2017 04-20
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Agenda – Thursday April 20,2017 Page 1 of 2
All materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian.
Anyone desiring accommodation for disabilities related to documents and/or hearing,
please contact the City Clerk’s Office at 888-4433 at least 48 hours prior to the public meeting.
City Council Chambers
33 E. Broadway Avenue, Meridian, Idaho
Thursday April 20, 2017 at 6:00 p.m.
1. Roll-call Attendance
__X__ Treg Bernt __O___ Steven Yearsley
__O__ Gregory Wilson __X___ Ryan Fitzgerald
___X_ Jessica Perreault __X___ Bill Cassanelli
__X____ Rhonda McCarvel – Chairperson
2. Adoption of the Agenda Approved
3. Consent Agenda Approved
A. Approve Minutes of April 6, 2017 Planning and Zoning
Commission Meeting
B. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval for Gyro
Shack at Paramount (H-2017-0028) by Jeff Likes Located 5038
N. Linder Road
4. Action Items
A. Public Hearing for New Beginnings (H-2017-0026) by Chris
Fuhrman Located 780 E. Ustick Road Recommend Approval
to City Council – Schedule for City Council May 23, 2017
1. Request: Annexation and Zoning of 1.00 Acre of Land
with an R-4 Zoning District
B. Public Hearing Continued from 3/16/17 for Goddard Creek (H-
2017-0007) by Brian Porter Located at 2780 W. McMillan Road
Recommend Denial to City Council – Schedule for City Council
May 23, 2017
1. Request: Rezone of 12.38 Acres of Land from R-4 to the
R-40 (5 Acres) and the C-C (7.38 Acres) Zoning Districts
MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING
COMMISSION MEETING
AGENDA
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Agenda – Thursday April 20,2017 Page 2 of 2
All materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian.
Anyone desiring accommodation for disabilities related to documents and/or hearing,
please contact the City Clerk’s Office at 888-4433 at least 48 hours prior to the public meeting.
2. Request: Amendment to the Comprehensive Plan
Future Land Use Map to Change the Land Use
Designation on 12.38 Acres of Land from Office and
High Density Residential to Mixed-Use Community
3. Request: Conditional Use Permit for a Self-Storage
Facility Consisting of Ten (10 Buildings on
Approximately 7.38 Acres of Land in the Proposed C-C
Zoning District
4. Request: Conditional Use Permit for a Multi-Family
Development Consisting of Eight-Two (82) Dwelling
Units in the Proposed R-40 Zoning District on Five (5)
Acres of Land
5. Request: Preliminary Plat Approval Consisting of
Twenty-Two (22) Building Lots and Five (5) Common
Lots on 12.38 Acres of Land in the Proposed C-C and R-
40 Zoning Districts
C. Public Hearing Continued from April 6, 2017 for Rockbury
Subdivision (H-2017-0018) by Rock Harbor Church, Inc.
Located 6437 N. Tree Haven Way Recommend Approval to City
Council with Modifications – Schedule for City Council May 23,
2017
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 C-
N (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
Meeting Adjourned at 9:06 p.m.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting April 20, 2017
Meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission of April 20, 2017, was
called to order at 6:00 p.m. by Chairman Rhonda McCarvel.
Members Present: Chairman Rhonda McCarvel, Commissioner Ryan
Fitzgerald, Commissioner Treg Bernt, Commissioner Jessica Perreault and
Commissioner Bill Cassanelli.
Members Absent: Commissioner Steven Yearsley, Commissioner Gregory
Wilson.
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: Okay. 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 20th, 2017. Let's begin with roll call.
Item 2: Adoption of the Agenda
McCarvel: The first item on the agenda is the adoption of the agenda . There
are no changes, so could I get a motion to adopt the agenda?
Fitzgerald: Madam Chair, I move we adopt the agenda as printed.
Bernt: Second.
McCarvel: It has been moved and seconded to adopt the agenda. All in favor
say aye. Opposed? Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. TWO ABSENT.
Item 3: Consent Agenda
A. Approve Minutes of April 6, 2017 Planning and Zoning
Commission Meeting
B. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval
for Gyro Shack at Paramount (H-2017-0028) by
Jeff Likes Located 5038 N. Linder Road
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
April 20, 2017
Page 2 of 55
McCarvel: The next item on the agenda is the Consent Agenda and we have
two items on the Consent Agenda. The approval of the minutes for April 6th,
2017, and the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for H-2017-0028. Can I
get a motion to accept the Consent Agenda?
Bernt: Madam Chair, I move to approve the Consent Agenda from the meeting
of a couple weeks ago.
Cassanelli: Second.
McCarvel: It has been moved and seconded to approve the Consent Agenda.
All those in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. TWO ABSENT.
McCarvel: Okay. At this time I would like to briefly explain the public hearing
process for this evening. We will open each item individually and, then, start
with the staff report. 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 and 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 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 that 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 to be able to make a recommendation to
City Council. And with our new system I do just want to point out on the screen
at the podium, if you are testifying, there is a timer on that screen, so you can
kind of keep track of your comments.
Item 4: Action Items
A. Public Hearing for New Beginnings (H-2017-0026) by
Chris Fuhrman Located 780 E. Ustick Road
1. Request: Annexation and Zoning of 1.00 Acre of
Land with an R-4 Zoning District
2. Request: Amendment to the Comprehensive Plan
Future Land Use Map to Change the Land Use
Designation on 12.38 Acres of Land from Office
and High Density Residential to Mixed-Use
Community
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
April 20, 2017
Page 3 of 55
3. Request: Conditional Use Permit for a Self-
Storage Facility Consisting of Ten (10 Buildings
on Approximately 7.38 Acres of Land in the
Proposed C-C Zoning District
4. Request: Conditional Use Permit for a Multi-
Family Development Consisting of Eight-Two (82)
Dwelling Units in the Proposed R-40 Zoning
District on Five (5) Acres of Land
5. Request: Preliminary Plat Approval Consisting of
Twenty-Two (22) Building Lots and Five (5)
Common Lots on 12.38 Acres of Land in the
Proposed C-C and R-40 Zoning Districts
McCarvel: Okay. At this time I would like to open the public hearing for Item H-
2017-0026, New Beginnings. We will begin with the staff report.
Parsons: Thank you, Madam Chair, Members of the Commission. First item on
the agenda this evening is the New Beginnings annexation and short plat before
you this evening. The property consists of 0.73 acres of land and is currently
zoned R-1 in Ada County and the subject property is located at 780 East Ustick
Road. To the north we have rural residential properties in Weaver Acres
Subdivision, zoned R-1 in Ada County. To the east is rural residential property
zoned R-1 in Ada County. South is Ustick Road and single family residential
properties in Bedford Place Subdivision, zoned R-8. And to the west is Curt
Drive and single family residential properties in the Hollybrook Subdivision, also
zoned R-8. There isn't any history on this property since it is currently in the
county. The future land use map designation for this property is low density
residential. So, the applicant is before you this evening to annex in
approximately one acre of land and the reason why it's larger than what they are
proposing to plat is because the annexation boundary goes to the center line of
the adjacent roadways. So, this property fronts on Curt Drive on the west
boundary and, then, Ustick Road on the south boundary. The plat itself will
consist of .73 acres and it consists of two residential building lots, which will take
access by a common driveway off of Curt Road. So, with the concept plan that
the applicant is proposing this evening they are not proposing any direct access
to Ustick Road, it's all coming off a local street, which is consistent with the UDC
and this common driveway will be a cross-access easement, basically, for the
back lot to frontage onto Curt Road. The applicant is proposing to construct two
single family homes on the site and you can see here up with the conceptual
elevations at this time they are proposed to be single story. The front lot will
consist of a home 2,600 square feet and the rear lot will have a home
approximately 2,800 square feet. In the R-4 zoning district in which the
applicant's requesting for annexation this evening the minimum size for single
story homes is 1,400 square feet so you can see that they are in excess of that
requirement. The plat that was submitted by the applicant did not include a
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
April 20, 2017
Page 4 of 55
common lot along Ustick Road, which is required by the UDC, so the applicant
prior to getting signature on their short plat they will have to depict a 20 foot
wide common lot along Ustick Road and that will have to be landscaped and
maintained by an HOA as well. You can see here that the applicant does have
adequate width in order to meet that requirement. This concept plan also shows
you the setbacks of the homes and those also comply with the R-4 dimensional
standards as well. So, we have the lot size that comply and they also comply
with the setbacks and the minimum home standards. Staff does find that the
annexation and the plat does comply with the UDC. We did receive written
testimony from the applicant Chris Fuhrman in agreement with all the conditions
in the staff report and, then, as of late this afternoon staff did receive two written
testimonies -- two requests -- or some written testimony on this application from
two separate property owners in -- near this development. The first was from
Richard and Alane Holloran and, then, also received an e-mail from Jan
Brocket. Staff is recommending approval of the annexation and the short plat
and with that I would stand for any questions you may have.
McCarvel: Thank you. Are there any questions for staff?
Cassanelli: I have got a question. Did you say, Bill, that there is -- there is
enough space there so that the common lot that needs to -- the common area
between -- the lots in Ustick Road?
Parsons: Madam Chair, Members of the Commission, that is correct. They can
accommodate the 20 foot wide landscape buffer in that common lot per the
UDC.
McCarvel: Okay. Would the applicant like to come forward. Please state your
name and address for the record. And, please, state your name and address for
the record.
Teeley: Madam Chairman, my name is Pat Teeley. Office address 12594
Explorer. And I'm representing the applicant Chris Fuhrman. We are doing the
engineering and surveying on the project. We have read staff's critique of the
project and agree with every -- every point they have brought up. We will revise
the plat to show the common area as needed for the landscape strip. I believe
the landscape strip can be measured from the back of the sidewalk, as opposed
to 20 feet off the lot itself and the way Ustick Road is being built we can
accommodate that, to answer your questions. Other than that I would stand for
any questions.
McCarvel: Any questions for the applicant? Okay. Thank you. No. Questions
from the Commissioners, not from the public. We will have public testimony in a
moment. And that would be at this time. Do we have -- I'm waiting for the sign-
up sheet from our clerk, though. Okay. On the sign-up sheet the first one I
have is Jim Brocket.
Brocket: First off, my wife and I --
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
April 20, 2017
Page 5 of 55
McCarvel: Can you pull the microphone down and, please, state your name and
address for the record.
Brocket: Jim Brocket. 3425 North Curt Drive, Meridian.
McCarvel: Uh-huh.
Brocket: My wife and I have no objection to the annexation. What we do want
to bring to everybody's attention is that as we find out the proposed use of these
two homes will be for the housing of abused women and children and the --
some of our concerns are that this is a very public location and easily accessed
by anybody looking for somebody that is being housed there. We want to know
what the plan for security is for this piece of -- or for this development. The
women and children housed there will be needing social services. I don't know
if Meridian has the social services required for something like this. Also there
are no public transportations in the area . We are also concerned about the
parking situation with multiple tenants in that house or in the houses. How many
cars are going to be there and what kind of cars are going to be there . Also
there are adjoining parcels that we understand are owned by the same person
in Seattle and we want to know whether or not those parcels are going to be
group homes. Are we going to have a subdivision full of group homes? And --
okay. Yeah. New Beginnings is the name of the organization that's going to be
running these homes. Questions?
McCarvel: All right. Thank you. The next person who has signed up wishing to
testify is Carol Evans.
Evans: I agree I think --
McCarvel: Please state your name and address for the record.
Evans: I'm Carol K. Evans and I live at 3465 North Curt Drive.
McCarvel: Okay.
Evans: I agree that I think that there should not be this type of a building put in .
These people bring in refugees. They bring in husband's that are angry and I've
seen this happen before and, then, when they don't get enough money for these
type of people they turn to alcoholics and addicts and, then, they turn to
probations -- people on probation and out of prison and I just don't think it's a
very good idea. I think it should be a single house residence only period. There
is a bus stop right there. Children get out and they are unloaded and loaded
right there and you're just putting a lot more traffic in there. Too many people.
And if you have got refugees they don't know the laws of our state, so you're just
creating a problem with children. I just don't think it's a very good idea. I don't --
I don't know how many. I think he needs to tell us how many people he's going
to put in these houses. I think the social services is another thing that needs to
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
April 20, 2017
Page 6 of 55
be looked at, too. I guess that's about all. Parking is -- was another one of my
concerns, but --
McCarvel: Thank you. Next on the list wishing to testify is Justin Laurendeau.
Did I say that right? And, please, state your name and address for the record.
Laurendeau: My name is Justin Laurendeau.
McCarvel: Yeah. Pull the mikes back up now. Sorry.
Laurendeau: My name is Justin Laurendeau. My address is 730 East Edgar
Street. Our backyard is directly across from this zone. I just agree with the last
lady that was just speaking. I don't agree with the -- the spot that they are
picking. I think this is for single family residences and I'm also interested in all
the questions that were previously brought up.
McCarvel: Okay. Thank you. Michael Morrison.
Morrison: Michael Morrison. 3405 North Curt Drive, Meridian, Idaho. I oppose
the facility because I think they are doing a bait and switch on you. They listed it
as a single family. We have been led to believe that there will be other uses for
the facility. If you have ever lived in a neighborhood with one of these facilities
they are not pleasant. I have dealt with the officers and stuff involved with
houses like this. I don't think it's a good idea, especially with a school bus stop
there. There is no public transportation and stuff in the area. There is no buses.
Multiple issues with property. Okay? Thank you for your time.
McCarvel: Thank you. Is there anyone else wishing to testify on this issue?
Come forward.
Gerosin: My name is Matt Gerosin. I live at 3280 Curt Drive. I am the house
directly facing it. A fence will be along the driveway. First of all, Chris Fuhrman
is a liar. He met me out in the street and talked to me and told me his plans
were for him to live in the larger house and he was going to rent the house to his
son who was going to Boise State in the other house. None of this -- we
actually came here -- my wife and I came here to approve it, because that's
exactly what he told me out in the street. So, we thought he was building two
houses, going to be great for the neighborhood, it was going to work great for
their -- and that's not actually what's going in there at all. It's going to lower my
property value. I have one acre with a nice shop and everything like that.
That's not going to work for me. I think -- I think this is the wrong use for that
area. It's -- it's great residential. You can drive down Ustick and it's all
residential. This is not -- they weren't going to allow commercial in there. It also
kind of -- it seems to me to be a little after the fact, because as you guys have
already allowed him to pull water and sewer to the property for two lots, so I
don't know what -- you already approved that because I sit there and I can see
water and sewer there. Electric. So, I strongly disapprove of this. Thank you.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
April 20, 2017
Page 7 of 55
McCarvel: Thank you. Anyone else? Please. Anyone else wishing to testify?
Certainly. And, please, state your name and address for the record.
Amy: It's Mary Jane Amy. I live at 3479 Curt Drive. I wholeheartedly agree
with Matt. First off, this plat that you are seeing does not in any way, shape, or
form show the entire neighborhood. There is nothing but single family
residential houses. Okay. Now, you're bringing it up. As you can see, we are
all -- on Curt Drive we are all on acre lots and as Mike has stated and Carol has
stated, school children, not only from our neighborhood, but the surrounding
neighborhoods get off and on the bus right there. The other thing I'd like to
mention is for these people there are no amenities within a good mile of this
location. Are they going to walk? The closest amenity -- and I mean like food,
gas, whatever, is Fast Eddie's, which is on the other side of Settlers Park. So,
once again, this is not a good fit for this area. Sure, let's put in a couple nice
residential houses in that area. I have no problem with this particular person
buying this property, annexing it into the City of Meridian and building a property
that is blending in with the surrounding area. There are no apartments. There
are no multi-family residences within a radius of two miles of this property and
the other thing that really concerns me, as Matt has mentioned, my property
value -- I have lived in that property over 30 years, so have a lot of these other
people that live on Curt Drive. We are a well-established area. We are
currently county. I live in Ada county and I'm proud of it. The reason I'm proud
of it -- first off is my tax base. Second off, we are all on wells and septic
systems. We are all self-sustained housing, with the exception of Idaho Power.
And the problem that I have there, with this annexation how soon down the road
is it going to be before the City of Meridian decides to come in and an annex us,
because we are surrounded by the City of Meridian. The only properties that
are considered Ada county right now are down a stretch of Ustick Road from
just west of Locust Grove and Curt Drive and that's -- and the properties back
behind. So, that's -- those are my concerns.
McCarvel: All right. Thank you. Let's not do the clapping. Anyone else wishing
to testify? All right.
Spirk: Good evening. My name is Paul Spirk. I live at 3534 Curt Drive and the
point I wanted to bring up was the fact that a lot of you may not know what New
Beginnings really is. New Beginnings is a worldwide national organization
primarily working with churches, immigrants, and women that have domestic
problems and they receive money from all over the world. I don't think you, as
this Commission, has actually done any homework in regard or background on
exactly what New Beginnings does. And I apprec iate if you would check in on it
and find out exactly the reasons why New Beginnings wants to be in Meridian,
Idaho. Thank you.
McCarvel: Thank you. Okay. Any other public testimony? Okay. Would the
applicant like to come forward, please.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
April 20, 2017
Page 8 of 55
Teeley: Well, I have got to say this is all news to me. I -- I knew nothing of this.
It's always been presented to me by the owner of the property that it was two
single family homes. I don't know where the information is coming from for this
that the people are getting, but as far as what's been represented to the city,
what's been represented to me, is there are two single family homes. I'm not --
what I was asking Bill earlier is whether even the use would be allowed in that
zone. He indicated there may -- may or may not be regulations on it. I guess I
would suggest to you that, you know, as part of the rezone application there is a
development agreement associated with it. Maybe you could work with that and
either place the restrictions that you need to to assure yourself that if, in fact,
that you don't want that to happen -- but, again, I don't know where this
information is coming from. This is the first I ever heard it and I'm amazed. But
maybe the development application -- or agreement is the place to work with it.
I think the only thing that has been represented to staff is two residential single
family homes. So, I would guess if through the development agreement you
could restrict it to that, then, the owner will get what he applied for.
McCarvel: Okay. Thank you.
Teeley: Thank you.
McCarvel: Okay. At this time could I get a motion to close the public hearing for
Item No. H-2017-0026, New Beginnings.
Fitzgerald: So moved.
Bernt: Second.
McCarvel: It has been moved and seconded to close the public hearing on Item
H-2017-0026. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. TWO ABSENT.
McCarvel: Thoughts? I guess could we start with -- Bill.
Parsons: Madam Chair, Members of the Commission, a couple things we need
to address tonight -- or at least get some clarification on. The narrative
presented with his application said it's for two single family homes and that's
what we based our analysis on. The other item -- to address the other citizens'
concerns was the fact that we are going to come in an annex this subdivision.
The city doesn't do that. The property owners out there would have to request
annexation into the city. Just because the city -- they are surrounded by city
limits, the city doesn't go and annex -- force annex people in. That's something
that will happen if and when those property owners want our services or need
our services. At that time we will work with them to come up with a plan and
annex them in -- have them annex -- request annexation into the city and extend
city utilities. Now, as far as some of the testimony that we heard tonight
regarding a counseling center for battered women, those types of things are
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
April 20, 2017
Page 9 of 55
allowed to happen in these residential zoning districts, but they are limited to the
number of people that can occupy that space. So, under our code we do have a
definition of a family and under that definition up to ten persons can live in a
home that need not be related by marriage and so if this person -- or whoever
develops this property wants to operate that type of business -- and, again, it's --
we are not approving it for a commercial development tonight, we are looking at
it solely as a residential development. If they came in and pulled a single-family
residential home permit, they would get an occupancy permit for a single-family
residence. What they did with that after they receive the city's approval, if it was
ten or fewer persons living there, they would still be considered a single family
home, a resident under our code. They would not need another approval from
the City of Meridian and that's how it's defined in our code and it's defined that
way in state statute as well, if I -- correct me if I'm wrong, city attorney, but
that's how we regulate these. So, again, that's not out of the question for that to
happen there. And, again, everything that we have in the application submittal
does not indicate that's what these are going to be used for.
Fitzgerald: Madam Chair?
McCarvel: Commissioner Fitzgerald.
Fitzgerald: Andrea or Bill. Yeah. I mean I think -- and for the audience, the job
of Planning and Zoning is to make sure we are following code and what is
presented to us is what we have to go on and so -- and you go -- you can
probably answer the question for us. If the Council wants to make a
determination on something else, that's their prerogative, but we work on code
and what's presented to us tonight is two single family residences on a short
plat. Correct? Am I missing something? Okay.
McCarvel: So, you're saying there wouldn't be a conditional use permit or
anything that would be required for them -- if it did change after the permit is
pulled?
Parsons: Madam Chair, Members of the Commission, if they did not meet that
definition of the family that use could not be allowed to operate in the zoning
district. It's not allowed. That would move them up to a commercial designation
under our code to fit them -- that would be almost like an out-patient clinic, which
would be a nursing care -- similar to a nursing care facility, which is not allowed
in the R-4 zoning district. So, at this point in time putting something in a
development -- we can't put something in a DA that is already prohibited by
code. Can't restrict a certain class from living in a home , so it's not possible.
Right now it's -- right now the DA says you're subject to this concept plan and
the elevations. Well, they are showing two single family homes on two
residential lots. Therefore, they are held to what they are showing before you
this evening, two single family homes on two single family lots with an R-4 zone.
McCarvel: Okay. Commissioners, thoughts? Nobody thinking out loud tonight?
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
April 20, 2017
Page 10 of 55
Bernt: I think it's pretty straight f orward really.
McCarvel: Yeah. I think what's -- what's in our purview and what we have to go
on for code, it's -- I agree, so -- so, at this time could I get a motion?
Fitzgerald: Are you handing it to me?
McCarvel: You're closest. Nobody else wants to do a motion.
Fitzgerald: Madam Chair --
McCarvel: I can't.
