like a nice design. I don't know that
-- and I don't know if that's -- if that's something they would appeal or if we could
approve it without it, but I don't necessarily see that -- that an additional trim
would be required.
McCarvel: Anyone? Yeah. I agree. I think it will be a nice addition there and for
the two cents for the Council I think having more landscape instead of more
parking might be more of a problem there than it's worth, so that's my two cents.
But I do like the -- the suggestions from staff to make that -- the flow of that drive-
thru. Would anybody like to make a motion?
Wilson: I can. I mean my question, though, is -- Madam Chair? Sorry.
McCarvel: Go ahead.
Wilson: Are we -- so it sounds like I would be -- I made a motion --
McCarvel: Uh-huh.
Wilson: -- based on what I have heard from my fellow Commissioners, we would
be excluding that condition 1.10; correct?
McCarvel: Do we need to address that?
Wilson: Or do we need -- or is it just the CUP?
McCarvel: Are we just kind of like the landscape?
Beach: Rephrase the question. So, you're asking me if you need to -- to leave
out the --
Meridian Planning & Zoning
April 6, 2017
Page 13 of 18
Wilson: The condition of on -- on the -- on the windows -- on the --
Beach: You can approve it without that. Absolutely. So, if you don't -- if you
don't like -- and just to clarify. There is -- there is 1.10 A and B. They have done
B. They revised their elevations to include the stone instead of the metal
wainscoting. But the -- you can approve it without that if you -- if you would
desire.
Wilson: Madam Chair?
McCarvel: Mr. Wilson.
Wilson: After considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I moved to
approve a file number H-2017-0028 as presented the staff report for hearing date
of April 6th, 2017, with the following modification. Striking the requirement 1.10-
A.
Bernt: Second.
McCarvel: It has been moved and seconded to approve Item 2017-007 with
modification. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries.
Congratulations.
MOTION CARRIES: SIX AYES. ONE ABSENT.
C. Public Hearing for Oaks South (H-2017-0010) by Thomas
Coleman Located South of W. McMillan Road and East
of N. McDermott Road
1. Request: Rezone of 0.005 Acre from L-O to R-8;
0.001 Acre from L-O to R-15; 0.04 Acre from R-15
to L-O; 0.22 Acre from R-15 to R-8; 0.19 Acre from
R-15 to R-14; 0.31 an Acre from R-8 to R-4; and
0.07 Acre from R-4 to the R-8 Zoning District
McCarvel: Okay. Okay. At this time I would like to open the public hearing for
H-2017-0010, Oak South, and we will begin with to the staff report.
Allen: Thank you, Chairman, Commissioners. The next application before you is
a request for a rezone. The rezone area consists of a total of .84 of an acre of
land, zoned L-O, R-15 and R-8, located at the southeast corner of West McMillan
Road and North McDermott Road. This property was annexed in 2013 and
included in the preliminary plat for the Oak South development. At the request of
staff, the applicant submitted the subject rezone application to clean up the
existing zoning in the development, so that the zoning coincides with the lot
Meridian Planning & Zoning
April 6, 2017
Page 14 of 18
configurations shown on the approved and future final plats. This will eliminate
lots having dual zoning. The rezone is for .005 of an acre from L-O to R-8. .001
of an acre from L-O to R-15. .04 of an acre from R-15 to L-O. .22 of an acre
from R-15 to R-8. .19 of an acre from R-15 to R-4. .31 of an acre from R-4 --
excuse me -- R-8 to R-4. And .07 of an acre from R-4 to the R-8 zoning districts.
The proposed zoning is consistent with the medium density residential future
land use map designation in the Comprehensive Plan. As you can see here on
this rezone exhibit here --
McCarvel: Sonya, we don't see it. We still got Josh's report up there.
Allen: Oh. Sorry about that. Sorry about that. Well, any-who. The map here on
the right shows exhibit that's showing the little pieces that I just described. So, as
you can see it's just clean up. It's kind of remnant little pieces that don't coincide
with the lot boundaries, so -- written testimony was received on this application
from Christy Watkins, JUB Engineers, the applicant's representative, in
agreement with the staff report. Staff is recommending approval. Staff will stand
for any questions.
McCarvel: Any questions for staff? Okay. Would the applicant like to come
forward?
Jeffers: Good evening, Commissioners. For the record Travis Jeffers. I am here
on behalf of Christy Watkins. I am planner with JUB Engineers as well.
McCarvel: And your address, please.
Jeffers: 250 South Beechwood Avenue, Boise, Idaho. 83709.
McCarvel: Thank you.
Jeffers: I don't have a whole lot to add. Sonya pretty much summed up the
reason for the rezone. It's just to really clean it up and make sure that everything
matches and coincides with one another. So, if you have any questions for me
I'd -- I'd stand for them, but --
McCarvel: Any questions for the applicant? Okay.
Jeffers: Thank you.
McCarvel: All right. And this would be the time we take public testimony if there
is any, but I think we will just move on. Okay. At this time could I get a motion to
close the public hearing for H-2017-0010, Oak South?
Bernt: So moved.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
April 6, 2017
Page 15 of 18
Wilson: Second.
McCarvel: It has been moved and seconded to close the public hearing for item
H-2017-0010. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: SIX AYES. ONE ABSENT.
