2017 09-07Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Agenda – Thursday, September 7, 2017 Page 1 of 3
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, September 7, 2017 at 6:00 p.m.
1. Roll-call Attendance
__X__ Treg Bernt __X__ Steven Yearsley
__O__ Gregory Wilson __O__ Ryan Fitzgerald
__O__ Jessica Perreault __X__ Bill Cassanelli
__X__ Rhonda McCarvel – Chairperson
2. Adoption of the Agenda Adopted
3. Consent Agenda Approved
A. Approve Minutes of August 17, 2017 Planning and Zoning
Commission Meeting
B. Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law for Shops at Sawtooth
Village (Lot 25) (H-2017-0096) by TS Development, LLC
Located East Side of N. Linder Road, Approximately 1/8 Mile
South of W. McMillan Road
4. Action Items
A. Public Hearing Continued from August 17, 2017 for Heritage
Hop Haus (H-2017-0100) by Prefunk Meridian Located 77 E.
Idaho Avenue
Continued to September 21, 2017
1. Request: Conditional Use Permit Approval to Establish a
Drinking Establishment Use on the Property
B. Public Hearing Continued and Re-Noticed from August 3, 2017
for Linder Village (H-2017-0088) by Lynx/DMG Real Estate
Partners, LLC Located 1225 W. Chinden
Continued to October 19, 2017
1. Request: Amendment to the Comprehensive Plan to Change
the Future Land Use Map Designation on 62.04 Acres of
MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING
COMMISSION MEETING
AGENDA
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Agenda – Thursday, September 7, 2017 Page 2 of 3
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.
Land from Mixed Use-Community (MU-C) to Mixed Use-
Regional (MU-R)
2. Request: Annexation and Zoning of 81.02 Acres of Land
from RUT Zoning District in Ada County to the C-G Zoning
District (62.04 Acres) and the R-8 Zoning District (18.98
Acres) in the City
3. Request: Preliminary Plat Approval Consisting of Fourteen
(14) Commercial Building Lots
C. Public Hearing Continued from August 17, 2017 for Pine 43 (H-
2017-0058) by DMB Development Located South of E. Fairview
Avenue, East of N. Locust Grove Road, North of Commercial
Street and West of Hickory Avenue
Recommend Approval to City Council – Schedule for October
17, 2017
1. Request: Annexation and Zoning of 0.07 of an Acre of Land
with an R-15 (Medium High-Density Residential) (0.01 of an
Acre) and C-G (General Retail and Service Commercial)
(0.06 of an Acre) Zoning District
2. Request: Rezone of 46.11 Acres of Land from the C-G
(General Retail and Service Commercial) to the R-15
(Medium High-Density Residential) Zoning District
3. Request: Preliminary Plat Approval Consisting of 516 Lots
on 119.77 Acres of Land Consisting of 108 Mixed Use (28
Commercial and 80 Multi-Family Residential) Building Lots
and 28 Mixed Use Common Lots on 73.68 Acres of Land in
the C-G District and 356 Residential Building Lots Consisting
of 196 Single-Family Detached, 128 Single-Family Attached
and 32 Attached Live/Work and 24 Residential Common
Lots on 46.12 Acres of Land in the R-15 Zoning District
D. Public Hearing for Brickyard Subdivision (H-2017-0107) by
John Carpenter located at 3611 N. Centrepoint Way
Recommend Approval to City Council – Schedule for October
3, 2017
1. Request: Preliminary plat consisting of 61 building lots and 4
common lots on 14.27 acres of land in the C-G zoning
district
2. Request: Conditional use permit for a multi-family
development consisting of 215 dwelling units in the C-G
zoning district
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Agenda – Thursday, September 7, 2017 Page 3 of 3
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.
E. Public Hearing for Kentucky Ridge Estates South (H-2017-
0109) by Hayden Homes Idaho, LLC located east of S. Linder
Road and south of W. Victory Road
Recommend Approval to City Council – Schedule for October
17, 2017
1. Request: Preliminary Plat Consisting of 19 Building Lots and
3 Common Lots on 5.5 Acres of Land in the R-4 Zoning
District
F. Public Hearing for Genso (H-2017-0098) by Kobe, LLC located
at the northeast corner of Locust Grove Road and E. Franklin
Road
Recommend Approval to City Council – Schedule for October
17, 2017
1. Request: Rezone of 4.5 acres from the C-G (General retail
and service district) zoning district to the I-L (Light Industrial)
G. Public Hearing for AT&T – Store-It Self Storage (H-2017-0112)
by Justin Hadley, Smartlink, LLC located at 1776 N. Avest Lane
Denied
1. Request: Conditional Use Permit approval of a 100-foot tall
wireless communication (cell tower) facility in a C-G zoning
district
Meeting Adjourned at 8:19p.m.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting September 7, 2017.
Meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission of September 7, 2017, was
called to order at 6:00 p.m. by Chairman Rhonda McCarvel.
Members Present: Chairman Rhonda McCarvel, Commissioner Steven Yearsley,
Commissioner Treg Bernt and Commissioner Bill Cassanelli.
Members Absent: Commissioner Gregory Wilson, Commissioner Ryan Fitzgerald and
Commissioner Jessica Perreault.
Others Present: C.Jay Coles, Andrea Pogue, Caleb Hood, Sonya Allen and Dean Willis.
Item 1: Roll-call Attendance
__X___ Treg Bernt ___X___ Steven Yearsley
______ Gregory Wilson _______ Ryan Fitzgerald
______ Jessica Perreault ___X___ Bill Cassanelli
___X___ Rhonda McCarvel - Chairman
McCarvel: Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. At this time I would like to call to order
the regularly scheduled meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission on
September 7th, 2017. We will begin with roll call.
Item 2: Adoption of the Agenda
McCarvel: Thank you. First item on the agenda is the adoption of the agenda. We have
-- the agenda has two changes. We will be -- 4-A and B will be opened only for the
purpose of continuing these items to a different date. It will open solely for that purpose.
Could I get a motion to adopt the agenda?
Bernt: So moved.
Cassanelli: Second.
McCarvel: It has been moved and seconded to adopt the agenda. All in favor say aye.
Opposed? Motion carried.
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. THREE ABSENT.
Item 3: Consent Agenda
A. Approve Minutes of August 17, 2017 Planning and Zoning
Commission Meeting
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
September 7, 2017
Page 2 of 49
B. Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law for Shops at Sawtooth
Village (Lot 25) (H-2017-0096) by TS Development, LLC
Located East Side of N. Linder Road, Approximately 1/8 Mile
South of W. McMillan Road
McCarvel: The next item on the agenda is the Consent Agenda and we have two items
on the Consent Agenda. We have approval of minutes for the August 17 th, 2017,
Planning and Zoning meeting and Findings of Fact for H-2017-0096. Can I get a motion
to accept the Consent Agenda as presented.
Bernt: So moved.
Yearsley: Second.
McCarvel: It has been moved and seconded to adopt the Consent Agenda. All those in
favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. THREE ABSENT.
McCarvel: 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. The
staff will report their findings regarding how the item adheres to our Comprehensive Plan
and Uniform Development Code with the staff's recommendations. After the staff has
made their presentation the applicant will come forward to present their case for 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. There is a timer on the screen
at the podium for you to keep track. 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 ten minutes. After
all testimony has been heard the applicant will be gi ven another ten minutes to have the
opportunity to come back and respond if they desire . After that we will close the public
hearing and the Commissioners will have the opportunity to discuss and, hopefully, be
able to make a recommendation to City Council.
Item 4: Action Items
A. Public Hearing Continued from August 17, 2017 for Heritage
Hop Haus (H-2017-0100) by Prefunk Meridian Located 77 E.
Idaho Avenue
1. Request: Conditional Use Permit Approval to Establish a
Drinking Establishment Use on the Property
McCarvel: So, at this time we would like to continue --
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
September 7, 2017
Page 3 of 49
Yearsley: Need to open the public hearing.
McCarvel: Yeah. Well, it's continued from last time, though. Okay. We are going to
open H-2017-0100 to be continued to August 17th. Oh, I'm sorry.
Yearsley: So, Madam Chair, I move that we continue file number H-2017-0110 to
September 21st, 2017, for the reason that the site wasn't posted properly.
Bernt: Second.
McCarvel: It has been moved and seconded and to continue H-2017-0100. All those in
favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. THREE ABSENT.
B. Public Hearing Continued and Re-Noticed from August 3, 2017
for Linder Village (H-2017-0088) by Lynx/DMG Real Estate
Partners, LLC Located 1225 W. Chinden
1. Request: Amendment to the Comprehensive Plan to Change
the Future Land Use Map Designation on 62.04 Acres of
Land from Mixed Use-Community (MU-C) to Mixed
Use Regional (MU-R)
2. Request: Annexation and Zoning of 81.02 Acres of Land
from RUT Zoning District in Ada County to the C-G Zoning
District (62.04 Acres) and the R-8 Zoning District (18.98
Acres) in the City
3. Request: Preliminary Plat Approval Consisting of Fourteen
(14) Commercial Building Lots
McCarvel: The next item on the agenda is H-2017-0088. This item has also been request
to be continued and it is being continued from August 3rd. So, at this time could I -- yeah.
So, at this time we would like to ask the applicants to come forward and explain this
application moving forward.
McKinney: Madam Chair Woman and Commissioners, my name is David McKinney. I'm
with DMG Real Estate Partners. That's 2537 West State Street in Boise. 83702. Our
request to continue until October 19th is to address questions that staff has had and other
issues that we have heard through neighborhood comments and submit a revised plan.
McCarvel: Okay. So, at this time the applicant has continued to -- has requested to
continue the public hearing to October 19th. Can I get a motion?
Yearsley: Madam Chair?
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
September 7, 2017
Page 4 of 49
McCarvel: Commissioner Yearsley.
Yearsley: Just for clarification. Were you planning to renotice for that meeting? Is that
correct?
McKinney: That's correct.
Yearsley: Okay. So, that meaning will be renoticed, so --
Bernt: Will there be a public hearing at all?
McCarvel: No. No. So, if the -- I think renotice and new neighborhood meeting then?
McKinney: Sure. Always
McCarvel: Okay. Okay. I think taking any public hearing -- public testimony of this would
be premature, since it sounds like things are probably going to be addressed anyway.
McKinney: Yeah. I think that's correct.
McCarvel: Okay.
Bernt: Madam Chair?
McCarvel: Commissioner Bernt.
Bernt: I move that we continue to H-2017-0088 to October 19, 2017.
Yearsley: Second.
McCarvel: It has been moved and seconded to continue H-2017-0088 to October 19th.
All those in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. THREE ABSENT.
C. Public Hearing Continued from August 17, 2017 for Pine 43 (H-
2017-0058) by DMB Development Located South of E. Fairview
Avenue, East of N. Locust Grove Road, North of Commercial
Street and West of Hickory Avenue
1. Request: Annexation and Zoning of 0.07 of an Acre of Land
with an R-15 (Medium High-Density Residential) (0.01 of an
Acre) and C-G (General Retail and Service Commercial)
(0.06 of an Acre) Zoning District
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
September 7, 2017
Page 5 of 49
2. Request: Rezone of 46.11 Acres of Land from the C-G
(General Retail and Service Commercial) to the R-15
(Medium High-Density Residential) Zoning District
3. Request: Preliminary Plat Approval Consisting of 516 Lots
on 119.77 Acres of Land Consisting of 108 Mixed Use (28
Commercial and 80 Multi-Family Residential) Building Lots
and 28 Mixed Use Common Lots on 73.68 Acres of Land in
the C-G District and 356 Residential Building Lots Consisting
of 196 Single-Family Detached, 128 Single-Family Attached
and 32 Attached Live/Work and 24 Residential Common
Lots on 46.12 Acres of Land in the R-15 Zoning District
McCarvel: So, at this time we have another applicant -- application that was continued
from August 17th. We would like to continue H-2017-0058, Pine 43, and we will begin
with the staff report.
Allen: Thank you, Chairman, Members of the Commission. This application of Pine 43,
it was a request for annexation and zoning, rezone, and preliminary plat, was continued
from the hearing on August 17th. The Commission requested the applicant revise the
site plan -- and I will bring it up here -- to replace the multi-family area shown here in E
on the drawing on the left with commercial, which they have done. They have relocated
some of the multi-family residential over here in Section B south of the previously
proposed multi-family residential and, then, there were a couple of areas that were
proposed for single family attached homes that were only 24 foot wide lots. You can see
them along the top here where my arrow is at and right here. Because those lots didn't
have alley access they were very largely garage dominated and driveway dominated, so
the applicant revised those, so that they could construct single family detached homes on
those instead and I believe that was all of the changes the Commission requested and
staff has taken a look at those and everything -- everything looks in to be in alignment
with what you guys recommended.
McCarvel: Okay. Thank you. Are there any questions for staff? Okay. Would the
applicant like to come forward.
Torfin: Madam Chair, Members of the Commission --
McCarvel: And --
Torfin: Okay.
McCarvel: And, please, state your name and address for the record.
Torfin: I'm Dan Torfin representing DMB Development in this applicant -- in these
applications. Address is 250 South Beachwood, Boise. 83709.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
September 7, 2017
Page 6 of 49
Allen: Just a second, Dan. I'm trying to --
Torfin: Okay.
Allen: -- bring your presentation up here.
Torfin: Okay. Thank you. Madam Chair Woman, Members of the Commission, we did
agree prior to the -- the public hearing that was held on August 17th to make these
changes and we have done so in those areas that were just shown. We moved --
essentially we moved the multi-family from area E that you see -- let's see. I'm going to
try this. Here is area E. Oh, look at that. We moved the multi-family that was previously
shown in that area to continue the commercial development along the Pine Avenue
corridor and just added it to area B. Essentially we took 12 acres of multi-family out of
area E and moved -- and added it to area B. There is a little more acreage in there,
because of some open -- some additional open space that's along the Jackson Drain, but
we did make the changes. I think we had a good public hearing on August 17th and I will
stand for questions from the Commission.
McCarvel: Any questions for the applicant?
Bernt: Madam Chair?
McCarvel: Mr. Bernt.
Bernt: Oh. Sorry. It's my fault. I apologize. It won't happen again. Guarantee it. Until
next meeting. So, do we have any questions about the parking? Do we have the -- I
remember. Do we -- staff -- or, Sonya, do we have any questions about the parking?
Parking is fine? I don't remember.
Allen: That wasn't one of the items that was addressed as an issue, no.
Bernt: Okay.
Allen: They meet the minimum UDC standards.
Yearsley: Madam Chair?
McCarvel: Commissioner Yearsley.
Yearsley: So, the other side -- the area south of the drain, that's going to be apartments
as well; correct? Because I know we had talked that that was going to be something
different than apartments and so if you could explain that.
Torfin: Madam Chairman, Commissioner Yearsley, that area was previously shown -- a
portion of area B on both the north and south side of the Jackson Drain, which runs right
through there, was previously shown as a combination of detached single fam ily and
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
September 7, 2017
Page 7 of 49
attached townhomes and so in our initial discussion with staff we were kind of directed to
take -- we could take the multi-family there or have it be additional commercial, so we --
we added the multi-family in there -- really just traded it out. We did lose some of the
detached single family, but we still have, you know, a good count of those single family
detached-attached townhouses and now with the multi-family -- and I think what I pointed
out in the narrative was it could be -- you could have two or three different variations of
what multi-family is and due to the process of obtaining a conditional use for the multi -
family in that area B there is going to be a second look by the city, so they can look at the
specific design.
Yearsley: And, then, the one last question. It looks like you have a second crossing. Is
that a pedestrian crossing or is that a roadway crossing between the two apartment
complexes?
Torfin: It's a pedestrian crossing --
Yearsley: Okay.
Torfin: -- Commissioner Yearsley.
Yearsley: Just wanted to clarify that. So, I think that works.
Torfin: Okay. And our intent is to create a walkable development within Pine 43.
Yearsley: And I like the idea of the pedestrian crossing. That's what I was hoping that's
what it was. So, that's what I wanted to know.
Torfin: Thank you.
McCarvel: Okay.
Bernt: Madam Chair?
McCarvel: Commissioner Bernt.
Bernt: One last question. I don't remember -- and I'm sure the information is in front of
me. But what's the percentage of open space -- green space?
Torfin: What is the percentage?
Bernt: Yeah.
Torfin: Well, we have got the minimum, but we exceeded. The qualified open space, if
that's what you're looking at, we -- we have a minimum -- I don't know, Sonya, if you have
that. I don't have that drawing, but it's -- it's more than the ten percent that's required.
Let's see. So, on this plan for the residential we have got 7.37 acres and I don't -- I think
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
September 7, 2017
Page 8 of 49
the requirement is less and that's not really even counting other areas within the multi-
family that will be qualified for the -- the multi-family development, which will be a
swimming pool and courts and tot lots and things like that.
Cassanelli: That excludes that?
Torfin: Yes.
Cassanelli: So -- so, that figure will be higher?
Torfin: Yes. And, Madam Chairman, Commissioner Cassanelli, if I can show you just
one -- one example is -- I will do this in a different color. Right in here in -- in yellow there
is open space for the multi-family that hasn't been counted in that 7.37 acres. So, we will
-- we will exceed the minimum when we -- when we get started on the development.
McCarvel: Okay. Thank you.
Torfin: Thank you.
McCarvel: At this time we will take public testimony on these items. I don't have anybody
that's signed up that says they would like to testify, but is there anyone here that would
like to testify? Okay. I'm assuming, Dan, you don't need to come back up. Okay. Okay.
At this time can I get a motion to close the public hearing for Item H-2017-0058.
Cassanelli: Madam Chair, I move that we close the public hearing for Pine 43, H -2017-
0058.
Yearsley: Second.
McCarvel: It has been moved and seconded to close the public hearing on Item H-2017-
0058. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. THREE ABSENT.
McCarvel: So, Commissioners, is this what you were wanting to see on this application?
Yearsley: Madam Chair?
McCarvel: Commissioner Yearsley.
Yearsley: It is. It actually helped me understand, because there was quite a bit of
confusion, especially on that south portion of the drain of what was actually going to be
there. So, with that I like the -- the layout. I like the connection between the two apartment
complexes. You know, be kind of nice to have a little more amenities on the south end,
but I think they have done a pretty good job of mixing this up and, then, having the different
mixed uses and the commercial, so I like the -- I like the new look.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
September 7, 2017
Page 9 of 49
Bernt: Madam Chair?
McCarvel: Commissioner Bernt.
Bernt: I like the look as well. I'm in favor of this -- of this development -- of this application.
I -- what I like -- you know, no one likes multi-family in their backyard, you know, and that's
just a fact. So, this really is a great spot, you know, for this -- the multi-family use. I like
that as well. So, thank you for making this clear. It draws -- it pencils out pretty nice and
so I'm in favor of this -- of this development. Thank you.
Cassanelli: I -- it definitely helps. I visualize everything. I like it. The one comment I
made as I was -- I kind of threw out there, I'd love to see almost a park-like space kind of
in that commercial E, F, G, but as it stands I -- I definitely like it and I think it will be a nice
-- a nice development.
McCarvel: Yeah. Unfortunately, I was out of town when this was first presented, but I
have read through all of the notes and the staff report and everything and it seems like a
well thought out project.
Yearsley: Madam Chair?
McCarvel: Commissioner Yearsley.
Yearsley: After considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move to
recommend approval to the City Council of file number H-2017-0058 as presented in the
staff report for the hearing date of September 7th, 2017, with no modification.
Bernt: Second.
McCarvel: It has been moved and seconded to approve H-2017-0058. All those in favor
say aye. Opposed? Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. THREE ABSENT.
D. Public Hearing for Brickyard Subdivision (H-2017-0107) by
John Carpenter located at 3611 N. Centrepoint Way
1. Request: Preliminary plat consisting of 61 building lots and 4
common lots on 14.27 acres of land in the C-G zoning
district
2. Request: Conditional use permit for a multi-family
development consisting of 215 dwelling units in the C-G
zoning district
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
September 7, 2017
Page 10 of 49
McCarvel: At this time we will move forward and open the public hearing for Item H-2017-
0107, the Brickyard Subdivision, and we will begin with the staff report.