Fitzgerald: I know. After considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I
move to recommend approval to City Council of file number H-2017-0026, as
presented in the staff report for the hearing date of April 27th, 2017.
Bernt: Second.
McCarvel: It has been moved and seconded to approve Item No. H -2017-0026.
All those in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. TWO ABSENT.
McCarvel: Okay. So, at this time we would like to continue the public hearing
for Item No. H-2017-0007, Goddard Creek, and I will give just a minute for the
room to clear. And we will begin with the staff report.
Beach: Very good, Madam Chair, Members of the Commission. As you said,
this is a public hearing that was continued from the March 16th Planning and
Zoning hearing -- or, excuse me, Planning and Zoning meeting. There are
several applications I have associated with this project. A Comprehensive Plan
map amendment, conditional use permit for multi-family development in a
proposed R-15 zoning district, conditional use permit for a multi-family
development in an R -- in a proposed R-15 zoning district, conditional use
permit for a self-storage facility in a proposed C-C zoning district, a rezone, a
preliminary plat and a development agreement modification. If you recall back
on the 16th of March we -- excuse me -- the Commission requested that the
applicant address four items that were the -- the items to be discussed this
evening. Staff has written a memo kind of outlining the changes to the project
by the applicant in regard to those four items and I will go ahead and read my
memo -- portions of it to you this evening. We are asked to decrease the
residential density. The applicant reduced the number of building units from 82
units to 74 units and the number of residential lots has been decreased from 22
residential lots to 21 residential lots. The proposed gross density was reduced
from 16.5 dwelling units per acre to 14.8 dwelling units per acre. With a
reduction in the density the applicant provided revised legal descriptions and is
now requesting that the multi-family portion of the project that you see here on
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
April 20, 2017
Page 11 of 55
your screen be zoned R-15 instead of the originally proposed R-40 zoning
district. The loss in units has also resulted in an increase of open space to 1.36
acres or approximately 27.2 percent. The next item that they were asked to
address were to increase parking for the project. The applicant has increased
the number of spaces from 202 to 205 total spaces, keeping in mind that with
the reduction in the number of the units it's not just an increase of three,
because they have also reduced the required number for the units, they have
also -- so, they have increased units by about -- parking spaces by about 15 or
20 overall in a little more analysis of that. So, as a result, the number of spaces
per unit will increase from 2.5 to 2.77. It doesn't seem like a lot, but with the
number of units there it's -- it's enough to accommodate a lot more visitor
parking. The project now provides 33 stalls for guest parking dispersed
throughout the development. The parking stalls have been eliminated from the
landscape buffer on the west boundary. So, if you recall from the previous site
plan they had some parking stalls that would have been in this required
landscape buffer between the residential component and the commercial
component to the west and they have reduced -- or they have eliminated those.
The next item was to modify the amenity package. The applicant has modified
the proposed amenities for the development and now proposes to include
enclosed bike storage, a 50-by-100 foot play field, a community garden with
raised beds, internal walking trails, a playground facility and a plaza with
covered seating. The next item was to improve vehicular access to the multi-
family project. If you recall there was concerns that the vehicular access in the
location here indicated by my mouse was -- was too close to Goddard Creek
Way. The applicant has, instead, kept that drive aisle, but kind of dead ended it
there and put their trash enclosure in that location and moved the access further
west on Apgar Creek to accommodate the additional stacking to get out to go
north or south on Goddard Creek. The previous site plan had a distance from
the proposed entrance on Apgar Creek Lane to Goddard Creek Way measuring
approximately 80 feet. With the proposed changes to the site plan the distance
will increased to approximately 220 feet. As I said, the change will result in a
greater ability for cars to stack there. With that those are the four -- the four
items that the applicant was requested to address. With that staff is still
recommending approval of the project and I will stand for any questions you
have.
McCarvel: Any questions from the Commissioners?
Perreault: Madam Chair?
McCarvel: Commissioner Perreault.
Perreault: Josh, can you go over the Comprehensive Plan map amendment
again, the specifics of that.
Beach: Sure. So, they are requesting to change from a combination of high
density residential and office to -- I believe it was mixed use. Let me pull that
back up. That wasn't one of the things that we were looking at this evening, but
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
April 20, 2017
Page 12 of 55
I can definitely answer that question for you. Yeah. They have requested to
change the -- the overall site to mixed-use community to accommodate both
those uses.
Perreault: Thank you.
McCarvel: Any other questions? Okay.
Beach: I will also add that the mixed-use community designation gives a density
guideline for residential for between -- and the range is from six to 15. So,
again, with -- with the change by the applicant now better falls within that
guideline that -- it's the higher end, but it still falls in with the 14.8 dwelling units
per acre that staff still -- still with the previous project felt that it met that, but this
is a -- is a better fit.
McCarvel: Okay. Okay. Would the applicant like to come forward?
Parks: Good evening. Shon Parks with TO Engineers. 2471 North Titanium
Way in Meridian, Idaho. Josh, if you would load our slide presentation.
Beach: I will.
Parks: I can kind of go through that. Thank you for the opportunity to continue
our conversation and to continue to discuss the ways we are amending our plan
to address some of the issues that we talked about in our last -- in our last
meeting. You're seeing here, as Josh had indicated, the entire site, including
both the multi-family and the storage facility site located here on the project
location. But most of the questions that had -- that you had last time and
comments address, really, the multi-family component and so we are really
going to concentrate on that element. The first item that we addressed was the
density item that you all wanted us to decrease . We have gone from 82 units,
as Josh had mentioned, down to 74 units, which is about a ten percent reduction
in units. And that brings us down to that R-15 zoning, which is much, much
easier to take than the R-40, which is the next step up in the zoning. It also
increases our open space just because of the reduction in density to 3.6 acres
of open space provided overall. The other item that was kind of contentious was
the parking and mostly the guest parking. As you can see, we have added
parking on the central island to both sides and that has given us the ability to
increase the percentage of parking from 2.8 -- or 2.5 to 2.8 parking spaces per
unit. But, more importantly, it takes our guest parking from 17 spaces up to 33
spaces, which is a really big increase in -- in parking and those are all centrally
located. So, easily accessed to all of the units as well. And, then, as we
mentioned we have removed parking spaces from that landscape buffer, which -
- which helps us out as well. The other item that -- that was discussed that --
that we had addressed is this -- is the issue of traffic and roads. Increasing the
distance to -- of our entrance away from Goddard Creek Way to 250 feet to the
center line of our entrance to -- to the curb line of Goddard Creek, which really
does almost more than double our stacking distance and in addition to that we
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
April 20, 2017
Page 13 of 55
have also added -- or we are adding five feet of width to Apgar from our
entrance down to Goddard, just to -- again, to increase the opportunities for a
wider, safer entrance experience as you come into that -- to the Selway
Apartments, as well as our -- our own community here. We are not only adding
some width to Apgar in that first section, but also adding width to McMillan -- or
McMillan Road and in addition to that we are adding right of way width to allow
ACHD to -- when they come through with their improvements in the coming
years, which is in their current CIP, that that can be widened with the addition of
that right of way. There was some concern about a stacking -- particularly in
traffic from Goddard Creek Way onto McMillan from some of the residents and --
and one of the things that we wanted to do was take a look at exactly what --
what that problem was and so we just randomly sent somebody out one
Thursday morning to take a look at exactly what those conditions were, how
much stacking was taking place, what the problem -- what the traffic problems
were in that particular location and the -- what we saw was that there was --
there was a little bit of stacking. Most -- most of it was just a single car. At the
worst case there was one instance where there was four cars stacked and this
was just in the morning rush hour time. We didn't get an opportunity to go back
out in the evening, but we just wanted to take a look and see , again, in that
morning rush hour exactly how bad it was and so the average wait time was --
as you can see here was about 60 second -- or 60 to 20 seconds or less. And
so that's just -- was just our observation during one particular morning. There
was also some concern about the amenities and we have addressed that by
adding some additional amenities, namely, a shelter and a community garden.
The other amenities remain as -- as they were before. The large playground.
The 50-by-100 play space. The bike parking. And in addition to that we have
added some nice amenities, including this -- a community garden that you see
that has some fencing and some raised beds for community members to rent
out plots and have their own garden space and also update shelter -- picnic
plaza region that will be located right next to the playground for some sha ding
and picnicking opportunities. And just to revisit some of the architecture that we
looked at before, we think we have -- we have got a very attractive set of
facades here on the two-story, three-story combination buildings. The all three
story combination buildings -- and just as a highlight, we just think that that
provides a really strong architectural facade. As we mentioned last time, we
have really highly planted landscape buffers, which is a strong element.
Walkable connections. We have provided this connection along the west side
from Selway Apartments that takes -- would take members of Selway down to
McMillan Road and we have got a well-placed vehicular access now and good
land use transition from office -- from Selway Apartments to the north with a
similar density all the way down to McMillan and a good amount of open space .
We hope we have addressed your questions, but I will stand for any questions
you might have for me now.
McCarvel: Any questions for the applicant at this time? Okay. Thank you.
Parks: You're very welcome.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
April 20, 2017
Page 14 of 55
McCarvel: Okay. At this time we will take public testimony and the first person I
have on the list -- check you off. Don Fletch. Okay. I will let you say it.
Fleck: Hi. My name is Don Fleck. I live at 5197 North Black Sand Avenue,
which is in the community that this affects. I'm basically about a block and a half
from this. I regularly access Goddard Creek and sadly the statistics that the
good gentleman stated before I think are -- have no basis in documentation. I
think it -- I've been there many times and it's been much, much longer and
much greater wait. In the morning there is a school bus stop there. Parents
wait for their children out there, so that's a very congested area right outside of
where this -- these apartments are going to go. Also stated that, you know, they
are going to increase parking, well, that's a good thing, because the Selway
Apartments is sadly lacking. Theirs seems to be a little bit better, but,
unfortunately, I'm wondering with the density of cars that's going to be there,
how much additional traffic is going to be included onto Goddard Creek, Ten
Mile, and McMillan. As it currently is now McMillan is a very busy street,
especially in the evening and the mornings. Sometimes it's difficult to get out
there. Haven't seen any accidents there, but, then, I'm not out there all the time
either, so -- that's an uncontrolled intersection there at the stop sign, but there is
no traffic light. Previously the zoning for the Selway Apartments that -- there
was -- when that went in there was an agreement struck apparently with the city
and the developers of this section that 171 units could be built on that section of
land. Well, Selway Apartments fulfilled that with their -- their annexation or their
variance to build on that R-4 designated plot of land and I would ask that the
commitment to the community that was made then be held up , because we
have lived in this residence -- I have been there for over ten years and we don't
need to see anymore apartments in that section, it's already crowded enough,
and if you -- if you still consider that this is a good thing to do , I would ask that
the building standards of this particular apartment section at least meet the
minimum standards of Kelly Creek, which is the next adjacent apartments, with
architectural shingles, stone or stucco facades, and minimal planting. No vinyl
sidings be put into that -- that particular section. And that's -- that's all I have.
Thank you.
McCarvel: Thank you. Next person I have signed up for testimony is Jamie
Ross. Not sure -- Jamie or Janey? No? Okay. Dan and Penny Fisher.
Fisher: Good evening. Dan Fisher. 2382 West Apgar Creek Drive. First of all,
thank you for taking the time to hear our concerns about this high -density
housing project. As you're probably most aware. Our city has developed a very
detailed Comprehensive Plan, which clearly outlines the manner in which our
city intends to grow. The plan was most recently updated October 11th, 2016,
by Resolution 16-1173. As you know, the subject property is currently zoned R-
4 and the current land use plan calls for suburban office buildings to be built on
the property and I do realize that there is a section of high-density residential on
the -- on the north side of the property, but the predominance of the property is
-- is land use planned for suburban office. Our city planners put much effort and
thought into the types of development that would make our community in
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
April 20, 2017
Page 15 of 55
general and our neighborhood in particular most livable . In the currently
adopted land use plan suburban office fits well within the needs of our
community. Suburban office space absorption rates were extremely high
though out the Treasure Valley, so this would be an excellent use for this land.
The planned use also allows the neighborhood to be free from the
overcrowding, which is our -- our main concern. Mr. Porter's proposed use of
the property does not meet the guidelines established by the City of Meridian
Comprehensive Plan. It's a change to the Comprehensive Plan. While there
may be some overlay in the land use map, as I stated before, simply put it
doesn't meet the plan. I urge you to stick to the plan that was adopted by our
City Council as a de facto contract between the City of Meridian and the
citizens, particularly the members of our neighborhood. I'm not opposed to the
development of the subject property in any way, but we must grow responsibility
-- responsibly and I think that the impact of this high density housing project will
have in our neighborhood is extremely negative . Again, I urge you not to throw
out the city's Comprehensive Plan and allow for irresponsible growth and
overcrowding in our neighborhood. Thank you very much.
McCarvel: Bill Weed? Weddy?
Wade: Hello. Thanks for having us out this evening. My name is Bill Wade.
My address is 2244 West Apgar Creek Drive. I first want to thank Dan and
second his comments. As a resident of Apgar Creek since 2009 we have seen
development of the Selway Apartments. I originally lived here in Idaho in 2007
on West -- on Wapoot Drive and my realtor had the savvy to understand what
might potentially come in behind that and as I look out that backyard where we
would have purchased you have three story buildings call ed the Selway
Apartments. Understand that we need to have all types of housing come into
our communities, but with that being stated I don't know their original plans for
the Selway, but I can tell you every day when I drive home -- not on a one day
basis, to see traffic and to see how many people are now parking on the street
on Apgar Creek that are guests of the Selway Apartments. I can only imagine
what's going to happen four or five years down the road when that parking is no
longer sufficient for the proposed complex coming in. What I would like to urge
is that that company do more research by an independent firm that comes out
and actually does a survey and understand the traffic flow, understand what we
would potentially see within our neighborhood . I have a 12 year old daughter
that was four when I moved into that house and I see people race down Apgar
Creek. It's like a racetrack on this street. We have kids. We are a kid oriented
community. We have a large park within our community right on Apgar Creek
and the Selway has come in it's become a thorough way -- a thoroughfare for
those residents to, then, go over to now Sonic, go over to Walgreens, and so we
see increased -- particularly on Apgar Creek a much higher flow of people
coming through. We do have a bus stop at the end of that street and so I think
these factors need to be resubmitted to and before any decisions or proposals
are made on approving this project, that we really have some outside input on
what the true impact is by an independent firm, not by someone coming out one
morning on a Thursday. I understand that effort, but none of us in this room
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
April 20, 2017
Page 16 of 55
would allow that to happen within our own community and take that to be the
sufficient amount of time and effort put into understanding traffic flow and what
the impact would be to the residents. So, I would urge that we -- before we
move forward and approve this particular project that we reconsider what it was
originally zoned for. There was a reason that the planning committee had that
plan of mind and as a parent, as someone that watches people drive down that
street every day at 60 miles per hour and it's very frustrating -- 40 -- I have seen
people -- I wouldn't say 60. Maybe once. But on a consistent basis in a 25 mile
per hour zone doing 40 with kids playing out to where your kids can't play in the
street, which is fine, but it's a little disconcerting to know that we are going to
add that much more and to think that Apgar would not become the way for
people to get out to Linder Road verses trying to get onto McMillan, I just think
that more said and needs to be done and go back and see what actually has
happened with the Selway Apartments and how that was planned and how that
has impacted our community before adding more apartments. Thank you for
your time.
McCarvel: Thank you. I don't have anybody else on the sign-up sheet that said
they wanted to testify, but is there anyone else who would like testify? Certainly,
ma'am. In the front.
Pullman: Good evening. My name is Jamie Pollmann. You had a Jamie, but
you said the last name wrong, so maybe that's where our mistake was.
McCarvel: Yeah. Okay. You have a very lovely P on the front.
Pollmann: I live at 5030 North Goddard Creek Way. I'm one of four houses that
actually live on Goddard Creek and my house is oriented where my backyard
and my kitchen window actually looks out on that intersection of McMillan and
Goddard Creek. So, I'm sorry, but Shon's half an hour metering of the traffic is
not even close to what's happening and my concern is not the apartments , my
concern is the traffic and I have the ACHD's report and they metered the traffic
at that intersection on McMillan in October 8th, 2014, and the last time they
metered the traffic at Goddard Creek and McMillan was January 28th, 2015, and
anybody that lives in Meridian, especially this north end, knows of the growth
that we have had, not only in residential, but commercial, retail. Where we are
at we are happy to have the businesses come in, but it's drawing cars from all
over that north area. It's not just the residents that use those streets anymore.
Residents from all over that attend Rocky Mountain are coming up and cutting
through up Goddard Creek, because it's a shortcut over to the high school, so
they don't have to deal with Linder Road and it's -- I think they said we -- up
capital improvements ACHD says are not -- we are not -- that intersection that
everybody here is concerned about, Goddard Creek and McMillan, is not even
on the five year plan for ACHD to improve the intersection, which I think is
extremely dangerous, there is no shoulders and on the one side where it's a T
intersection is that big old giant canal and there is very -- it's very poorly marked.
The center medium I guess is what I'm trying to say. The exit from Goddard
Creek does not have a designated turning lane, so traffic -- if someone coming
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
April 20, 2017
Page 17 of 55
out of our neighborhood onto McMillan doesn't get all the way over immediately
after that planter that's there that you can see how the roads V's out, then, the
person trying to turn onto McMillan left -- if he doesn't immediately get over
there everybody else is stacked up behind him and so, then, we lose our ability
to have somebody to turn left and someone to turn right. It's a very congested
intersection. I was not aware of what Dan Fisher said that in the year 2016 that
Meridian city actually had updated their Comprehensive Plan and I just am -- I
think it's not compatible at this time for this much additional traffic to be put out
on those roads. We are not the only road in Meridian that's suffering. We
realize that. The growth has just overtaken the roads. It's -- it's everywhere.
It's not just us. But -- I'm done.
McCarvel: Thank you for your time.
Pollmann: Thank you.
McCarvel: Okay. Is there anyone else wishing to testify in this? Okay.
Fisher: I promise I'm not trying to become famous. Dan Fisher. 2382 West
Apgar Creek Drive. The HOA has put together a few points that they would like
to also consider. One of the key points that -- was a letter that we received from
the school district with a very high level of concern about what they are going to
do with the school children that are going to be generated by 74 housing units.
Willow Creek Elementary School is already at capacity and there is a lot of
concern about what they are going to do with those students. So, if we were to
put office space in that -- our office in that -- on that property, obviously, that
would be a concern also if it was single family homes , that wouldn't be a
concern. There is also a concern about the signage. During the hearing that
there were -- a requirement for two signs, but only one sign was actually posted
and a photograph was taken of the sign from two different spots. And the other
part was about the -- it was just about managing growth to achieve a high quality
development, two very dissimilar types of development on a single piece of
property. What type of quality of life are we providing for the residents of the
multi-family by having it right next to a storage facility, rather than having that
being more compatible use -- a commercial use such as offices. Those are the
other additional concerns that we had. Thank you.
McCarvel: Thank you. And I thought I saw one more hand back there. Okay.
Sir.
Stillwell: Thank you. My name is Rick Stillwell and I'm at 5117 North Dove
Ridge Place in the Kelly Creek Subdivision and I will be brief. There were two
things -- two points that I wanted to make. There has been a number of
discussions -- a lot of discussion about traffic and part of what -- where the
traffic is going is through the development. I actually live on the east side of the
subdivision by Linder, which is on the exact opposite end and what's happening
is that a lot of people can't make that left turn or it's troublesome or timely to
make that left turn onto West McMillan. So, what they are doing is they are
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
April 20, 2017
Page 18 of 55
driving through the development and turning right onto Linder to get -- to go onto
work and their businesses and that's -- I was out petitioning or -- or passing out
petitions on the east side of the neighborhood and I heard the same comments
that the gentleman previously talked about was the amount of traffic that's being
funneled through the subdivision, as well as speed, and I have heard the same
kind of stories of 50 miles an hour and whatnot. I don't know if that's -- if it's 50
or 45, but human nature being what it is, when people are on their way to work,
some are going to go faster because they are late or whatever. The only other
comment I wanted to make was I think there was a letter submitted by the
school and it was some concern about proper sidewalks. Apparently there was
a child that was killed near the Selway Apartments and there was some concern
expressed about making sure that there was proper sidewalks or a way that
these kids could walk to school and I think that's something that's very important
that should be addressed in this plan. Thank you.
McCarvel: Okay. Thank you. Okay. Would the applicant -- anybody else?
Okay. All right. One more.
Blasko: My name is Jennifer Blasko. I own a home at 2257 West Wapoot Drive
and although I agree with my neighbors wholeheartedly about the traffic in Kelly
Creek, I also wanted to point out that it's also an issue for traffic for the rest of
Meridian that travels on McMillan Road. The amount of traffic turning right onto
Goddard Creek going towards Ten Mile, that backs traffic up that way, as well
as the central third lane, such as it is, when you're traveling towards Linder to
turn left onto Goddard Creek, it's only the -- that's where the third line begins
and there is only room for two, maybe three cars to actually pull off out of the
flow of traffic and it regularly backs McMillan up when you're traveling towards
Linder when people are trying to turn left into -- onto Goddard Creek. I would
highly recommend that an engineering firm do a study of the traffic patterns to
possibly refute the numbers that were presented here, especially since the
traffic there does begin at 7:00 o'clock when I leave for work, as well as
beginning as early as 4:00 o'clock when I return home. So, anyway, it does
impact more than just Kelly Creek is my concern. Thank you.
McCarvel: Thank you. Okay. Is that it? Okay. Would the applicant like to
come forward?
Doolin: Madam Chair, Members of the Commission, my name is James Doolin.