McCarvel: Any discussion?
Yearsley: I think it's pretty straightforward to me.
Wilson: Madam Chair?
McCarvel: Commissioner Wilson.
Wilson: After considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move to
recommend approval to City Council of file number H-2017-0010 as presented in
the staff report for the hearing date of April 6th, 2017.
Bernt: Second.
McCarvel: It has been moved and seconded to approve H-2017-0010. All those
in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: SIX AYES. ONE ABSENT.
D. Public Hearing for Holy Apostles Catholic Church (H-
2017- 0019) by Roman Catholic Diocese of Boise
Located Southeast Corner of E. Chinden Boulevard and
N. Meridian Road
1. Request: Annexation and Zoning of 16.32 Acres of
Land with a C-C Zoning District
McCarvel: Okay. Our last item. At this time I'd like to open the public hearing for
item H-2017-0019, Holy Apostles Catholic Church, and we will begin with the
staff report.
Allen: Thank you, Chairman, Members of the Commission. The next application
is a request for a rezone. This site consists of 16.32 acres of land. It's zone RUT
in Ada county and is located at the southeast corner of East Chinden Boulevard
and North Meridian Road. Adjacent land use and zoning. To the north is East
Chinden Boulevard and rural residential properties in Castlebury West
Subdivision, Zoned R-1 in Ada county. To the east is Zamzow's retail stores,
zoned RUT in Ada county. To the south is St. Ignatius school, zoned C-C that's
currently in the development process. And to the west is North Meridian Road
Meridian Planning & Zoning
April 6, 2017
Page 16 of 18
and vacant, undeveloped land that has been approved for residential homes in
Paramount Director Subdivision, zoned R-15. A record of survey was approved
by the county and recorded last year on this property that created the current
configuration of the parcel. The current Comprehensive Plan future land use
map designation is mixed-use community. The applicant is requesting
annexation and zoning of 16.32 acres of land with a C-C zoning district,
consistent with the mixed-use community future land use map designation. The
site plan was submitted as shown that depicts how the site is developed with a
52,220 square foot church and accessory structures, consisting of a single-family
residential home along the west boundary adjacent to Meridian Road and a food
pantry that shows up at the northeast corner of the site. Parking and access. All
of the existing structures are proposed to remain. One full access exists via
Meridian Road and another full access exists via Chinden Boulevard, which is
shared with the Zamzows property to the east. No new accesses our proposed
or approved with this application. Parking exists on the site that exceeds UDC
standards. A 35 foot wide landscape street buffer is required along North
Meridian Road and East Chinden Boulevard, both entryway corridors into the
city. A ten foot wide multi-use pathway is required within the buffer along
Chinden within a public pedestrian easement. The applicant shall reserve all
necessary right-of-way as required by the Idaho Transportation Department for
the future widening of Chinden Boulevard outside of the required street buffer.
Connection to the city sewer system is required within 60 days of annexation into
the city. Connection to city water is not required due to the terms of the 2007
agreement between the city and United Water. To ensure compliance with UDC
standards for site improvements, a certificate of zoning compliance is required to
be submitted within 60 days of annexation. Written testimony has been received
from Tamara Thompson, the applicant's representative, in agreement with the
staff report. Staff is recommending approval of the annexation with the
requirement of a development agreement. Staff will stand for any questions.
McCarvel: Any questions for staff? Would the applicant like to come forward?
And, please, state your name and address for the record.
Thompson: Good evening. Tamara Thompson with The Land Group. 462 East
Shore Drive in Eagle. Madam Chair, Members of the Commission, I did submit
written testimony as Sonya said. We have read the staff report. We agree with
staff's analysis and conditions and I'm here to answer any questions.
McCarvel: Any questions for the applicant?
Cassanelli: Madam Chair?
McCarvel: Commissioner --
Cassanelli: The -- I guess that would be the southeast corner. Are there any
future plans for that southeast corner right now?
Meridian Planning & Zoning
April 6, 2017
Page 17 of 18
Thompson: Madam Chair, Commissioner Cassanelli, not -- not at this time. No
site improvements, other than what the conditions of approval are requiring, are
with this application.
McCarvel: Okay. All right. Thank you.
Thompson: Thank you.
McCarvel: And just in case our observer would like to come and have public
testimony I will put it out there. Okay. At this time can I get a motion to close the
public hearing for item number H-2017-0019, Holy Apostles Catholic Church?
Bernt: So moved.
Wilson: Second.
McCarvel: It has been moved and seconded to close the public hearing for item
number H-2017-0019. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: SIX AYES. ONE ABSENT.
McCarvel: Comments from the Commissioners? I will start. I think it's a great
addition. We already have the school to the south in the city and I think it would
be great to have a great building and everything on that corner in the City of
Meridian and if -- and especially they will do the sidewalk and everything that will
finished it off nicely up there. So, I would be in favor of it.
Yearsley: Madam Chair, I concur.
McCarvel: Any other comment?
Bernt: I'd like to say something this evening.
McCarvel: Commissioner Bernt.
Bernt: I'm just -- I just want to say that I'm in one hundred percent agreement.
McCarvel: Thank you for you input, Commissioner Bernt.
Yearsley: I think if that's the case he should make the motion.
McCarvel: Would you be --
Wilson: Enthusiastic.