Allen: Thank you, Chairman, Commissioners. The next applications before you are a
request for a conditional use permit, preliminary plat. This site consists of 14.27 acres of
land. It's zoned C-G and is located approximately a third of a mile north of East Ustick
Road and west of North Eagle Road. Adjacent land use and zoning. To the north are
rural residential property, zoned RUT in Ada county. To the south are commercial
property zoned C-G. To the east is vacant, undeveloped property and an office, zoned
RUT in Ada county and to the west are single family residential property zoned R-8. This
property was annexed back in 2003 with the requirement of a development agreement
that has been substantially -- excuse me -- subsequently amended a couple of times.
Comprehensive Plan future land use map designation for this site is mixed use regional.
The applicant is requesting a modification to the existing development agreement to
change the development plan for the northern portion of the Centrepoint development
from a self-service storage facility, commercial and multi-family residential uses, to mostly
multi-family residential with some vertically integrated residential with commercial below
on the first story. The development agreement modification does not require Commission
action. The Council is the decision making body on this application. A preliminary plat is
proposed consisting of 61 building lots and four common lots on 14.27 acres of land in
the C-G zoning district. This is a resubdivision of Lots 9 through 11, Block 1, and Lot 16
and 19 through 26, Block 2, Centrepoint Subdivision No. 2. The plat is proposed to
develop in four phases as shown. Access is proposed -- I'm going to flip back here to the
site plan. It's a little easier to see. Access is proposed to the residential units via
Centrepoint Way, a collector street, and is the road that runs north-south through the site
here, with two driveways on the west side of Centrepoint and three driveways on the east
side for access to the residential units, along with the driveway access for the parking lot
at the community center and swimming pool on the west side. Because the UDC limits
access points to collector streets, Council approval of the proposed access is required.
A 20 foot wide landscaped street buffer is required along Centrepoint Way as proposed.
Common area and site amenities are proposed within the development in accord with
UDC standards. A conditional use permit is requested for a multi-family residential
development consisting of 215 dwelling units on 13.06 acres of land in the C-G zoning
district. The units are proposed to be configured as four-plex townhomes with each unit
having an upstairs and a downstairs. Private usable open space and common area is
provided in accord with UDC standards. A minimum of 1.73 acres of qualified open space
is required and the applicant is proposing a total of 4.25 acres, in excess of UDC
standards. Site amenities are proposed consisting of a 20 by 20 fabric sail shelter and a
16 by 20 dual slope pavilion, a 1,750 square foot fenced dog park, a 2,400 square foot
open space urban plaza for the vertically integrated units, a children's play structure, a 20
by 40 outdoor swimming pool, a clubhouse with a covered patio, a large open grassy
area, soccer sports fields, picnic tables and park benches. Staff feels the open space
and site amenities proposed are appropriate for the proposed development. Let's go back
to the site plan here. If you can see my pointer, this is where the dog park is proposed,
swimming pool, playground, community center and sports field here. Off -street parking
is proposed in excess of UDC standards. A minimum of 430 parking spaces are required,
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
September 7, 2017
Page 11 of 49
half of those being covered. A total of 594 spaces are proposed consisting of 254 garage
spaces, 254 driveway spaces and 85 guest spaces. Eight additional spaces are proposed
for the community center and the swimming pool. A six foot tall solid vinyl fence is
proposed along the north and east boundaries of the site. Two building types in various
color schemes are proposed for the four-plex structures within the development,
consisting of two story units, three story units and three story units -- with two story units
on each end. And those are the ones here shown on the left. The buildings along the
west boundary -- and I have a little diagram here. The ones with the red dots are proposed
to all be two story four-plexes to preserve the view corridors of the adjacent development
and provide a transition to the three story structures. The applicant did make that change
after speaking with the neighbors, who voiced their liking of that, so -- the architectural
character and structures are required to comply with the standards listed in the City of
Mardan architectural standards manual. Written testimony has been received from
James Doolin, the applicant's representative. He requested that the splash pad, plastic
contour benches, and public art be removed from the staff report as amenities, as they
were included in error. Some of the plans or narrative was based on an older plan and
requests a five foot metal view fence proposed on the east boundary of the site be
changed to six foot vinyl privacy fence. They also provided an exhibit to be included in
the development agreement that -- on your screen here that notes which lots are subject
to the two story height restriction. Staff is recommending approval of the project with the
applicant's requested changes in accord with the conditions in Exhibit B. Staff will stand
for any questions.
McCarvel: Questions? Sonya, do you have a farther out view of this with the streets and
things?
Bernt: Madam Chair?
McCarvel: Commissioner Bernt.
Bernt: Sonya, what is the subdivision name directly to the west? I'm trying to just get
a --
Allen: Champion Park.
Bernt: Got it. I got it.
McCarvel: Sonya, is that Centrepoint Way, that goes behind the Hobby Lobby and --
Allen: Yes, it is.
McCarvel: Okay. Okay. Would the applicant like to come forward?
Seel: Good evening, Madam Chairperson, Commissioners. My name is Jonathan Seel,
2906 Haven, Eagle. Just a little background on myself first. I worked for Winston Moore,
W.H. Moore Company for 18 years. During that time I oversaw all his projects. I did
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
September 7, 2017
Page 12 of 49
whether it's here or in Boise. Centrepoint Marketplace was one of those. I literally started
that when it was a field. I was involved in all the entitlement process. I did the cooperative
development agreement on Ustick Road, both east and west of Eagle Road. I did a
development agreement with ITD to improve Eagle Road both north and south of Ustick.
I oversaw the vast majority of the construction in there. So, I just -- I say I'm very familiar
with the project. So, certainly if there is any historical questions I'm open, I still remember
them. So, I appreciate what Sonya has done. I think she's gone into a lot of detail. What
I'd like to do is just hit on some of the high points if I can that I think are pertinent. If we
can -- Sonya, can you go to the second slide, please. Overview. There. Okay. This is
an overview on this thing as far as design highlights, we have vertically integrated
buildings -- I think as Sonya mentioned on the south -- south boundary, which
incorporates both -- some commercial space, as well as residential. The feedback we
have gotten from staff is that they are very positive about that, that that's a product that's
needed within the city. It's highly planned with landscape buffers. There is workable --
there is walkable connections, rather, in the project. There is good land use transition. I
think in this particular thing to the south you have your retail . To the west we have
Champion Park Subdivision, which is R-8. So, I think there is a nice transition between
the retail and in the residential to the west. There is 4.25 acres of open space, when it
was only required to have 1.79. So, again, they have exceeded their requirements for
the open space. All exterior landscaping are managed by and maintained by an HOA.
I'd like to spend a few minutes on this. In the years that I worked for Winston Moore he
always maintained an extremely high quality of level in his developments. He didn't have
to do development and I'm not suggesting that he 's altruistic, but he wanted quality and it
was important and there was times when he passed on projects, to my frustration,
because they didn't meet his standards. I think if you look in the City of Meridian I think
that speaks for itself. One of the things that he found extremely appealing in this is that
there -- there is a -- a mechanism where they are literally going to maintain the entire
outside of this project. That means the residential, as well as the landscaping, the
common areas, the amenities, the clubhouse -- you know, the paint on these four-plexes,
whatever it is. You will never have to drive through this and say I wish they had -- you
know, they were cleaning up their weeds or I wish they had mowed their lawn or I wish
they would repaint this building and not have it purple. He was very much -- I think that
was one of many things, but I think that's something that I think he found very
encouraging. So, you're assured that the quality standard on this project will be equal or
greater than I think any of the subdivisions that you have within the City of Meridian. I
mean there is nothing on the outside that you, if you owned one of these projects, would
have to do. It's covered. They initially have a maintenance fee paid up front at the
purchase and, then, every month there is a charge. So, you are assured of both current,
as well as long-term maintence on that. That even gets to the streets, the driveways, to
sidewalks and everything. So, I think that's really a critical thing and I think that's an
important thing and I would think it would give you comfort. If we can switch to -- I guess
the next one -- the amenities. I will go back here.
Allen: Jonathan, you can switch those yourself if you would like.
Seel: Okay. Thank you. Amenities. I know Sonya, again, talked about it, you know, as
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
September 7, 2017
Page 13 of 49
she mentioned, we have -- we have the -- the clubhouse, we have the urban class, we
have the pathways, the micropaths, we have the walking trails, the swimming pool, the
children's play area, the open to soccer area, the open grass area is 5,500, dog park and
shelters. Again, I think there is an extensive amount of amenities here that I think appeal
from the young to the old and I think the applicant has gone beyond in what is -- what is
in here as far as amenities. So, I think this is appealing and I think it allows the residents
to stay here locally than be going out in the parks. As far as parking, again, we see the
same theme. We have 594 total parking spaces, that's 2.77 parking spaces. The
requirement is two. This is actually 164 parking space in excess of what's required.
Again, I think the applicant has gone beyond what would be required and has gone well
beyond that. So, I think that's it. And the vertically integrated, there is one parking space
per unit and, then, also one space for 500 square feet of commercial. You have got -- 47
are required, 48 are provided. They have also exceeded their bike parking. When they
only need 26, they put in 48 bike parking spaces. So, I think that, again, is -- is an
important thing. So, I think you can see it in this project. As far as a request to changes
again, as Sonya mentioned, we want -- we are asking that -- that the splash pad be
replaced with a pool. That was simply an oversight. The contour benches and public art
would be also removed. That was simply an error. That's on page eight of your staff
report. As far as landscaping, again, as Sonya said, right now there is a -- we are calling
for a five foot tall metal fence that was between the east boundary of this project and what
is actually Steve Eddie's property. He purchased that that fronts Eagle Road. They are
asking for a six foot privacy vinyl fence there. Then, finally, we are talking about the
development agreement and clarification for two story building height. I understand,
again, you're not approving the DA here tonight, but I think something that's -- that's
important -- let's see, where -- is this particular one. As Sonya said, originally where these
red dots are, many of these buildings were planned as three story units. We had the
typical neighborhood meeting out at the site originally and, then, afterwards the applicant
also met personally with many of the neighbors and -- in Champion Park Subdivision.
Their concern, understandably, was that they were trying to preserve as much of their
view to the mountains as possible. As a result of that he reduced these that are -- the red
dots from -- some of them from three stories to many down to two stores, which would be
-- would simply be a residential. He also in the process eliminated four units to, again, try
to push some these units away from -- from the neighbors from Champion Park. Right
now if you -- if you look in this particular area, the fronts of those buildings is 54 feet from
the property line fence. So, again, trying to push it back so it didn't feel like these buildings
were right on top of each other. So, I think in closing -- I will clear this if I can. I'd like to
say I think this is -- is a quality project. I think as you can see it's -- it's gone beyond the
amenities, the parking, the bike space, the architectural design. The other thing, too, that
I think is important in this, this provides another option for residents within the City of
Meridian. Right now if you look at it, what your options are is you either have a single
family home, whether you rent or you buy, or typically you have a stacked apartment
project. Might be two story, three story, four story type of buildings. This allows another
option where someone wants, essentially -- potentially what is a single family home. I
mean these homes are from 13 to approximately 1,500 square feet. If they were not
attached I think you could consider them a single family home. The maintenance is not
their issue, so they can own, they can rent, they can have a nice environment, but if it's a
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
September 7, 2017
Page 14 of 49
third option in the process -- and if I can I'd like to read for you -- in your Comprehensive
Plan here -- it's actually in the staff report and this is from the staff where it says the
proposed multi-family residential development will contribute to the variety of housing
types available within this part of the city and will offer rental options for three bedroom
apartments. I think, again, this is another option. I think a quality option. And, again, I
emphasize the thing that this is -- you're going to be insured this is going to be a quality
project. The maintenance on it is always going to be there. You're not going to have to
worry about somebody renting it and letting it go downhill. So, with that I would ask you
to approve this -- this application tonight and I would stand for any questions.
McCarvel: Any questions for the applicant?
Cassanelli: Madam Chair?
McCarvel: Commissioner Cassanelli.
Cassanelli: I notice the pool and the soccer field are in phase four. Was there a plan to
build that out that early?
Seel: Yes. Commissioners, that will be constructed with this project.
Cassanelli: But will that be a part of -- will you build those amenities out early?
Seel: Yes. And I will have -- I will have Mr. Doolin come up and explain that a little bit
more detail, but, yes, we are going to put those in. There was a concern brought up by
staff on that and that has been addressed. So, yes, we will.
Cassanelli: Okay. Thank you.
Bernt: Madam Chair?
McCarvel: Commissioner Bernt.
Bernt: Is there -- what was the feedback with the residents in regard to the -- when you
spoke about the east boundary having a fence and the north boundary having a fence,
what's your thought process on the west boundary?
Seel: Commissioners, there is a fence there now. There is a six foot vinyl fence there
now and just -- just a little bit of history on this particular project that I think might be
relevant. When we first started -- you saw the concept plan. There was planned for a
family fun center. That -- that was not a concept, that was serious. We were in serious
negotiations with them. So, that could have very well have been there. Another one that
we had very serious negotiations with is a Rosauers. Rosauers was actually going to
locate on this project. Their only issue was they thought that going north was the going
home side. Interestingly, at 5:00 o'clock there is as much traffic going south as there is
going north, but as you are all aware, Rosauers went over to the southeast corner. I
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
September 7, 2017
Page 15 of 49
guess my point is there could have been far more intrusive uses within this project than
what -- I think what this is. I think this is a good transition, so --
McCarvel: Any other question?
Cassanelli: I do have another question. There -- I commend you on the excess parking.
That's been a -- kind of a conversation topic a lot lately here is -- particularly in a multi-
family where we -- almost been -- it's been required, but we feel we are short on parking.
So, I do commend you on that. Question. Do you feel that with those vertically integrated
units with the retail on the bottom that there is enough parking in that area for the retail?
Seel: See, the requirement is 47, we have got 48. It's really -- most likely not going to be
true retail. I think it's going to be more of like office type of things or I will call it back office
type, you know, retail, those types of things. But, yes, we believe there is.
Cassanelli: Okay. Thank you.
McCarvel: Okay. Any other questions? Okay. Thank you.
Seel: Thank you very much.
McCarvel: At this time we will take public testimony. I have a few people signed up that
would wish to testify. I will start with James Doolin. And, please, state your name and
address for the record.
Doolin: My name is James Doolin. 4685 South Highland Drive, Salt Lake City, Utah.
Madam Chair and Commissioners, I put my name on just to stand for questions if you
guys had any questions.
McCarvel: Okay.
Doolin: I would like to just address that last question real quick. On the vertically
integrated we have 48 spaces provided, 47 were required. We also have on-street
parking that we couldn't count. The on-street parking park right in front of the commercial
spaces. I believe their is 12 spaces or eight spaces. So, to help kind of address the
concern there for parking. And, then, one of the things I just want to touch on -- the
current development agreement today states along the west property line -- future
buildings along the western property line abutting Champion Park Subdivision shall, in
the case of commercial development, not exceed 35 feet high -- 35 feet in height and
multi-family not exceed 40 feet in height. We have been working with the neighbors. The
biggest concern that we have heard was just maintaining that view corridor for them along
that property line. So, in doing that we have amended our concept to put in two stories
and we put in the development agreement that only two stories will be built adjacent to
that property line and as Jonathan mentioned we are 50 feet away. Where the existing
development agreement allowed some to be I believe 20 feet away and up to 40 feet
high. So, we have tried to do everything we can to make the neighbors happy. Our height
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
September 7, 2017
Page 16 of 49
is under 30 feet. I think it's 28 feet for the two story and we are 50 feet away. So, trying
to maintain that view corridor. And I will stand for any other questions or let other people
speak.
Yearsley: I have a quick question for you.
McCarvel: Commissioner Yearsley.
Yearsley: You're showing the pool and the park in phase four. Is there an option to
maybe move the pool to phase two?
Doolin: Yes. We have been working over the last few days trying to figure out the pool.
The pool -- the location of the pool today stands on an existing legal lot . So, we will --
and this is in the staff report. We will construct the pool and the clubhouse along with
phase one and phase two. So, we won't push that off to phase four.
Yearsley: Awesome.
Doolin: And that's in the staff report and we are willing to do that.
Yearsley: Okay.
McCarvel: Thank you.
Doolin: Thank you.
McCarvel: Okay. Next person wishing to testify is Irene Trier.
Trier: Good evening. I'm Irene Shrier.
McCarvel: Pull the mic down.
Shrier: There we go. How is that?
McCarvel: Thank you.
Shrier: We are --
McCarvel: Address, please.
Shrier: Oh. It's 2718 East Mahoney Street. We are the property on the west side and
we were the ones who were affected by the heights of the buildings . So, the builder
brought it down to two stories instead of three, which was better. There is a corridor
between us, but those two units sit directly against our back fence. But probably the most
egregious thing to me is the road that will be 15 feet from our fence , allowing those
residents to pull into their driveways and I have asked about, you know, a speed bump
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
September 7, 2017
Page 17 of 49
being put in there, never got any feedback on that. I don't know if that's part of the highway
department or what, but it's really a concern to us, because if there is traffic speeding
back and forth 15 feet from her fence, that's concerning. Also we feel that putting multi-
units behind us -- multi-story units that are rental affects our property values. It affects
our quality of life. It affects -- this unit is huge. It will affect traffic -- traffic on Eagle and
Ustick, as well as the schools, police, fire, safety and I don't even know what it does with
the electrical grid. So, these are some of our concerns and probably as being
homeowners you would probably have the same concerns as us. So, I'm here to say I'm
-- you know, we are very concerned about this, because never in our wildest imagination
did we dream that there would be two and three story units behind us.
McCarvel: Thank you.
Bernt: I got a question for you. Madam Chair. What -- in your opinion what would you
have rather had there?
Shrier: Well, you know, it is zoned commercial, but I guess when we moved in we never
dreamed that there would be two and three story rental units behind us and, see, I don't
know how zoning goes, but for me there is still residences and is it because they are
rental that they are allowed to build on a commercial site? I don't know. I don't have the
answer to that. But it's -- they still have residences on commercial land and I never dreamt
that that's what would be put there. I mean if I had my druthers of course I would rather
have something that wasn't two and three story. You know, even if it was a big box it
would be more out toward Eagle probably with parking back in there, but I never dreamt
that we would have a road 15 feet from our fence.
Bernt: Would you have rather preferred like a Rosauers or, you know, like a --
Shrier: Yeah. Actually, I would have.
Bernt: Like a -- like a big hang out space for kids, you know, or whatever. Like a play
center?
Shrier: I would -- sure. Or a park. I know that doesn't bring revenue in for the city, but
yeah. I mean we have a beautiful view of the mountains right now and so this -- this
distresses us. It's concerning to us.
Bernt: Thank you.
Cassanelli: I actually have a follow-up question.
Shrier: Yes.
Cassanelli: Do you -- just south -- I'm not sure which property is yours there, but just to
the south --
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
September 7, 2017
Page 18 of 49
Shrier: Uh-huh.
Cassanelli: -- they built townhomes off Centrepoint.
Shrier: Yes. Uh-huh.
Cassanelli: Do you have any feedback from your neighbors to the south there that back
up to -- to those townhomes?
Shrier: The only one I have heard of -- one of the families that came to the initial meeting
out on the property, they were not happy about it. They were not happy about those units
being put in there. They had some concerns. In fact, they just sold their house, the
people that were really concerned just put the house up for sale. But that's the only
feedback. I don't know too many of those neighbors whose property butts up to that -- to
those units over there.
Cassanelli: Thank you.
Shrier: Uh-huh.
McCarvel: Thank you. Would the applicant like to come back -- oh, I'm sorry. I didn't
have anybody else signed up to testify. Is there anyone else in the public that would like
to testify? Okay. Sorry. Go ahead.