I'm with the developer. My address is 4685 South Highland Drive, Salt Lake
City, Utah. First of all, I appreciate your guys' time, appreciate the feedback we
received tonight. A lot of the same feedback that we have heard in our
neighborhood meetings that we have tried to address and, then, we also tried to
address the -- the items you guys mentioned that were concerns in our last
meeting. Those -- without repeating everything, but decreasing the density from
82 units to 74 units, which is roughly a ten percent reduction in units. Increasing
parking from 2.5 to roughly 2.8. Where the city requires two spaces per unit, we
are at 2.8, with 33 guest parking spaces. And modifying the amenity package
and, then, moving the entrance. Beyond that I don't have much to say, other
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
April 20, 2017
Page 19 of 55
than to address a few of the concerns. I believe our changes that we have
made for add value to our development and to the community. It's important for
us to be responsible developers and make sure our impact is not above and
beyond unnecessary impact to the neighbors and the neighboring community.
As was mentioned, the future land use map shows high density and mixed use
-- or, sorry, light office. I think it's important to note that the total site is 12 acres
and we are proposing 74 residential units over 12 acres. The -- the storage unit
takes up seven acres and so the traffic should be looked at as the impact over
the entire 12 acre development, because another development that comes in
would likely have a 12 acre impact of development of if it's mixed of -- or
anything outside of -- of what we are proposing. So, I just want to make note of
that. Somebody made reference or note to the buildings. We will not be putting
vinyl on our buildings. It will be stucco and stone. And then -- I guess it the
tricky part is undeveloped land when it gets develop ed causes impact. Again,
we are doing our best to be responsible. We are trying to make this a win-win.
Unfortunately, with the residents I don't necessarily think this is a win for them,
but we are proposing something that we feel would be valuable to the
community and its impact to the community is as least as possible. Lastly, I'm
going to have John Carpenter of TO Engineers come up and address the traffic
study conversation. I want it to be known we are not trying to provide
misinformation regarding traffic, we heard traffic was an issue. We went out
when it seemed like a reasonable time to go out and count traffic. It sounds like
many neighbors disagree with the data. We are not presenting it as if it's a
complete study, but it's -- we are trying to bring facts into the conversation,
instead of subjective conversation. But I will have John address the -- the traffic
-- or the -- the roads and other than that if there is any questions -- I will turn the
time over to John.
Fitzgerald: Madam Chair?
McCarvel: Mr. Fitzgerald.
Fitzgerald: So, I apologize, I was not here for the original discussion on the
storage unit side. Do you guys have a wall between the north side separating
that?
Doolin: There is a wall and, then, on the -- the paneled side of that wall there is
a trail that connects the Selway Apartments to provide access -- pedestrian
access through our development out onto McMillan.
Fitzgerald: Okay. And, then, the north boundary as well, is there a wall on there
as well? What's Selway looking at?
Doolin: Selway -- yes, that is a wall.
Fitzgerald: Okay. Thank you.
Doolin: Any other questions?
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
April 20, 2017
Page 20 of 55
McCarvel: Any questions? Okay. Thank you.
Doolin: I appreciate your time. I will turn it over to John.
McCarvel: Okay. Thank you.
Carpenter: Good evening. John Carpenter with TO Engineers. Happy to be
here tonight.
McCarvel: Address, please.
Carpenter: My address is 332 North Broadmoor in Nampa.
McCarvel: Okay.
Carpenter: And I will actually address Mr. Fitzgerald's question a little bit more.
If you can back up, Josh. The overall site plan if you would. So, adjacent to the
-- to the multi-family there is -- there is a wall there, but there is also a large
common area. So, there is landscaping and there is trees through there and,
then, on the north boundary there is a very large landscape buffer there as well.
So, there is a nice looking wall and, then, there is shrubs, trees, and quite a bit
of grass. So, there is a good buffer. On the traffic, I wanted to point out first just
a couple things. Josh, can you go over to the overall site plan? Kind of the
history how -- how we got to where we are today. We actually started this
project with having access with the multi-family out to -- out to McMillan and the
storage units up to McMillan. We spent quite a bit of time with Meridian staff
and quite a bit of time with ACHD. ACHD controls the roads, obviously. Has
quite a bit of input. Their suggestion -- strong suggestion was to have our
access off of Apgar. They were concerned about the spacing out on McMillan
Road and so we would -- we listened to staff -- again both from ACHD and
Meridian and moved it over to Apgar. One of the comments we had from the
last meeting was to move our access a little further from Goddard Way. I think
that helps a bunch. One of the concerns that we have on the -- or one of the
problems the neighbors have on Apgar -- on the apartment side is just the
parking as they said. With the widening they were doing, even if people are
parking there there is still enough room for cars getting back -- back and forth
through there. One of the things that the city might look at his putting no parking
signs on Apgar. That would be a really easy solution for it. We -- we asked
ACHD if a traffic study was needed. ACHD does not require traffic study for this
size of project. It was a question that we had early on and once we had heard
the concerns for the neighbors we simply wanted understand it, so I had a
couple of our employees go out and just sit -- sit at the property, observe. We
took a bunch of video. They brought it back to me. There really is very limited
traffic during the rush hour. Traffic is something that increases when the --
when the city develops. Meridian has grown strongly over the years. Meridian
has a lot of good growth in the area and the traffic increases with it . ACHD has
plans to widen McMillan and they are going to widen it once there is a traffic
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
April 20, 2017
Page 21 of 55
concern that warrants that widening. If you call ACHD right today and ask them
what it's going to be, they have it out there a ways, but as properties develop
more and more they will speed that up. There was a -- there was a comment on
the -- on the canal on the south side of McMillan. ACHD asked us to dedicate
additional right of way so they can fit their whole road and have the safety
separation from the canal. We have actually given up more right of way than
was typically required, just to have the space there for ACHD to build that road
in the future. We are trying to do our part with -- with McMillan. We are trying to
do our part with Goddard. We don't think there is a traffic concern there. And
when asked to move our approach over we slid it over as far as we could.
There is a lot of stacking space now available on Apgar. Let me see what else I
have. As far as the Comprehensive Plan goes, the Comprehensive Plan as a
guide. I think we are familiar with the Comprehensive Plan and the intent. It's --
if you look around the city, how it's grown, it doesn't match the Comprehensive
-- Comprehensive Plan exactly. It's -- it is a guide. There is two uses on there.
Office and multi-family -- high-density multi-family. We are similar to that. I
think it was James that mentioned the storage units actually helps out on the
traffic. Most of the people going to the storage units are going there at a
different time than rush hour. Typically during the day to drop off miscellaneous
stuff. So, that actually helps. If this was all offices you would see quite a bit of
congestion for people going out -- depending on the use, obviously, but there is
as likely to have more traffic going in and out to that office than you with the
storage units and the housing that we have planned. As far as the school goes,
I think that school letter is a good one. If you look at our site plan we have
sidewalks -- probably more sidewalks on this project per acre than I have ever
done. There is sidewalks along McMillan. There is sidewalks -- additional
sidewalk along Goddard. Now, there are two sidewalks on Goddard. We have
a sidewalk that's going from the Selway Apartments down to McMillan, which is
a really good thing, actually. Now the people in Selway have to walk all the way
out to Goddard, down Goddard, and over to McMillan. We are giving them a
direct route. The community itself has sidewalks in front of each of the units.
And, then, that sidewalk that I mentioned along McMillan, continues on across
the storage units. So, as far is the school letter goes and the -- and the
sidewalks, we have -- we have addressed that. We have taken care of that and
we think we have a very walkable, very usable plan. And, then, the schools --
you guys know how the schools are, they -- they build as there is a need. They
don't build them in advance. Taxpayers aren't going to do that. So, that the
schools are always a little bit behind the curve. The school -- Meridian is
building new schools today. I mean it's kind of an ongoing thing as development
happens. And that is it. I will stand for any questions that you might have.
McCarvel: Any questions from the Commissioners?
Cassanelli: One of the things I know that was discussed last time was that play
field. Yeah. Is that play field -- is it -- is it recessed? Is it a retention pond?
Carpenter: You know, I'm glad you brought that up. Our storm drainage on this
site has been thought out very well. We have all of our storm drainage going to
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
April 20, 2017
Page 22 of 55
the subsurface. So, even though we show several boxes in there for storm
drainage, what's happening is the water is going in the curb -- into a catch basin,
sand and grease trap, and, then, it's piped subsurface underneath those fields.
So, it's a great dual purpose function. We have got that open space. It's not a --
there is not a depression there. So, there is not water backing up into that play
field, it's all to the subsurface.
Cassanelli: So, that play field will be level?
Carpenter: That -- that -- yes. Yeah. It's going to be a functioning, usable --
kids are going to run around, throw a frisbee, play field. It's not going to be a pit
that you're going to walk into and have wet. We are putting a lot of time into the
grading plan for this site, with the sidewalks, with the units that we have. It's --
it's actually a little complicated to get the drainage to work. This year we have
had a lot of rain. Still getting a lot of rain. This is going to be a graded out very
nicely and it's going to be attractive for the users. All of the -- the fronts of the
units face out to that green space for the renters to have attractive front yard.
It's got a -- it's got to be graded and it's got to drain correctly.
Perreault: Madam Chair?
McCarvel: Commissioner Perreault.
Perreault: What's the capacity for -- sorry, Josh. Could you print up the slide
that shows these in color. What's that capacity for that -- the patio -- covered
patio area? And what was shown -- looked to me like there were several tables,
but that's not actually -- that's just a photo representation, it's not actually what's
going to go in?
Carpenter: They are getting to a slide that's got a good color --
Beach: Bear with me.
Perreault: Sorry.
Beach: Multiple slide shows going on here.
Perreault: So, is that -- is that photo there of the multiple tables what -- is the
intention or is that just an example? Because it seems to me like a 12-by-12
picnic shelters is fairly small.
Carpenter: I'm going to -- I'm going to look over my shoulder to Shon. It's one
of those.
Parks: The plat as mentioned -- it's a 17-by-17 foot plat --
Perreault: Uncovered?
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
April 20, 2017
Page 23 of 55
Parks: That table is -- that table is a 12-by-12 picnic shelter. So, it's a table with
-- four-sided table with a shelter above it. Due to the size of the area we are
dealing with a 17-by-17 plaza, we couldn't fit more than one of those shelter
coverings into it.
Perreault: Okay. But the plaza is uncovered? It's --
Parks: Yes. So, you will have a covering over the --
Perreault: Okay.
Parks: -- the picnic area.
Perreault: Thank you.
McCarvel: Anything else? Thank you. Okay. At this time I'd like to get a
motion to close the public hearing for Item No. H-2017-0007, Goddard Creek.
Bernt: So moved.
Perreault: Second.
McCarvel: It has been moved and seconded to close the public hearing for Item
No. H-2017-0007. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIES: FIVE AYES. TWO ABSENT.
Fitzgerald: Madam Chair?
McCarvel: Commissioner Fitzgerald.
Fitzgerald: Bill, could I ask you a quick question? Mr. Fleck brought up a
question about the agreement by the City of Meridian to only have a certain
amount of -- I guess density or house -- or roof tops on that whole square. Was
there a master plan that we should be aware of or are we -- that confused me a
little bit, since it hadn't been brought in before.
Parsons: Madam Chair, Members of the Commission, this property was always
part of the Lochsa Falls -- Lochsa Falls development. It was planned to be -- it's
zoned R-4 currently, so it's in the city, but through that planned unit
development process it was slated for office uses . As part of that PUD Selway
was part of that as well and it was entitled to a certain number of units. So, what
the applicant is doing this evening is removing this property from that agreement
and having themselves enter into a new agreement subject to the plan that you
see before you, the storage units and a multi-family. So, they are unraveling
one approval to gain another approval.
Fitzgerald: Madam Chair, can I have a f ollow up for a second question?
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
April 20, 2017
Page 24 of 55
McCarvel: Absolutely.
Fitzgerald: Bill, is the stucco, stone, and the -- can we add that in the -- in the
play field, making sure that's not a drainage area into the DA, that discussion, if
we go that direction?
Parsons: Madam Chair, Members of the Commission, absolutely. If you want it
level and subsurface drainage, I think -- I believe Josh and I have that covered
for you in there, but we can surely make it clear that it needs to be level surface
and have some of those elements in there for you .
Fitzgerald: Thank you.
Bernt: Madam Chair?
McCarvel: Commissioner Bernt.
Bernt: Question for Josh or Bill. How -- do we know how many units are in
Selway? A hundred seventy-one? Is that what I heard? All right. So, if we add
the -- the units that will be made in the proposed development that would
probably put near 250 units. If you multiply that by the average amount of
people that will be living just in this -- in that vicinity, it's quite a few people. I
actually like -- it's my opinion -- I love the development. I think the development
-- the look of it -- I think you have done a good job with it. I think that you list --
you listen to us before and you made the proper changes that -- that we have
had concerns with. I just don't like personally where it's located. My -- my
personal feeling on this development is it's just too dense. It's too dense and
there is too many units in that -- in that area. I do believe there is going to be a
massive problem with traffic that will bring multiple problems into that area . I do
-- we are very aware that there is massive development going on in Meridian.
We are very aware that -- that traffic is a problem, not only in the north, but even
creeping into the south parts of Meridian as well, something that we are dealing
with and something that ACHD is very aware of, but for right now it's my opinion
that -- I think that there could be better use of that property than apartments.
Although the apartments look beautiful, I think their design is fantastic. I don't
think you could have done a better job with how they look. I think -- I -- I can't
think of one negative thing about the proposed development , other than the
location. I just -- I can't approve this this evening and those are my thoughts.
Thank you.
McCarvel: Thank you.
Perreault: Madam Chair? Commissioners?
McCarvel: Commissioner Perreault.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
April 20, 2017
Page 25 of 55
Perreault: I agree with Commissioner Bernt regarding the traffic. I think that if
there was a plan -- specifically there is a plan to have a right turn lane off of
McMillan into Goddard, if there were dedicated lanes on Goddard Creek Way --
still not convinced that the entrance to the residential area is far enough to the
west for -- I'm guessing you're averaging about three people per unit, which is
another 240 plus individuals. Let's say there is -- that half of them are -- a little
less than half of them are leaving during normal business hours , got another
hundred cars that are coming out of there -- in and out of there in a 45 minute
time. So, I would have liked to have seen some dedicated lanes on Goddard
Creek. I don't know about Apgar. I'm not exactly sure what the width is on
Apgar, but that's my main concern with it. I agree with -- with Commissioner
Bernt that the development is designed well, but the traffic is just still too much
of a concern for me.
Fitzgerald: Madam Chair?
McCarvel: Commissioner Fitzgerald.
Fitzgerald: This one's hard for me, because I -- I think the developer has done
their job in responding to both us and the community a little bit and I think -- we
are putting a storage unit on the majority of the -- that it literally has no impact
and so are we are going to replace that with offices that will have an impact and
so I'm having a challenge balancing those two. It's -- it's challenging to me. I
think the -- there is no impact with traffic at all with the storage units. So, you're
taking 12 acres, seven of which is a storage unit, and, then, five of which is
being put in with a little bit higher density, which is in the future land use map
designated for higher -- a higher density. So, I'm having challenges, because
the development is done well. I think the amenities are nice. And so I -- I'm not
sure where to go yet. But I think that we are -- we are making an exchange for
this -- basically an equal thing. Because we are going to get traffic and it's going
to be the same time people are coming out, going to an office, same time people
are going into their houses -- or leaving their houses to go to their jobs, too. So
-- and it is -- this is -- come out to the road and this is a walkable community.
This is the kind of place you want to have density, but I agree -- I understand
where you're going and it's -- where it's located is very difficult with apartments
right behind it. So, that's my -- so, for me it helped me with that, because I'm --
I'm having trouble. They have done a good job of laying it out, making it less
dense. The product is nice. The MEW and the -- the amenities are nice. I'm --
but I understand what you're saying.
Bernt: Would you -- Madam Chair?
McCarvel: Commissioner Bernt.
Bernt: Would you agree that -- Commissioner Fitzpatrick, would you agree that
-- or would you disapprove of the notion that this high-density housing would
bring in equal to or more or less people to that area, as opposed to like office
space?
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
April 20, 2017
Page 26 of 55
Fitzgerald: I think it's sixes. That's my challenge. That's my challenge in my
head. Because if we literally -- if someone -- developer come out and says -- is
it possible that 12 acres, how many -- I mean we have seen that situation
happen. I don't know.
Bernt: But that would be office space of like five acres if they were to, you know,
even leave -- maybe we can -- you know, I don't know if these two
developments -- and correct me if I'm wrong. Do these two developments have
to be approved together? Are they married? So --
Beach: Madam Chair, Members of the Commission. To answer that questio n,
as -- as presented to staff and as applied right now it's one -- all these
applications are under one umbrella. Right? So, the way that we are presenting
it to you is there is -- however many it was -- six different application types and
so you have got options, you know, if you're feeling like you -- you want to --
correct me if I’m wrong, Bill. If you want to approve everything but the
conditional use permit for the multi-family project, I believe you have the ability
to do that. If -- if that's what you're asking.
Bernt: Madam Chairman. If it is a -- it is a tough decision, because I think it's a
beautiful -- I think it's a beautiful development. I really like how it looks. I don't
have any -- I don't have any -- I feel like I'm repeating myself now, but I don't
have any negative, you know, thoughts about the development itself. So,
maybe -- so, I just -- I don't -- I don't want to feel like I'm talking you into --
Fitzgerald: No, I --
Bernt: I'm a salesman. I love to hear the sales stuff all day long. I don't -- and I
don't feel like right now is a proper time to use my sales expertise.
Fitzgerald: Madam Chair and Commissioner Cassanelli, do you have thoughts
tonight? I would love to hear you opinions.
Cassanelli: My thoughts just from last time, I -- I was opposed last time. One of
the -- one of the big issues for me was the density. They brought it down. I like
the project. I like the looks of the project. I have got a few concerns over the
amenities. I think -- and that was the top conversation last time. I think kind of -
- maybe cutting corners a little bit on -- on some of the amenities. The overall
look of the project, I really like those. The walking -- you know, the walking --
the walkability of it. I like a lot of the things about the layout. I personally have a
problem with -- Commissioner Bernt summed it up well. When you combine
Selway and this project I think -- I think if Selway were -- were in this plot of land
I don't think -- you know -- and to the north where Selway is now were R-4, I
don't -- I don't think we would be increasing density if it were -- if Selway were
built out onto McMillan, if that makes sense. So, that's the -- that's the way I
stand. I still -- while I like the project. I think this project would be great in -- in
places where we are already zoned high density and I might just want a couple
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
April 20, 2017
Page 27 of 55
of tweaks is all. I don't like it in this -- in this location. I just -- office, people
come and go I think at a slower pace. It's also -- you know, have to 5:00 o'clock
it's done. There isn't a problem on the weekends. Whereas, you know, a
project like this it's 24/7.
Fitzgerald: Okay.
Parsons: Madam Chair, Members of the Commission, let me just elaborate on
what Josh was saying.
McCarvel: Uh-huh.
Parsons: We specifically bifurcated -- or required two different conditional use
permits for this particular reason to give you flexibility, but keep in mind we are --
the applicant is still requesting a comp plan change and that comp plan change
calls for a mix of uses and we kind of justified some of the comp plan change
based on the fact that we have commercial near the corner of Ten Mile. We
have office next to this property already that hasn't developed. So, in our mind it
made the logical sense to transition to a less intense commercial use, which is
storage, and, then, have that higher density. For us that isn't really a higher
density type development for us. We are six to 15. That's what the comp plan
that they are -- the comp plan change that they are applying for. So, to deny
just the multi-family portion of it, what else do we envision there and why are we
moving forward with the comp plan change? I guess that's the question I have
for you. We have met with the applicant, we have told him what to do, we said
we need some residential component to go with the vacant commercial at the
corners and provide that transition and that's typically how it's done. We -- if you
look at our mixed use standards in our Comprehensive Plan, we transition from
residential -- lower density residential to higher density residential or office to
more intense commercial. That's exactly what we have here before you. The
other idea is just -- is what the applicant presented to you. We as staff --
meaning planning and ACHD -- felt it was more appropriate for that multi-family
to be near that corner of that intersection to help disperse traffic through that
community easier. If that -- if you were to flip flop that plan and have that multi-
family going out onto McMillan, now they have two ways to go. You either have
to go right or left, there is no other way to move traffic through there. They are
stuck with one roadway. So, that's really why we set them up that way. Our
mixed use standards require that they have connectivity to adjacent
neighborhoods, they have pedestrian connectivity, that's what we have before
you this evening. So, I'm not trying to sway you in any -- one way or the other,
but I'm trying to explain to you what the mixed use is meant to be and why the
plan is the way it's presented to you this evening and why we have required -- or
encourage the applicant to submit the higher -- the R-15 zoning this evening.
Perreault: Madam Chair?
McCarvel: Commissioner --
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
April 20, 2017
Page 28 of 55
Perreault: Question for staff.
McCarvel: -- Perreault.
Perreault: Are we permitted to request the applicant to make some changes to
how traffic will flow through there or is that not in our --
Beach: Madam Chair, Members of the Commission, I guess to answer your
question, Commissioner Perreault, is -- is yes -- just like last time when this was
continued there were certain things that the applicant was requested by the
Commission to address. I guess in general for staff's sake and for the applicant,
the more specific you can be as to what changes you would like to see the
better for -- for both of us. Having said that -- and just -- just for everyone's
knowledge and I guess interest, there were some discussions with applicant and
with ACHD as to whether or not the entrances for both of the projects would be
directly to McMillan, that they would potentially combine an access point onto
McMillan Road, so that both -- both projects would take that access and ACHD
was not in favor of that for -- for various reasons. One is -- as you see likely in
their staff report, McMillan is -- it's a -- it's a major arterial roadway. We want to
limit the number of accesses to those roadways, so that they can move traffic.
The more entrances you put on there, traffic gets slowed down, so -- we did
consider that, but that was something that ACHD did not -- did not recommend
approval of and so this is why the applicant has done what they have done.
Those are really their only two options. They don't own property up to Goddard
Creek Way. There is a common lot for the Kelly Creek Subdivision on their -- on
their east side of the project against Goddard Creek. So, they don't have direct
access to that road. So, it's either Apgar Creek Lane and as part of the -- part
for the Selway Apartments project that Bill here worked, there was a cross-
access provided for this very reason, so that when this property did develop --
and this was back in 2002 -- that that would be -- that would be used as an
access point for this project or any project that would be developed on this
parcel. So, the applicant did mention that we had talked to them originally and,
then, they were -- they were flip-flopped, right? The apartments were on the
west side and storage was on the east side, but that -- that didn't make sense as
far as traffic goes and, then, getting those folks -- especially not to McMillan
Road. There is -- there is not another way to do it if they put the project on the
other side of the parcel. So, that's kind of where we are. I did just want to
mention that I pulled up the development agreement for the Lochsa Falls
Subdivision and one of the neighbors did mention that as part of that
development -- and it was a very large annexation. If you look here on the
screen -- do I have that up there, the development agreement -- okay.
McCarvel: Yes.
Beach: It does mention that the 171 multi-family dwellings was part of this
project -- as part of that entire annexation and I believe that's -- that's the
Selway Apartments and so we are -- they are asking in this project to -- for a
development agreement modification that would remove this specific parcel from
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
April 20, 2017
Page 29 of 55
that development agreement, which would allow them, then, to create some
additional apartments. Again, that -- that's something that yourselves and City
Council have to look at, but I think that that's -- that's valid to note that as --
when this came in originally they were granted approval for a certain number of
apartments, which is why they -- that reason and because this parcel was slated
as office and not wanting to do office there anymore -- are a couple reasons why
they are wanting to amend their development agreement .
Parson: Madam -- Madam Chair, Members of the Commission, if I can go back
to -- we got off tangent just a little bit there for you, but, yes, you can require
some changes, but ACHD is not requiring changes of the applicant. The other
thing is the HOA for Lochsa Falls would have to be -- I don't know how their
license agreement with ACHD addresses that center median that's built in the
roadway. Under today's world we don't even plat those as common lots
anymore. Those are just part of the right of way. You enter into a license
agreement and when ACHD deems necessary that that intersection needs to be
rebuilt a certain way, the landscaping goes away and they add those turn lanes.
That's something that the applicant would have to pursue with ACHD. I can't
give you direction on that tonight. But keep in mind that we were here tonight to
talk about the four items that we addressed in our memo. If they have
addressed that plan the way you have directed them, then, that's what you're
acting on. I know all those other applications are there, but we specifically
continued this item to address that -- that plan. So, we need to look at that, too,
and make sure that they have addressed your concerns as part of modifications
to that portion that I believe from the last part of the hearing you guys were good
with the storage, you were, again, concerned with the items that we listened in
the memo. If -- if that meets the intent that you were looking for as part of your
motion -- and I will let you get to it and let you deliberate, but I just wanted to just
remind you of what was on the table this evening.
Fitzgerald: Madam Chair?
McCarvel: Mr. Fitzgerald.
Fitzgerald: I think following -- and, Josh, thank you for bringing up the
development agreement. I think we have to go back to somewhat of a certainty
and I think a lot of us discuss that in the discussions and certainty says that
there is 171 units that are already taken in regards to multi-family in my opinion,
so -- the neighbors were expecting that was it in regards to 171 multi-family
units and now we are adding another 76 -- or -- sorry. Yeah. Seventy-four. So,
I think I'm going to agree with Commissioner Bernt and Commissioner Perrault
and say that this is not allowing certainty for the -- for the community in regards
to what they bought and so I don't think -- I would not want to move forward --
leave it as a clean slate not approve anything. I would probably move towards a
denial in that direction, to allow whoever takes the next step with this property
can start with a clean slate not have to deal with a jumbled-up mess. That
would be my opinion.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
April 20, 2017
Page 30 of 55
McCarvel: Okay. Thank you. Any other comments? Anybody ready to make a
motion?
Fitzgerald: You haven't commented. You're not commenting?
McCarvel: I -- I think they are -- I do, I think they are beautiful. I think it's exactly
-- I think they have addressed the concerns as good as they can be addressed,
but I don't know -- I'm kind of with you is I don't know that it's enough -- I mean I
go back and forth. With the storage units taking up that much space where
there is literally no activity and, then, these that are -- yes, they are multi-family,
but they are not your typical apartment. They are I would say more of a
townhome. They have their own garage. They have their own driveway for
parking and all these others are just guest parking, because of the need for not
having those parking -- guest parking being out on the street, so that every -- I'm
going to use the word townhome, because that's what they look like to me -- has
its own two spaces assigned. I somewhat see it as a good mix between your
typical apartment and single family residential. It's certainly not the R-4 in that
condensed little area, but over the entire space is that traffic kind of a wash,
having that much space taken up by the storage units.
Fitzgerald: Yes, ma'am.
McCarvel: So, I guess in the technical terms is it what everybody -- what was
expected with it being labeled an R-4, in reality is it over the entire quad? Is that
-- are we still getting to the same impact?
Fitzgerald: Rough.
McCarvel: Yeah. So, that -- that's my thought. I mean I normally would never
be -- almost never be in favor of something from an R-4 to an R-15. I mean the
-- I mean the R-40 I think pushed -- was an absolute no go in my mind. But they
did bring it down and make some changes and I guess I just needed to see it to
see if it still -- if it made sense at all and I'm -- I guess I'm still on the fence with
it.
Cassanelli: Madam Chair? Question for staff. Josh, the -- the original DA for
this -- that includes the Selway, that was -- that's that whole -- that includes this
parcel, too?
Beach: Correct. So, the parcel that this applicant is asking to develop was part
of Lochsa Falls and they are asking to take it out of that development
agreement.
Cassanelli: And when I look back at that, yeah, you're taking that from 171 now
to 250 and for everybody that bought in Lochsa Falls and Kelly Creek this was
what -- this is what they bought into. So, based on that, Madam Chair, I'm going
to go ahead and make a motion.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
April 20, 2017
Page 31 of 55
McCarvel: Commissioner Cassanelli.
Cassanelli: I'm going to -- I'm going to move that after considering all staff,
applicant, and public testimony I move to recommended denial to City Council
on file number H-2017-0007 as presented during the hearing on April 20th for
the following reason, that it does not fit the original development agreement for
171 units and the rest of that on 4.1 on the original agreement back -- I think that
was in August of 2002 -- July and August of 2002.
Bernt: Second.
McCarvel: It has been moved and seconded to deny file number H-2017-0007,
Goddard Creek. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion fails.
MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. TWO ABSENT.
McCarvel: Okay. Would the Commissioners like a five minute break before we
move on to the church? Okay.
(Recess: 9:08 p.m. to 9:14 p.m.)
McCarvel: Okay. Do we have everybody?
Fitzgerald: Madam Chair?
McCarvel: Commissioner Fitzgerald.
Fitzgerald: Before we get started I have the Commissioners -- so, I live in the
neighborhood for the next application, so I -- I don't feel like I have a conflict, but
I will leave it up to my fellow Commissioners that -- whether you guys think I
have a problem. I feel like I can be unbiased, so -- but I want to make sure I
declare that.
Bernt: No issues here.
C. Public Hearing Continued from April 6, 2017 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
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
April 20, 2017
Page 32 of 55
Zoning Districts
McCarvel: No issue. Okay. All right. So, at this time we would like to open the
public hearing for Item No. H-2017-0018, Rockbury Subdivision and we will
begin with the staff report.
Beach: Madam Chair, Member of the Commission, as you said, this is the
Rockbury Subdivision. It's an application both for a rezone and for a preliminary
plat. The site as you see here consists of 20 -- approximately 25.06 acres of
land, which is zoned R-15 and C-N, which is located at 6437 North Tree Haven
Way. Some adjacent land use and zoning. As you see here on the map to the
north are single-family residential homes in the Spurwing Greens Subdivision,
zoned R-8 and R-15. To the south is West Chinden Boulevard and a rural
residential home and vacant residential and office property, which is zoned R-8
and L-O. Technical issues. Bear with me here. Is that better?
McCarvel: There we go.
Beach: Awesome. All right. Sorry about that. I'm talking to the wall. To the
east are single family residential homes, again, in the Spurwing Greens
Subdivision, zoned R -- zoned R-15. Some history on this. In 2006 the property
received annexation and conceptual approval to develop a mixed -use
community, consisting of single family residential, townhomes, multi-family and
a neighborhood commercial known as the Tree Farm development. A
development agreement was required with the annexation of the property and
several addendums to the original DA have been approved that govern the
property. In 2015 a different project was proposed for the site. They consist of -
- they consisted of a rezone of 26.09 acres of land from R-15 and C-N to R-15
and C-C, to operate a self-service storage facility. That product did not --
obviously did not be -- get constructed. So, the Comprehensive Plan future land
use map designation for this property is medium density residential . The
applicant, as I said, is looking for two separate application types. One is for a
rezone. The applicant is requesting to rezone the property from R-15 and C-N
to slightly modify it and go back to R-15 and C-N. So, they are asking to reduce
the size of the R-15 and increase the size of the C-N zoning district to
accommodate their two -- two parcels. As I said, the property is governed by
three development agreements at the time of -- of annexation approval. The
approved concept plan envisioned a mix of residential and neighborhood
commercial uses for the property now that the specific development plans are
proposed. The applicant is requesting all of the subject property, approximately
25.06 acres, be excluded from the -- the approved development agreement, so
a new DA can be approved to govern development of this property. So --
excuse me. There is a rezone and a preliminary plat and a development
agreement modification associated with this. There are some existing structures
on the property. The city is made aware that the existing buildings on the site
are occupied by multiple tenants without the approval of the city. The city
requires that any businesses operating within the city limits must obtain a
certificate of occupancy for the -- from the building division. Further, the existing
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
April 20, 2017
Page 33 of 55
buildings on future Lot 2, Block 1 are not connected to city water and sewer and
the building must connect to the city services within 60 days of development
approval. Per the UDC site development and establishing a commercial use
requires approval from the planning d ivision. To further complicate the matter,
there are two mobile service businesses currently operating on the site. These
require the procurement of a conditional use permit prior to operating in a
proposed C-N zoning district. So, in discussions with the applicant they have
indicated that those buildings will -- those tenants will be out fairly soon. If you
would like you are able to add a condition that they be restricted to a certain
time frame when those -- those businesses need to be removed or -- and/or the
buildings removed from the property. Having said that, again, the -- the
applicant his proposing to plat one residential lot, which is the property here to
the north. The R-15. So, this would be the one residential lot. The applicant
indicated that if -- when this develops in the -- in the future this would be further
subdivided to accommodate multiple lots, but that's not part of this application.
So, as I said, one residential lot, two common lots, and one commercial lot on
the acreage, both in the R-15 and C-N zoning district. So, the property to the
south where you see the conceptual church would be the C-N parcel and the
property in the north would be the R-15 or residential property. The residential
lot is being platted as a single 5.83 acre parcel and maybe further subdivided in
the future as I had indicated. Staff has reviewed the proposed plat for
compliance with the applicable standards listed in the UDC. The C-N zone is
not required to meet a minimum lot size . A requirement of the UDC requires a
35 foot landscape buffer along Chinden Boulevard. A 20 foot wide landscape
buffer is required along North Tree Farm Way and a ten foot wide landscape
buffer is required adjacent to North Tree Haven Way and a 20 foot wide
landscape buffer is required along the north and west boundaries of the C-N
zoning -- zoned property. The submitted plat does not depict the required ten
foot wide landscape buffer along North Tree Haven Way or the 20 foot wide
landscape buffer adjacent to North Tree Haven Way in accord with the UDC --
with the UDC. With the final submittal the applicant shall depict the required
buffer widths on the plat. There is an irrigation lateral that crosses the property.
As mentioned earlier, the Simpson Lateral has been tiled on the site and is
contained within a 40 foot wide irrigation easement. Both the submitted concept
plan and preliminary plat depict the easement. The applicant is required to
provide pressurized irrigation for the property. Access at this time -- the
property has a primary access into the development from North Tree Haven up
to Tree Farm Way via Chinden Boulevard. With earlier residential
developments this roadway was required to be constructed at the half mile mark
in accord with the UDC. Tree Haven Way was also constructed during the
same time frame and provides a local street access to the proposed
development and further north Tree Farm Way is designed as a collector street
and is meant to serve as a backage road to Chinden Boulevard. The remaining
portion of North Tree Farm Way is currently under construction to the west
boundary of the development and so approximately from the intersection of Tree
Haven and Tree Farm to the west is being constructed now as part of a
separate project that was approved here to the northwest. The applicant is
proposing a right-in, right-out access to Chinden Boulevard. The proposed
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
April 20, 2017
Page 34 of 55
access is located on the shared property line with the adjacent property owner.
So, as you see here on the site plan this is the location where they are
requesting a variance to have direct access to Chinden Boulevard. That's an
application and request to City Council and it's on the shared property line. It's
in the parcel to the west, which is currently a nursery or tree farm. There are
some specific conditions for development along state highways. The UDC
requires specific standards, as I said, for this project. Use of the existing
approaches shall be allowed to continue provided that all the following
conditions are met. The existing use is lawful and property permitted effective
September 15th, 2005. The subject property is partially developed and
previously used for agricultural purposes. The nature of the use does not
change. The applicant is proposing a substantial change of use of this site from
agricultural to a commercial and residential use. So, the long and short of it is
there is some significant changes that are items that are required for projects
that are developed along the 20-26 corridor and this -- this project definitely falls
within that. Something that we did not catch in the staff report that I wanted to
bring to your attention was the applicant is required per the UDC to construct a -
- a berm along the entire frontage of Chinden Boulevard, which is -- code
requires that it be measured -- the ten feet be measured from the center line of
Chinden Boulevard and they need to do a ten foot wide landscape berm or a
combination berm-wall. The intent is to mitigate noise coming from Chinden
Boulevard to the surrounding neighborhoods. The code does not require it for
commercial purposes, but it does require it for churches and schools that are at
times considered commercial uses. So, this -- this project would be subject to
that -- that condition. A 35 foot wide landscape buffer is required along Chinden
Boulevard. It's considered an entryway corridor. On the submitted landscape
plan the applicant does comply with that -- with that condition. I believe the
applicant has -- have proposed a 45 foot wide landscape buffer adjacent to
Chinden Boulevard. There are some existing trees that would need to be
mitigated. This project is essentially not approving the church, the church would
have to come back through Planning and Zoning to receive certificate of zoning
compliance and design review approval prio r to establishing the use. With that
staff did receive written testimony from a number of residents in the area.
Robert Ebert, an adjacent neighbor. David Turnbull, who I believe is the HOA
president for the Spurwing Greens HOA. And Drew Eggers, which is the
property owner to the west. Their concerns were, as I said, screening and
berming. Some of the residents that -- that we received comments from live in
this area here, so their concerns that they be screened from the proposed
church, as well as from the Chinden Boulevard and with that staff is
recommending approval. Some outstanding issues, as I mentioned, were the
existing buildings on the property that either need to be removed immediately or
based on your recommendation. There are -- there is currently no right-of-way
shown on the plans for the acceleration or deceleration lane for the proposed
direct access, which is a variance the applicant is looking for. I had mentioned
that we had not received comments from ITD. That's incorrect. We have a --
we have a letter from ITD dated March 30th -- and I will switch my screen back
here, so you can see what I'm looking at. We have indicated several conditions.
One, ITD does not object to the construction of the church on the property at this
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
April 20, 2017
Page 35 of 55
location. Two, the access point shown as a right-in, right-out on the preliminary
plat application was required to be removed under a previous development
application. It says this access is no longer a permitted approach. The
applicant would need to work with the city and ITD to determine availability of
access. If determination is made that access would be available, the applicant
would need to submit a completed access permit application with supporting
document to ITD for review. So, just to clarify on that point, they are asking --
the applicant is asking City Council to approve a direct access to Chinden
Boulevard. Council granting that access does not necessarily mean that ITD will
grant that access, but that's -- that's a requirement in our code that they get
approval from -- from Council to have that access. Just wanted to make that
clear. That's why they are applying for a variance. Moving on to three. Due to
the anticipated traffic impacts that this development will have on the US 20 -26 or
Chinden Boulevard at full build-out, a traffic impact study may be required and
would need to include the intersections of US 20-26 and Black Cat Road and
US 20-26 and Tree Farm Way at a minimum. A larger study area may be
required. The applicant has indicated to us that they are -- they are aware that
they may need to do a traffic impact study. Number four. ITD has completed
the corridor study of US 20-26. The future corridor width in this area has been
determined to be -- it says 150 feet. As Bill and I were looking here we actually
looked at the document and it's -- it says 150 feet each side of the central line.
That's incorrect. It's -- it's a hundred feet on each side of the center line. We
looked at the study. So, it was incorrect. I just wanted to clarify that. The city
has reminded us that US 20-26 corridor is already congested. The project will
increase the number of vehicle trips in the corridor. ITD has no current funding
assigned to mitigate traffic impacts on US 20-26 in this area. With that, as I
said, staff is recommending approval and I will stand for any questions you have
of staff.
McCarvel: Okay. Any questions for staff? Okay.
Fitzgerald: Madam Chair?
McCarvel: Commissioner Fitzgerald.
Fitzgerald: Josh, the during the conversation, the right-in, right-out concept, was
there ever a discussion with the Fire Department about using that as an
emergency access or -- because I understand the reasoning for not having it
from ITD's perspective, but was there a -- could you bollard that and make it an
emergency access? Or is it -- I mean that -- I'm just looking for additional --
Beach: Sure. Madam Chair, Commissioner Fitzgerald, that's not the intent
here. And I guess just to -- just to add a little bit more context to this, if you
recall the -- kind of going back to the Tree Farm Subdivision that was approved
just kind of to the northwestern here, there is concerns that the number of trips
coming to the intersection of Tree Farm Way and Chinden will be significant,
because if you recall the Tree Farm -- part of that project there is a requirement
for ACHD that they build the Black Cat intersection with the -- the phase of that
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
April 20, 2017
Page 36 of 55
project that contains the 90th, I believe, lot. We have received a phase one final
plat application, actually, for that, but it doesn't contain the 90th. So, there is --
feasibly there could be two, potentially three phases for a while anyway, taking
access to the Tree Farm Way and so there is concerns from the neighbors that
with all that traffic going to Tree Farm Way, and the inclusion of this -- this
church and the traffic that it will have arguably mostly on the weekends , that it
will be fairly congested. So, going back to your question, they were hoping that
this right-in, right-out would help with some of the congestion, A, for the
neighborhood and, B, for the church on the weekends. Putting the bollards
there and having it be strictly emergency access doesn't really help with
anything. I don't believe the Fire Department needs an emergency access right
there. And, again, they are asking for Council's approval to get this access.
Long -- long range when Black Cat gets built, I don't know that this is going to be
-- it will still be used, but it won't be quite as beneficial as it would be in the
interim and we don't know how long the time frame is for when the Black Cat
intersection gets build and folks can have a couple of ways out of this -- this
area. I hope that answers your question.
Fitzgerald: Tree Farm is a collector, though. I mean we have got access to
down the hill off -- I mean off the -- I guess I mean off the ridge and it's designed
to collect the traffic from down the hill. I mean -- so I -- okay. And we are going
to have -- we will have access on Tree Farm Way to Black Cat; correct? I mean
that's -- that road will run over and connect to that property.
Beach: Correct. So, that's part of that agreement with the Tree Farm
Subdivision. As I mentioned, they are building part of that -- most of you
probably know they are building that Tree Farm Way further west right now to go
to that west property line, but I don't have a date certain as to when Tree Farm
Way or the intersection of Black Cat and Tree Farm will be constructed.
Fitzgerald: You're likely to have two -- either controlled -- two lights or one stop
sign and a light.
Beach: My understanding is Black Cat will be --
Fitzgerald: A lighted intersection.
Beach: -- signaled intersection. Correct.
Fitzgerald: Thank you.
McCarvel: Josh, do you have an overview -- a map that extends out over to
Black Cat?
Beach: I do. Bear with me just a second here.
McCarvel: There we go.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
April 20, 2017
Page 37 of 55
Beach: So, this is the parcel here and, as you said, Tree Farm Way is being
constructed as we speak, kind of where my hand is there --
McCarvel: Uh-huh.
Beach: -- and will be constructed at down to the intersection here . No, we don't
-- we don't know for sure when that will take place. But relatively short term in
my understanding.
McCarvel: Okay.
Perreault: Madam Chair, I have a question for staff.
McCarvel: Sure. Commissioner Perreault.
Perreault: Josh, you said there is residences there in -- in that -- can you bring
the plat up again, please? So, there is residences between Tree Haven Way
and Tree Farm Way currently?
Beach: There are. So, if I can go back to the map here I can show you where
those are, that might be easier.
Perreault: Is that what is existing now or is that --
Beach: Right. Correct.
Perreault: Okay. And there is intention for there to be additional homes in that
location?
Beach: In this location here?
Perreault: No. I'm sorry. In -- yes, that area.
Beach: I do not believe they are building further homes in this area.
Perreault: Okay. So, none of those homes have direct access out of those
roads?
Beach: Correct.
Perreault: Okay. Thank you.
McCarvel: Okay. Any other questions for staff? Okay. Would the applicant like
to come forward. Can you, please, state your name and address for the record.
Wonder: Good evening, Madam Chair, Commissioners. My name is Scott
Wonders with JUB. 250 South Beechwood Avenue in Boise. Here representing
the applicant. I also have Scott Harrop, who is a senior pastor with Rock Harbor
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
April 20, 2017
Page 38 of 55
Church, also here to answer any questions that you may have in regards to that.