Doolin: So, I have been working -- James Doolin. Applicant. I have exchanged several
e-mails with Irene and she was the main reason why we went away from the three story
units was just to satisfy her. All the other neighbors were fine -- have indicated they are
fine. The ones that were impacted, the ones that came to the neighbor meetings . So,
the whole change that we have made was to try to preserve her view corridor. I feel like
we have done everything we possibly can. We did move the driveway there to provide a
larger buffer between the property line and our buildings to try to provide more privacy.
As far as speed bumps, we are open to putting in speed bumps. I don't have any concerns
with that by any means and as -- I have had many conversations about this. The current
development agreement allows for a 35 foot tall commercial building or a 40 foot tall multi-
family building to be within I believe 20 feet of the property line . So, we are further than
50 feet and we are requesting a modification of the developement to not allow more than
a two story building behind those -- the Champion Park Subdivision.
Yearsley: One quick question.
McCarvel: Sure.
Yearsley: And I forgot to ask this. So, the roads in the subdivision themselves, are they
going to be private or are they going to be ACHD roads?
Doolin: They will be private.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
September 7, 2017
Page 19 of 49
Yearsley: Okay.
McCarvel: But they all lead out to --
Doolin: Right.
McCarvel: Yeah. Okay.
Bernt: Madam Chair?
McCarvel: Commissioner Bernt.
Bernt: Would you be opposed to -- you know, since that road that Irene is -- do you mind
if I call you Irene? I don't know your -- that Irene is concerned about, would you be
opposed, to, you know, putting in a couple speed bumps in there to make it so --
Doolin: No. We are fine with that.
Bernt: Right. So, you would have no problem having staff include that in the development
agreement?
Doolin: No.
Bernt: Okay.
McCarvel: All right.
Doolin: Thank you.
McCarvel: Thank you. At this time could I get a motion to close the public hearing for
Item H-2017-0107, Brickyard Subdivision.
Yearsley: So moved.
Cassanelli: Second.
McCarvel: It has been moved and seconded to close the public hearing on Item H-2017-
0107. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. THREE ABSENT.
Cassanelli: Madam Chair?
McCarvel: Commissioner Cassanelli.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
September 7, 2017
Page 20 of 49
Cassanelli: A parking question for staff. Centrepoint, will that also -- will there be parking
along -- along Centrepoint? Is that wide enough?
Allen: Chairman -- no. There is no parking allowed along collector streets.
Cassanelli: Okay.
McCarvel: Yeah. I -- I for one am very impressed with the parking. That's been one of
our issues of late no doubt. The parking and the amenities and what they have done
working with the neighbors I think is to be commended. Any other comments?
Yearsley: Madam -- Madam Chair?
McCarvel: Commissioner Yearsley.
Yearsley: You know, I'm actually kind of interested to see how this will look. I kind of like
the looks of the apartments. I think they are -- they are unique. They are a lot different
than what we have seen in other apartments. I do like the open space in and around
them. I think it blends to more of a community type feel. So, I'm kind of curious and --
and the vertical integrated buildings to -- I'm curious to -- I'm excited to see what they will
look like and how they will function. I think it's a good option. I understand the concern
for this many homes and apartments so close. But the interesting thing is it's a good
location for the fact that we are such -- close to such retail, food places and stuff like that,
that they don't have to walk -- or they don't have to drive a lot of places for entertainment
and that stuff. So, I think it is a good fit. I do understand the neighbors, you know, current
concerns and I appreciate the applicant lowering his buildings to two story along that side.
I think that is a -- makes a better transition. So, I applaud him for that, so -- but all in all I
think I'm -- I'm in favor of the applicant.
McCarvel: Commissioner Cassanelli.
Cassanelli: I brought -- I asked the question of the parking. The only thing with parking
that I could see is eight stalls by the pool. With that many units --
Bernt: Is your middle name parking?
Cassanelli: It is. I live in -- I live in a subdivision that has fewer and it's closer together
and yet people a block away drive to the pool. It's -- so, that's the only thing that I see
from a parking standpoint. I, too, really like -- I like this a lot. I have seen in other areas
these vertically integrated with retail and it's -- it's fun, it creates a -- creates a walking
environment. I think there can be a lot of walking here, plus -- plus people can walk.
There is multiple restaurants right out there on Eagle Road that people can walk to. The
amount of open space -- commend the applicant on that. There is many, many things
that -- that I like about it. I do feel for -- for homeowners, too. I mean I think to me that
-- to me that's -- that's the most important thing is the people that live in -- in Meridian and
getting everything to fit well together. But I think the -- I think the outcome of this will -- I
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
September 7, 2017
Page 21 of 49
think it will be good. I would rather look at -- back up and see what I'm seeing here than
look at the back of a -- of another box store and be looking at dumpsters and trailers that
back up and pull into it -- to the back. I think this is ultimately going to be a more attractive
view. So, I'm with you.
Bernt: I'm in complete agreement a hundred percent. I mean -- I mean your middle name
is parking and my middle name is open space and I -- I command the applicant for, you
know, their open space. Good job. I think it's nice. I -- I really don't have anything more
to say, other than that. I get -- I get the concern -- Irene's concern and I appreciate those
who have concerns who come here to voice their concerns. I think it's admirable. I am
also a homeowner and I get your concern. I also commend the developer for making
some, you know, changes to his -- their development. So, that, you know, you can
continue to have, you know, your view and you mentioned a concern that you wanted,
you know, traffic to not, you know, go quick -- you know, go fast through that -- that one
little corridor and, you know, with him agreeing to putting up speed bumps is admirable
as well. So, it's nice to see, you know, property owners get along with, you know,
proposed, you know, development -- developers and so I -- I commend to you guys for
being able to work with each other in coming up with a -- with a good agreement. So, I
think this looks good. So, I'm in agreement as well. I think it's going to be a good transition
from, you know, hard commercial to -- to a residential.
McCarvel: Okay. Would anybody like to make a motion?
Cassanelli: Madam Chair?
McCarvel: Commissioner Cassanelli.
Cassanelli: After considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I moved to
recommend approval to City Council of file number H-2017-0107 as presented in the staff
report for the hearing date of September 7th, 2017, with the following modifications:
Change to the condition in Exhibit B and also the pool to be built out with phase one and
two and speed bumps along that road that abuts Champion Park.
Bernt: Second.
McCarvel: So, it has been moved and seconded to approve H-2017-0107 with conditions.
All those in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries. Congratulations.
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. THREE ABSENT.
E. Public Hearing for Kentucky Ridge Estates South (H-2017-
0109) by Hayden Homes Idaho, LLC located east of S. Linder
Road and south of W. Victory Road
1. Request: Preliminary Plat Consisting of 19 Building Lots and
3 Common Lots on 5.5 Acres of Land in the R-4 Zoning
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
September 7, 2017
Page 22 of 49
District
McCarvel: Okay. At this time we will open the public hearing for Item No. H-2017-0109,
Kentucky Ridge Estates South, and we will begin with the staff report.
Allen: Thank you, Chairman, Commissioners. The next application before you is a
request for a preliminary plat. This site consists of 5.5 acres of land. It's zoned R-4 and
is located south of West Victory Road and west of South Kentucky Way. Adjacent land
use and zoning. To the north and east are single family residential homes, zoned R-4,
and to the south and west are rural residential agricultural property zoned R-4. This
property was previously annexed and zoned and a preliminary plat was approved in 2014
for Revolution Ridge Subdivision, which was later renamed Kentucky Ridge. This
property was to be phase four of that development. However, the plat did expire, thus
the reason for the applicant's submittal of a new preliminary plat. The Comprehensive
Plan future land use map designation is low density residential, which is three or fewer
units per acre. The proposed plat consists of 19 single family residential building lots and
three common area lots on 5.5 acres of land in an R-4 zoning district. The minimum lot
size in the proposed development is 8,000 square feet. Access is proposed via two
accesses from South Cobble Avenue and West Blue Down Street, Constructed in an
earlier phase of Kentucky Ridge. A stub street is proposed to the south for future
extension and interconnectivity. The plat depicts 42 feet and 48 foot wide right of way
sections. On the 42 foot wide street sections parking is only allowed on one side of the
street. Staff recommends no parking signs are installed at regular intervals along the
street. Because this property was intended to be the last phase of development in the
previously approved subdivision for Kentucky Ridge Estates and will be part of that
development, it does not meet the minimum qualified open space and site amenity
requirements on its own. Staff is recommending the common area and site amenities in
the Kentucky Ridge Development is allowed to satisfy the requirements for this
development. This development does abut, as you can see this large common area here,
that was constructed with the previous phase of development. The Sundell Lateral
crosses the southwest corner of this site right here. All ditches on the site are required to
be piped, unless waived by City Council. The applicant is requesting a waiver from
Council due to the large capacity of the lateral. A six foot tall vinyl fence is proposed
along the perimeter boundary of the subdivision as depicted on the landscape plan . A
six foot tall wrought iron fence is proposed along the common area on Lot 29, Block 4, in
accord with UDC standards. The applicant is also required to install fencing adjacent to
Lot 8, Block 7, in accord with the same UDC standard. If the Sundell Lateral will not be
improved as part of the development to be a water amenity as defined in the UDC, the
lateral is required to be fenced off in accord with UDC standards to deter access to the
lateral. No written testimony has been received on this application and staff is
recommending approval with the conditions in Exhibit B of the staff report. Staff will stand
for any questions.
McCarvel: Any questions for staff? At this time would the applicant like to come forward?
Mokwa: Madam Chair, Members of the Commission, my name is Tim Mokwa with
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
September 7, 2017
Page 23 of 49
Hayden Homes. 1406 North Main Street, Meridian. 83642. I don't have any issues with
anything that -- Sonya did a good job reporting on it. We were fine with all the conditions
of approval. One thing I would like to highlight as far as the common area. This area was
-- was built as far as the pathways, the landscaping, the gravel path, but it was set up for
a community or a workout station. So, a variety of different workout stations, you know,
dips, pull-ups, things like that. So, we will be installing that as part of -- and I think that
was a condition of approval that we install that as part of this phase four. Other than that,
the 19 lots and everything else with this layout is identical to the previously approved
preliminary plat. So, be happy to answer any questions.
McCarvel: Any questions for the applicant?
Yearsley: Um --
McCarvel: Commissioner Yearsley.
Yearsley: The other phases, did you improve the lateral or did you fence off the lateral?
Mokwa: Sonya, do you have a --
Allen: I believe they were fenced.
Yearsley: Okay.
Mokwa: Yeah. I believe we have fenced anything in this area. This project kind of
predates my time with the company, so this is my first phase that I have been working on,
but, yeah, it's really not even impacting -- this is the only phase that that -- that Sundell is
crossed, so --
Yearsley: So, you're anticipating to fence it off then.
Mokwa: Yes.
Yearsley: Okay.
Mokwa: Yes, sir. One other point. Just to explain why this preliminary plat lapsed. One
of the conditions was that the subdivision to the south of ours -- one of the conditions is
that we not be able to submit our preliminary -- our final plat until the water line is built,
tested, approved and accepted and activated and that's because this ground is slightly
higher. It's on a -- it requires another water pressure zone. That water line has been
constructed. I'm trying to -- I was out today and saw that it's in. It's connected to the road
in Kentucky Ridge phase one, but I haven't been able to find from Public Works yet if it's
been tested and accepted. So, obviously, that condition is still in place and we are -- you
know, we will adhere to that. We can't submit until that's done.
Yearsley: Okay.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
September 7, 2017
Page 24 of 49
McCarvel: And with adding these as some of the open space was calculated on that
previous plat as well, so the addition of this does not affect the overall percentage . Okay.
We got it. We are still good on the overall for this subdivision.
Mokwa: These were included in the -- in the calcs.
McCarvel: Okay.
Bernt: And it's part of the HOA; right? This is part of the original HOA?
Mokwa: This -- this phase four would be annexed into the overall HOA and be part of
that organization and paying the dues and for maintenance.
McCarvel: Okay. Thank you.
Mokwa: Thank you.
McCarvel: At this time we will take public testimony. I have Anne Runyan signed up
wishing to testify. And as you approach the mic, please, state your name and address
for the record.
Runyan: Good evening. Anne Runyan. 1053 West Julep in Kentucky Ridge Estates.
We have owned our home for over a year and we are actually quite pleased that they are
finally finishing this off, because we would like to have control of our HOA and have some
decisions of what goes on in the subdivision. Here is some concern that we have had
this summer. We have pressurized irrigation and there are mornings we have very low
pressure or no water at all and we have argued this and gone back an d forth and Hayden
Homes has done zero to correct this issue. There is a couple neighbors that finally took
it on themselves to contact the irrigation district and talk to them and to get people out to
look at the pump to tell us what was wrong with the pump and, then, to get it fixed and
move on. But here it is the end of summer, still we are having low pressure and some
mornings the water doesn't come on at all. So, our concern is they are going to add these
additional 19 homes onto he said a different system, same system? We don't know. But
we want some assurances, some accountability that this won't exasperate the problem
that we are already having. Last year they finished building the last of the homes and
Hayden pretty much pulled up stakes and left. They went off to Star, they went off to their
subdivision on Cloverdale and the one down on Amity and contacting them, working with
them is like a black hole and we have been very disappointed. A lot of lip service of how
they stand behind their homes and that has not happened for us. So, two years from now
we are concerned that -- a year from now we are concerned next summer we are going
to have the same issue with our pressurised irrigation. In addition to that he mentioned
this open space in here. It's a little bit beyond a dirt patch. They have planted grass.
They mow it. These gravel walkways -- I see in the picture here there is lots of pretty
trees in there. That is not what that is. We have basically lived with that. So, those are
kind of the concerns we have.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
September 7, 2017
Page 25 of 49
McCarvel: Thank you. Is there anyone else here wishing to testify? Would the applicant
like to come forward and address those issues.
Mokwa: Tim Mokwa again. As far as Hayden Homes has done zero, I have gotten a
couple calls about that. I know one time there was a power outage at the pump station,
which has been turned over to the irrigation district and is run by them. When I got the
call I immediately called the irrigation district, they had somebody out there within a day.
Another time there was a clog in one of the lines. I called the irrigation district. They were
out there within a day. So, I'm not -- you know, we haven't disappeared and been
unreachable. I have answered the phone every time one of those -- one of the folks have
tried to reach me. As far as pulling up stakes and left, we were -- we were out of lots until
this subdivision gets platted. So, I'm not sure where that's coming from. And the dirt
path, I was out there today, it looked like it had been recently mowed. I mean it looks
good. All the trees are healthy. The gravel path is there. We will spray the gravel again.
There are some weeds growing up, because there is no exercise equipment there right
now. So, part of our plan and improvements of phase four is we will dress that up.
Cassanelli: Question.
Yearsley: Go ahead.
Cassanelli: Who -- who controls the HOA right now?
Mokwa: Right now the -- the owner does.
Cassanelli: And that's all of Kentucky Ridge?
Mokwa: I believe that's true, yes.
Cassanelli: And that will be turned over at the completion --
Mokwa: And don't know exactly what the -- what the condition in the CC&Rs is as far as
what percentage of ownership has to happen before it gets turned over, but we would like
to turn it over as soon as possible.
Yearsley: The gravel path -- the pathway. Is that is -- it's currently gravel and it's
anticipated to stay gravel?
Mokwa: Yes, sir.
Yearsley: Okay.
Mokwa: And it's got maybe six or eight of the little bump outs -- almost like a -- like a
bench pad off of the sidewalk where the -- it was bumped out for the exercise equipment.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
September 7, 2017
Page 26 of 49
Yearsley: Is there any thought about paving that?
Mokwa: I mean we haven't. It was approved previously as gravel and that's what we
have been planning on doing.
Bernt: Um --
McCarvel: Commissioner Bernt.
Bernt: I had a question about the irrigation and I -- this is the first time it's ever been
brought up since I have been on the Commission, so I'm not quite sure if we have any -
- what -- what we do, what our responsibility is with the irrigation -- the pressurized
irrigation on the -- on the property. So, that probably would be a question for Sonya. Sorry
to put you on the spot. I was just making sure you were awake over there, actually.
Allen: It's been a long day. They are required to maintain the irrigation services.
Bernt: They are.
Allen: They are. Yes.
Bernt: All right.
Mokwa: We are required to maintain the irrigation -- the pressure irrigation services. The
pump station has been turned over to the irrigation district for their management and
ownership.
Bernt: Are you aware that -- what -- what the homeowner stated in regard to no water or
very little water? Were you aware of that?
Mokwa: I was aware of the -- yeah. Twice. Like I said, twice when I received a call.
Once power -- the power was out of the pump station. They came out and fixed it.
Another time there was a blockage somewhere in the line that they fixed. Those are the
two -- the only two that I'm aware of.
Bernt: All right. So, what you're saying is right now it should be great.
Mokwa: Should be.
Yearsley: So, I guess with this -- a lot of times the -- the pump system is designated that
they are supposed to water alternate days. Has that been implemented or is that --
Mokwa: It has not been at this time, but --
Yearsley: Okay.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
September 7, 2017
Page 27 of 49
Mokwa: -- the last time this issue came up when the power was out I did talk to the -- the
company that does the maintenance for the HOA management company and we talked
about if there were issues in the future -- you know, we can control when -- when the
common area gets watered, so it could be something like the even numbers water a t a
certain time, even address numbers, odd at a certain time. We haven't gone to that, but
that would be something that would have to go back through, you know, and get some
neighborhood buy in, because I'm not sure that they would all be happy with that either.
So, if the water is limited and if the water pressure is a limiting factor, then, that would be
the solution.
Yearsley: So, who owns the pump station then?
Mokwa: My understanding of the irrigation -- it's all been deeded over to the irrigation
district.
Yearsley: Which is Nampa-Meridian or --
Mokwa: Yeah. Nampa-Meridian.
Yearsley: Okay.
Mokwa: And so that's who I spoke to a couple of times was the gentleman that goes o ut
and does their routine maintence and he's the one that went out this last time two weeks
ago with the power outage.
Yearsley: Okay.
Cassanelli: Madam Chair?
McCarvel: Commissioner Cassanelli.
Cassanelli: If I can make a comment on the irrigation system. In our subdivision -- we
are Settlers and we have -- that's been an ongoing issue almost since -- since day one
and it's something where we have a pretty strict watering schedule that everybody
complained about it in the beginning, but the problem is is when everyone wants to water
when they want to water there is no pressure. So, you have got to -- you have got to
have a plan and you got to stick to the plan. We have -- we have gone through several
pumps in our subdivision, because everybody -- because they burned out, because
everybody was trying to run them at the same time. All that came out of the HOA. So, I
was -- I'm concerned about when that will get turned over and how that's being
implemented, because I think once that happens, then, the HOA has control and they can
say here is what we are going to live by and -- and as far as, you know, gravel paths and
those sorts of things, those are -- you know, those are -- and maybe I shouldn't say this
until we are closed, but those -- you know, that's when the HOA will be able to -- they
want to make upgrades, they can make upgrades, if they want to put the money in there
and do that sort, so as we are -- you know, if it's living by the original development
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
September 7, 2017
Page 28 of 49
agreement, but in just addressing the irrigation that's what we have had to do in our
subdivision is just implement a plan and stick to it and I think every subdivision out there
probably faces the same thing. If everybody tries to water at 3:00 o'clock on a Friday
afternoon there is not going to be any pressure.
McCarvel: I will say -- I am the person at our HOA that takes care of the scheduling of
the irrigation water, so it is -- it's an issue in most subdivisions and in ours everybody has
a six hour period every day that they are allowed to water as much as they want. So, you
know, six hours a day is a lot of water. But it does usually have to be spread out, because
not everybody can water overnight and not everybody -- I mean it's an issue in most
subdivisions, the pumps just can't handle -- the amount of water that comes in at any
given time has to be dispersed and it can 't all go at once, so -- and that is -- it's an issue,
yeah, as an HOA and maybe if you're still in charge of the HOA help figure some of that
out and see if that corrects the problem, but it's an issue in most HOAs.
Mokwa: Madam Chair, if I may.
McCarvel: Yeah.
Mokwa: I would be happy to look into that and we could draft an addendum -- or put
together an addendum to the -- the CC&Rs that provide an irrigation schedule. So, I can
work with -- I think it's Power Enterprises or Cutting Edge that's doing the maintenance
and they are real familiar with what -- what pressure is out there and when -- you know,
when there might have been issues.
McCarvel: Yeah.
Mokwa: So, I can work with them. I can work with the HOA management company and
put together a schedule for it.
McCarvel: And I would say that would be -- you know, you might open it up to some of
their input and stuff that --
Mokwa: Of course.
McCarvel: Okay.
Yearsley: One last question, though. Would you be amenable to paving the -- the
pathway in the -- the open space?
Mokwa: I mean wouldn't be -- it wouldn't be a deal killer, but I would -- I would prefer not
to as that's the way it was approved in the prior.
Yearsley: I understand.
Mokwa: We will certainly add some gravel to it and treat the weeds, so there won't be
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
September 7, 2017
Page 29 of 49
any weeds growing up through the gravel like there is right now. The rest of the grass
and landscaping is all in good condition. I'm not sure what the prior comment was about.
McCarvel: And if the HOA wants to change that later it might be easier to change it if it's
just gravel and not paved.
Mokwa: There were comments in our neighborhood meeting -- I think it was just one
person that wanted that to be a tot lot, as opposed to the -- the exercise stations and I
looked into it. The cost between the two is certainly going to cost more for a -- for a tot
lot, so our ultimate decision was to go with what was approved in the prior overall
subdivision phase.
McCarvel: Any other questions for the applicant? Okay. Thank you.
Mokwa: Thank you.
McCarvel: At this time could I get a motion to close the public hearing for H-2017-0109,
Kentucky Ridge Estates South.
Cassanelli: So moved.
Yearsley: Second.
McCarvel: We have already closed public testimony. I'm sorry. All those in favor say
aye. Opposed? Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. THREE ABSENT.
McCarvel: Thoughts? Concerns? Issues?
Yearsley: Madam Chair?
McCarvel: Commissioner Yearsley.
Yearsley: So, a couple of things that comes up with this. With regard to the irrigation, I
know that I water odd times of the day for the fact of low water pressure and, you know,
like at 11:00 o'clock in the morning, which is probably not the best time, but I find I get the
best pressure at that time. So, I think that's -- you know, setting up a schedule I think
would help immensely with the -- with that. As the homeowner's concern about not having
access to the homeowners association, I would recommend you read your CC&Rs. If
Hayden doesn't own any property in that subdivision right now, he has no control. So,
the homeowners could actually have a special meeting and assume control of the
homeowner association. So, I would recommend you look at that and -- and definitely
consider that if you're having concerns. Overall the subdivision itself I think is good. I --
personally I still would like the -- the pathways paved. I think for maintenance in the long
term and weeds and suff like that, gravel is not a -- you're always going to have weed
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
September 7, 2017
Page 30 of 49
maintenance if you -- with gravel. Even if it's compacted well a lot of times you will have
weed problems. So, I would lean to having the -- the pathways paved. I understand that
it wasn't part of the original condition, but they have had to come for a new preliminary
plat, so we have the oppotunity to add new conditions, so that would be my
recommendation.
McCarvel: Okay. Thoughts? Commissioner Cassanelli?
Cassanelli: If you want me to speak I would just -- I would echo what Commissioner
Yearsley said and -- and I -- I would agree, if we have got an opportunity to put that
condition on there and pave the pathways and, then, I think the -- the rest of it, the
irrigation, changing some of the amenities down the road , you know, any other
beautification they want to do, the HOA will have full discretion to do that down the road
and the irrigation thing is just one of those things that all the neighbors -- I think every
other subdivision in Meridian probably deals with the same thing. So, it's -- just going to
have to -- my two cents there is everybody has to work on that and it may -- it may -- it
may require a larger pump, too, so --
Allen: Chairman? Excuse me. May I interrupt? That pathway is in the common area
that's in a previous phase. It's not on this property.
Yearsley: We can't make that condition is what you're saying?
Allen: Exactly.
Yearsley: Could we make recommendations to Council? Because they have a little bit
more leeway than we do.
Allen: It's an off-site improvement and there is not a development agreement involved,
so it's --
Yearsley: Okay.
Allen: -- not something we can place conditions on.
Yearsley: All right. I tried. With that, Madam Chair?
McCarvel: Commissioner Yearsley.
Yearsley: After considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move to approve
file number H-2017-0109 as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of
September 7, 2017, with no modifications.
Bernt: Second.
McCarvel: It has been moved and seconded to approve file number H-2017-0109,
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
September 7, 2017
Page 31 of 49
Kentucky Ridge Estates South. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. THREE ABSENT.
F. Public Hearing for Genso (H-2017-0098) by Kobe, LLC located
at the northeast corner of Locust Grove Road and E. Franklin
Road
1. Request: Rezone of 4.5 acres from the C-G (General retail
and service district) zoning district to the I-L (Light Industrial)
McCarvel: Okay. At this time we would like to open the public hearing for H-2017-0098,
Genso.
Hood: Thank you, Madam Chair, Members of the Commission. The Genso application
is a rezone of approximately 4.5 acres of land . As you can see on the exhibit in front of
you, the overall property is actually 8.38 acres, but the applicant is proposing to zone
approximately half of that or, again, 4.5 acres from C-G to I-L. The site is located on the
northeast corner of North Locust Grove Road and East Franklin Road. Again, as you can
also see on this map, the properties to the north are zoned industrial. Most of the property
to the east is also zoned industrial. You can see the RUT in Ada county, that county
enclave, and, then, commercial as you approach Franklin. To the west, again, split zoned
property that has commercial and industrial zoning on that property as well. This property
does contain a commercial designation on our future land use map. However, due to the
circumstances here staff is comfortable interpreting the future land use map. The future
land use map isn't parcel specific and so, again, if you look at this map, rezoning
approximately half of this property to industrial seems consistent with the rest of the
development and the zoning in the area . Again, the commercial almost encroaches into
the industrially zoned properties, so even though the map shows that this property has a
commercial zoning, we can float, if you will, that industrial designation down to
approximately half of this property. That being said, this property is one property and staff
typically doesn't support split zoning of properties. We did talk to the applicant about that
shortly after applying and they have subsequently submitted a preliminary and final plat
to create a three lot subdivision. You can kind of see those here. I'm not going to talk
too much about that, because that's going to be on one of your upcoming agendas , but
you can see here, you know, the three lots there and, again, if you can envision roughly
half this property being split right down the middle. The northern half would be the I-L
zoned property. The proposed wholesale -- the applicant is zoning the property for a
potential wholesale sales and warehouse use on the property and in the C-G zone that is
not allowed, so they are requesting the rezone. There are currently four curb cuts on this
property to Franklin and Locust Grove. Again, you can kind of make those out on -- on
the exhibit and the site plan there. Two kind of in the middle on Franklin and another two
are really close together there on Locust Grove. There is a condition in the staff report.
The UDC -- it's UDC Section 11-3-A3 requires the applicant to utilize local street access
were available and not the arterial or collector roadway network and both Franklin and
Locust Grove are designated arterial roadways. There is a condition in the staff report,
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
September 7, 2017
Page 32 of 49
condition -- there is a development agreement required in the staff report and
development agreement provision 1.1.1.B requires access. I was just reading that -- that
condition and, actually, would hope that you would be amenable to an amendment to that.
I think there is some wordsmithing there that needs to occur. It currently reads: Direct
vehicular access to North Locust Grove limited to one shared access from East Franklin
and one shared access from North Locust Grove. So, I guess what I would propose is
instead of that language it should redirect vehicular access shall be limited to Lanark and
Nola, unless ACHD and the City Council grant access to North Locust Grove Road and/or
East Franklin Road in the future and, again, we have a subdivision coming up really
quickly in which they can ask for those access points . So, at the very least if you clean
that -- that condition up a little bit, so it reads correctly and addresses that they have
access to Nola and Lanark. Both of those are local commercial streets and not
designated arterial roadways. You can see on this concept plan on the northern portion
they are proposing access to both Nola and Lanark, but, again, we are -- the whole
property is the subject site at this point in time. The subdivision hasn't gone through. So,
it's all purview to a development agreement. Staff has not received any written testimony
on this project. Has written the staff report to recommend approval of the request and
with the development agreement that I mentioned before in Exhibit B of the staff report
and with that I would stand for any questions you may have .
McCarvel: Okay. Questions for staff? Would the applicant like to come forward? And,
please, state your name and address for the record.
Schalk: My name is Kevin Schalk. My addresses is 2473 North Cribbens Road, Boise,
Idaho. 83713. I am acting as an agent --
McCarvel: Can you pull the mic just a little closer to you?
Schalk: Oh. I'm acting as an agent for the -- for the applicant. He was unable to attend,
but I am familiar with the project as I am the person that prepared this preliminary plat. I
think staff has covered it quite well. I'm just prepared to answer any questions you might
have.
McCarvel: Any questions for Kevin? Okay. I guess you're off the hook.
Schalk: Okay. Thank you.
McCarvel: I don't have anybody signed up to testify on this, but is there anyone here that
would like to testify?
Yearsley: Madam Chair, I move that we close the public hearing on -- oh, one page off.
So, on file number H-2017-0098.
Cassanelli: Second.
McCarvel: It has been moved and seconded to close the public hearing on H-2017-0098,
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
September 7, 2017
Page 33 of 49
Genso. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. THREE ABSENT.
Cassanelli: Question for staff.
McCarvel: Sure.
Cassanelli: On the -- the access, I'm -- won't they -- they will -- won't they need access
on the -- on the commercial part of that from both Locust Grove and Franklin? Are you
going try -- are you thinking -- you're wanting to route everybody to those two side streets?
Is that --
Hood: So, Madam Chair, Commissioners, our -- our code -- again, if you have access
from other local streets is where you're supposed to take access from . I can envision an
access to Franklin and an access to Locust Grove that gets shared amongst the three
lots. I think that can make some sense for connectivity purposes and just access and
general traffic flow. However, the concept plan is just for the northern part. So, I think as
Lots 2 and 3 come in with -- who is it and do you need -- is an access needed to Franklin
or not, that can be determined at a future date. So, I would say for the regional purposes
and this parcel overall, I could definitely see access still working if you only did Nola and
Lanark. Now, if a C store goes in on the proposed Lot 2, I definitely see them in here
asking for an access or two to each of those roadways and we would probably say, yeah,
there is some justification for that. But this is very close to the signal at Locust Grove and
Franklin. So, trying to limit access points helps traffic flow and increase the safety overall
on the transportation network. So, again, having it just beyond Nolan and Lanark is not
the worst thought in the world. I mean it could -- could potentially work and, again, that's
in alignment with some of the goals that we are trying to preserve capacity on adjacent
arterial roadways. So, yes and no to answer your question . We are not necessarily
saying never can an access be had from Franklin or Locust Grove, but some justification
for that needs to come forward in the future and until then they should be limited to the
local commercial roads.
Yearsley: So, just for that, can you restate how you would like that position to read? I
kind of got caught off on -- got caught off guard --
Hood: Yes.
Yearsley: -- on that condition.
Hood: I did, too. I read the staff report with Josh and just didn't do a final proofreading of
this, but -- so, we are in -- on page four of the -- of the exhibits, site specific provision
1.1B, direct vehicle access shall be limited to Lanark and Nola, unless ACHD and the City
Council grant access to North Locust Grove Road and East Franklin Road in the future.
Bernt: Good luck with that. Why don't you just grab his paper.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
September 7, 2017
Page 34 of 49
Yearsley: That's what I'm --
Hood: Well -- and I will be honest, Commissioners, if you are so inclined to take on that
language you can just say as staff read it in the record and we can make that happen, so
-- I can read it slowly or, again, if you like.
McCarvel: No.
Bernt: One more time, please. One more time.
McCarvel: Always a comedian in the bunch.
Cassanelli: So, can I -- I guess to paraphrase that. So, we would be closing those --
based on that language, we would be closing those access points right now and, then,
when Lots 2 and 3 come to us for -- for approval we would potentially be recommending
that those be opened back up as needed.
Hood: It's a good question. Just to clarify, the intent of that is not that they actually have
to go out there and repour a curb -- vertical curve so that you can't use those driveways.
But they should not be -- cars should not be entering and exiting those until development
is proposed on Lots 2 and 3 and at which time maybe one of those days or maybe it's
something in between them and they want to construct it in a location that's right on those
property lines or whatever, at that point in time, yes, those would be consolidated,
combined into one, maybe there is none on Franklin and one on Locust Grove or whatever
it is. But, no, the intent is not for them to have to run out there and, you know, physically
prevent cars from going there, but they shouldn't be advertised as access, meaning don't
pave into the site from the driveway and connect it up to the proposed Lot 1, if that makes
sense. So, you can't use it, but it doesn't mean you have to physically close it.
Cassanelli: Okay. The -- another question for you. Will the -- in regards to the rezone to
light industrial, the proposed warehouse that's going in, will that -- I know there is some
warehouses right up on the other -- on the north side of the -- of the rail tracks there, there
is a plumbing supply and there is some other things. Will that -- I know there is some --
some drawings there. Will it fit the overall industrial that's right in that area as well?
Hood: Madam Chair, Commissioners, it -- it will need to comply with our design review
standards, so that is another provision that -- the certificate of zoning compliance and
design review. We have actually talked with -- I think it was just last week the -- the
owner-operator that's -- that's looking to go there on the northern part of this property
that's being rezoned and we had some concerns with their elevations , but they believe
that they can comply with the industrial design review standards . The Ferguson and
some of the other users that are in that area, some of these buildings predate our current
design review ordinance or even design review at all. We didn't have them back then.
So, I think this building will tie together some of the commercial uses that are in the area
and the industrial uses that are -- that are coming closer to Franklin Road -- that even
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
September 7, 2017
Page 35 of 49
exist on Franklin Road in the Sparrow Hawk Subdivision just a little bit further to the east.
You know, beauty and that's in the eye of the beholder a little bit, but there are some
standards that we are going to have them adhere to and as you can see it's not just the
-- you know, an all metal building with no windows. We talked to them about the flat roof
even and some things that they can do with that. But it is an industrial district and an
industrial building and we understand that , you know, it's -- it's largely a warehouse, but
they understand, too, that it's on an intersection of two major arterial roadways. So, again,
there is some middle ground there and I think they understand, you know, kind of the
overall vision we are open for out of a warehouse, if that helps or not. I know this scan
isn't overly clear on -- as far as building materials and colors and those types of things,
but, again, I think where the loading docks are those will be screened adequately. They
have some nice landscaping and setback. There is parking in between some of that.
They do have a will call window for customers as well. Again, I'm pretty confident that it
all -- it will look nice when all is said and done.
Cassanelli: Thank you.
McCarvel: Thank you. Okay.
Yearsley: Madam Chair?
McCarvel: Commissioner Yearsley.
Yearsley: After considering staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move to recommend
file number H-2017-0098 as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of
September 7, 2017, with the following modification, that Condition 1.1.B be modified per
staff recommendations.
Cassanelli: Second.
McCarvel: It has been moved and second to approve H-2017-0098 with modifications.
All those in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. THREE ABSENT.
G. Public Hearing for AT&T – Store-It Self Storage (H-2017-0112)
by Justin Hadley, Smartlink, LLC located at 1776 N. Avest Lane
1. Request: Conditional Use Permit approval of a 100-foot tall
wireless communication (cell tower) facility in a C-G zoning
district
McCarvel: At this time we will open the public hearing for Item H-2017-0112, AT&T Store-
it Self Storage and we will begin with the staff report.
Hood: Thank you, Madam Chair, Members of the Commission. This is a conditional use
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
September 7, 2017
Page 36 of 49
permit for a one hundred foot tall wireless communication facility, full array facility, in a C-
G zoning district. So, you can see the red there on the screen is our C-G, general retail
and service commercial district. The overall site is 14.2 acres. It's located -- the mailing
address is 1776 North Avest Lane. The proposed tower is located about in this general
location here, if you can see my pointer. To the north of the subject property is Mirage
Meadows Subdivision. It is zoned R-4. To the west is Locust Grove Road and, then, on
the other side of Locust Grove are single family residential homes, zoned RUT in Ada
county and commercial offices zoned L-O in the City of Meridian. To the south is the Fred
Meyer complex, zoned C-G. And to the east is Dove Meadows Subdivision, single family
residential, zoned R-8. There are two existing cell towers on this property -- let's see if
they show up on this site plan. This is a better one. There are two existing cell towers
on the subject property. One was approved in 2001, the other in 2005. The applicant is
requesting, again, a conditional use permit for a full array facility, because it does not
comply with all of our design standards for wireless communication facilities . Some of
the conditions in the staff report -- and this is -- is conditioned as such in Exhibit E. Some
of the requirements for wireless communication facilities in UDC 11-4-3-43 regarding
design and the ability for future co-location and some engineering drawings were not fully
submitted with the conditional use permit application, so we have conditioned that, that
the applicant, with their certificate of zoning compliance, submit those required
documentations out of that -- the specific use standards in the UDC for wireless
communication facilities. As well as design review. So, a design review is also required
there. There are quite a few requirements, you know, color -- the setbacks seem to be
okay. Just a little bit on that real quick. So, it's about 400 feet away from the residences
to the north. Our code requires 150 foot minimum s, any residence, and a hundred foot
or at least the height of the tower setback from any right of way. So, it complies with
those requirements. But a full array of communication facility requires the CUP. We did
-- I did receive -- or the clerk received one piece of written testimony from a Mr. Charles
Wright. I'm going to summarize his -- his e-mail, but it should be in your pocket, so you
can read it for yourself. He does note that there is an un -- one of the two towers that
already exist on this site is unused and this would be the third tower on the site and he
doesn't want the Store-it self facilities -- storage site to become a cell tower farm and that
he can see this from his house is h is concern. So, that's summarizing his comments. I
don't know if he's here this evening, but -- so, staff has, again, conditioned that they
comply with all of the design standards for a wireless communication facility in the C-G
zoning district and I will stand for any questions you may have.
McCarvel: Any questions for staff?
Cassanelli: Madam Chair?
McCarvel: Commissioner Cassanelli.
Cassanelli: Caleb, does this -- a couple of -- where it's -- a couple questions where it's
going in. Is that -- number one, it's going to block emergency access there.
Hood: If you give me just a second --
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
September 7, 2017
Page 37 of 49
Cassanelli: Is that going to be an issue?
Hood: It should not, but I'm just going to confirm that I received comments from police
and/or fire on that.
Cassanelli: And while you're searching, if I can ask the other question. Is this good --
are you -- are we going to need to continue this until after you get the updates on the
designs?
Hood: So, Madam Chair, if I can maybe start there and answer your questions in reverse.
The applicant has satisfied staff as far as the warrant for the facility itself , we just don't
have some of the details on the -- the base being engineered to be structurally sound and
those types of things. So, we can get there through our certificate of zoning compliance
and design review process at the staff level. So, that answers that question. And, then,
I don't see -- I see Central District Health, ITD, Nampa-Meridian, but I don't see anything
from our police or fire, but we did have a -- a -- what we call a project review meeting with
all of our emergency service providers and they were invited to attend and they had
access to this, so I would have thought -- I would think -- and I'm just speculating -- that if
they would have had any issues with that they would have brought that up at the time in
reviewing the site plan. It is -- I will just point out it's a little bit hard to see on that. The
entire area -- entire project area is 24 by 24, I believe. Let me just pull that up real quick.
That detail. Yeah. Twenty-four, six, by twenty-three nine. So, a 24 -- about 24 by 24 site
for their cabinet and all the, you know, utilities -- that's the area that will basically be fenced
off there. So, I think what's highlighted there is a little bit larger than the actual impact --
sorry, went the wrong way -- actual impact to the asphalt that's -- that's shown in this
aerial. We certainly will, you know, verify with -- particularly fire that their access isn't
hampered by this going in here prior to issuing a certificate of zoning compliance.
Cassanelli: Okay.
McCarvel: Any other questions for staff? Would the applicant like to come forward.