So, what we have before you that Josh has gone over is an application for a
little over 23 and a half acres to be slightly modified in zoning. One of the
conditions from Meridian is to make sure that zoning matches the property
boundaries and with the new development of this property we are just merely
adjusting the R-15 and the C-N to match property boundaries. So, we are really
going from eight -- just a little under nine acres of R-15 that was originally
approved to 6.7 acres and, then, on the C-N we are going from a little over 16
acres to 18.35 acres. So, just some slight modification from the original plan
that was approved in 2006. So, it has the kind of purpose for the rezone
application and, then, also for the preliminary plat to basically parcelize the two
zones from C-N and R-15. The church purchased this property in January and
so they are, obviously, not residential developers, they are more interested in
the commercial -- or, excuse me, the commercial property for the church
property themselves. So, we are basically just leaving R-15 as it was originally
approved in its basic form for someone else to bring in and submit a preliminary
application -- preliminary plat application to bring in whatever they may have.
To kind of go over the site access a little bit. We have two accesses off of Tree
Haven Way. One of them is actually an existing stub, which is the main access,
which is kind of due south of the existing pond on the north side and, then, we'd
like to add a second access kind of across from their clubhouse pool area and,
then, obviously, they purchased his property in January. We have actually been
working with the neighborhood association since October -- September,
October, when they knew they were looking at this property and so in working
with the HOA we, obviously, knew that traffic was a huge concern for this
neighborhood. Obviously with the previous application there was a lot of
concern brought up and so what they opted to do was to add the right-in, right-
out along Chinden and have that as a shared access with the future commercial
property to the west. It is exactly a quarter mile between Tree Farm to the
access and a quarter mile from that access to Black Cat. I did have a
conversation with ITD in regards to this application -- or this -- this use and the
separation does meet their criteria. However, we will need to come back and
provide a traffic study to show that if it can or cannot work with the traffic on
Chinden, as well as determine what the decal and acceleration lanes will need
to be as far as length and taper width, et cetera. So, considering that this has to
be a variance that is approved by City Council, we are just merely waiting to find
out if that seems acceptable to the city and, then, at that time we will go to ITD
with a traffic study and the application for the right of way permit. And, then, a
final access point that we have added in the very northwest corner and this is,
hopefully, an access that can also go to the future Tree Farm Way that also
when it gets over to Black Cat and, then, back down to Chinden. So, it's just
another -- obviously another opportunity for people to go other directions from
the church property. And, then, for the R-15, we -- the original access was
proposed pretty much in the same location and the thought process there, which
is on Tree Farm Way in the very northwest corner, is that, obviously, you try to
encourage traffic to go west on Tree Farm Way and, then, south on Black Cat
Road and coming back on Tree Farm to the intersection of Chinden, which,
again, is -- seems to be a condition -- or a contention for traffic as it is right now
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
April 20, 2017
Page 39 of 55
with limited connectivity. The church has -- this is a concept plan. Again they
will have to come back for a certificate of zoning compliance. A church is an
allowed use in the C-N zone, so this is the concept plan that we have submitted
with the application. It's roughly, in its ultimate form, would be a 73,000 square
foot church facility with offices for church staff, classrooms for student age
children, and, then, the worship center. Going on that -- I'm trying to figure out --
okay. So, Rock Harbor is currently a church that utilizes Rocky Mountain High
School for services on Sunday. They have three services currently and have
been doing that so far for five years and they are, obviously, looking for a
permanent home, because things have been growing and growing and the
congregation has been growing. So, this is the -- hopefully, the future home for
their church. Let's see. Covering the buffers. So, on the buffers -- the
preliminary plat we had left off a few buffer widths by accident. It wasn't
intentionally. We are providing buffers along Chinden as a -- I guess mitigations
of parking fields, we had added an additional ten feet of buffer along Chinden
from 35 to 45 feet and I will come back on a few items with the berming. Along
Tree Farm Way, basically from -- between the section between Chinden and
Tree Haven Way they are actually providing 60 feet on average, where 20 is
required. On North Tree Haven Way where the two entrances are, we are
actually providing a minimum of 20 feet where ten feet is required. And, then,
along the remaining portion of Tree Haven Way on the R-15 and along Tree
Farm Way on the north side of the R-15, those are going to be ten feet and 20
feet respectively, at least for this time, which is the required buffer width until
someone comes back with a development application. So, getting back to the
buffers along Chinden and the condition for the berming. This was brought up
to our attention yesterday and so we -- and we met with staff yesterday to kind
of get the intention and try to figure out where the code came from. Because it's
a commercial zone we weren't aware that we would be required to have
berming. I can understand it on a residential development that -- from a
commercial zone and from an exposure standpoint for the church. They were
ultimately just proposing the additional ten feet to the 45 foot buffer and, then,
having low intermittent burning. So, it wasn't just going to be a flat landscape
look, but they are going to actually have some berming with, obviously, not to
the ten foot in height. Josh, can you go to that -- that other slide that I had? So,
Josh had mentioned that we have a lot of irrigation easements that are on this
property and so what I did -- they are hard to see on the normal map, so what I
did is highlighted them in red and so this is the 40 foot irrigation easement as it
winds through this parcel. And, then, you will notice along Chinden we have,
you know, a 200 to 250 foot section that falls within that landscape area before it
heads north across the parking lot and, then, what really is devising between the
R-15 and the C-N zone on the north end and across Tree Farm Way. Obviously
with irrigation pipes and manholes, et cetera, the irrigation district is not going to
allow us to have, you know, a ten foot berm over the top of that and so we have
some significant concerns with how that's going to transition and how we can
meet that. Again, we would really like to just stick with the additional ten foot of
buffer width that we propose with the intermittent berming. I know in code under
the noise abatement that Josh had referenced at the bottom there is -- you can
go for alternative compliance and, basically, allow for an acoustical engineer to
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
April 20, 2017
Page 40 of 55
do an analysis for the noise abatement and the church is willing to go ahead and
do that with the noise abatement in requesting the alternative compliance for
that. So, we have some -- a little bit of constraints and you will, obviously, see
how things are organized across the site because of the irrigation . We are, for
the most part, in agreement with the conditions of approval. I just had a couple
clarifications. Josh brought up that required right of way width along Chinden
and -- of which is a hundred feet. If it requires -- the hundred feet north of
centerline also includes the ten foot multi-use pathway within that right of way.
ITD also gives you the opportunity to reduce that right of way if you provide that
ten foot buffer -- or that ten foot multi-use pathway within your buffer, which is
what we have shown here on the plan and that's what we will be pursuing with
ITD. So, I just wanted to leave that open or clarified that we could provide the
ITD approval letter once we have that to determine that buffer width and that
right of way that they require for that section of Chinden. And, then, on -- so,
when the church purchased the property in January they inherited those leases
that are currently for the operations that are currently happening on the property.
There was a landscape company, a photographer, and a pest control company
that were utilizing that property. As of the end of this month I believe the
landscape company is moving their complete operation out of there into Star.
So, they will no longer be operating there. The photographer and the pest
control have leases that they were granted that extend through December of this
year and so the church would like to request that they just honor those leases
until the end of the December and, then, at that time they would cease in any
use of that property that isn't authorized by city code . The two buildings that are
out there will be removed at the time of construction of the chur ch itself. So, just
a little clarification on that. And I think I have addressed everything. So, if you
had any questions I'm here to answer any.
McCarvel: Any questions for the applicant? Okay. Thank you.
Wonders: Thank you.
McCarvel: Okay. So, at this time we will take public testimony and we have
signed up wishing to testify Robert Ebert. Please state your name and address
for the record.
Ebert: Good evening all.
McCarvel: And you will probably have to pull that mike down.
Ebert: My name is Robert Ebert and I live at 6600 Tree Haven Way. I live in the
little neighborhood just across the street from the project . So, we are the
neighborhood that will be greatest impact -- have the greatest impact on all of
our homes. Although all of Spurwing will have an impact -- be impacted by this
project, we have two major concerns and -- or problems that we have with the
project and we are going -- I'd like to suggest or recommend ways of
overcoming these concerns. The first concern has to do with -- we would like to
propose an improved landscaping buffer to separate two different land uses. On
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
April 20, 2017
Page 41 of 55
the one side we have the lush landscaping of Spurwing. On the other side in a
different zone we have the large asphalt parking lot with tall lights. And so we
would like to be able to have the Planning Commission add to what's already
available here and to berm the area along Tree Haven Way between the main
entrance and the secondary entrance to a height of six feet and this would
adequately be tapered at the -- the exits for a safety -- for safety expert -- the
exits for Rock Harbor Church. On this berm we would also propose significant
number of pine trees and shrubs to soften the harsh look of the blacktop pa rking
lot with the lights. Now, if you take a look -- I was also going to mention -- we
prepared for you a handout of this area with our proposals and Bill mentioned he
would have it in your packet. Do you have a packet with that diagram?
McCarvel: Yes.
Ebert: Oh, good. That's great. Okay. If you'd look -- take a look at that
diagram for just a second -- and this is what -- I would like to point out how this
development, without the berms, will really impact all of Spurwing. Take a look
at the entrance to Spurwing. Cars going in and cars coming out. Without the
berm when they look to the west they will see acreages -- many acres of asphalt
parking lot with high lights. Lights that will be on many nights of the week. So,
that's what all of the folks going in and out of Spurwing will see without the
berms. It's like looking at the Walmart parking lot. And just as big. Acreages of
acreage of parking. So, that's a big impact on all people going in and out of
Spurwing and the six foot berms with the appropriate landscaping would take
care of that. It's not a difficult problem to overcome. So, that's what we would
like and it's indicated there on your -- on your diagram, the new proposed berm
areas to reduce noise and to block the parking lot and the lights therein.
McCarvel: Mr. Ebert, your three minutes are up. So, if you could wrap up your
comments.
Ebert: Yes. One last thing that we are concerned about. If you will take a look
at the -- the main entrance. We would like to have that moved at an angle,
probably to the right, to prevent the cars from exiting, shining their bright lights
right through the windows of the houses that are there. Houses one, two, three,
four, five and six. So, that's a fairly small change that can take place by just
angling that exit a little bit I think to the right.
McCarvel: Okay.
Ebert: So, those are our two concerns. The -- the berm situation and the exit.
McCarvel: Okay. Thank you. Scott Harrop. Tom McNeill.
McNeill: Hi. I'm Tom McNeill. I live at 4221 West Greenspire in Spurwing
Greens. I am immediately across from the R-15 proposal area on the corner of
Tree Haven and Tree Farm. We -- we have thought about this project for a long
time and I have to commend the church and their staff, the way they have
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
April 20, 2017
Page 42 of 55
addressed us as a homeowners association. They have come in, they have
made their proposal. The only thing that I would like to state tonight is the idea
of -- of the berms. I'm not so certain about Tree Haven. I'm not opposed to that.
But I understand that might be pretty expensive. But -- but on Chinden I really
recommend that that -- that goes forward and that the Planning and Zoning
committee endorse that part of the plan, because that area -- there is -- it just --
there is so much noise from Chinden and the fact that this will be the only area
along there that -- that doesn't have a berm would mean that noise would not be
mitigated in any fashion. So, I'm for their proposal, the zoning change as it
stands now. Their -- their idea of not doing berms. I'm not for that. Thank you.
McCarvel: Thank you. Okay. Which brings us back to Scott. Unless there is
anybody else wanting -- okay. There is nobody else? Okay. Go ahead.
Koozie: Good evening. I'm Jamie Koozie. I live at 3948 Magic Moon Court,
which is just to the northeast of the proposed development. So, I am impacted
by this as well. But when I think about other alternatives that could be used for
this property I actually can't think of a better use for this property. I think the
development looks really nice. I have looked at the plans and the landscape
plans. I think they look really nice. So, I'm definitely in favor of this rezoning
proposal and moving forward with this. I would not put any additional
restrictions as far as berming. I think that makes sense for residential
developments. This is not that. And, then, with some concerns about traffic
onto Chinden, that makes sense on a week day, but on the weekend Chinden is
-- there is very minimal traffic. So, I don't think there is any concerns to -- to be
concerned about there. So, that's all I have. Thank you.
McCarvel: Okay. Thank you. Anyone else? Okay.
Madam Chair, Members of Commission, I apologize, because I did sign up --
McCarvel: Please state your name and address for the record.
Neufeld: Sorry. My name is Robert Neufeld. I reside at 3756 West Snow
Cherry Court in the Spurwing Greens development and I did sign up on the
sheet that was on the table back there. I have no idea what happened to that
sign-up sheet. But my name and several other people who were, obviously,
removed or there was a new sheet that was put out there -- were not called
upon to speak. So, that's a matter for the Commission and the staff to take a
look at. I'd like to identify myself a little bit further by stating that as of March
15th of this year I am the new president Spurwing Greens-Orchard Grove
Subdivision Homeowners Association. On March 15th and on March -- I believe
it was the 13th, two days prior, the Brighton Corporation relinquished control of
the HOA to the estates homeowners association and to the Orchard Grove
Subdivisions of the Spurwing Greens group. That -- those two groups we report
to the master association and just a couple weeks ago we elected a new
president to be the head of the master association for Spurwing Greens. In the
previous comments that we made before this Commission and before the City
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
April 20, 2017
Page 43 of 55
Council regarding other developments in the area, we had worked under the
guise of the homeowners advisory committee and I happened to serve as the
chairman of that particular committee as well, so I have got a depth of
knowledge regarding what's been going on in the projects in the past and the
efforts of our community to support or to help deny those particular projects.
The people from the Spurwing -- I mean from the Rock Harbor Church have
been very, very forthcoming with us and the majority of the people within t he
HOA support the development of the church. There is no problem there. We
are gravely concerned because of the issues that have risen in the past
regarding traffic, the fact Tree Haven is a collector. It already exceeds the
maximum number of daily trips allowed by ACHD and ACHD overrode the
provisions of their staff in their decision previously regarding the Tree Farm
Subdivision and the ability for them to use Tree Farm Way as the main entrance
in and out and this leads to the question regarding the d evelopment of when
Black Cat will happen. The developer stood before the City Council and told
them that when they had reached an agreement with the city that when they got
to 91 units that they would, then, but the improvements in on Black Cat. But
there is absolutely no understanding -- clear understanding of when that will
take place. We are also -- and, Josh, real quickly, because my time is going to
expire. Can you put up the map that Mr. Ebert provided? I want to make a point
regarding the construction of the berms within the development. Okay. If you
will work immediately to the westside of Tree Farm coming in off of Chinden, the
green area there where he is proposing the development of a berm is common
area for the HOA and nothing can be constructed in that area in the way of a
berm or anything else without the approval of the boards of the sub associations
of the HOA and we want to make sure that that is clear in the record and that we
support the Rock Harbor Church and we are looking forward to working with
them in a continued good neighbor basis as we have in the past. I thank you for
your time.
McCarvel: Okay. Thank you. And I know I had one more hand back there.
LeFevre: I'm Denise Hanson LeFevre and I live in Spurwing Greens and I think
the church is really great. I'm not opposed to the church at all. My only concern
is, like everybody else, is the traffic moving in and out, especially on Tree Farm.
I would like to see some way to push that traffic to the Black Cat extension. You
know, in addition to the right turn in and right turn out maybe taking a look at
pushing that back over towards Black Cat and moving that Black Cat extension
up. But overall I think the church is a really good addition and I have seen the
plans on it and it looks really nice. That's all I have to say.
McCarvel: Great. Thank you. Anybody else? Okay. Would the applicant like
to come forward.
Wonders: Again Scott Wonders with JUB for the record. I just was going to
make a brief comment about the berming as it relates of irrigation, since I guess
I'm the engineer here, so -- the Tree Farm Way just north of Chinden where it's
in green, that -- if you went back to my original exhibit that had the red irrigation
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
April 20, 2017
Page 44 of 55
easement line, it, basically, goes right through that area, which you're going to
have restrictions for -- from Settlers Irrigation for what you can put in -- put
inside that easement. So, you know, if there was an ability to do something
outside of that, I'm sure they would be willing to work with the HOA on
landscaping, but I don't think a six foot berm would be allowed by Settlers in that
area. And, then, again, to reiterate the similar thing along Chinden where that
easement turns and, basically, running parallel with Chinden on the north side.
I'm going to let Scott Harrop with the Rock Harbor Church come up and say a
few things. Thank you.
Harrop: Hi. Scott Harrop. 2949 South Fox Run Avenue, Eagle, Idaho. 83616.
And I am one of the pastors at -- at Rock Harbor Church, the executive pastor,
and we are so thankful to be here tonight and be able to kind of share with you
our vision for what a church might look like in particular area of town and that's -
- we thank you for your time tonight and everybody coming out that has and we
have been -- had a great time working with everyone from the planning
committee to the HOA. It actually started back on September the 15th. We
actually sat down with the HOA with Bob Neufeld and also Mrs. Philman and
kind of talked through what this might look like and the purpose of that was --
was we wanted to have a relationship. Our hope is -- we know what happened
before. I think everybody knows what happened before with -- with the storage
units and that didn't go as planned and when we met Mr. Carnahan about the
purchases we said, hey, let's make sure that we do everything in our power to
make sure we have a great relationship and that's what we have tried to do.
One of the reasons that we loved this piece of property is because it's on
Chinden. Having frontage on Chinden is very important to us and being viable --
or being seen in this particular area, that's -- that's important just for visibility and
that's one of the reasons this piece of property itself was very, very appealing
and so as we started talking through that we thought it was a commercial
neighborhood development, you didn't have to have any berming up front and,
then, we learned this week that it might be a different case and so we started
thinking, well, man, that's -- that's not really what our intention would have been
for sure. It's interesting that if this was commercial, if this was a restaurant or
anything else, you wouldn't have any berming across there, which it would get a
lot more use, this particular area, and each night of the week and we don't really
meet at night. We meet very few nights. Mr. Ebert talked about headlights
shining into his particular house. That would happen very, very seldom,
because we meet on Sunday mornings. We meet from about 8:15 until about
1:00 o'clock on Sunday afternoons and that's the main time that we meet. We
don't have lots of classes at night, we don't h ave a daycare, we don't have a
school, we don't have all those things. Have no intention to have those at this
point and so I think it would be very low impact, actually, on this particular piece
of dirt and when you look at what could go there, right, th ere is a lot of different
options that could actually happen. Also, the berming concerns -- a couple
different things. I know light pollution is something that concerns all of us and --
and so one of the things that was shared with us is don't want the l ights. Well, a
six foot berm is not going to cover lights anyway and, actually, it kind of
secludes what the parking lot would look like and our intention wouldn't have to
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
April 20, 2017
Page 45 of 55
be to leave our lights on all night long. That's not something we would desire to
do. We want it to be a safe neighborhood, a safe area, but if it's secluded and
has berms all the way around it, there is a good chance that unsavory people
could actually be in that particular parking lot doing things we wouldn't want
them to do all night long and there is a really good chance we will leave parking
lot lights on. It's not something we want to do, but we don't want to pay for it,
number one, but we don't want to create an environment or a place where
people could go and kind of hideout, you know, and kids are kids, we
understand that. I have been part of a church in another place that had that
exact situation and we just had to leave lights on because graffiti, people
hanging out, loitering in the parking lot, just wasn't something we wanted to
have going on and it actually solved the problem. And so we are excited to see
what's going to -- going to go forward with and we are happy to answer any
questions. We have met with Spurwing HOA a couple different times now and
with Bob and Sue. It's been a great relationship. So, happy to answer any
questions that you have today.
McCarvel: Commissioners, any questions?
Fitzgerald: I got a question for staff, Madam Chair.
McCarvel: Okay.
Fitzgerald: And it may relate to you, but, Josh, do we have -- because we are
not doing the actual building right now, do we have light pollution request -- I
mean are we going to do a DA that is shading and those kinds of things at this
juncture or is that for later?
Beach: So, Commissioner Fitzgerald, the code -- UDC requires that any light
not escape the property line -- or the property line. So, we already require the
lights be shielded. With a certificate of zoning compliance application we
require that they submitted a photometric plan to us indicating to us where the
light is, whether or not it goes over the property line. So, that's not -- not a
concern at this point. I will also mention that we have a -- we do a project
review meeting with the various departments in the city and to get any -- any
preliminary comments from them and one of the comments was from the Police
Department. They had indicated that -- any kind of in line will the applicants be
indicating that we -- we -- we definitely don't want berming all the way around
the property for the reasons that are indicated . They want to be able to see
what's going on in the parking lot as they drive by, which is kind of -- kind of in
line with why we have wrought iron fences or semi-transparent fencing on
pathways and things like that, so that the -- the Police Department can keep
eyes on those areas that are a little more difficult to see. So, you know, as far
as what the applicant indicated that they would like to do alternative compliance
with some -- something along Chinden Boulevard specifically they would have to
get some sort of approval from staff and do some pretty significant studies to
make certain that what they are proposing still meets the requirements of the
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
April 20, 2017
Page 46 of 55
UDC with it as far as the -- the noise coming from Chinden Boulevard. But we
are not in favor of putting a big berm along Tree Haven.
Fitzgerald: Scott, do you -- would you guys be willing to put some elevation --
not -- maybe not full on -- we are talking 20 foot berms, but I mean is there a
discussion point on where we could get some idea as to what kind of that -- that
elevation would look like for the --
Harrop: Yeah. A couple things. So, we spoke with a sound -- acoustical
engineer yesterday and talked about the distances where the church building is
set back, which is over 200 feet, and the residences about 500 feet and he said
a berm there will be negligible -- less than five percent in decibels. He said it's
not even worth it. He said moneywise what it would cost to construct a berm
there versus based off of what the -- it's not going to change anything for the
residents 500 feet back, they are not going to -- it's going to go up and over, be
experiencing no difference at all. Will we have some berming out front? Yes.
Absolutely. We don't want it to just be flat, so -- and, actually, the landscape
plan currently is varied. It goes from anywhere from flat to six feet. It's -- it
varies throughout it, just so there is some texture there and speaking of
landscape plans, you know, we want it to match the neighborhood. We didn't
buy in Spurwing to do something and go, oh, let's make it look, you know, like
this over here, we want to match the neighborhood and make sure of the
property values and generally property values from hospitals, churches, typically
property values actually go up. Actually, if you did som ething for the community
and it's a good positive thing for the community and that's why those are great
options for this piece of land.