Hadley: Good evening. My name is Justin Hadley, representing AT&T. My address is
110 East 1750 North, Orem, Utah. 84057. Thank you for the presentation. I have been
working with Josh, so I know you just stepped in. Covered it fairly well. First off, to answer
those first couple questions, it is not an access into the storage units as far as I am aware.
The gated access would be -- I guess we are not looking at the same thing. Further over
to the east. So, it should not be blocking the access or causing any issues that way. And,
then, as far as the structural information, I wasn't aware that was requested or needed for
zoning, but that is something that we always do with the cell phone towers typically with
the building permit part of it. So, once the zoning is approved, basically, a tower will get
ordered and they will produce the foundation, shelter, tower, structural calculations and
whatnot for that -- that will -- that's when it will be supplied. And other that -- you know,
as far as the two existing towers on the site, one of our first goals is to co-locate on existing
towers. It's easier. It's cheaper. These two are both -- they are fairly old, as you
mentioned the years they were built. I believe they are both one hundred feet. One of
them may be 80. The other I believe a hundred. One is owned by American Tower. One
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
September 7, 2017
Page 38 of 49
is Crown Castle. They are both stealth canister type towers, which I don't know if you
guys are familiar with them, basically, you know, the canister is about three, four feet wide
and the antennas are screened inside of that. So, it's just kind of an odd shaped or odd
looking kind of blank flag pole in my opinion what these towers are. But -- not saying they
look bad. But the issue with them is the way technology is going and all the antennas,
equipment, that these carriers need, restricting to stealth style facilities and like flush
mount or putting them inside of a caster, really limits what they are able to do. I mean
these days with new sites for AT&T in particular, if we are stuck with an option like that, I
have got to fill up two, sometimes three RAD centers or three different vertical heights
basically within the tower, which takes up the entire thing. I am fairly certain this American
Tower one is active. There is one, if not two carriers inside it, so it is fully loaded -- again,
a canister type. There really isn't much we could do with it. The other Crown Castle site
is vacant, like was mentioned, as far as I am aware. The previous carrier was Cricket,
who AT&T actually now owns, so that was one of the first things we looked at, actually.
But the Cricket is completely expired, there is no active least there. Two -- I don't know
details, but I know there are basically issues with these major tower owners and the
carriers right now, but the biggest thing with that other tower is that it's really, basically,
kind of dinky and wimpy, since it is the stealth style tower and it was really only built for
Cricket, who had very minimal equipment and antennas while they were around. To use
that tower we would have to rip down the entire thing, build a new one, which would
basically be costing AT&T hundreds of thousands of dollars to build somebody else's
tower that -- I don't know if it's a legal issue -- I don't know. But, basically, we would be
building them a new tower just to put AT&T's equipment on. So, I can't say what will
happen to that tower in the future, but right now in my professional opinion it's not good
for anything.
McCarvel: So, technically, you don't own that either? I mean you said --
Hadley: Crown Castle owns that tower.
McCarvel: Okay. But you said AT&T bought --
Hadley: Cricket.
McCarvel: -- Cricket that had the tower.
Hadley: -- who had the tower. They are no longer on there. They vacated the ground
space. There is nobody using that tower. For any carrier to come along and use that
tower, in my professional opinion and what we have seen and talked to Crown Castle
themselves, I don't think that tower could be used for anything, without pulling it down and
putting up a whole --
McCarvel: Do you know of any plan to tear that one down?
Hadley: I don't. I don't -- I'm not a representative for Crown Castle. I work with them a
lot, but -- I'm sure they would like to get somebody on there, but, again, I can't say for one
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
September 7, 2017
Page 39 of 49
hundred percent sure, but any of the major careers are going to need similar configuration
to what AT&T needs and that tower wouldn't hold a fraction of it. So, the tower we are
proposing will be a hundred foot strong mono pole with -- I don't know if you're all familiar
with the full array that was mentioned, that's the one item that has come to a conditional
use permit. The full array is -- instead of, you know, being flush mounted or stealth inside
a canister, it's the wider -- and there you go. A slide picture. It's not great. But anyway.
So, there is three sectors -- three sectors of antennas, so, basically, three sections of
them pointing three directions, covers 360 degrees. Each sector will have up to four
antennas, so 12 antennas total. So, the full array is that. It's, basically, allowing the
carriers to get their full configuration that's needed at one RAD height, which will also --
this tower will be built and able to co-locate. I mean you could easily get three carriers
on that, possibly more, depending on the heights. And that's, again, part of the structural
thing. This will be built to be co-locatable.
McCarvel: Any other questions for the applicant?
Bernt: So, Madam Chair?
McCarvel: Commissioner Bernt.
Bernt: So, just to be clear, you guys aren't owners, nor have any responsibility or
accountability for that other vacant tower? It has nothing to do with you?
Hadley: No. AT&T owns Cricket, but Cricket no longe r has an active lease and was
vacated.
Bernt: You're talking about the leases of the carriers that are put on as antennas.
Hadley: Yes.
Bernt: They use the tower.
Hadley: Who owns the tower -- they lease it out to the carriers. Crown Castle and
American Tower, which are the two towers, they are tower companies, they actually
bought up most of AT&T, Verizon, everyone's towers, now they are all in a big fight. Why
I don't know.
McCarvel: Would it be more the self storage that's renting -- that's leasing that space to
the cell tower --
Hadley: Yes. It's leasing it to the carriers.
McCarvel: That's leasing it to -- yeah.
Hadley: Crown Castle and American Tower.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
September 7, 2017
Page 40 of 49
McCarvel: Right.
Hadley: And, then, they -- the tower companies, then, lease to the individual carriers. So,
Crown Castle was leasing to Cricket. That has expired, no longer active, and their
equipment is gone. So, there is really -- if it was still active we may have pursued it harder,
just because there is an active lease and we could have kind of acted on it, but -- again,
it's -- that tower will not -- but we couldn't even modify it. That tower would have to come
down and be replaced with basically what we are proposing.
Yearsley: Did you try to -- sorry, Madam Chair. Did you try to talk with them to see if they
would be willing to do those improvements to make it amenable for that site ?
Hadley: We have talked with Crown Castle. Again, I work with them a lot -- quite often
and, yeah, sure, they would be willing to work with us. Again, I don't know the details, but
there are some major kind of -- I don't know if they go as far as legal, but all of the carriers
and -- own the big three and these two are two of the big three tower companies are in a
major quarrel. But, again, what it would come down to -- they -- they would probably love
us to do it, because what it would really mean for them is AT&T will build them a brand
new tower for hundreds of thousands of dollars that they will own , not AT&T, and also
they will be able to collect ridiculous amounts of any rent in the agreements that, basically,
are in place and their being fought.
Yearsley: So, you're going to own this one, then; correct?
Hadley: At the moment this will be an AT&T tower.
Yearsley: Okay.
Hadley: If they happen to bid it out to a -- they call it BTS, build to suit, company, which,
basically, would be a tower company, that's a possibility. It would not be one of these big
three carriers, it might be a company that -- a lot of carriers don't want to own the assets
anymore, which is why they sold a lot of them.
McCarvel: Any other questions for the applicant? Thank you.
Hood: Madam Chair?
McCarvel: Yes.
Hood: Before you go into the rest of the public hearing, I just wanted to circle back maybe
on some of the questions that were pulled up.
McCarvel: Sure.
Hood: An aerial here that I think might help anyways, just to kind of show us -- on there.
So, I measured the -- the width of that and it's -- you know, it's Google, so I'm not going
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
September 7, 2017
Page 41 of 49
to -- but it's roughly 40 feet between buildings there. So, again, you're fire department
typically is a 20 foot wide access. As the applicant stated, this isn't the main access, but
I imagine it was required as a secondary access.
Hadley: Right. It is an access. There is not a wall there.
Hood: No. It's a sliding gate. No, it is -- it is an access and even on the site plan it calls
out a sliding gate there for the fence. So, it is some form of an access and I'm not the fire
department, obviously, but, typically, we have seen storage unit projects before. Typically
they do want two ways of in and out of some, especially of this size. So, I'm going to --
bear with me one second here. I'm going to zoom -- just to get a feel for the entire
complex, so you can see that, really, there isn't a second -- you know, there is this access
here that looks like it's also secondary. The main access into the storage units -- you
know, the main public access is here. There is a secondary access here that looks looks
like it would also serve as, again, a potential emergency access should this one get
blocked, so that would give two. Again, this one is very wide. I can zoom in to any of that
if you would like. But I just wanted to kind of give you a lay of the overall land and it's a
very good question about that, you know, being constrained and, again, 20 feet is typically
that magic width for -- for the fire department with radiuses that, you know, the fire trucks
can turn in and out. So, if I had to venture a guess -- and, again, I'm not the fire marshal
-- I would guess they would like to have these accesses in case there are emergencies
and they need to get in a unit on the backside quicker. They did review it, though, and
said they had no comments. So -- but I will bring it up to them again and just make sure
that they are good with the clearance here in between and it's going to be real close there
to that -- again, 40 feet wide and you are about 22 feet -- 24 feet with the bollards that
they are proposing kind of around their facility. So, it's going to be real close. But, again,
we will just get them to verify that. I wanted to just circle back real quick on that.
Cassanelli: Thank you. Madam Chair, I guess one more question for the applicant.
McCarvel: Commissioner Cassanelli.
Cassanelli: Justin, was there anywhere else on -- on storage property there where --
where a tower would -- would work? I don't know how fine -- you know, fine of an area
you have to put a -- put a tower, but --
Hadley: Yeah. I know. We looked at a couple areas. I think this was actually the -- after
the fact, after -- you know, is CW here? Okay. He's the property owner. I haven't
personally met him. But my brother, who I work with, is my manager, he did the initial site
walk with CW, who owns the property. I believe they were originally looking -- so, let's
see. The American Towers in that far west parking strip -- am I correct? Where the cars
are? Is that --
Hood: Sorry.
Hadley: The American Tower site -- existing tower, is it in that far west -- yeah.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
September 7, 2017
Page 42 of 49
Hood: There is one here -- there is one --
Hadley: It's right there. Okay. Yes. So, I believe it was one of those to the center where
a lot of the vehicles are parked and they are just taking up additional space there. I
honestly can't remember the exact conversation they had , but on the sidewalk with the
property owner everyone has kind of established that was a more desirable spot, it was
more out of the way for him, didn't take up spots that could make revenue off of. I believe
it's probably closer to power and fiber access being out there on the edge and also I think
that spot got us the furthest away from any residents as we could. I know residents don't
like to look at them as much. They all do like their cell phones, but I get it, so we try to
stay as far away from there as we can. One additional comment. The -- you know, the
one hundred foot proposed -- according to city code height limits do not pertain to wireless
towers. When I submitted my candidates I basically told AT&T and our engineers there
is no height limit. They came back and wanted a 300 foot tower. I told them no. I
understand what the code says that, but, no, I'm not even going to fight that for you, so I
got them down to the hundred feet, which gets them the height they need and still makes
it co-locatable for other carriers. So, hopefully this all works out. As mentioned in the
report about -- and you may not know, it may have come from Josh, but an existing site
about a mile away, the lease going out I personally was not aware of that. But where that
came from -- if that's the truth, then, that there is an AT&T site within a mile that is coming
down, this will be a very needed site, not only for their capacity and coverage that it's
aiming for now, but if another site goes down that's nearby you're going to have a big
coverage gap going on. So, I'm going to look into that, because I don't know where that
statement came from.
McCarvel: Thank you.
Hadley: Yeah. Thank you.
McCarvel: There is nobody signed up for public testimony, but is there anyone here that
would like to testify? Sure. Come forward. State your name and address for the record.
Lefever: I'm Denise Hansen Lefever at 6706 North Salvia Way in Meridian and I'm just
kind of curious and I just don't know the answer. When I -- when I look at some of these
towers they are dressed up like trees and I guess there is options to make these look a
little more palatable to the neighbors and I'm just wondering if that's on the table.
That's --
McCarvel: Thank you. Please state your name and address for the record.
Marshall: My name is Joe Marshall. I live at 5937 North Arliss Avenue, Meridian, Idaho.
83714 -- or 83646. Excuse me.
Bernt: Where is that related to this? Is it close?
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
September 7, 2017
Page 43 of 49
Marshall: No. Nowhere close.
Bernt: Okay.
Marshall: I just happen to be here, heard the statement, and thought I would make a
comment, since it's here in Meridian and I drive past this and this is my city, I think I can
do my opportunity to speak and one thing I would ask you to consider and to think about
-- and you will need to for long term -- is that -- he's mentioning that we have a couple of
old poles up and that one of them is unused complete ly. The other may be unusable
within a few years. He's saying the oldest pole might be 15 years old and it's no longer
usable by anyone and he's also mentioned that AT&T and the big companies don't want
to own their poles anymore, that this one would probably be sold off and somebody else
will own it and they will rent it back and, then, we are going to be back in 15 years or ten
years with the next company wanting to relocate somewhere else on this property and
we are going to end up with a porcupine throughout this valley. I don't think this is a bad
location per se. I can't find anything specifically wrong with this, but it is something we
are going to have to consider long term, that we are going to have to have pole after pole
after pole go up and because they made a -- a business decision to sell off their poles
and now it's -- they no longer own it, well, gosh, you have got to go back and negotiate
with the poll owner. No, we will just build a whole other one and we are going to have
poles everywhere and I -- personally I believe that's their problem that they sold off the
poles or choose not to own them and, then, they are forced to go negotiate and pay
hundreds of thousands of dollars to build a new pole, well, that's tough. It's a business
decision. You lost out. And, I'm sorry, that's my opinion. Thank you.
McCarvel: Anyone else here I wish to testify? Would the applicant like to come forward
and address any of those issues.
Hadley: So, for the first question, yeah, there are many, many different ways to stealth a
facility. I don't know -- and I'm from down in Utah county, I have been up in this area a
good handful of times working on a couple of sites in Boise and I have seen where --
Bernt: What do you mean by stealth facility? What does that mean?
Hadley: Stealth -- disguising a facility, like as a tree as she mentioned, or a fake bell
tower or a steeple on a church or -- you know, there is so many different ways these days.
I believe there are a couple -- I know there is one in Boise. There is one or two mono
pines -- fake pine trees around Boise. I don't know if any of you have seen him -- you
have seen them. Some of them, you know, they can look good. A lot of people when
that idea is even brought up -- to be honest, I have heard this term Franken tree -- it
makes me laugh. But, you know, when they were first started they weren't very
disguising. So, they have come a long way. They can make them look very good. They
can do different kinds of trees. But in my professional experience they really only work
and help reduce visual and whatnot when they fit in. I mean for a pine tree, if there is
there is no other pine trees -- if you're going to put a pine tree in the middle of a storage
unit, you are going to notice that a lot more than a cell phone tower, where, you know, in
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
September 7, 2017
Page 44 of 49
my opinion most people that see cell towers -- I know a lot people when I tell them what I
do for work, they don't even know what cell towers are. You know, they can -- I'd love to
put a palm tree. I have proposed lots of pine trees, but -- so, you know, it really just
depends on the surrounding environment, what's there. Most towers really look -- you
know, with power poles and towers everywhere -- standard mono poles, in my opinion,
seem to just blend in. They don't just disappear from your view and I know they are not
the prettiest things, you know, but for this particular location I think you stick a hundred
foot fake pine tree in there, it's going to be extremely noticeable. Where they fit in it works,
but they also cost tremendous amounts more money. So, we tend to really only go to
them when there are jurisdiction requirements or it's just really makes sense.
McCarvel: Thank you.
Hadley: And you know -- so, the other comment -- you know, I don't know why these
companies sold off all their towers and got in a fight with the tower company either. I
agree that's not really anybody else's problem, but what it really comes down to -- whether
there is disagreements or not, a business decision to basically -- they sold off the tower
in the first place -- if they sold this tower off. I don't know who originally owned this
particular tower. This was probably a Crown Castle tower if it was only Cricket, you know.
AT&T would never own this tower. But it makes absolutely no business sense to spend
hundreds of thousands of dollars to build a tower for a different company and, then, also
pay them a ridiculous monthly lease rate, so --
McCarvel: Thank you.
Hadley: The tower we are proposing will be very co-locatable. There are too many
carriers. If any other carriers need to come to this area, this tower will be ideal and built
and ready.
Bernt: Madam Chair? What does co-locatable mean?
Hadley: Co-locate means additional carriers. So, it's in your code. Co-location is one of
the preferred things. So, to say this tower is existing, I'm coming in to put a second set
of antennas on here, because T-Mobile is at the top, on co-locating on that existing tower.
Bernt: I got it.
McCarvel: Thank you. At this time can I get a motion to close the public hearing for Item
No. H-2017-0112, AT&T Store-it Self Storage.
Cassanelli: So moved.
Yearsley: Second.
McCarvel: It has been moved and seconded to close the public hearing on Item H-2017-
0112. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
September 7, 2017
Page 45 of 49
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. THREE ABSENT.
McCarvel: A couple thoughts. I do think in the middle of the storage unit and the -- where
it is I think the cell tower is -- is probably just fine. I was going to maybe talk to staff after
this, because I really don't think it's -- this particular applicant's issue, but since it was
brought up in the public comments I will go and address it now that maybe as a city
ordinance or something going forward, you know, have something out there that if a cell
tower is useless for a certain period of time that it's required to come down. Do we have
anything out there like that now? Because I can -- as this whole discussion was going on
in the early part of it I could -- I could kind of see where long term this is going to be an
issue and, like he said, with them selling off and leasing and who really owns it and whose
responsibility is it, that we maybe need to figure that out and address it, whose problem
is it and that they should come down after a certain amount of nonuse. So, my two cents.
I don't know I need a response or anything, that's just my two cents in our discussions
here. Yeah. It's a discussion for another day, but since it was brought up that I had
intended on it being a discussion for another day, but since it was brought up here I
thought I'd throw that out there, because I think long term it is going to be a problem.
Anymore thoughts and -- thoughts on this particular applicant?
Yearsley: You know, Madam Chair, former Commissioner Marshall actually had a good
point and ultimately it's not AT&T who is I guess maybe at fault or -- or what, but I kind of
go back to the property owner looking for additional income.
McCarvel: Uh-huh. Right.
Yearsley: -- and he doesn't care if he's got four or five towers on there, as long as he's
getting his rent and, you know, it can be an eye sore and maybe we make a statement to
the property owner and say you have got two already, why do you need a third.
McCarvel: Yeah.
Yearsley: And I apologize -- you know, it does affect you guys, but -- but is this an
appropriate site where they have already got two, is a third appropriate.
McCarvel: Right. And that's kind of what I was trying to drill down in the early stage of
who really owns this and kind of did fall on it is the self-storage property owner that I
guess has the ultimate --
Yearsley: Absolutely.
McCarvel: -- gain and loss here.
Yearsley: And that -- that's where I come back to is -- is I understand why they sold them
off, it's your tax code, you have to pay taxes on it and if you lease it you count it as a
depreciation so you don't have to pay taxes. So, it's all kind of a game in a lot a ways so
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
September 7, 2017
Page 46 of 49
you don't have to pay taxes. But -- but I guess to me it all comes down to is this an
appropriate location and there is two towers there already, is a third an appropriate -- is
that appropriate and I guess I -- I'm struggling with that decision and I would be curious
what the other commissioners have to say.
Bernt: Madam Chair?
McCarvel: Yeah. Sure.
Bernt: I -- I drive down this road quite a bit and so I am very familiar with these poles. I
-- I don't like the look and there is something sideways about it just doesn't smell right. I
don't like it. It doesn't look good. You know, who's to say that you can put a couple more
on there, you know, tear down a couple more units and have, you know, Verizon being
there next and, honestly, I -- I don't -- I don't like the precedent this is sending. I think that
the gentleman in the black shirt -- sorry I don't know your name, but I think that he has a
strong point, you know, what happens, you know, in the future with -- with nonusable, you
know, poles and -- and I think the Commissioner had -- had a great, great point --
McCarvel had a great point in regard to, you know, going forward what do we do with
unusable, you know, structures that -- you know, that aren't used and are they going to
stay up, I think -- I think it's a big problem or could potentially be a big problem. So, I -- I
have to be talked into it more than -- than what is stated in the applicant's proposal and
also on top of that I have real concerns about, you know, the access point that will be
used, you know, emergency access. If you do the math we are going to be short. It's
going to be pretty tight to fit an emergency type vehicle through that -- through that space
and so there is a lot of questions in my mind that I would -- and this -- unless someone
else brings up, you know, some things -- you know, some points of interest that will
change my mind I'm not in favor of this, so --
McCarvel: Commissioner Cassanelli.