Fitzgerald: Thank you.
McCarvel: Thank you.
Perreault: Madam Chair, I have a question for the applicant. A couple
questions, actually. Is the -- is there any intention of the community using this
church for community purposes?
Harrop: Yeah. We have -- we have not been approached yet, because we
have no building. Obviously, since we used Rocky Mount High School for five
years, we would love to have a place where the community could use the facility
and that's something that we desire to do. Currently we have what we call our
office space, the HUB at 1608 North Meridian and we have -- various groups
use that from time to time and so we are open to that, obviously. Now, if
somebody needs to use that space we would love to have them use it, because
we are community-based and we want to be --
Perreault: Would that, then, lead into potential use during the evening?
Harrop: At times.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
April 20, 2017
Page 47 of 55
Perreault: At times. Okay.
Harrop: But it's now a lot and it's very seldom.
Perreault: And, then, what is the distance between main entrance in Tree
Farm? It just doesn’t -- do you know with the feet -- maybe Mr. Wonders has an
answer to that.
Harrop: How many feet Tree Farm Way is going down Tree Haven where the --
any entrance?
Perreault: Sorry. Yes. Tree Haven.
Wonder: Scott Wonders. JUB. For the record. Can you repeat your question,
please?
Perreault: Yes. What's the distance between the main access and --
Wonders: Tree Farm Way?
Perreault: -- and Tree Farm Way?
Wonder: It's about 150 feet, approximately. It's actually an existing approach,
so it was put in originally when Tree Haven -- or, yeah, excuse me, when Tree
Haven Way was put in that actually exists today.
Perreault: My thought is -- and I, actually, attend a very large church that has a
lot of traffic issues that's off of State Street -- off of a state highway and constant
backup on that road. So, I'm just thinking that -- my understanding of the size of
Rock Harber is pretty significant. They have a lot of backup coming in, you
know, from -- from Tree Farm Way Turning left onto Tree Haven in that main
access. Any thoughts on that?
Wonder: Yeah. So, one of the ideas for the secondary access on our side was
that -- the circular nature of that parking in the -- so, really the main access as
we see would be an egress, so after service, where people are leaving and
utilizing that main access that we just talked about and, then, ultimately, coming
in on Tree Farm Way to come to service, you would be going down Tree Haven
Way and possibly entering in on that secondary access further to the north --
Perreault: And they will be directed in that manner?
Wonder: Yeah. I think, you know, we are still in the preliminary stages that -- is
that going to be a possibility for traffic flow or people realize that you go to the
north entrance for entering and, then, maybe the main access -- or main access
for exiting and try to eliminate stacking onto public roadways. That was kind of
the original thought process for that.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
April 20, 2017
Page 48 of 55
Perreault: Thank you.
Wonder: Yeah. Can I add one thing to that? And that's also the reason why we
are asking for right-in, right-out variance at the west edge of the property, just
because we want to help with that. People who are approaching, you know,
from that way can actually get in and not have to go down Tree Farm Way and
onto Tree Haven Way and get there.
McCarvel: Okay. Any other questions? Okay. Thank you. Okay. At this time
could I get a motion to close the public hearing for item H-2017-0018, Rockbury
Subdivision.
Fitzgerald: Madam Chair, so moved.
Bernt: Second.
McCarvel: It has been moved and seconded to close the public hearing on Item
No. H-2017-0018. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. TWO ABSENT.
McCarvel: Any additional comments?
Cassanelli: Madam Chair?
McCarvel: Commissioner Cassanelli.
Cassanelli: Question for staff on -- on the berms along Chinden, is that an ITD
requirement? I mean it -- does that have to be approved and whatnot by ITD
and not --
Beach: No. To answer your question it's a -- it's a requirement of our code. It
would go outside of their right of way. So, it does not have an approval from
ITD, no. It's a city requirement.
Cassanelli: Okay.
McCarvel: So, they would -- it would just go under the variance if they wanted to
apply for alternative compliance or --
Beach: No. The variance that they have asked for is for the access.
McCarvel: Right.
Beach: They would have to apply for alternative compliance, which is an
administrative application just to the planning department. So, the director
makes that determination. Our code lays out exactly what they have to do in
this specific case --
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
April 20, 2017
Page 49 of 55
McCarvel: Right.
Beach: -- to get alternative compliance as indicated by the applicant. They
have to do a sound study, essentially, to make the case that, you know, either
they need it or they don't.
McCarvel: Right. So, it's really not our concern this evening?
Beach: Right.
McCarvel: Right. Okay.
Fitzgerald: Madam Chair?
McCarvel: Commissioner Fitzgerald.
Fitzgerald: And, Josh, can -- I mean I think that my thought would be before --
whether we move this thing forward or not, before they go to Council I'd like to
see them -- probably bring them a horizontal view of what that landscape is
going to look like would be my suggestion and thought, because I think that
gives them perspective on what they are going to deal with.
Beach: Sure. And just for your information, I -- you probably saw me
highlighting some items in the staff report that had indicated that might be
modified a little bit. So, I will bring that up, but one of those things is we can -- if
you're comfortable doing it -- making a condition that the applicant, you know,
construct the berms as required by code or receive alternative compliance. That
might be a way to address the concerns of both the residents and of the
applicant. I will pull that staff report up as you're talking, so you can look at it.
Fitzgerald: Madam Chair?
McCarvel: Commissioner Fitzgerald.
Fitzgerald: And I think -- I'm just -- as we started talking about this is where -- I
don't have a problem with the concept of leaving the berms along the frontage.
Maybe we could help the -- the rest of the neighborhood out by putting a berm in
-- along Tree Haven. I'm just thinking about how to balance that. Because we
are definitely not going to be able to put something across Settlers' easement.
I'm not sure -- 40 feet seems wide for that thing, but is that -- pipe and tiled, I
mean is that what it is, 40 feet?
Beach: Typically, depending on the size of the lateral -- in this case it is a 40
foot wide --
Fitzgerald: Okay.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
April 20, 2017
Page 50 of 55
Beach: They tile it and they keep their -- they maintain their easement on the
top of it for various reasons. One, they don't -- they don't want anybody building
on the top of it and they don't want a whole lot of landscaping. So, the applicant
is right, they likely will not approve a large berm over the top of it, just because
of the ease of -- or the difficulty I should say of removing all that material if they
need to access to their -- their pipe.
McCarvel: Yeah. I agree. I think the -- all that -- a whole lot of berming just
encloses that and invites a safety issue and I think -- I mean for my two cents for
City Council that, you know, I think the berming is required at residential and this
is kind of somewhere in between a residential and commercial use some , so
maybe some sort of undulation and, you know, some berming and some not, but
-- so, they have some visibility, but still get some the buffering they need. I think
the added ten foot is kind of nice out there along Chinden.
Fitzgerald: Yeah.
McCarvel: Because I'm sure they will do wonderful landscaping and I think that
will probably almost do more than, you know, the berm, so -- but what's in our --
what we need to consider tonight I think is fairly simple, it's just the rezoning,
cleaning up those couple of zoning areas and, then, in general, that these are
the two common lots, this preliminary plat and so -- and that would modify the
development agreement and I think we would need some comments, too, on --
you know, on the variance for Chinden. I mean it's -- it's just our suggestion, but
I think, you know, something like that you -- ultimately the traffic study needs to
be done and is it safe and all that kind of -- I think as long as they determine that
it's safe I -- I think it's somewhat of a good idea to mitigate some of that traffic
going in and out of Tree Farm, because it is just going to be stack traffic at just
very short intermittent times. You know it's not going to be an every morning at
8:00 o'clock kind of thing, so -- any comments?
Fitzgerald: Madam Chair? So, we are dealing with alternative compliance,
comment on the variance, and, then --
McCarvel: Yeah. I think we have to -- Josh, am I right we need to make a
comment on the variance on Chinden or just give our two cents and that's ITD
and Council; right?
Beach: Yeah. So, just to address that. The variance is specifically a Council --
McCarvel: Okay.
Beach: -- approval. You can comment if you feel so inclined, but it doesn't
necessarily come before the Planning and Zoning Commission.
McCarvel: Okay. So, alls we are really after is just the rezone and the
preliminary plat.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
April 20, 2017
Page 51 of 55
Beach: So, as you see here on the staff -- just to interject really quick, there is
likely a couple of conditions that you're going to want to modify I have indicated
here, so -- and discussing this with Bill, it might make some sense to remove the
dimensions from the requirements for Chinden Boulevard and just indicating that
the applicant shall preserve the required amount of right of way as required by
ITD, just because we are -- as you said, the -- the letter from ITD indicates that
the 150 foot from the center -- we looked at the corridor study and it said it's a
hundred, not 150. So, I guess just leaving that open so that in case there is
something that comes up or over a document that we didn't look at, we are not
in conflict with what's required by -- by ITD. So, that would be Condition 1.1.1E
-- or sorry. C. 1.1.1C. And, then, to scroll down 1.2.1B. Also it indicated that --
I guess staff indicated there is a couple of buildings with tenants and the
applicant indicated that they'd like to stay there until the end of the year. The
applicant also indicated that their -- their construction plans are out a ways.
Likely at least -- at least a year before they break ground. So, I don't know that -
- at least from staff''s perspective we have too much heartburn over those uses
staying there for a little while, but that there be a condition that they are removed
at a date certain or prior to getting a building permit.
McCarvel: Right. And that their leases not be renewed and that they are gone
before the building --
Beach: And, then, third, you have a condition in there that you would say the
applicant shall construct berms as required by code or -- alternate -- receive
alternate compliance.
McCarvel: Or alternative compliance. Okay. You got all that, Chairman
Fitzgerald?
Bernt: I think he has it. He's over there --
Cassanelli: Madam Chair, are we -- in that --
McCarvel: Yes.
Cassanelli: -- have we figured out -- or have we stated -- addressed the right-in,
right-out?
Fitzgerald: We don't have to talk about it.
McCarvel: We don’t --
Fitzgerald: It's a Council variance request, so we -- we could comment if we
want --
McCarvel: Yeah.
Fitzgerald: -- but we don't have to make --
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
April 20, 2017
Page 52 of 55
McCarvel: You can certainly give you opinion, but it's not our -- our doing
tonight. It doesn't have to be part of our motion. Put it that way.
Beach: Interject one more thing. The applicant is looking for some flexibility. In
our staff report and on their original landscape plan they had indicated that they
-- as you can -- scroll back over here so you can see what I'm talking about.
Their landscape plan -- and as indicated on their plan here, they are showing a
45 foot landscape setback.
McCarvel: Uh-huh.
Beach: They are hoping -- we have tied them to that. We have said you do the
45 foot as proposed. They are -- they are hoping it will be -- the Commission
will be a little bit flexible and just allow them to do what's required would be the
35, so they can get the ten foot back. So, I will leave that up to you, but that's --
that's what the applicant has indicated that they would like to do is just do the
required 35 foot, instead of the 45.
McCarvel: So, they don't want that 45 foot up on Chinden, they just want the
35?
Beach: Correct.
McCarvel: Okay.
Parsons: Madam Chair --
McCarvel: But since it's on the plat before --
Beach: You got it. We required it because it --
McCarvel: Okay.
Parsons: Yeah. Madam Chair, Members of the Commission, the applicant
proposed 45. You heard in the discussions tonight there is some flexibility with
ITD on the right of way width. So, for example, if ITD does want the hundred
feet of right of way, then, they are going to lose ten feet and we don't want to
give them a condition that they can't comply with or have to come back and
modify. So, I think our discussions with the applicant is let's just tie them at 35
feet for now and --
McCarvel: Right.
Parsons: -- and figure out what ITD is going to do.
McCarvel: Okay.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
April 20, 2017
Page 53 of 55
Parsons: It's going to be easier for us in the long run.
McCarvel: Okay.
Fitzgerald: Hey, Josh, can you bring all that information back up, please.
Beach: Absolutely. Going back and forth wi th monitors here. I just can't keep
track of what you're looking at, so I apologize.
Fitzgerald: Could you scroll up a little bit from there?
Beach: Yes.
Fitzgerald: Keep going. There is 1.1.1B.
Beach: Or 1.1.1C is the right of way.
Fitzgerald: Got that one.
Beach: B is the buildings -- potentially letting them stay until the end of the year
or -- with building permit and, then, 1.2.1B is the other that deals with right of
way. I think those can be, essentially, the ones -- they are worded one and the
same, both those right of way conditions.
Fitzgerald: Okay. Madam Chair?
McCarvel: Mr. Fitzgerald.
Fitzgerald: Okay. After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I
move to recommend approval to the City Council of file number H-2017-0018,
as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of April 20th, 2017, with the
following modifications: For -- that we first require that the applicant bring a
horizontal elevated landscape plan to City Council for their -- for their
presentation. That all leases on the property not be renewed and they will end
January 1st, 2018. That we reserve -- or we allow the correct right of way or
hold them to 35 feet when working with I TD. So, that's 1.1.1C and 1.2.1B. And
there is one more. 1.1.1D. No. That's the structures. Is that it?
Beach: And, then, there is -- there is one more condition that would be the -- the
berming in the alternative compliance --
Fitzgerald: Oh.
Beach: -- that we don't have in there, so you have to make it 1.1.1E I guess. In
the DA that is.
Fitzgerald: That the applicant follow code for -- on 1.1.1E or apply for alternative
compliance.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
April 20, 2017
Page 54 of 55
Bernt: Second.
McCarvel: It has been moved and seconded to approve file number H-2017-
0018. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. TWO ABSENT.
McCarvel: And before we have our one more motion, I think -- I do want to say
when I closed Goddard Creek I think I said motion fails and it was actually -- I
think the motion was correct. The motion carried. The motion for denial carried.
Fitzgerald: Yes.
McCarvel: I think I misspoke on that. So --
Parsons: Madam --
McCarvel: Yes.
Parsons: Madam Chair, Members of the Commission, before we convene for
the evening, I did have one request. Our company picnic is in -- on that week
that we were going to have our second hearing in June and so the planning
manager wanted me to ask you if you guys were comfortable maybe pushing --
postponing that meeting to the following week, just in case -- have it as a
placeholder just in case we get a rush of applications coming in, we will move to
have a special meeting on -- I think it's June 22nd or 23rd. Okay. So, I wanted
to put that out in front of you this evening before we convene this evening and
get your take on that to see if that would work for your guys' schedule.
McCarvel: Okay. So, we would be having first and fourth Thursday of June,
instead of first and third. Okay.
Perreault: Only if we are invited.
McCarvel: Okay.
Cassanelli: Madam Chair?
McCarvel: Commissioner Cassanelli.
Cassanelli: I make a motion to adjourn.
Bernt: Second.
McCarvel: It has been motioned and seconded to adjourn t oday's meeting. All
those in favor say aye. Opposed? It carries?
Changes to Agenda: None
Item #4A: New Beginnings (H-2017-0026)
Application(s):
Annexation & Zoning
Size of property, existing zoning, and location: This site consists of 0.73 of an acre of land, zoned R-4, located at 780 E. Ustick
Road at the northeast corner of E. Ustick Road and N. Curt Drive.
Adjacent Land Use & Zoning:
North: Rural residential properties in Weaver Acres Subdivision, zoned R1 in Ada County
East: Rural residential properties, zoned R1 in Ada County
South: E. Ustick Road and single-family residential properties in Bedford Place Subdivision, zoned R-8
West: N. Curt Drive and single-family residential properties in Hollybrook Subdivision, zoned R-8
History: None
Comprehensive Plan FLUM Designation: LDR
Summary of Request: The applicant has applied for annexation and zoning of 1.00 acre of land with an R-4 zoning district consistent
with the corresponding FLUM designation of LDR and the policies in the Comprehensive Plan as noted in the staff report.
A conceptual development plan was submitted that depicts how the site is proposed to develop with 2 building lots for 2 single-family
residential homes and a common driveway for access to the homes via Curt Drive; access via Ustick Rd. is prohibited.
As a provision of annexation, staff recommends a development agreement is required that includes provisions for access and
development consistent with the proposed concept plan.
Written Testimony: Chris Fuhrman, Applicant (in agreement w/staff report)
Staff Recommendation: Approval
Notes:
Possible Motions:
Approval
After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to recommend approval to the City Council of File Number H-
2017-0026, as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of April 20, 2017, with the following modifications: (Add any
proposed modifications to conditions)
Denial
After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to recommend denial to the City Council of File Number H-2017-
0026, as presented during the hearing on April 20, 2017, for the following reasons: (You should state specific reasons for denial)
Continuance
I move to continue File Number H-2017-0026 to the hearing date of (insert continued hearing date here) for the following
reason(s): (You should state specific reason(s) for continuance)
Item #4C: Goddard Creek – H-2017-0007
Application(s):
Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment
Conditional Use Permit for a multi-family development in an R-15 zoning district.
Conditional Use Permit for a self-storage facility in a C-C zoning district.
Rezone
Preliminary Plat
Development Agreement Modification
Size of property, existing zoning, and location: The subject property consists of 12.38 acres of land zoned R-4 at 2780 W. McMillan
Road.
S
Staff Recommendation: Approval w/conditions
Notes: ______
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Possible Motions:
Approval
After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to recommend approval to the City Council of File Number H-
2017-0007, as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of April 20, 2017, with the following modifications: (Add any
proposed modifications to conditions)
Denial
After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to recommend denial to the City Council of File Number H-2017-
0007, as presented during the hearing on April 20, 2017, for the following reasons: (You should state specific reasons for denial)
Continuance
I move to continue File Number H-2017-0007 to the hearing date of (insert continued hearing date here) for the following
reason(s): (You should state specific reason(s) for continuance)
Item #4C: Rockbury Subdivision (H-2017-0018)
Application(s):
Rezone
Preliminary Plat
Size of property, existing zoning, and location: This site consists of 25.06 acres of land, zoned R-15 and C-N, located at 6437 N.
Tree Haven Way.
Adjacent Land Use & Zoning:
North: Single-family residential homes in the Spurwing Green Subdivision, zoned R-8 and R-15
South: W. Chinden Blvd rural residential home and vacant residential and office property, zoned RUT in Ada County, R-8,
and L-O
East: Single-family residential homes in the Spurwing Green Subdivision, zoned R-8
West: Jayker Nursery, zoned R-15 and C-C
History: In 2006, the property received annexation (AZ-06-004) and conceptual approval to develop a mixed use community
consisting of single family residential, townhomes, multi-family and neighborhood commercial known as the Tree Farm. A
development agreement (DA) was required with the annexation of the property (Instrument #106151218) and several
addendums to the original DA (Instrument # 107002555 and 107141993) have been approved that govern the property.
In 2015, a different project was proposed for the site that consisted of a rezone of 26.09 acres of land from the R-15 and C-N
zoning districts to the R-15 (8.48 acres) and C-C (17.61 acres) zoning districts; a preliminary plat (PP) consisting of 1
residential lot, 3 commercial lots and 3 common lots; a conditional use permit (CUP) to construct and operate a self-service
storage facility; a development agreement modification (MDA); and alternative compliance (ALT) to deviate from the
landscape buffer requirements adjacent to streets set forth in UDC 11-3B-7C and the parking standards for the proposed self-
service storage facility set forth in UDC 11-3C-6B.
Comprehensive Plan FLUM Designation: MDR
Summary of Request: Rezone (RZ): The applicant is requesting to rezone 25.06 acres of land from the R-15 (8.95 acres)
and C-N (16.11 acres) to R-15 (6.71 acres) and C-N (18.35 acres). The requested zoning is consistent with the MU-C and the
MDR land use designations. The property currently contains both zoning designations which were approved with the Tree
Farm (AZ-06-004 and AZ-06-050) annexation. Now that a new development plan is proposed, the approved R-15 and C-N
designations do not coincide with the proposed preliminary plat, thus the reason for the rezone.
Development Agreement Modification (MDA): As mentioned above, this property is governed by three (3) development
agreements. At the time of annexation approval, the approved concept plan envisioned a mix of residential and neighborhood
commercial uses for this property (see Exhibit A.2). Now that specific development plans are proposed, the applicant is
requesting all of the subject property (approximately 25.06 acres) be excluded from the approved development agreements,
so a new DA can be approved to govern development of the property.
The applicant has submitted a new concept plan for Lot 2, Block 1. The submitted plan depicts a 73,000 square foot church
and associated site improvements to be developed in multiple phases (see Exhibit A.4). In general staff is supportive of the
submitted concept plan however, UDC 11-3A-19A.2. limits the amount of parking (50%) that is to be located between the
building facades and the abutting streets. If the applicant desires to keep the design as proposed, the applicant may request
alternative compliance (ALT) concurrent with the certificate of zoning compliance (CZC) application. NOTE: The applicant
has incorporated several design features (wider buffer, berms, plazas etc.) to mitigate the location of the parking
area. Official approval of these design concepts will be reviewed with a future ALT application. To ensure the C-N
portion of the site develops as proposed, staff recommends limiting Lot 2, Block 1 to the church use.
At this time, the R-15 portion of the site (Lot 3, Block 1) is not proposed to develop. In keeping with the integrity of the
approved concept plan, the R-15 portion of the site was to develop with village housing (apartments, condominiums and
townhomes). To ensure housing diversity within the development, Staff recommends the R-15 portion of the development be
restricted to the aforementioned residential uses as previously approved.
Staff’s recommended DA provisions are in Exhibit B.
Existing Structures: With a previous application for this site, the City was made aware of that the existing buildings
on the site are occupied by multiple tenants without the approval from the City. The City requires that any business
operating within the City limits must obtain a certificate of occupancy from the Building Division. Further, the
existing buildings on future Lot 2, Block 1 are not connected to City sewer or water service; buildings must connect
to City services within 60 days of development approval.
Per the UDC, site development and establishing a commercial use requires approval from the Planning Division. To
further complicate the matter, there are two (2) mobile service businesses currently operating on the site. This type
of use requires a procurement of conditional use permit prior to operating in the proposed C-N zoning district. In
order for the site to come into compliance with the UDC staff recommends the following:
1) The applicant shall obtain approval of a CZC and DES application to install the site improvements (paved
parking, landscaping, etc.) for the existing commercial businesses on Lot 2, Block 1 within 90 days of the
approval of the Findings by City Council;
2) The applicant must connect the existing buildings to the public water and sewer system within the timeframe
noted in item #1 above;
3) The applicant must submit CUP application for the mobile service uses or cease operation; and
4) All current tenants must obtain final certificate of occupancy permits from the City within 90 days of the approval
of the Findings by City Council.
At the public hearing, the applicant should clarify for the Commission the intended use of the existing structures.
Preliminary Plat (PP) application: The applicant is proposing to plat one (1) residential lot, 2 common lots and one (1)
commercial lot on 23.56 acres of land in the R-15 and C-N zoning districts. The proposed C-N (Lot 2, Block 1) lot will consist
of the proposed church and associated site improvements.
The residential lot (Lot 3, Block 1) is being platted as a single 5.83 acre parcel and may be further subdivided in the future.
Dimensional Standards: Staff has reviewed the proposed plat for compliance with the applicable standards listed in UDC
Table 11-2A-7 and UDC 11-2B-3 for the R-15 and C-N zoning districts. The C-N zone is not required to meet a minimum lot
size. Per UDC Table 11-2B-3, a 35-foot wide landscape buffer is required adjacent to Chinden Boulevard, a 20-foot wide
landscape buffer is required along N. Tree Farm Way and a 10-foot wide landscape buffer is required adjacent to N. Tree
Haven Way and a 20-foot wide landscape buffer is required along the north and west boundary of the C-N zoned property.
The submitted plat does not depict the require 10-foot wide landscape buffer along N. tree Haven Way or the 20-foot
wide landscape buffer adjacent N. tree Farm Way in accord with UDC 11-3B-7C2.b. With the final plat submittal the
applicant shall depict the required buffer widths on the plat.
The future development of the residential lot (Lot 3, Block 1) must comply with the dimensional standards set forth in UDC
Table 11-2A-7. The R-15 zone requires a minimum lot size of 2,000 square feet with no street frontage requirement.
Compliance with the R-15 dimensional standards will be addressed with a future preliminary plat application, if further platting
is desired. However, the applicant is required to install a 20-foot wide landscape buffer adjacent to the collector road
(N. Tree Farm Way) with the subject plat in accord with the UDC Table 11-2A-7. This landscape buffer must be on a
common lot, maintained by a homeowners’ association.
Open Space and Amenities: Future development of Lot 3, Block 1 will have to comply with the requirements for qualified
open space and the site amenity standards set forth in UDC 11-3G-3.
Waterways: As per UDC 11-3A-6, all irrigation ditches, laterals or canals, exclusive of natural waterways and waterways
being used as amenities, which intersect, cross or lie within the area being subdivided shall be covered. As mentioned earlier,
the Simpson Lateral has been tiled on the site and is contained within a 40-foot wide irrigation easement. Both he
submitted concept plan and preliminary plat depict this easement. The site design as proposed depicts no structures
encroaching within the easement; only associated site improvements (landscaping and parking). Further, to ensure
the required trees can still be provided along the north boundary of the C-N property, the applicant is proposing to
install an additional 5-foot buffer. The applicant will responsible for entering into a license agreement with the
irrigation district prior to commencing with construction on the site.
Pressure Irrigation: The City of Meridian requires that pressurized irrigation systems be supplied by a year-round source of
water. The applicant should be required to utilize any existing surface or well water for the primary source. If a surface or well
source is not available, a single-point connection to the culinary water system shall be required. If a single-point connection is
utilized, the developer will be responsible for the payment of assessments for the common areas prior to signature on the final
plat by the City Engineer. An underground, pressurized irrigation system should be installed to all landscape areas per the
approved specifications and in accordance with UDC 11-3A-15 and MCC 9-1-28.
Sidewalk: A portion of the internal street network and 5-foot wide detached sidewalks were constructed with previous
development. A 5-foot detached sidewalk is proposed along the new segment N. Tree Farm Way in accord with UDC 11-3A-
17.
Access: At this time, the primary access into the development is N. Tree Farm Way, via Chinden Boulevard. With earlier
residential development this roadway was required to be constructed at the half mile mark in accord with UDC 11-3H-4. N.
Tree Haven Way was also constructed during the same time frame and provides the local street access to the proposed
development in accord with UDC 11-3A-3. Further, N. Tree Farm Way is designated a collector street, and is meant to serve
as a backage road to Chinden Boulevard. The remaining portion of N. Tree Farm Way is currently under construction to the
west boundary of the development. This roadway will eventually be extended through the adjacent property and intersect with
Black Cat Road. In the interim, the primary access from Chinden Boulevard is N. Tree Farm Way. UDC 11-3A-3 requires
Council waiver for the two (2) access points currently proposed to N. Tree Farm Way.
Variance: The applicant is proposing a right-in/right-out access to Chinden Boulevard. The proposed access is located on the
shared property line with the adjacent property owner. With the application submittal, the applicant submitted a letter from the
property owner granting use of his property for the access. If the variance is approved, the applicant and the adjacent property
owner will have to record a reciprocal cross access agreement for the shared access. The recorded cross access agreement
must be submitted with the certificate of zoning compliance for the development of the church property (Lot 2, Block 1) or the
first final plat application whichever is submitted first.
Development Along State Highways (UDC 11-3H-4): The UDC requires specific standards for developments along state
highways. This property abuts highway 20/26 and is subject to these regulations. Staff has addressed the pertinent standards
as they relate to this project:
Access to State Highway 20-26 is as follows:
1. Use of existing approaches shall be allowed to continue provided that all of the following conditions are met:
a. The existing use is lawful and properly permitted effective September 15, 2005. The subject property is partially developed
and previously used for agricultural purposes (Tree Farm) As noted above there are unlawful uses currently operating from
the existing structures that either need to cease or obtain approval from the City. Further, the there was a previous access
granted to residence (Lot 4, Block 1) along the rim and that access was terminated with the development of the Oak Leaf
Subdivision. Because a lawful use has not been established through the City’s process, staff is of the opinion the property
should not be granted an access to Chinden Boulevard.
b. The nature of the use does not change (for example a residential use to a commercial use). The applicant is
proposing a substantial change of use of this site from agricultural to a commercial and residential uses (e.g.
church, townhomes, condos and/or multi-family).Staff finds the nature of the use is dramatically different than the
current use of the property.
c. The intensity of the use does not increase (for example an increase in the number of residential dwelling units or
an increase in the square footage of commercial space). The use on the site will significantly increase from
agricultural and partial developed property to developing the property with a 73,000 square foot church and
future residential densities.
2. If an applicant proposes a change or increase in intensity of use, the owner shall develop or otherwise acquire
access to a street other than the state highway. The use of the existing approach shall cease and the appro ach shall
be abandoned and removed.
a. No new approaches directly accessing a state highway shall be allowed.
Because new and higher intense uses are proposed for the property and the use of the existing approach was
terminated with a previous application, staff is not in favor of the access to Chinden Boulevard. Other means of
access have been provided to the subject property via, N. Tree Haven Way and n. Tree Farm Way. Although not
constructed, N. Tree Farm Way is expected to be extended with development of the Tree Farm Subdivision to
the west which will ultimately connect into future N. Black Cat Road. The right-of-way for this road has already
been dedicated and accepted by ACHD however; construction of this future roadway is predicated on
development of those properties that benefit from the roadway.
b. Public street connections to the state highway shall only be allowed at:
i. The section line road; and
With the approval of Tree Farm annexation, the City approved public street connections to Chinden
Boulevard. N. Black Road is planned to be extended when the adjacent parcels develop consistent with the
approved concept plan.
ii. The half-mile mark between section line roads. These half-mile connecting streets shall be collector roads.
N. Tree Farm Way intersects with Chinden Boulevard at the half-mile mark consistent with this section of
code and the approved concept plan.
3. The applicant shall construct a street, generally paralleling the state highway, to provide future connectivity and
access to all properties fronting the state highway that lie between the applicant’s property and the nearest section
line road and/or half-mile collector road. A segment of N. Tree Farm Way is currently under construction and parallels
the state highway. With the development of the Tree Farm Subdivision to the west this roadway will be extended and
ultimately connect into N. Black Cat Road.
In summary, the preservation of the SH 20/26 Corridor is one of the City’s top priorities. In U.S. 20/26 Corridor Preservation
Study, (ITD and Compass, ongoing,) there are preferred roadway configurations and recommend safety improvements to
these high-volume and high-speed facilities. The City supports access management, congestion mitigation improvements and
the beautification of the corridor called for in the study therefore, staff cannot make the Findings to support the right-
in/right-out access to Chinden Boulevard. To support the applicant’s variance request, the Spurwing Greens HOA and the
Developer of the subdivision have submitted written testimony in support of the proposed Chinden access.
In addition to access management, the UDC requires the following:
1) The UDC requires the construction of a 10-foot pathway adjacent to highway 20/26. On the submitted plans the
applicant has not provided the required pathway in accord with the UDC.
2) The UDC also requires the applicant to reserve the necessary right-of-way for ITD. ITD has indicate this development
should dedicate a total of 100-ft of right-of-way, approximately 50 additional feet. Staff recommends the applicant
reserve the additional 50 feet of right of way. Reservation of right-of-way should be depicted on the plat submitted
with the final plat application. The applicant should coordinate with ITD on the right -of-way needed for preservation
along Chinden Boulevard. Staff has not received official comments from ITD.
3) The applicant shall construct a 10-foot berm/wall adjacent to 20/26, but outside of the required 35 foot landscape
buffer. UDC 11-3H-4 requires that a 10 foot berm/wall be constructed along 20/26 to mitigate vehicle noise.
Landscaping Requirements
Entry Way Corridors: UDC Table 11-2B-3 requires a 35-foot wide street buffer along Chinden Boulevard. On the submitted
landscape plan, the applicant complies with the aforementioned buffer width along this roadway. Said buffers must be
constructed in accord with UDC 11-3B-7C. The applicant is proposing to construct a 45-foot wide landscape buffer along the
frontage of Lot 2, Block 1. Any unimproved right-of-way that is 10 feet or greater from the edge of pavement to edge of
sidewalk or property line, the applicant shall maintain a 10 foot compacted shoulder meeting the construction standards of the
transportation authority and landscape the remainder with lawn or other vegetative groundcover.
Currently, Lot 1, Block 1 is developed with the required buffer width and landscaping but, lacks the required 10-foot
multi-use pathway. Staff recommends the pathway along Lot 1, Block 1 be constructed in conjunction with the
construction of the pathway on Lot 2, Block 1.
Collector Streets: UDC Table 11-2A-7 and UDC Table 11-2B-3 requires a 20-foot wide street buffer along N. Tree Farm Way.
On the submitted landscape plan, the applicant is depicting a 60-foot wide landscape buffer in excess of the UDC for the C-N
portion of the development. The R-15 portion of the site does not depict the required 20-foot wide landscape buffer. Said
buffers shall be constructed in accord with the standards outlined in UDC 11 -3A-7C and must be included as a common lot
with a future final plat application.
Local Streets: A UDC Table 11-2B-3 requires a 10-foot wide street buffer along N. Tree Haven Way for the C-N portion of the
site. On the submitted landscape plan, the applicant is depicting approximately a 32-foot wide landscape buffer in excess of
the UDC.
Landscape Buffers to Adjoining Uses: UDC Table 11-2B-3 requires a 20-foot wide landscape buffer when C-N zone property
abuts residential uses. The submitted concept plan depicts a 25-foot wide landscape buffer along the north boundary in
accord with these standards. A 20-foot wide landscape buffer is not depicted along the west boundary. Instead the applicant is
proposing to construct a shared driveway with the property to the west.
NOTE: A 20-foot wide landscape buffer will not be required along the west boundary of Lot 2, Block 1 if the variance
is approved granting the right-in/right-out access to Chinden Boulevard. If the access is not granted the applicant will
have to redesign the site plan and incorporate the required 20-foot wide landscape buffer in accord with UDC 11-2B-
3.
Existing Trees: There are existing trees on the site however, the submitted plans do not address if these tree are to remain or
be removed with development of the subject property. The applicant is responsible to mitigate all existing healthy trees 4-inch
caliper or greater that are removed from the site with equal replacement of the total calipers lost on site up to an amount of
100% replacement in accord with UDC 11-3B-10. With the submittal of the final plat, the applicant must submit a revised
landscape plan that details the mitigation plan outlined by the developer and the City Arborist.
Conceptual Building Elevations: The applicant has submitted sample elevations to depict the design of the church proposed
for Lot 2, Block 1 of the subdivision (see exhibit A.5). As mentioned earlier, there are two existing buildings on Lot 2 that may
remain with the development of the property. The church elevations incorporate glass, metal awnings, stucco, two variations in
metal siding, and translucent wall panels. In general, staff is supportive of the proposed building elevations. Further,
refinement of the church elevations proposed on Lot 2, Block 1 should comply with the submitted conceptual elevations and
comply with the design standards set forth in UDC 11-3A-19 and the Architectural Standards Manual.
Certificate of Zoning Compliance (CZC) and Design Review (DES): A CZC application is required to be submitted prior to
issuance of building permits. The applicant is required to obtain approval of a design review application for the proposed
structures and site design for the church site (Lot 2, Block 1). This application may be submitted concurrently with the CZC
application. The applicant must comply with the design standards listed in UDC 11 -3A-19 and the guidelines contained in the
Architectural Standards Manual.
Written Testimony: Robert Ebert, David Turnbull (Spruwing Greens HOA), Drew Eggers – Screening/Berming, access to Chinden
Staff Recommendation: Approval w/Conditions
Outstanding Issues: Existing buildings, No right-of-way shown on plans (we have not received any comments from ITD)
Notes:
Possible Motions:
Approval
After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to recommend approval to the City Council of File Number H-
2017-0018, as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of April 20, 2017, with the following modifications: (Add any
proposed modifications to conditions)
Denial
After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to recommend denial to the City Council of File Number H-2017-
0018, as presented during the hearing on April 20, 2017, for the following reasons: (You should state specific reasons for denial)
Continuance
I move to continue File Number H-2017-0018 to the hearing date of (insert continued hearing date here) for the following
reason(s): (You should state specific reason(s) for continuance)
Meridian Planning Zoning Commission Meeting
DATE: April 20, 2017 ITEM NUMBER: 3A
ITEM TITLE:
Approve Minutes of 4/6 PZ Mtg
PROJECT NUMBER:
MEETING NOTES
Awr� V64 �Fs� t�
CLERKS OFFICE FINAL ACTION
DATE:
E-MAILED TO
STAFF
SENT TO
AGENCY
SENT TO
APPLICANT
NOTES
INITIALS
Meridian Planning & Zoning
April 6, 2017
Page 18 of 18
McCarvel: -- enthusiastic on making a motion.
Bernt: I would love to. After considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony,
I move to recommend approval to the City Council of file number H-2017-0019 as
presented in the staff report for the hearing date of April 6th, 2017.
Wilson: Second enthusiastically.
McCarvel: It has been moved and enthusiastically seconded to approve item
number H-2017-0019. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: SIX AYES. ONE ABSENT.
McCarvel: Can I get one more motion?
Yearsley: Madam Chair, I -- oh, go ahead.
McCarvel: Commissioner Cassanelli.
Cassanelli: Madam Chair, I move to adjourn.
Yearsley: Second.
McCarvel: It has been moved and seconded to adjourn. All those in favor say
aye. Opposed? Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: SIX AYES. ONE ABSENT.
MEETING ADJOURNED AT 6:44 P.M.
(AUDIO RECORDING ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS.)
APPROVED
d"'., /t,( e 6, -Q 1 21)
R O. DA McCARVEL - CHAIRMAN DATE APPROVED
ATTEST:
j � 4�pRpTED q IICC!�
C. JAY COLES - CITY CLEIRK �p city . pW
'✓}i� IDIA N* ---
y IDAHO
�F SEMI,
TF�o(r4e TRGA5UP� !��
Meridian Planning Zoning Commission Meeting
DATE: April 20, 2017
ITEM TITLE: Gyro Shack
ITEM NUMBER: 3B
PROJECT NUMBER: H-2017-0028
FFCL for Aprpoval - Conditional Use Permit for a drive-thru establishment within 300' of
another drive-thru establishment by Jeff Likes - 5038 N. Linder Road
MEETING NOTES
S -a
CLERKS OFFICE FINAL ACTION
DATE:
E-MAILED TO
STAFF
SENT TO
AGENCY
SENT TO
APPLICANT
NOTES
INITIALS
CITY OF MERIDIAN C+(
L+ IDIAN 7
FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW �i j
AND 90
DECISION & ORDER
In the Matter of the Request for Conditional Use Permit for a for a drive-through establishment
within 300 feet of another drive-thru on 0.493 of an acre of Land in the C -G Zoning District for
Gyro Shack at Paramount, by Jeff Likes.
Case No(s). H-2017-0028
For the Planning & Zoning Commission Hearing Date of: April 6, 2017 (Findings on April 20,
2017)
A. Findings of Fact
1. Hearing Facts (see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of April 6, 2017, incorporated by
reference)
2. Process Facts (see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of April 6, 2017, incorporated by
reference)
3. Application and Property Facts (see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of April 6, 2017,
incorporated by reference)
4. Required Findings per the Unified Development Code (see attached Staff Report for the hearing
date of April 6, 2017, 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-2017-0028
Page 1
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 April 6, 2017, 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 § 1I -
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 conditional use permit is hereby approved in accord with the
conditions of approval in the staff report for the hearing date of April 6, 2017, 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 11-513-617.2.
Upon written request and filed by the applicant prior to the termination of the period in accord
with 11-513-6.17.1, 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 April 6, 2017
CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION & ORDER
CASE NO(S). H-2017-0028
Page 2
By ction of the Planning & Zoning Commission at its regular meeting held on the day of
2017.
COMMISSIONER RHONDA MCCARVEL, CHAIRMAN
COMMISSIONER RYAN FITZGERALD, VICE CHAIRMAN
COMMISSIONER STEVEN YEARSLEY
COMMISSIONER GREGORY WILSON
COMMISSIONER TREG BERNT
COMMISSIONER WILLIAM CASSINELLI
COMMISSIONER JESSICA PERREAULT
Rho da McCarvel, Chairman
VOTED
VOTED
VOTED
VOTED P\- b Sit
VOTED C
VOTED��
VOTED ye�
Attest: eF510
0
41W,- bpwc4h,n
l z o y
C.Jay Coles, City Clerk
c
6(f14tER of Olt"
Copy served upon the Applicant, the Planning and Development Services Divisions o unit
Development Department, the Public Works Department and the City Attorney.
By:XSLI121q Dated: Zl
City Clerk's Office
CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION & ORDER
CASE NO(S). H-2017-0028
Page 3
EXHIBIT A
Gyro Shack at Paramount – CUP H-2017-0028 PAGE 1
STAFF REPORT
Hearing Date: April 6, 2017
TO: Planning & Zoning Commission
FROM: Josh Beach, Associate City Planner
208-884-5533
SUBJECT: Gyro Shack at Paramount – CUP (H-2017-0028)
I. SUMMARY DESCRIPTION OF APPLICANT’S REQUEST
The applicant, Jeff Likes, ALC Architecture, has applied for a conditional use permit for a drive-
through establishment within 300 feet of another drive thru on 0.493 of an acre of land in the C-G
zoning district. 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 April 6, 2017. At the public
hearing, the Commission moved to approve the subject CUP request.
a. Summary of Commission Public Hearing:
i. In favor: Richard Wilmot
ii. In opposition: None
iii. Commenting: None
iv. Written testimony: None
v. Staff presenting application: Josh Beach, Bill Parsons
vi. Other staff commenting on application: None
b. Key Issues of Discussion by Commission:
i. The requirement of a 25-foot landscape buffer along the adjacent multi-family
development on the east boundary.
ii. The process for approving a reduction to the required 25-foot landscape buffer.
iii. Questions about the layout of the drive-thru lanes, etc.
iv. Questions about sufficient parking on the site.
v. Questions about overall design of the building and whether or not the applicant would
have to include some additional architectural features.
c. Key Commission Changes to Staff Recommendation:
i. Remove condition 1.10A
III. PROPOSED MOTION
Approval
After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to approve File Number H-2017-
0028 as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of April 6, 2017, with the following
modifications: (Add any proposed modifications.)
Denial
After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to deny File Number H-2017-0028
as presented during the hearing on April 6, 2017, 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
Gyro Shack at Paramount – CUP H-2017-0028 PAGE 2
Continuance
I move to continue File Number H-2017-0028 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 5038 N. Linder Road, in the SW¼ of Section 25, Township 4
North, Range 1 West
B. Owner(s):
Brighton Investments, LLC
12601 W. Explorer Drive
Boise, ID 83713
C. Applicant:
ALC Architecture
Jeff Likes
325 E. Shore Drive #110
Eagle, ID 83616
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: March 17, 2017
C. Radius notices mailed to properties within 300 feet on: March 9, 2017
D. Applicant posted notice on site by: March 24, 2017
VI. LAND USE
A. Existing Land Use(s) and Zoning: This site consists of vacant/undeveloped land, zoned C-G.
B. Character of Surrounding Area and Adjacent Land Use and Zoning:
North: Dutch Bros. Coffee, zoned C-G
East: Linder Springs Townhomes, zoned C-G
South: Kelson Orthodontics, zoned C-G
West: Kelly Creek Subdivision, zoned C-G
C. History of Previous Actions:
In 2004, this property was annexed as part of Paramount Subdivision (AZ-03-006) with a
Development Agreement, recorded as Instrument No. 103137116.