Cassanelli: Going back to future code and that sort of thing, I wholeheartedly agree with
you that something may need to be addressed there for unused towers, as well as maybe
looking at a limit to concentration of towers within a -- within a given area. That said,
AT&T apparently needs coverage in this area. I don't know if we could look at -- I don't
like that location. I would -- and the reason why with the property owner like was said, he
is wanting to maximize his revenue, putting it somewhere where he's not leasing -- getting
revenue right now and he's able to do that. I would -- where I would like to maybe see it
is -- if they are not going to tear down that existing tower that's dead, put it adjacent to
there, he's going to -- he will lose one to two parking stalls, but his revenue on -- I don't
know what revenue on -- on a tower is. I would imagine it's probably at least four times
what he's getting off of an RV rental. But that way it puts it more in the center, it's not as
much as an eye sore. It would provide AT&T a tower and then -- then it can be addressed
-- that dead tower can be addressed at a -- at a later point in time. But I think it was some
agreement to Commissioner Bernt that I would -- I don't like it where it's at --
Bernt: Neither do I.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
September 7, 2017
Page 47 of 49
Cassanelli: -- I would -- if they came back and said we will put it -- we will put it next to
that dead tower down that row of parking stalls towards -- it's a little bit more in the center,
a little bit more buried in this property, I would be fine with that. But right now, yeah, I
don't -- it's right close to the road. I don't know -- the person that -- that had the objection
if they live on Locust Grove or if they are back in the subdivision behind -- that's my
thoughts.
Bernt: Madam Chair?
McCarvel: Commissioner Bernt.
Bernt: I think that's a great compromise, actually. You know. Commissioner Cassanelli,
I think that's fantastic, and I didn't think of that prior to, but I think that that would be a
great compromise if you -- if you want it there, you know, sort of -- you don't have to dress
it up like a pine tree, but you might want to put it against another pole to make it look like
it's -- you know, I think that could potentially be a great -- great compromise and if the --
if the person who owns the property, C.W., you know, honestly wants that there and wants
to partake of the profits that he or she may want to partake of , then, you know, taking
down a couple of, you know, stalls that house different, you know, units could be a great
compromise. I agree one hundred percent with both. Well thought.
Cassanelli: Thank you. Even for this late at night I can think.
Hood: Madam Chair, can I just add a couple of other -- other things to the mix. So, again,
a conditional use permit. You know this has kind of brought up everything from, you
know, can it be stealth, can it -- you know, what -- what are your options here I guess is
kind of what I want to lay out for you. So, again, a conditional use permit, you really have
three options. One, you could continue it. If your concern is for emergency access and
you're not sure, hey, did you really look at this, Fire, or, sure, you know, you could continue
it for two weeks to see if Fire is really okay with that location or if they have got, you know,
life safety concerns about access there. But, again, your purview is anything that
mitigates those concerns you just talked about, you could condition this to say, you know,
we don't like it that tall or we want it to look like a pine tree or -- or -- I mean I just want a
real quick read to you -- so, let me finish that thought real quick. So, continue, recommend
approval with conditions you think adequately mitigate the concerns that you're bringing
up, or, three, would be denial. If you deny it you need to tell them what you would -- what
they would need to change, so that they could gain your approval in the future, if it's
located over there and lower it and make it a pine tree or whatever that is , they need
some clear direction on if they come back with something on this site what would you be
looking for. So, just -- I want to just bring this back to wireless communication facilities
overall. I'm not going to read to you all the purpose statements, but in the code I mean
you have the -- it's to facilitate the -- the provision of wireless telecommunication services
to the residences and businesses of the City of Meridian. We certainly recognize that
people like their cell phones and they like good coverage and don't like to drop calls. But
in that same system, minimize the adverse visual effects of communication towers and
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
September 7, 2017
Page 48 of 49
other similar structures through careful design standards, avoid potential damage to
adjacent properties from the structural failure of towers, require the co-location of new
wireless communication equipment when possible in order to reduce the number of
towers required and encourage the location of wireless community communication
facilities in nonresidential districts and encouraged the construction of stealth
communication towers, which are compatible with the surroundings and do not detract
from the overall visual quality of the city. As I stated earlier, they have done their due
diligence and said why they can't co-locate on either one of those existing ones, we said,
okay, you have proved to us you have got in writing saying you can't just put your stuff on
top of those, they won't handle it. The other part, though, why they are before you is their
design doesn't meet all of our standards for how -- it was mentioned full array towers we
don't allow in this one, they are only allowed in industrial zones unless you get a
conditional use permit and, then, again, you are like, okay, we don't allow these, what can
we do to make it fit. Can it fit? How can it be designed? So, that's probably enough. I
just wanted to give you -- kind of lay out your options and -- and you have touched on I
think everything the intent of this code talks about. Aesthetics. Location. You know,
safety. So, I will just leave it there, unless you have any other questions.
McCarvel: Any other questions for Caleb? Okay.
Yearsley: Madam Chair?
McCarvel: Commissioner Yearsley.
Yearsley: After considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move to deny file
number H-2017-0112 as presented in the hearing date of September 7, 2017, for the
following reasons: The location of where the pole is is not a -- not a desired location and
that he has already got two poles on this facility where we are getting a cluster of poles.
Those are my conditions and the reasons.
McCarvel: Okay. Do we have a second?
Bernt: Second.
McCarvel: Do we have -- okay. It has been moved and seconded to deny H-2017-0112.
All those in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion denied.
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. THREE ABSENT.
Yearsley: Madam Chair?
McCarvel: Commissioner Yearsley.
Yearsley: I move we adjourn.
Cassanelli: Second.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
September 7, 2017
Page 49 of 49
McCarvel: I have a second on that one. It has been moved and seconded to adjourn the
meeting. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. TWO ABSENT.
MEETING ADJOURNED AT 8:19 P.M.
(AUDIO RECORDING ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS.)
APPROVED
R ONDA McCARVEL - C14AIRMAN DATE APPROVED
ATTEST:
/i
C. SAY C6LES - CITY CLERK
�$GU¢S��ATGbr1UG��lrfq
�p City of
F IMANt--_
e A r a
rF�Q`!kP �t ���`•
Meridian Planning Zoning Commission Meeting
DATE: September 7, 2017 ITEM NUMBER: 3A
PROJECT NUMBER:
ITEM TITLE:
Approve Minutes of August 17, 2017 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
MEETING NOTES
CLERKS OFFICE FINAL ACTION
DATE;
E-MAILED TO
STAFF
SENT TO
AGENCY
SENT TO
APPLICANT
NOTES
INITIALS
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
August 17, 2017
Page 23 of 23
MEETING ADJOURNED AT 7:03 P.M.
(AUDIO RECORDING ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS.)
APPROVED
, " - -4 M <', a o a , -Q q -1 71k�7
RHO DA McCARVEL - CHAIRPERSON DATE APPROVED
ATTEST: 1411
C. JAY (tOLES OITY CLERK `' city of
AN
^y `rr-}11TL
T
Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting
September 7, 2017
Item #4B: Linder Village – Original Proposed Site Plan
CONTINUANCE REQUESTED
Item #4C: Pine 43
Vicinity/Zoning Map
Original Concept Plan REVISED Concept Plan
Preliminary Plat/Phasing Plan
Pine/Webb Roundabout
Revised Landscape Plan
REVISED Qualified Open Space Exhibit
Conceptual Building Elevations
Item #4D: Brickyard Subdivision
Vicinity/Zoning Map
ÚÚd
ÚÚd
R-4
R-8
RUT
C-G
R-8
L-O
R-4
R-8
R-2
R1
RUTD/DA
R-8
R-8
R-8
R-2
R-15
R1
R-8
RUT
R-4
R-4
RUT
RUT
R1
R1
R-15
C-N
C-C
R-15RUT
RUT
C-N
RUT
R1
R-2
R-8
RUT
N
E
A
G
L
E
R
D
E USTICK RD
E JASMINE LN
N
G
R
E
N
A
D
I
E
R
W
A
Y
N
S H A R O N
A V E
E ARCH DR
E TRAIL BLAZ E R D R
E SPEARFISH D R
E HERITAGE PARK LN
N L
E
S
L
I
E
WA
Y
N
P A N K R A T Z W A Y
E KAMAY DR
E SU MMERHEIGHT S D R
E RINGNECK ST
E WAINWRIGHT DR
N
W
I
N
G
A
T
E
L
N
E PICARD S
T
E L O BELIA ST
E NAKANO DR
N
T
R
O
X
E
L
W
A
Y
E VAN OKER ST
E BOWMAN ST
E PICARDLN
E EXPEDITION DR
N
D E V L I N
W A Y
E SUMMERPLACE CT
N
VE
R
A
D
O
AV
E
N S U M M E R F I E L D WAY
E CHANDLER ST
E RACE CT
N
S U M M E R S I D E
W A Y
N
D E V L I N
A V E
N
B
E
T
U
L
A
AV
E
E RACE ST
E S U MMERDAWNDR
N
C
H
I
A
N
T
I
WA
Y
E S U M M E R R I DGE DR N
H A W K I N S
A V E
N
R E C O R D S
A V E
E MILFORD
ST
N
S
P
A
N
G
L
E
D
R
E CONNER ST
E SUMMER
DAWN ST
E
KAMAY CT
E SUMM E R D A W N DR
N
D
A
S
H
W
O
O
D
PL
N
C
H
A
N
C
E
R
Y
P
L
ELEIGH FIELD DR
E C O N K L I N D R
E
G
ARBER
DR
E SATTERFIELD S T
N
R O S E P O I N T
A V E
E SEVILLE LN
E TECATE LN
E MODELO LN
E COUGAR C R E E K D R
N
S
U
M
M
E
R
S
I
D
E
L
N
ESIDEWINDER DR
N S U M M E R P A R K
A V E
N
L A N C E R
A V E
N
D
U
A
N
E
D
R
EGRANADILLODR
N
P E T T Y W A Y
N
V I L L E R E
L N
E OMERA ST
E
WIGLEDR
E PARADISELN
EFREEDOMLN
N
C E N T R E P O I N T
W A Y
N
B R O O K S B U R G
W A Y
N
S H A R O N
A V E
N
C
A
J
U
N
L
N
N
D I X O N
A V E
N
C H E L M S F O R D
A V E
N
S U M M E R C R E S T
W A Y N
D I X O N
A V E
N
L E S L I E
W A Y
N LESLIE
W
A
Y
E SUMMERCOVEDR
N
LA
N
C
E
R
AV
E
ESUMMERFALLS DR
N
J U S T I N
A V E
N LIN
W
O
O
D
W
A
Y
N
B E T U L A
A V E
NCAMASCRE
E
K
W
A
YN
P A T R I O T C I R
N
L A W S O N P L
ESWINDELL
D
R
E
S T A R
L N
E STAR LN
N
L
E
B
L
A
N
C
W A Y
N RO
G
U
E
R
I
V
E
R
W
A
Y
4N1E32
4N1E33
3N1E05
3N1E04
North Slough
-ENSR Survey
ShavrerLateral
Nourse Lateral
Milk Lateral
SouthSlough
Milk Lateral
Concept Plan Included in 2006
Development Agreement
Family Center (Indoor Recreation),
Multi-Family & Commercial
Concept Plan Included in 2016
Development Agreement for N.W. Corner
Self-Service Storage Facility
Proposed Site Plan & Phasing Plan
Proposed Preliminary Plat
Proposed Landscape Plan
Site Amenities
Building
Elevations
Buildings restricted to 2-stories in height
Vertically Integrated Residential
Item #4E: Kentucky Ridge Estates
South
Vicinity/Zoning Map
Preliminary Plat
Landscape Plan
Conceptual Elevations
Conceptual Elevations
Item #4E: Gensco
Vicinity/Zoning Map
Conceptual Site Plan
Conceptual Elevations
Development Agreement Conditions
a. Future development of the northern portion of this site shall substantially comply with the conceptual
elevations included in Exhibit E and the conditions contained herein.
b. Direct vehicular access to N. Locust Grove limited to one shared access from E. Franklin and one
shared access from N. Locust Grove. The applicant shall receive approval from both ACHD and City
Council in order to utilize these access points.
c. The subject property shall be subdivided prior to issuance of any Certificate of Zoning Compliance
application OR the entire property shall be included with the Certificate of Zoning Compliance
application.
d. Future development shall comply with the design standards listed in UDC 11-3A-19 and the City of
Meridian Architectural Design Manual. Windows are required on all elevations that face the open play
area, the basketball court and any other areas used for children’s recreation to allow views of these
areas. All roof and wall mounted mechanical, electrical, communications, and service equipment
should be screened from public view from the adjacent streets and properties.
Item #4G: AT&T – Stor-It
Vicinity/Zoning Map
Site Plan
Location of Existing
Cell Towers
Elevations
Changes to Agenda:
• Item #4A: Heritage Hop Haus — CUP (H-2017-0100) — Request for continuance to September 21St due to a site posting
error.
• Item #413: Linder Village — CPAM, AZ, PP (H-2017.0088) — Applicant requests continuance to October 19th due to
submittal of a revised application & plans — Staff recommends requiring the applicant to hold a new neighborhood meeting
BEFORE the revised application/plans are submitted to the City as well as re -notice the project.
Item #4C: Pine 43 AZ, RZ, PP (H-2017-0058)
Application(s):
➢ Annexation & Zoning
➢ Rezone
➢ Preliminary Plat
➢ Development agreement modification (does not require Commission action)
At the previous hearing on August 17th, the Commission requested the applicant revise the site plan to replace the multi -family
residential area at the NWC of Pine/Webb with Commercial to allow for commercial/employment type uses and relocate some of the
multi -family units to the area east of Webb and south of the existing multi -family units adjacent to the Jackson Drain; and widen the
townhomes lots that don't have alley access to allow for detached homes.
Staff has reviewed the revised plans and feels they meet the intent of the Commission's action.
Item #4D: Brickyard Subdivision — CUP, PP, MDA (H-2017-0107)
Application(s):
➢ Conditional Use Permit
➢ Preliminary Plat
➢ Development Agreement Modification
Size of property, existing zoning, and location: This site consists of 14.27 acres of land, zoned C -G, located approximately 1/3 of a
mile north of E. Ustick Rd, & west of N. Eagle Rd.
Adjacent Land Use & Zoning:
North: Rural residential properties, zoned RUT in Ada County
South: Commercial properties, zoned C -G
East: Vacant/undeveloped property and an office, zoned RUT in Ada County
West: SFR properties, zoned R-8
History: This property was annexed in 2003 with the requirement of a DA that has been subsequently amended a couple of times.
Comprehensive Plan FLUM Designation: MU -R
Summary of Request: The applicant requests a modification to the existing DA to change the development plan for the northern
portion of the Centrepoint development from a self-service storage facility, commercial and MFR uses to mostly multi -family residential
with some vertically integrated residential. The DA modification does not require Commission action; the Council is the decision making
body on this application.
A preliminary plat is proposed consisting of 61 building lots & 4 common lots on 14.27 acres of land in the C -G zoning district. This is a
re -subdivision of Lots 9-11, Block 1 & Lots 16, 19-26, Block 2, Centrepoint Subdivision No. 2. The plat is proposed to develop in 4
phases.
Access is proposed to the residential units via Centrepoint Way, a collector street, with 2 driveways on the west side of Centrepoint & 3
driveways on the east side. A driveway access for the parking lot at the community center/swimming pool is also proposed on the west
side. Because the UDC limits access points to collector streets, Council approval of the proposed accesses is required.
A 20' wide landscaped street buffer is required along Centrepoint Way. Common area and site amenities are proposed within the
development in accord with UDC standards.
A CUP is requested for a MFR development consisting of 215 dwelling units on 13.06 acres of land in the C -G zoning district. The units
are proposed to be configured as 4-plex townhomes with each unit having an upstairs & a downstairs. Private usable open space and
common area is provided in accord with UDC standards. A minimum of 1.73 acres of qualified open space is required; a total of 4.25
acres is proposed. Site amenities are proposed consisting of a 20'x 20' fabric sail shelter, a 16' x 20' dual slope pavilion, a 1,750
square foot fenced dog park, a 2,400 square foot open space/urban plaza for the vertically integrated units, a children's play structure,
a 20' x 40' outdoor swimming pool, a clubhouse with a covered patio, a 50' x 100' grassy open area, a soccer/sports field, picnic tables,
and park benches. Staff feels the open space & site amenities proposed are appropriate for the proposed development.
Off-street parking is proposed in excess of UDC standards — a minimum of 430 parking spaces are required (1/2 of them being
covered); a total of 594 spaces are proposed consisting of 254 garage spaces, 254 driveway spaces & 86 guest spaces. Eight
additional spaces are proposed for the community center/swimming pool. A 6' tall vinyl privacy fence is proposed along the north &
east boundaries of the site.
Two building types in various color schemes are proposed for the 4-plex structures within the development consisting of 2 -story units,
3 -story units, and 3 -story with 2 -story units on each end. Buildings along the west boundary are proposed to be all 2 -story 4-plexes to
preserve view corridors of the adjacent development and provide a transition to the 3 -story structures.
The architectural character of the structures are required to comply with the standards listed in the City of Meridian Architectural
Standards Manual.
Written Testimony: James Doolin, Applicant's Representative — Requests the splash pad, plastic contour benches & public art be
removed from the staff report as amenities — they were included in error as amenities; and requests the 5' metal view fence proposed
along the east boundary be changed to 6' vinyl privacy fence. They also provided an exhibit to be included in the DA that notes which
lots 2 -story structures will be built on.
Staff Recommendation: Approval of the project with the applicant's requested changes in accord w/the conditions in Exhibit B
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-
2017-0107, as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of September 7, 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-
0107, as presented during the hearing on September 7, 2017, for the following reasons: (You should state specific reasons for
denial)
Continuance
I move to continue File Number H-2017-0107 to the hearing date of (insert continued hearing date here) for the following
reason(s): (You should state specific reason(s) for continuance)
Item #4E: Kentucky Ridge Estates South - CUP (H-2017-0109)
Application(s):
➢ Preliminary Plat
Size of property, existing zoning, and location: This site consists of 5.5 acres of land, zoned R-4, and is located south of W. Victory
Road and west of S. Kentucky Way.
Adjacent Land Use & Zoning:
North & East: SFR homes, zoned R-4
South & West: Rural residential/agricultural property, zoned R-4
History: This property was previously annexed & zoned and a preliminary plat was approved in 2014 for Revolution Ridge Subdivision.
This property was to be phase 4 of the development, however the plat expired.
Comprehensive Plan FLUM Designation: LDR
Summary of Request: The proposed plat consists of 19 SFR building lots & 3 common area lots on 5.5 acres of land in an R-4 zoning
district. The minimum lot size in the proposed development is 8,000 square feet,
Access is proposed via two accesses via S. Cobble Avenue & W. Blue Downs Street. A stub street is proposed to the south for future
extension & interconnectivity.
The plat depicts 42' & 48' ROW sections. On the 42' street sections, parking is only allowed on one side of the street. Staff
recommends "no parking" signs are installed at regular intervals along the street.
Because this property was intended to be the last phase of development in the previously approved subdivision and will be part of that
development, it does not meet the minimum qualified open space & site amenity requirements. Staff recommends the common area &
site amenities in the Kentucky Ridge development is allowed to satisfy the requirements for this development.
The Sundall Lateral crosses the SWC of the site. All ditches on the site are required to be piped unless waived by City Council; the
applicant is requesting a waiver from City Council due to the large capacity of the lateral.