In 2003, a preliminary plat (PP-03-004) and conditional use permit/planned development
(CUP-03-008) was approved for Paramount Subdivision which include the subject property.
This property was designated on the conceptual site plan for retail/office uses.
In 2007, this property was included in the following approvals:
EXHIBIT A
Gyro Shack at Paramount – CUP H-2017-0028 PAGE 3
Preliminary plat (PP-07-011) for 18 commercial building lots on 18.5 acres of land in a
C-G zoning district;
Development Agreement modification (MI-07-007) to remove the conditional use permit
requirement and require design review approval instead for all commercial development
in the C-G and L-O zoning districts, recorded as Instrument No. 107145935.
In 2012, a final plat (FP-12-019) was approved for Commercial Southwest Subdivision No. 2
which includes the subject property as Lot 2, Block 2.
D. Utilities:
1. Public Works:
a. Location of sewer: Sanitary sewer mains to provide service to this project currently exist.
b. Location of water: Water mains to provide service to this project currently exist.
c. Issues or concerns: None
E. Physical Features:
1. Canals/Ditches Irrigation: There are no canals or ditches on this site.
2. Hazards: Staff is not aware of any hazards that exist on this site.
3. Flood Plain: This site is not within a flood plain.
VII. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
This property is 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.
The proposed use of the property as a restaurant with a drive-through is consistent with the uses
desired in Commercial designated areas and therefore is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
Staff finds the following Comprehensive Plan policies to be applicable to this property and apply to
the proposed use (staff analysis in italics):
“Require all commercial and industrial businesses to install and maintain landscaping.”
(2.01.03B)
There is a 25-foot wide landscaped street buffer on this site along N. Linder Road that was
installed with the development of the subdivision in accord with UDC Table 11-2C-3.
Additional parking lot and perimeter landscaping will be required with the development of
the subject site.
“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.
“Plan for and encourage services like health care, daycare, grocery stores and recreational
areas to be built within walking distance of residential dwellings.” (2.01.01C)
The proposed restaurant will be located within walking distance of several near-by
EXHIBIT A
Gyro Shack at Paramount – CUP H-2017-0028 PAGE 4
residential neighborhoods.
“Reduce the number of existing access points onto arterial streets by using methods such as
cross-access agreements, access management, and frontage/backage roads.” (3.03.02O)
Direct lot access is not proposed or allowed via N. Linder Road.
“Require all new and reconstructed parking lots to provide landscaping in internal islands and
along streets.”
Planter islands are proposed in the parking area and will be landscaped in accord with the
standards listed in UDC 11-3B-8C.
“Minimize noise, odor, air pollution, and visual pollution in industrial and commercial
development adjacent to residential areas.” (3.06.01B)
There is an apartment complex (Linder Springs) to the east of this site. The proposed drive-
through is separated from the dwellings by a 35-foot wide driveway.
“Plan for a variety of commercial and retail opportunities within the Area of City Impact.”
(3.05.01J)
The proposed restaurant with a drive-through will contribute to the variety of services
available in the northern portion of the City.
For the above-stated reasons, staff believes the proposed use is consistent with the applicable
comprehensive plan policies and is appropriate in this location.
VIII. UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE
A. Purpose Statement of Zone: The purpose of the commercial districts is to provide for the
retail and service needs of the community in accordance with the Meridian
comprehensive plan. Six (6) 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: Unified Development Code (UDC) 11-2B-2 lists the permitted,
accessory, conditional, and prohibited uses in the C-G zoning district. A restaurant is a
principal permitted use in the C-G zoning district; a drive-thru establishment requires
conditional use permit approval when located within 300 feet of a residence, residential
use, or another drive-thru establishment.
C. Dimensional Standards: The dimensional standards listed in UDC Table 11-2B-3 for the C-G
zoning district apply to development of this site.
D. Landscaping:
Street buffer landscaping: Street buffer landscaping is required in accordance with the standards
listed in UDC Table 11-2B-3 for the C-G zoning district and UDC 11-3B-7C. Street buffer
landscaping was installed with development of the subdivision.
Parking lot landscaping: All parking lot landscaping is required to comply with the standards
listed in UDC 11-3B-8C.
Landscape buffers to adjoining uses: A buffer to the residential uses at the east property boundary
is required in the C-G zoning district per UDC Table 11-2B-3 and should be installed in accord
with the standards listed in UDC 11-3B-9C.
E. Off-Street Parking: Off-street parking is required in accord with UDC 11-3C-6B.
EXHIBIT A
Gyro Shack at Paramount – CUP H-2017-0028 PAGE 5
F. Structure and Site Design Standards: Development of this site must comply with the design
standards listed in UDC 11-3A-19 and the guidelines listed in the Meridian Design Manual.
IX. ANALYSIS
A. Analysis of Facts Leading to Staff Recommendation:
H-2017-
Staff recommends approval of the proposed CUP with the conditions listed in Exhibit B.
X. EXHIBITS
A. Drawings
1. Vicinity Map
2. Site Plan (dated: 02/01/2017)
3. Landscape Plan (dated: 02/17/2017)
4. Building Elevations (dated: 02/01/2017
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
Gyro Shack at Paramount – CUP H-2017-0028 PAGE 6
Exhibit A.1: Vicinity/Zoning Map
EXHIBIT A
Gyro Shack at Paramount – CUP H-2017-0028 PAGE 7
Exhibit A.2: Site Plan (dated 02/01/2017)
EXHIBIT A
Gyro Shack at Paramount – CUP H-2017-0028 PAGE 8
Exhibit A.3: Landscape Plan (dated 02/17/2017)
EXHIBIT A
Gyro Shack at Paramount – CUP H-2017-0028 PAGE 9
Exhibit A.4: Proposed Building Elevations (dated 02/01/2017)
EXHIBIT A
Gyro Shack at Paramount – CUP H-2017-0028 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 (AZ-
03-006; PP-07-011; MI-07-007; FP-12-019).
1.2 The applicant shall comply with the specific use standards listed in UDC 11-4-3-11, Drive-
Through Establishment.
1.3 The site and/or landscape plans included in Exhibit A, dated 3/6/15 shall be revised as follows (as
applicable):
a. Include one tree within the planter island at the south end of the row of parking on the west
side of the building and within the planter island at the west end of the row of parking on the
north side of the building in accord with UDC 11-3B-8C.
b. A 25-foot wide landscape buffer to adjoining residential uses is required along the east side of
the site along the backage road adjacent to the apartments in Linder Springs as set forth in UDC
Table 11-2B-3, planted in accord with the standards listed in 11-3B-9C.
c. Either provide wheel stops within parking stalls that abut street, perimeter landscape buffers
and sidewalks, or widen the buffers or sidewalk an additional 2 feet beyond the required width to
allow for vehicle overhang in accord with UDC 11-3C-5B.4.
d. A bicycle rack capable of holding a minimum of 2 bicycles is required to be provided on the
site per UDC 11-3C-6G in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3C-5C.
e. A pedestrian walkway is not depicted on the site plan from the perimeter sidewalk along
N. Linder Road to the main building entrance. The applicant shall include these items on
the site plan at the time of the certificate of zoning compliance.
f. The landscape plan should be revised to include one tree within the planter island at the
south end of the row of parking on the east side of the building. Additionally, the landscape
buffer on the north side requires 1 tree for every 35 feet for a total of 4 required trees. The
landscape buffer along the western property line is also required to have 1 tree for every 35
feet for a total of 4 trees. Please revise the landscape plan accordingly.
1.4 All existing landscaping within the street buffer adjacent to N. Linder Road shall be protected
during construction in accord with UDC 11-3B-10C.
1.5 The hours of operation for the proposed restaurant and drive-thru are restricted to the hours
between 6 am and 11 pm. Extended hours of operation may be requested through a future
conditional use permit in accord with UDC 11-2B-3A.4.
1.6 All outdoor equipment areas shall be incorporated into the overall design of buildings and
landscaping so that the visual and acoustic impacts of these functions are fully contained and out
of view from adjacent properties and public streets per UDC 11-3A-12.
1.7 All lighting on the site shall comply with the standards listed in UDC 11-3A-11.
1.8 The applicant shall submit a Certificate of Zoning Compliance application for establishment of
the new use and to ensure all site improvements comply with the provisions of the UDC and the
conditions in this report prior to application for building permits, in accord with UDC 11-5B-1.
1.9 The applicant shall submit an application for Administrative Design Review concurrent with the
Certificate of Zoning Compliance application in accord with UDC 11-5B-8. The site and
building design is required to comply with the standards listed in UDC 11-3A-19 and the
EXHIBIT A
Gyro Shack at Paramount – CUP H-2017-0028 PAGE 11
City of Meridian Architectural Standards Manual.
1.10 With submittal of the administrative design review application, the applicant should make
several changes to the building elevations to bring the building more in line with the
surrounding buildings. The applicant should provide revised elevations which include the
following items:
a) Provide decorative trim around the all doorways and windows.
b)a) Replace the metal wainscot with stone.
2. PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
2.1 Applicant shall be responsible to install sanitary sewer and water services to the proposed use.
2.2 At the completion of the project, the applicant shall be responsible to submit record drawings per
the City of Meridian AutoCAD standards. These record drawings must be received and approved
prior to the issuance of a certification of occupancy for any structures within the project.
2.3 Applicant shall be required to pay Public Works development plan review, and construction
inspection fees, as determined during the plan review process, prior to the issuance of a plan
approval letter.
2.4 The applicant shall provide easement(s) for all public water/sewer mains outside of public right of
way (include all water services and hydrants). The easement widths shall be 20-feet wide for a
single utility, or 30-feet wide for two. The easements shall dedicated via the City of Meridian’s
standard forms. Submit an executed easement (on the form available from Public Works), a legal
description prepared by an Idaho Licensed Professional Land Surveyor, which must include the
area of the easement (marked EXHIBIT A) and an 81/2” x 11” map with bearings and distances
(marked EXHIBIT B) for review. Both exhibits must be sealed, signed and dated by a
Professional Land Surveyor. DO NOT RECORD.
3. FIRE DEPARTMENT
3.1 The Fire Department has no concerns with this application.
4. POLICE DEPARTMENT
4.1 The Police Department has no comments related to this application.
5. REPUBLIC SERVICES
5.1 Obtain approval from Republic Services for trash enclosure prior to submittal of
Certificate of Zoning Compliance application.
6. ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT
6.1 At the time of the staff report, staff had not yet received a report from ACHD.
7. PARKS DEPARTMENT
7.1 The Parks Department had no comments on this application.
EXHIBIT A
Gyro Shack at Paramount – CUP H-2017-0028 PAGE 12
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.
The Commission finds that the subject property is large enough to accommodate the proposed
restaurant with a drive-through and comply with the dimensional & development regulations
of the C-G zoning district (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.
The Commission finds that the proposed use of the property will be harmonious with the
UDC and Comprehensive Plan.
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.
The Commission finds that if the applicant complies with the conditions outlined in this
report, the proposed drive-through establishment should be compatible with residential and
commercial uses in the area and should not adversely change the character of the area.
d. That the proposed use, if it complies with all conditions of the approval imposed, will
not adversely affect other property in the vicinity.
The 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.
The Commission finds that sanitary sewer, domestic water, refuse disposal, and irrigation are
currently available to the subject property. The 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.
The applicant will be financing any improvements required for development. The
Commission finds there will not be excessive additional requirements at public cost and nor
will they be detrimental to the community’s economic welfare.
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.
The Commission finds the proposed use of the site as a restaurant with a drive-through
establishment will not be detrimental to any persons, property or the general welfare of the
area.
EXHIBIT A
Gyro Shack at Paramount – CUP H-2017-0028 PAGE 8
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.
The Commission finds that there should not be any health, safety or environmental problems
associated with the proposed use. Further, the 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.
Planning & Zoning
Commission Meeting
April 20, 2017
Item #4A: New Beginnings
Zoning Map
Concept Development Plan &
Building Elevation
Meridian Planning Zoning Commission Meeting
DATE: April 20, 2017
ITEM TITLE: New Beginnings AZ CUP
ITEM NUMBER: 4A
PROJECT NUMBER: H-2017-0026
A. Public Hearing for New Beginnings (H-2017-0026) by Chris Fuhrman Located 780 E.
Ustick Road
1. Request: Annexation and Zoning of 1.00 Acre of Land with an R-4 Zoning District
MEETING NOTES
App"op-P -7�
CLERKS OFFICE FINAL ACTION
c/C �•F/�3C
5-Q
DATE:
E-MAILED TO
STAFF
SENT TO
AGENCY
SENT TO
APPLICANT
NOTES
INITIALS
CITY OF MERIDIAN
PLANNING AND ZONING
PUBLIC HEARING SIGN -IN SHEET
Date: April 20, 2017 Item #
H-2017-0026
New Beginnings
EW
Please print your name
Do you wish
to testify (Y/N)
x'05
n
&4,
T uc(
N)
NO
l Irvl c.l�
//0
/! r
�,���GV'�v
r�ik„ �r�'y�,o� nl�
`��v\�-J s��`� Jar _ N6
1 9 emir),
ly C7---- �I 2 ej
Item #4B: Goddard Creek Subdivision
Vicinity/Zoning/Aerial Map
Comprehensive Plan Proposal
Proposed Preliminary Plat
Landscape Plan
Landscape Plan
Conceptual Building Elevations
Meridian Planning Zoning Commission Meeting
DATE: April 20, 2017 ITEM NUMBER: 4B
PROJECT NUMBER: H-2017-0007
ITEM TITLE: Goddard Creek (CPAM RZ PP CUP PP)
Public Hearing Continued 3/16- RZ of 12.38 acres from R-4 to R-40 (5 acres) and the C -C
(7.38 acres) zoning districts; COMP Plan to change the future land use map designation
on 12.38 acres of land from Office & high density residential to mixed-use community;
CUP for a Self -storage on approx 7.38 acres in the proposed C -C zoning district; CUP for
a multi -family development of 82 dwelling units in teh proposed R-40 zoning district on 5
acres of land; and PP consisting of 22 building lots & 5 common lots on 12.38 acres of
land in the proposed C -C and R-40 zoning districts by Brian Porter - 2780 W. McMillan
Road
MEETING NOTES
�eCOrrirt�e�1� ben,��� -(a 0/C
CLERKS OFFICE FINAL ACTION
13�/-19 5-D
DATE:
E-MAILED TO
STAFF
SENT TO
AGENCY
SENT TO
APPLICANT
NOTES
INITIALS
CITY OF MERIDIAN
PLANNING AND ZONING
PUBLIC HEARING SIGN -IN SHEET
Date: April 20, 2017 Item # 413
Project Number: H-2017-0007
Project Name:
Goddard Creek
Please print your name
For
Against
Neutral
Do you wish
to testify (Y/N)
`X
Z5 V\ [< S`
x
LL4&26 1221f i
WA,ie LiAnz
T�i� Lo Liatd
PIL(VAN
L
aAl,--
rdzP / "C15-
r
�J
I
CITY OF MERIDIAN
PLANNING AND ZONING
PUBLIC HEARING SIGN -IN SHEET
Date: April 20, 2017 Item #
Project Number:
Project Name:
H-2017-0007
Goddard Creek
Please print your name
For
Against
Neutral
Do you wish
to testify (Y//N)
� V
-j
Item #4C: Rockbury Subdivision
Vicinity/Zoning/Aerial Map
Approved Concept Plan
Proposed Preliminary Plat
Landscape Plan
Conceptual Building Elevations
GODDARD CREEK
SUBDIVISION
REVISED PLAT
OVERVIEW
The following
revisions were made
to the plat to
address the Planning
Commission’s prior
concerns:
- Density
- Parking
- Traffic and
Roads
- Amenities
REVISED PLAT -
DENSITY
-- The unit count decreased from 82
units to 74 units, which is
approximately a 10% reduction in
the number of units.
-- The proposed density has
decreased to 14.75 units/acre.
- Now requesting approval of R-15
zoning compared to previous R-40
request.
- 1.36 acres of Open Space provided
(1.09 required).
REVISED PLAT -
PARKING
-- The number of parking spaces
increased from 2.5 to 2.8 parking
spaces provided per unit. The City
requires 2 spaces per unit with at
least one in a covered carport or
garaged (11-3C-6).
-- Guest parking has been increased
from 17 spaces to 33 spaces.
- The parking spaces have been
removed from the landscape buffer
between the storage unit facility and
the development.
ReDESIGN HIGHLIGHTS
Covered
Spaces
Surface
Spaces
Spaces
Per Unit
Bicycle
Required 1 per Unit 1 per Unit 2 1 per 25
vehicular stalls
Original 95 112
(13 guest + 4
ADA,
95 driveway)
2.5 9
Revision 86 119
(30 guest+ 3
ADA,
86 driveway)
2.84 10
REVISED PLAT –
TRAFFIC & ROADS
TRAFFIC OBSERVATION
Visited site for a random morning commute traffic observation Thursday, 4/06/17 from 7:35 a.m. to 8:05 a.m
23 vehicles from the apartment complex and 53 vehicles from the single family homes.
The maximum vehicles queued at the stop sign to turn onto W. McMillan Road from N. Goddard Creek Way was 4
vehicles, and the maximum wait time to turn was 60 seconds with the average being 20 seconds or less. Mostly, only
one car queued at any one time.
o To eliminate potential stacking of
vehicles along Apgar Creek Lane the
entrance into the development has
been moved farther west away from
the Apgar Creek Lane and Goddard
Creek Way intersection.
o Apgar Creek Lane and McMillan Rd
will be widened 5’ and Right-of-way
will be provided to allow ACHD to
improve McMillan Road to three lanes.
o ACHD report states McMillan (Linder to
10 mile) is in the CIP to be widened to
3 lanes.
PICTURE
250’ (c.l. to curb)
Road widened
REVISED PLAT -
AMENITIES
5 Amenities (City requires 3 Amenities For
Developments Between 20 And 75 Units)
Quality of Life Category
•Enclosed Bike Storage
Recreation Category
•Walking Trails
•Children’s Play Structure
Open Space Category
•Open Grassy Area of 50’x100’
•ADDED - Community Garden
•ADDED - Shelter/Plaza
Storm
Drainage in
subsurface
seepage beds
AMENITIES
ADDED
Community Garden
20’x28’ Fenced & Gated
6) 4’x8’ Plots
Plaza
17’x17’ Paver Plaza
12’x12’ Picnic Shelter
4 -PLEX RENDERINGS
2,3,3,2 STORY BLDS
4 -PLEX RENDERINGS
3 ,3,3,3 STORY BLDS
COMMUNITY
OVERVIEW
Design Highlights
Strong Architecture Facades
Highly Planted Landscape Buffers
Walkable Connections
Well Placed Vehicular Access
Good Land Use Transition
1.36 Acres Of Open Space
Trim & Band Color
ADDITIONAL
INFORMATION AND
STORAGE PLAN
Trim & Band Color
LOCATION AND ADJACENT LAND USE
McMillan
DEVELOPMENT PLAN
SITE
ACCESS
STYLE
STYLE
STYLE
+ 1a� r• a-+�e� ��=_-fin
It1�N��.li�\►F�1�" ����I�i�# ilJ7��� .:1 il;� F`M•1-•�r`. �•m a'M ?_.7e 'r"
a
^ TI III ITTI�
r RAID a 7� Gll Ili ill ill N1
qw) M-4 II14II'1�TI
rJ .O� I'II�'+N;tl+li'-H�Hilll �I
#� p �fF I� F'I1j" - FAS111z"PROPOSEG RIGHT _ ITLILLIIL"J I11W111' II' I11LI!,,I�II L- I II LLllIIII LLilLl I l I I LI
I
I•� jam+= F F" t
�\L�fT
W,
Ty ��'� r IN -RIGHT OUT
W. CHINDEN BLVD. (HW 20726)
- I� �'. ���_.�_..�•. .---#-.. ti.� __ f- y� .. �. _%• j•. � �`: ..rel
a.
1
—IttTFA .
i4
10
SECONDARY .}
ACCESS
o
m
GIRR
ElSBd EN -
_-..
MAIN
ACCESS
02�n
a w euaeaR _ dN@,Poe 1 4 P
WEN, a .EEa.a P.
1 l Ultttt ��l "�
- . � %
�IIIIIIIIIII
I�HtI I I � I I
DIF���' ILLuiiu00
uiil ;ill
40.11 GIRR
II EASEMENTI o '�
i
r -- T -
SECONDARY < �� a - ` —— �r.. li -
o r
ACCESS —' —
RIIII GHT IN
III IIII(�, II /
1 RIGHT OUT l III ILLI L— 1 LLLLI ILLI I I I I I
W. CHINOEN BLVD. (HW 20\26)
0 60 ,20
SCALE
�
Meridian Planning Zoning Commission Meeting
DATE: April 20, 2017 ITEM NUMBER: 4C
PROJECT NUMBER: H-2017-0018
ITEM TITLE: Rockbury Subdivision (AZ PP)
Public Hearing Continued from 4/6 - 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 C -N (18.35 acres) zoning districts
and Preliminary Plat approval consisting of 2 common lots, 1 commercial lot and 1
multi -family lot on 23.56 acres of land in the proposed R-15 and C -N zoning districts by
Rock Harbor Church - 6437 N. Tree Haven Way
MEETING NOTES
e,,c- 4P 4-0 1 C_
S chef u.Ce1 -ief el(2
CLERKS OFFICE FINAL ACTION
S0
DATE:
E-MAILED TO
STAFF
SENT TO
AGENCY
SENT TO
APPLICANT
NOTES
INITIALS
C_
CITY OF MERIDIAN
PLANNING AND ZONING
PUBLIC HEARING SIGN -IN SHEET
Date: April 20, 2017 Item #
Project Number:
Project Name:
H-2017-0018
Rockbury Creek
M
Please print your name
For
Against
Neutral
Do you wish
to testify (Y/N)
1) %