A 6' tall vinyl fence is proposed along the perimeter boundary of the subdivision as depicted on the landscape plan; a 6' tall wrought
iron fence is proposed along the common area on Lot 29, Block 5 in accord w/UDC standards. The applicant is also required to install
fencing adjacent to Lot 8, Block 7 in accord with that same UDC standard.
If the Sundall Lateral will not be improved as part of the development to be a water amenity (as defined in 11-1A-1), the lateral is
required to be fenced in accord with UDC standards to deter access to the lateral.
Written Testimony: None
Staff Recommendation: Approval w/conditions in Exhibit B of the staff report
Notes:
Possible Motions:
Approval
After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to approve File Number H-2017-0109, as presented in the staff
report for the hearing date of September 7, 2017, with the following modifications: (Add any proposed modifications to conditions)
Denial
After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move deny File Number H-2017-0109, as presented during the hearing
on September 7, 2017, for the following reasons: (You should state specific reasons for denial)
Continuance
I move to continue File Number H-2017-0109 to the hearing date of (insert continued hearing date here) for the following
reason(s): (You should state specific reason(s) for continuance)
Item #4E: Gensco - (H-2017-0098)
Application(s):
➢ Rezone
Size of property, existing zoning, and location: This site consists of 4.5 acres of land, zoned C -G, located at the northeast corner of
N. Locust Grove Road and E, Franklin Road.
Adjacent Land Use & Zoning:
North: Industrial use, zoned I -L
2. East: Single-family residential, zoned RUT; Industrial Use, zoned I -L; Commercial Auto Repair, zoned C -G
3. South: Single-family residential, zoned RUT; Multi -family residential, zoned R-15
4. West: Vacant property, zoned C -G and I -L
History: This property was annexed in 1996 as ordinance #748.
Comprehensive Plan FLUM Designation: Commercial
Summary of Request: The applicant has applied for a rezone of 4.5 acres of land from the C -G to the I -L zoning district. As discussed
above in Section VII, the proposed zoning is consistent with the policies in the Comprehensive Plan.
The proposed concept plan depicts a 50,000 s.f. building with a potential future expansion of 20,000 s.f. Staff does not typically support
split -zoned properties. However, subsequent to applying for the subject rezone, the applicant has submitted a preliminary/final plat
application to create a three lot subdivision out of the existing parcel. The northern lot is proposed for I -L zoning, while the southern two
lots will remain zoned C -G. The three uses will be required to obtain separate land use approvals prior to construction and operation. In
general, staff is supportive of the proposed concept plan.
The site currently has one vehicular access to both N. Locust Grove Road and E. Franklin Road, UDC 11-3A-3 requires the applicant
to utilize local streets where available. In this case the applicant is required to utilize access from E. Lanark Street and N. Nola Road
(both local streets). Staff recommends approval of a single shared access as well as one shared access from E. Franklin Road.
Madden subdivision is currently being processed by staff and is scheduled to be heard by the Planning and Zoning Commission on
September 21St. In order to utilize access from N. Locust Grove Road and E. Franklin Road, the applicant will need to obtain
approval from both ACHD and City Council.
Under the existing zoning (C -G), the proposed wholesale sales and warehouse uses are not allowed. Although the applicant has
submitted a viable concept plan, the only development currently shown on the conceptual site plan is the wholesale sales and
warehouse building located on Lot 1; specific development plans are not proposed for Lots 2 and 3, Block 1.
In order to ensure that the property develops as recommended by staff, staff is recommending that the property be subject to a
development agreement. Staffs recommended DA provisions are provided in Exhibit B. The City may require a development
agreement (DA) in conjunction with a rezone pursuant to Idaho Code section 67-6511A.
Staff recommends approval of the subject applications with the conditions listed in Exhibit B of the staff report.
Written Testimony: None
Staff Recommendation: Approval w/conditions in Exhibit B of the staff report
Possible Motions:
Approval
After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to recommend approval of File Number H-2017-0098, as
presented in the staff report for the hearing date of September 7, 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 of File Number H-2017-0098, as presented
during the hearing on September 7, 2017, for the following reasons: (You should state specific reasons for denial)
Continuance
I move to continue File Number H-2017-0098 to the hearing date of (insert continued hearing date here) for the following
reason(s): (You should state specific reason(s) for continuance)
Item #4F: AT&T Stor-It - (H-2017-0112)
Application(s):
➢ Conditional Use Permit
Size of property, existing zoning, and location: This site consists of 14.219 acres of land, zoned C -G, located at 1776 N. Avest
Lane.
Adjacent Land Use & Zoning:
1. North: Mirage Meadows Subdivision, zoned R-4
2. West: N. Locust Grove Road, single-family residential homes, zoned RUT and commercial offices, zoned L-0.
3. South: Fred Meyer, zoned C -G
4. East: Dove Meadows Subdivision, zoned R-8
History:
In 1995, a final plat was approved for the site as Avest Plaza Subdivision.
In 1996, the existing Stor-It facility was constructed.
There are two existing cell towers on the subject property (CZC-01-044, CZC-05-133) (Exhibit A.3)
Comprehensive Plan FLUM Designation: Commercial
Summary of Request: The applicant requests conditional use permit (CUP) approval of a wireless communication facility in an R-4
zoning district on the Stor-It storage facility.
The applicant proposes to place the communication equipment at the top of a new 100 foot pole and construction of an equipment
shelter that will house all of the electronic equipment.
Specific Use Standards (UDC 11-4-3-43): The UDC contains specific use standards for wireless communication facilities. The
applicant's narrative provides justification for the new facility. However, the required engineering documentation has not been provided
with the subject application. Per the specific use standards, any wireless provider that locates within the lease area must provide
documentation from a licensed engineer in accord with UDC 11-4-3-43D.
Certificate of Zoning Compliance: The applicant is required to submit an application for Certificate of Zoning Compliance for the
proposed use prior to establishment of the new use in accord with UDC 11-56-1. Each service provider will be required to obtain CZC
approval prior to commencement of the use and comply with all wireless communication specific use standards outlined in the UDC.
Design Review: The applicant is also required to submit an application for Design Review concurrent with the Certificate of Zoning
Compliance application in accord with UDC 11-513-8.
Written Testimony: None
Staff Recommendation: Approval w/conditions in Exhibit B of the staff report
Notes:
Possible Motions:
Approval
After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to recommend approval of File Number H-2017-0112, as
presented in the staff report for the hearing date of September 7, 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 of File Number H-2017-0112, as presented
during the hearing on September 7, 2017, for the following reasons: (You should state specific reasons for denial)
Continuance
I move to continue File Number H-2017-0112 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: September 7, 2017 ITEM NUMBER: 3B
PROJECT NUMBER: H-2017-0096
ITEM TITLE: Shops at Sawtooth Village
Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law for Shops at Sawtooth Village (Lot 25) (H-2017-
0096) by TS Development, LLC Located East Side of N. Linder Road, Approximately 1/8
Mile South of W. McMillan Road
MEETING NOTES
C✓i �pPRpY�O
CLERKS OFFICE FINAL ACTION
DATE:
E-MAILED TO
STAFF
SENT TO
AGENCY
SENT TO
APPLICANT
NOTES
INITIALS
CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION & ORDER
CASE NO(S). H-2017-0096
Page 1
CITY OF MERIDIAN
FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
AND
DECISION & ORDER
In the Matter of the Request for Conditional Use Permit for a Drive-Through Establishment within
Three Hundred Feet (300’) of a Residential Use and District on 0.55 of an Acre of Land in the C-N
Zoning District, Located at 4698 N. Linder Road, by TS Development, LLC.
Case No(s). H-2017-0096
For the Planning & Zoning Commission Hearing Date of: August 17, 2017 (Findings on September
7, 2017)
A. Findings of Fact
1. Hearing Facts (see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of August 17, 2017, incorporated by
reference)
2. Process Facts (see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of August 17, 2017, incorporated by
reference)
3. Application and Property Facts (see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of August 17,
2017, incorporated by reference)
4. Required Findings per the Unified Development Code (see attached Staff Report for the hearing
date of August 17, 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-2017-0096
Page 2
upon the applicant, the Planning Department, the Public Works Department and any affected
party requesting notice.
7. That this approval is subject to the conditions of approval in the attached staff report for the
hearing date of August 17, 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 § 11-
5A and based upon the above and foregoing Findings of Fact which are herein adopted, it is hereby
ordered that:
1. The applicant’s request for conditional use permit is hereby approved in accord with the
conditions of approval in the staff report for the hearing date of August 17, 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 11-5B-6F.2.
Upon written request and filed by the applicant prior to the termination of the period in accord
with 11-5B-6.F.1, the Director may authorize a single extension of the time to commence the
use not to exceed one (1) two (2) year period. Additional time extensions up to two (2) years as
determined and approved by the Commission may be granted. With all extensions, the Director
or Commission may require the conditional use comply with the current provisions of Meridian
City Code Title 11.
E. Notice of Final Action and Right to Regulatory Takings Analysis
1. The Applicant is hereby notified that pursuant to Idaho Code 67-8003, a denial of a conditional
use permit entitles the Owner to request a regulatory taking analysis. Such request must be in
writing, and must be filed with the City Clerk not more than twenty-eight (28) days after the
final decision concerning the matter at issue. A request for a regulatory takings analysis will
toll the time period within which a Petition for Judicial Review may be filed.
2. Please take notice that this is a final action of the governing body of the City of Meridian.
When applicable and pursuant to Idaho Code § 67-6521, any affected person being a person
who has an interest in real property which may be adversely affected by the final action of the
governing board may within twenty-eight (28) days after the date of this decision and order
seek a judicial review as provided by Chapter 52, Title 67, Idaho Code.
F. Attached: Staff report for the hearing date of August 17, 2017
By c,tiq.n ofPlanning & Zoning Commission at its regular meeting held on the day of
, 2017.
COMMISSIONER RHONDA MCCARVEL, CHAIRMAN VOTED Ye4—
COMMISSIONER
RYAN FITZGERALD, VICE CHAIRMAN VOTED
�1
COMMISSIONER STEVEN YEARSLEY VOTED.
COMMISSIONER GREGORY WILSON VOTED
COMMISSIONER TREG BERNT VOTED
COMMISSIONER WILLIAM CASSINELLI VOTED
COMMISSIONER JESSICA PERREAULT VOTED
nda McCarvel, Chairman
-'00
Attest: `
City of:
I-II
.a
C.6y Coles, Clerk SEAL
rFR a''
Copy served upon the Applicant, the Planning and Development Services divisions of the Community
Development Department, the Public Works Department and the City Attorney.
By: G - Sq 1 (;vi.� Dated: 71
City Clerk's Office
CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION & ORDER
CASE NO(S). H-2017-0096
Page 3
EXHIBIT A
Shops at Sawtooth Village Lot 25 – CUP H-2017-0096 PAGE 1
STAFF REPORT
Hearing Date: August 17, 2017
TO: Planning & Zoning Commission
FROM: Sonya Allen, Associate City Planner
208-884-5533
SUBJECT: Shops at Sawtooth Village Lot 25 – CUP (H-2017-0096)
I. SUMMARY DESCRIPTION OF APPLICANT’S REQUEST
The applicant, TS Development, LLC, has applied for a conditional use permit for a drive-through
establishment within 300 feet of a residential use and district on 0.55 of an acre of land in the C-N
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 August 17, 2017. At the
public hearing, the Commission moved to approve the subject CUP request.
a. Summary of Commission Public Hearing:
i. In favor: Patrick McKeegan, Project Architect
ii. In opposition: None
iii. Commenting: None
iv. Written testimony: Mary Murphy, Applicant (in agreement with staff report)
v. Staff presenting application: Sonya Allen
vi. Other staff commenting on application: None
b. Key Issues of Discussion by Commission:
i. Concern regarding sufficiency of the parking for this site and the adjacent future site.
c. Key Commission Changes to Staff Recommendation:
i. None
III. PROPOSED MOTION
Approval
After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to approve File Number H-2017-
0096 as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of August 17, 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-2017-0096
as presented during the hearing on August 17, 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.)
Continuance
I move to continue File Number H-2017-0096 to the hearing date of (insert continued hearing date
here) for the following reason(s): (You should state specific reason(s) for continuance.)
EXHIBIT A
Shops at Sawtooth Village Lot 25 – CUP H-2017-0096 PAGE 2
IV. APPLICATION AND PROPERTY FACTS
A. Site Address/Location:
The subject property is located on the east side of N. Linder Road, approximately 1/8 mile south
of W. McMillan Road at 4698 N. Linder Road, in the northwest ¼ of Section 36, Township 4
North, Range 1 West.
B. Owner(s):
TS Development, LLC
4202 N. Marcliffe Ave.
Boise, ID 83704
C. Applicant:
Same as Owner
D. Contact:
Mary Murphy, Grand Peak, LLC
4202 N. Marcliffe Ave.
Boise, ID 83704
E. Applicant's Statement/Justification: Please see applicant’s narrative for this information.
V. PROCESS FACTS
A. The subject application is for a conditional use permit. A public hearing is required before the
Planning & Zoning Commission on this matter, consistent with Meridian City Code Title 11,
Chapter 5.
B. Newspaper notifications published on: July 28, 2017
C. Radius notices mailed to properties within 300 feet on: July 19, 2017
D. Applicant posted notice on site by: August 4, 2017
VI. LAND USE
A. Existing Land Use(s) and Zoning: This site consists of vacant/undeveloped land, zoned C-N.
B. Character of Surrounding Area and Adjacent Land Use and Zoning:
North: Vacant/undeveloped property, zoned C-N
East: Multi-family development, zoned R-15
South: Vacant/undeveloped property, zoned C-N
West: Vacant/undeveloped property, zoned L-O
C. History of Previous Actions:
In 2013, this property was annexed (AZ-13-010) with the requirement of a development
agreement, recorded as Instrument No. 114099372. A preliminary plat (PP-13-022) was also
approved which included the subject property.
In 2015, a final plat (FP-15-001) was approved and later recorded which included the subject
property as Lot 25, Block 1, McLinder Subdivision No. 2.
EXHIBIT A
Shops at Sawtooth Village Lot 25 – CUP H-2017-0096 PAGE 3
D. Utilities:
1. Public Works:
a. Location of sewer: A sanitary sewer main intended to provide service to this project
currently exist adjacent to the site.
b. Location of water: A water main intended to provide service to this project currently
exist adjacent to the site.
c. Issues or concerns: None
E. Physical Features:
1. Canals/Ditches Irrigation: There are no waterways crossing this site.
2. Hazards: Staff is not aware of any hazards that exist on this site.
3. Flood Plain: This site is not within the flood plain.
VII. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
This property is designated Mixed Use - Neighborhood (MU-N) on the Comprehensive Plan Future
Land Use Map (FLUM).
The purpose of MU-N designated areas is to assign areas where neighborhood-serving uses and
dwellings are seamlessly integrated into the urban fabric. The intent is to avoid predominately single-
use developments by incorporating a variety of uses. Land uses in these areas should be primarily
residential with supporting non-residential services. Non-residential uses in these areas tend to be
smaller scale and provide a good or service that people typically do not travel far for (approximately
one mile) and need regularly. Employment opportunities for those living in the neighborhood are
encouraged. Connectivity and access between the non-residential and residential land uses is
particularly critical in MU-N areas. Tree-lined narrow streets are encouraged. Developments are also
encouraged to be designed according to the conceptual MU-N plan depicted in Figure 3-1 in the
Comprehensive Plan (pg. 25).
The applicant proposes to develop the site with a multi-tenant commercial building containing a
drive-through establishment. Drive-through establishments are not specifically listed as an
appropriate use in the MU-N designation; however, the existing C-N zoning for the property does
allow drive-through establishments as a conditional use.
The proposed use associated with the drive-through is classified as a restaurant but is of a smaller
scale selling mainly sodas and cookies. The use is consistent with the purpose of the MU-N
designation in that it will provide goods to adjacent residents as well as neighbors and passersby in
the vicinity; connectivity and access is provided between the proposed use and adjacent residential
neighborhood; trees are proposed for a buffer along the drive aisle that separates the commercial from
residential uses; and the proposed design of the overall development is consistent with the MU-N
concept diagram contained in 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)
Parking lot landscaping and a buffer to residential uses is required to be provided with
development of this site in accord with UDC standards for such.
EXHIBIT A
Shops at Sawtooth Village Lot 25 – CUP H-2017-0096 PAGE 4
“Protect existing residential properties from incompatible land use development on adjacent
parcels.” (3.06.01F)
The proposed and future neighborhood commercial uses should be compatible with and
provide goods for existing adjacent residents. The residential uses will be buffered from the
commercial uses by landscaping and a shared drive-aisle.
“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 multi-tenant building will provide for future service oriented uses which will serve and
be within walking distance of adjacent multi-family residential uses.
“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)
An ingress/egress easement exists on this site from W. Ann Taylor St., N. Linder Road and W.
McMillan Road. This easement reduces access points to the adjacent arterial streets and
provides for interconnectivity and access between the residential and commercial
development.
“Require all new and reconstructed parking lots to provide landscaping in internal islands and
along streets.”
Landscaping is required within parking lots 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)
The drive-through is not proposed to have a speaker; all ordering will take place at the
window or someone will personally go out to the vehicles to take orders. Landscaping is
proposed along the east boundary of the site to buffer the building and use from the adjacent
residents. There will likely be some air pollution from the cars idling in the drive-through
although it shouldn’t be excessive.
“Plan for a variety of commercial and retail opportunities within the Area of City Impact.”
(3.05.01J)
The proposed use will contribute to the variety of goods available in this area of the City.
For the above-stated reasons, staff believes the proposed use is consistent with the applicable
comprehensive plan policies noted and is appropriate in this location.
VIII. UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE
A. Purpose Statement of Zone(s): 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-N zoning district. A restaurant is a principal permitted
EXHIBIT A
Shops at Sawtooth Village Lot 25 – CUP H-2017-0096 PAGE 5
use in the C-N 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-N
zoning district apply to development of this site.
D. Structure and Site Design Standards: Development is required to comply with the design
standards listed in UDC 11-3A-19 and the Architectural Standards Manual.
IX. ANALYSIS
Analysis of Facts Leading to Staff Recommendation:
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (CUP): The applicant requests CUP approval of a drive-through
establishment in a C-N zoning district within 300 feet of existing residences and residential zoning
(R-15) as required by UDC Table 11-2B-2 and 11-4-3-11A.
Specific Use Standards: Drive-through Establishment: Per UDC 11-4-3-11, there are specific use
standards that apply to drive-through establishments as follows:
All establishments providing drive-through service shall identify the stacking lane, speaker
location, and window location on the plans submitted with the Certificate of Zoning
Compliance (CZC) application. A speaker is not proposed and not approved; all orders will
be taken at the drive-up window or someone will walk out and take orders. The stacking lane
and window location is not specifically called out on the plan. These items should be
clearly depicted on the plans submitted with the CZC application.
A site plan shall be submitted that demonstrates safe pedestrian and vehicular access and
circulation on the site and between adjacent properties. At a minimum, the plan shall
demonstrate compliance with the following standards:
Stacking lanes shall have sufficient capacity to prevent obstruction of the public right-of-
way by patrons. The site plan demonstrates sufficient area for stacking that won’t
obstruct the public right-of-way.
The stacking lane shall be a separate lane from the circulation lanes needed for access
and parking. Although there is sufficient area for a circulation lane alongside the
stacking lane, the stacking lane and circulation lane are not delineated as such on the
plan; a revised plan should be submitted with the Certificate of Zoning Compliance
that clearly identifies the two.
The stacking lane shall not be located within ten feet (10’) of any residential district or
existing residence. The site plan demonstrates compliance with this standard (the nearest
residence is approximately 100 feet away to the east).
Any stacking lane greater than one hundred feet (100’) in length shall provide for an
escape lane. A 20-foot wide driveway is proposed from the northwest corner of the
building to the drive-through window which will allow for a stacking lane and an escape
lane/circulation lane for vehicles exiting the drive-through and/or parking stalls on the
north side of the building.
The site should be designed so that the drive-through is visible from a public street for
surveillance purposes. The drive-through is visible from N. Linder Road as required.
The applicant shall provide a 6-foot sight obscuring fence where a stacking lane or window
location adjoins a residential district or an existing residence. The proposed stacking lane and
window is located on the south side of the building; no residences exist or are proposed to the
EXHIBIT A
Shops at Sawtooth Village Lot 25 – CUP H-2017-0096 PAGE 6
south. The nearest residence is approximately 100 feet away to the east, therefore this
standard is not applicable.
Dimensional Standards: The proposed development is required to comply with the dimensional
standards of the C-N zoning district listed in UDC Table 11-2B-3. There are no required building
setbacks in the C-N district; however, a 25-foot wide street buffer is required along N. Linder Road
and a 20-foot wide landscape buffer to residential uses is required along the east boundary of the site,
which acts as a building setback as structures can’t encroach within the buffer.
The proposed building height listed on the site plan is 26 feet; the maximum building height allowed
is 35 feet – the plan incorrectly states 45 feet and should be corrected. The plan also incorrectly
states the minimum lot width is 30 feet – there is no minimum lot width requirement. Staff has
reviewed the site plan and the proposed building complies with the dimensional standards as required.
Site Plan: The site plan depicts a 2,880 square foot building on the site with a patio area, drive-
through and associated parking. The majority of the parking is located on the adjacent property to the
south, which will either require a shared use agreement for parking with the adjacent property owner,
or a property boundary adjustment to shift the property line to the south to incorporate that area
within the subject property.
Access: An east/west ingress/egress easement exists along the north boundary of this site for access to
McLinder Subdivision via N. Linder Road and a north/south ingress/egress easement exists along the
east boundary of this site for access via W. Ann Taylor Street from Linder Road, as depicted on the
final plat for McLinder Subdivision No. 2. The subject property is accessed via a one-way driveway
at the northeast corner of the site and vehicles exit the site via a one-way driveway at the southeast
corner of the site.
Parking: The UDC requires off-street vehicle parking to be provided on the site in accord with the
standards listed in 11-3C-6B for development in commercial districts. One space is required for every
500 square feet of gross floor area. Therefore, based on 2,880 square feet, a minimum of 6 off-street
vehicle parking spaces are required. A total of 17 spaces are proposed in accord with this standard; 6
on this site and 11 on the adjacent property to the south. The parking located on the adjacent property
will require a shared use agreement with the property owner to the south as set forth in UDC 11 -3C-
7B and mentioned above; or, a property boundary adjustment application may be submitted to shift
the property line further to the south to include the parking area on this site.
Although the number of parking spaces complies with and exceeds UDC standards, some of the
spaces are located such that they may create traffic conflicts. Therefore, Staff recommends the
following changes: 1) Remove the handicap accessible stall at the entrance of the driveway and
relocate it to the first diagonal space so that vehicles aren’t backing out into the entrance of the
site; and 2) the two spaces located on the west side of the building should be designated for
employee parking only. Staff also recommends a minimum 5’ wide sidewalk is provided along
the north side of the building adjacent to the parking for pedestrian access to the building with
wheel stops in the parking spaces to prevent vehicle overhang. In the alternative, a 7’ wide
sidewalk may be provided to allow vehicle overhang without wheel stops in which case, the
length of the stalls may be reduced 2’ to 17’.
The parking spaces on the north side of the building are accessed by the one-way driveway into the
site. In order to exit the site from these parking spaces, it’s necessary for vehicles to drive around the
rear of the building and exit through the escape lane for the drive-through; the applicant should
consider also designating these spaces for employee parking. Staff isn’t overly supportive of the
design as it creates an awkward traffic flow out of the site, however the UDC does not prohibit it.
EXHIBIT A
Shops at Sawtooth Village Lot 25 – CUP H-2017-0096 PAGE 7
One bicycle parking space is required to be provided for every 25 proposed vehicle spaces or portion
thereof per UDC 11-3C-6G. Therefore, based on 17 vehicle spaces, a minimum of one bicycle
parking space should be provided. Bicycle parking should be depicted on the site plan submitted
with the Certificate of Zoning Compliance along with a detail in accord with the standards
listed in UDC 11-3C-5C.
Landscaping: Landscaping is required to be provided with development of the site as set forth in
UDC 11-3B.
A 25’ wide street buffer with landscaping was required along N. Linder Road with the subdivision
improvements for McLinder Subdivision No. 2. A 20’ wide buffer to residential uses is required with
development of this site along the east boundary in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3B-
9C. Buffers to residential uses are required to have a mix of materials (i.e. evergreen & deciduous
trees, shrubs, lawn or other vegetative ground cover) that result in a barrier that allows trees to touch
at maturity; a wall or fence may be provided in addition to the landscape buffer to further buffer the
residential properties. Staff recommends additional landscaping to comply with this requirement
is provided along the east boundary to assist in buffering the proposed use and headlights from
the drive-through to the adjacent residents.
Parking lot landscaping is required to be provided in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3B-
8C. Each planter island at the end of rows of parking is required to be landscaped with at least
one tree; trees should be added at the ends of rows of parking accordingly. Minimum 5-foot
wide perimeter buffers are required adjacent to parking, loading or other vehicular use areas,
including driveways planted in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3B-8C; additional
trees are needed to comply with this standard in perimeter buffer along the north and south
boundaries of the site.
Pathways/Sidewalks: A 10’ wide detached multi-use pathway was required to be constructed along
N. Linder Road with the subdivision improvements in accord with the standards in the Pathways
Master Plan. A minimum 5-foot wide attached sidewalk or 4-foot wide detached sidewalk should
be constructed along the south side of the driveway along the north side of the site and along the
east side of the site for pedestrian access from the sidewalk/pathway along Linder Road.
Fencing: No fencing exists or is proposed on this site.
Lighting: All lighting on the site shall comply with the standards listed in UDC 11-3A-11.
Hours of Operation: Business hours of operation within the C-N district are limited to the hours
between 6:00 am and 10:00 pm as set forth in UDC 11-2B-3A.4.
Building Elevations: Conceptual building elevations were submitted for the proposed structure,
included in Exhibit A.3. The structure is proposed to be a single story in height; building materials
consist of stucco with ledge stone accents around the base of the structure, heavy timber beams and
posts, stained wood fascia and trim, and a metal standing seam roof. Detailed review of the structure
will take place with the Certificate of Zoning Compliance and Design Review application; the design
of the structure is required to be consistent with the standards listed in the Architectural Standards
Manual. Note: The east/west/north/south call-outs appear to be incorrect and should be corrected on
the plans submitted with the Certificate of Zoning Compliance application (staff has labeled the
elevations correctly in Exhibit A.3).
Certificate of Zoning Compliance (CZC): A CZC application is required to be submitted prior to
application for a building permit to ensure that all construction and the establishment of the new use
complies with all of the provisions of the UDC and the conditions of approval in this report.
Design Review (DES): An Administrative Design Review application is required to be submitted for
approval of the proposed structure per UDC 11-5B-8. Development is required to comply with the
EXHIBIT A
Shops at Sawtooth Village Lot 25 – CUP H-2017-0096 PAGE 8
design standards listed in UDC 11-3A-19 and the City of Meridian Architectural Standards
Manual. The application is required to be submitted concurrently with the Certificate of Zoning
Compliance application.
X. EXHIBITS
A. Drawings
1. Vicinity/Zoning Map
2. Proposed Site/Landscape Plan (dated: 6/28/2017)
3. Proposed Building Elevations (dated: 6/28/2017)
B. Conditions of Approval
1. Planning Division
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
Shops at Sawtooth Village Lot 25 – CUP H-2017-0096 PAGE 9
Exhibit A.1: Vicinity/Zoning Map
EXHIBIT A
Shops at Sawtooth Village Lot 25 – CUP H-2017-0096 PAGE 10
Exhibit A.2: Proposed Site/Landscape Plan (dated: 6/28/2017, REVISED 8/9/2017)
NOT APPROVED
EXHIBIT A
Shops at Sawtooth Village Lot 25 – CUP H-2017-0096 PAGE 11
REVISED
EXHIBIT A
Shops at Sawtooth Village Lot 25 – CUP H-2017-0096 PAGE 12
Exhibit A.3: Proposed Building Elevations (dated: 6/28/2017)
NORTH
SOUTH
WEST
EAST
EXHIBIT A
Shops at Sawtooth Village Lot 25 – CUP H-2017-0096 PAGE 13
B. Conditions of Approval
1. PLANNING DEPARTMENT
1.1 Development of this site shall be consistent with the provisions of the development agreement
(Instrument No. 114099372) and all previous conditions of approval as applicable (AZ-13-010;
PP-13-022; FP-15-001).
1.2 The site/landscape plan included in Exhibit A.2 shall be revised as follows:
a. Identify the stacking lane, escape lane, circulation lane, and window location on the plans.
The stacking lane shall be a separate lane from the circulation lanes needed for access and
parking; striping or curbing shall be depicted to delineate the two.
b. Provide a bicycle rack capable of holding a minimum of one bicycle in accord with the
standards listed in UDC 11-3C-5C.
c. Depict a minimum 5-foot wide attached sidewalk or 4-foot wide detached sidewalk along the
south side of the driveway along the north side of the site and along the east side of the site for
pedestrian access from the sidewalk/pathway along Linder Road to the main building entrance (or
patio area) in accord with UDC 11-3A-19A.4.
d. The handicap parking stall located at the entry to the site should be removed and relocated to
the adjacent diagonal space on the north side of the building.
e. Provide a minimum 5-foot wide sidewalk in front of the row of parking on the north side of
the building with wheel stops in parking spaces to prevent vehicle overhang. Note: In the
alternative, the sidewalk may be widened to 7 feet to allow for vehicle overhang if wheel stops
aren’t provided; the length of the stall may then be reduced from 19’ to 17’.
f. Provide additional landscaping along the east boundary of the site in accord with the
standards listed in UDC 11-3B-9C for buffers to adjoining residential uses; inclusion of a
wall/fence should also be considered to further assist in buffering the residential uses from noise
and headlights from the drive-through. The landscape buffer shall result in a barrier that allows
trees to touch at maturity.
g. Provide additional trees within the perimeter buffers along the north and south boundaries of
the site to comply with the standards listed in UDC 11-3B-8C.1.
1.3 Development shall comply with the dimensional standards of the C-N zoning district listed in
UDC Table 11-2B-3.
1.4 The applicant shall comply with the specific use standards listed in UDC 11-4-3-11 for drive-
through establishments.
1.5 A speaker within the drive-through is not proposed and thus, is not allowed due to the proximity
of adjacent residences.
1.6 Business hours of operation in the C-N district are limited to the hours between 6:00 am and
10:00 pm as set forth in UDC 11-2B-3A.4.
1.7 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.
1.8 All lighting on the site shall comply with the standards listed in UDC 11-3A-11.
1.9 Submit a recorded shared use agreement for parking on the adjacent property to the south as set
forth in UDC 11-3C-7B with the Certificate of Zoning Compliance application; or, submit a
property boundary adjustment application to shift the southern property line further to the south to
EXHIBIT A
Shops at Sawtooth Village Lot 25 – CUP H-2017-0096 PAGE 14
include the parking and associated drive-aisle necessary for access and obtain approval of such
prior to issuance of Certificate of Occupancy.
1.10 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.
1.11 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
City of Meridian Architectural Standards Manual.
2. PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
2.1 Applicant shall be responsible to install sanitary sewer and water services to the proposed use.
3. FIRE DEPARTMENT
3.1 All entrances, internal roads, drive aisles, and alleys shall have a turning radius of 28’ inside and
48’ outside, per International Fire Code Section 503.2.4.
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 location prior to submittal of
Certificate of Zoning Compliance application.
6. PARKS DEPARTMENT
6.1 The Parks Department had no comments on this application.
7. ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT
ACHD has reviewed the submitted application and has determined that there are no improvements
required to the adjacent street.
The applicant shall be required to:
1. Pay a traffic impact fee. A traffic impact fee may be assessed by ACHD and will be due prior to the
issuance of a building permit by the lead agency.
2. Comply with all ACHD Policies and ACHD Standard Conditions of Approval for any
improvements or work in the right-of-way.
3. Obtain a permit for any work in the right-of-way prior to the construction, repair, or
installation of any roadway improvements ( curb, gutter, sidewalk, pavement widening,
driveways, culverts, etc.).
EXHIBIT A
Shops at Sawtooth Village Lot 25 – CUP H-2017-0096 PAGE 15
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
use and comply with the dimensional & development regulations of the C-N 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
future neighborhood 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 be extended 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 proposed drive-through will not have a speaker so noise resulting from the use should not
be excessive, nor should traffic or fumes. Therefore, the Commission finds the proposed use
of the site will not be detrimental to any persons, property or the general welfare of the area.
EXHIBIT A
Shops at Sawtooth Village Lot 25 – CUP H-2017-0096 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.
Meridian Planning Zoning Commission Meeting
DATE: September 7, 2017 ITEM NUMBER: 4A
PROJECT NUMBER: H-2017-0100
ITEM TITLE: Heritage Hop Haus
Public Hearing Continued from August 17, 2017 for Heritage Hop Haus (H-2017-0100) by
Prefunk Meridian Located 77 E. Idaho Avenue
1. Request: Conditional Use Permit Approval to Establish a Drinking Establishment Use on
the Property
MEETING NOTES
CS,0 Pl. arl
tj f, r.,va ( u S,� / dj17
CLERKS OFFICE FINAL ACTION
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: September 7, 2017 Item #
Project Number: H-2017-0100
Project Name:
WA
Heritage Hop Haus
Please print your name For Against Neutral Do you wish
to testifv (Y/N)
Meridian Planning Zoning Commission Meeting
DATE: September 7, 2017 ITEM NUMBER: 4B
PROJECT NUMBER: H-2017-0088
ITEM TITLE: Linder Village
F'UbliC Hearing Continued and Re -Noticed trom August J, 20 1 / tor Linder village (H-
2017-0088) by Lynx/DMG Real Estate Partners, LLC Located 1225 W. Chinden
1. Request: Amendment to the Comprehensive Plan to Change the Future Land Use
Map Designation on 62.04 Acres of Land from Mixed Use -Community (MU -C) to Mixed
Use -Regional (MU-R)Request: Annexation and Zoning of 81.02 Acres of Land from RUT
Zoning District in Ada County to the C -G Zoning District (62.04 Acres) and the R-8 Zoning
District (18.98 Acres) in the City
3. Request: Preliminary Plat Approval Consisting of Fourteen (14) Commercial Building
_I me
MEETING NOTES
Goy✓t� -{'c� Oct /�j '�2l7
CLERKS OFFICE FINAL ACTION
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: September 7, 2017 Item #
Project Number:
Project Name:
H-2017-0088
Linder Village
Please print your name
For
Against
Neutral
Do you wish
to testify (YIN)
e3O#NfA ; iAA,, H)vQst,,-
tYRAJ
YR AJ4
Y
/Wi e. al p"
iq-adr-eA Ce,,rrzIZ
X
f
�cs
Ji,
\I �' 0.Y)Mr + e by'Di G
/\
liter (9 6K", J
ole 5oc ���
I
No
TEv_W Y
1
N
.SAL ` 1a\/time S-
VY
S� ��' v
��
Meridian Planning Zoning Commission Meeting
DATE: September 7, 2017 ITEM NUMBER: 4C
PROJECT NUMBER: H-2017-0058
ITEM TITLE: Pine 43
FU1011C Hearing Continued troM August 1/, 2U I / tor Fine - - y UMB
Development Located South of E. Fairview Avenue, East of N. Locust Grove Road,
North of Commercial Street and West of Hickory Avenue
1. Request: Annexation and Zoning of 0.07 of an Acre of Land with an R-15 (Medium
High -Density Residential) (0.01 of an Acre) and C -G (General Retail and Service
Commercial) (0.06 of an Acre) Zoning District
2. Request: Rezone of 46.11 Acres of Land from the C -G (General Retail and Service
Commercial) to the R-15 (Medium High -Density Residential) Zoning District
RPni ii -et- PrPliminnry Plnt Ar)r)rnvnl C oneictinn of .�l A I ntC nn 1 1 9 77 ArrPc of I and
MEETING NOTES
(fie cc) rwi eml A? PSC
CLERKS OFFICE FINAL ACTION
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: September 7, 2017 Item #
Project Number: H-2017-0058
Project Name:
Please print your name
A -C%_
Pine 43
4C
For Against NeutralDo you wish
to testify (Y/N)
Meridian Planning Zoning Commission Meeting
DATE: September 7, 2017 ITEM NUMBER: 4D
PROJECT NUMBER: H-2017-0107
ITEM TITLE: Brickyard Subdivision
Public Hearing for Brickyard Subdivision (H-2017-0107) by John Carpenter located at
3611 N. Centrepoint Way
1. Request: Preliminary plat consisting of 61 building lots and 4 common lots on 14.27
acres of land in the C -G zoning district
2. Request: Conditional use permit for a multi -family development consisting of 215
dwelling units in the C -G zoning district
MEETING NOTES
Recor✓'��,wP /t PPwur,�
CLERKS OFFICE FINAL ACTION
DATE:
E-MAILED TO
STAFF
SENT TO
AGENCY
SENT TO
APPLICANT
NOTES
INITIALS
(F/
CITY OF MERIDIAN
PLANNING AND ZONING
PUBLIC HEARING SIGN -IN SHEET
Date: September 7, 2017 Item #
Project Number:
Project Name:
H-2017-0107
Brickyard Subdivision
Please print your name
For
Against
Neutral
Do you wish
to testify (Y/N)
o& ��
N
Meridian Planning Zoning Commission Meeting
DATE: September 7, 2017
ITEM NUMBER: 4E
PROJECT NUMBER: H-2017-0109
ITEM TITLE: Kentucky Ridge Estates South
Public Hearing for Kentucky Ridge Estates South (H-2017-0109) by Hayden Homes
Idaho, LLC located east of S. Linder Road and south of W. Victory RoadRequest:
Preliminary Plat Consisting of 19 Building Lots and 3 Common Lots on 5.5 Acres of Land
in the R-4 Zoning District
MEETING NOTES
CLERKS OFFICE FINAL ACTION
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: September 7, 2017 Item #
Project Number:
H-2017-0109
4E
Project Name: Kentucky Ridge Estates South
Please print your name For Against Neutral Do you wish
to testify (Y/N)
x,
Meridian Planning Zoning Commission Meeting
DATE: September 7, 2017
ITEM TITLE: Genso
ITEM NUMBER: 4F
PROJECT NUMBER: H-2017-0098
Public Hearing for Genso (H-2017-0098) by Kobe, LLC located at the northeast corner of
Locust Grove Road and E. Franklin Road
1. Request: Rezone of 4.5 acres from the C -G (General retail and service district) zoning
district to the I -L (Light Industrial)
MEETING NOTES
f � e 6C (wn &Ad APF boLffl�
CLERKS OFFICE FINAL ACTION
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: September 7, 2017 Item #
Project Number: H-2017-0098
Project Name:
Genso
4F
Pleaseour rint name For Against Neutral Do you wish
p Y g
to testifv (YIN
Meridian Planning Zoning Commission Meeting
DATE: September 7, 2017 ITEM NUMBER: 4G
PROJECT NUMBER: H-2017-0112
ITEM TITLE: AT&T Store -It Self Storage
Public Hearing for AT&T - Store -It Self Storage (H-2017-0112) by Justin Hadley, Smartlink,
LLC located at 1776 N. Avest Lane
1. Request: Conditional Use Permit approval of a 100 -foot tall wireless communication
(cell tower) facility in a C -G zoning district
MEETING NOTES
CLERKS OFFICE FINAL ACTION
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: September 7, 2017 Item #
Project Number: H-2017-0112
Project Name:
4G
AT&T Store -It Self Storage
Please print your name For Against Neutral Do you wish
to testify (Y/N)