2018-01-18
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Agenda – Thursday, January 18, 2018 Page 1 of 2
All materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian.
Anyone desiring accommodation for disabilities related to documents and/or hearing,
please contact the City Clerk’s Office at 888-4433 at least 48 hours prior to the public meeting.
City Council Chambers, 33 E. Broadway Avenue, Meridian, Idaho
Thursday, January 18, 2018 at 6:00 p.m.
1. Roll-call Attendance
__X__ Lisa Holland __X_ Steven Yearsley
__X__ Gregory Wilson __O__ Ryan Fitzgerald
__X__ Jessica Perreault __O__ Bill Cassinelli
__X__ Rhonda McCarvel – Chairperson
2. Adoption of the Agenda Adopted as amended
3. Consent Agenda Approved
A. Approve Minutes of the January 4, 2018 Planning and Zoning
Commission Meeting
B. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Escape Room (H-2017-
0155) By Samuel Marvin, LMP Enterprises Located at 2959 South
Meridian Road
4. Action Items
A. Public Hearing Continued from January 4, 2018 for Turf Farm
Subdivision (H-2017-0149) by Brighton Investments, LLC, Located
off the Northeast Corner of South Eagle Road and East Lake Hazel
Road Recommend Approval to City Council – Scheduled for
February 20, 2018
1. Amendended Request: Preliminary Plat Approval Consisting of
120 158 Building Lots and 11 17 Common Lots on 35.35 Acres of
Land in the R-8 Zoning District.
2. Amended onto agenda: Annexation and Zoning of 35.35 acres
of land with an R-8 zoning district
MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING
COMMISSION MEETING
AMENDED AGENDA
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Agenda – Thursday, January 18, 2018 Page 2 of 2
All materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian.
Anyone desiring accommodation for disabilities related to documents and/or hearing,
please contact the City Clerk’s Office at 888-4433 at least 48 hours prior to the public meeting.
B. Public Hearing Continued from November 16, 2017, December 7,
2017 and December 21, 2017 For Timberline Subdivision (H-2017-
0140) by Bailey Investments, LLC Located at 655 and 735 W Victory
Road Recommend Approval to City Council with Modifications –
Scheduled for February 20, 2018
1. Request: Preliminary Plat Consisting of 59 Single Family
Residential Lots and 8 Common Lots on 17.3 Acres of Land in the
R-8 Zoning District.
C. Amended to add file number: Public Hearing for Kobe/Cope
Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment and Rezone (H-2017-0157) by
Kobe, LLC and Copy Holdings, LLC, Located on the Northeast
Corner of North Locust Grove and East Franklin Road Recommend
Approval to City Council with Modifications – Scheduled for
February 20, 2018
1. Request: For An Amendment to the Comprehensive Plan Future
Land Use Map to Change the Land Use Designation on 10.12
Acres of Land from Commercial to Industrial and a Rezone of 5.62
Acres of Land from C-G (General Commercial) to I-L (Light
Industrial)
D. Amended to add file number: Public Hearing for Designing Team
Rezone (H-2017-0166) by Designing Team Located at 1226 Second
and a Half Street Recommend Approval to City Council – Scheduled
for February 20, 2018
1. Request: A Rezone of 0.36 of an Acre from the R-15 (Medium-
High Density Residential) District to the O-T (Old Town) District for
the Purpose of Operating a Health and Social Service Use
5. Review and Approval of the Final Plat Landscape Plan Modification
Checklist by the Planning Division Approved
Adjourned at 7:28pm
Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting January 18,
2018.
Meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission of January 18, 2018, was
called to order at 6:00 p.m. by Chairman Rhonda McCarvel.
Members Present: Chairman Rhonda McCarvel, Commissioner Steven Yearsley,
Commissioner Gregory Wilson, Commissioner Jessica Perreault and Commissioner
Lisa Holland.
Members Absent: Commissioner Bill Cassinelli, and Commissioner Ryan Fitzgerald.
Others Present: C.Jay Coles, Andrea Pogue, Bill Parsons, Sonya Allen, Josh Beach
and Dean Willis.
Item 1: Roll-call Attendance
__X___ Lisa Holland ___X___ Steven Yearsley
__X___ Gregory Wilson _______ Ryan Fitzgerald
__X___ Jessica Perreault _______ Bill Cassinelli
___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
January 18th, 2018. Let's begin with roll call.
Item 2: Adoption of the Agenda
McCarvel: Thank you. First item on the agenda is the adoption of the agenda and we
do have a couple of changes -- amendments to the agenda. We need to amend the
request Item 4-A, preliminary plat approval consisting of 158 lots and 17 common lots
on 35.35 acres of land in the R-8 zoning district and the other part of that that needs to
be amended onto the agenda is an annexation and zoning of 36.35 acres of land with
an R-8 zoning district, instead of just the preliminary plat. And Sonya will give us more
information on that when we get to the action item. But at this point could I have a
motion to adopt the agenda? Oh, they put more back there. You snuck more in on me.
Oh. They just added the file numbers. Okay. Yeah. They were on the staff report. But
Item 4-C, the file number on that Kobe Cope is H-2017-0157 and the file number for
Item 4-D, the Designing Team Rezone, is H-2017-0166.
Wilson: Madam Chair?
McCarvel: Commissioner Wilson.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
January 18, 2018
Page 2 of 33
Wilson: I move to adopt the amended agenda.
Perreault: Second that motion.
McCarvel: It has been moved and seconded to adopt the amended agenda. All those
in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. TWO ABSENT.
Item 3: Consent Agenda
A. Approve Minutes of the January 4, 2018 Planning and Zoning
Commission Meeting
B. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Escape Room (H-
2017-0155) By Samuel Marvin, LMP Enterprises Located at
2959 South Meridian Road
McCarvel: Next item is to adopt the Consent Agenda. We have the approval of
minutes for the January 4th, 2018, Planning and Zoning Commission meeting and
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for the Escape Room, H-2017-0155. Could I
get a motion to adopt the Consent Agenda.
Wilson: Madam Chair?
McCarvel: Commissioner Wilson.
Wilson: I move to adopt the Consent Agenda.
Perreault: I second that motion.
McCarvel: It has been moved and seconded to adopt the Consent Agenda. All those in
favor say. Opposed? Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. TWO ABSENT.
McCarvel: Okay. So, at this time we will continue on with continuing Item 4-A, the
public hearing for Turf Farm Subdivision, H-2017-0149, and -- right after I explain the
hearing process. We will start with the staff report. The hearing process for this
evening -- we will open each item individually and, then, start with the staff report. The
staff will report their findings regarding how the item adheres to the 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
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
January 18, 2018
Page 3 of 33
testimony. There is a sign-up sheet in the back as you entered for anybody wishing to
testify and any person testifying will come forward and be allowed three minutes. On
our screen here at the podium you will be able to see your timer. If they are speaking
for a larger group, like an HOA, and there is a show of hands to represent the group,
they will be given up to ten minutes. After all testimony has been heard, then, the
applicant will be given another ten minutes and 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 January 4, 2018 for Turf Farm
Subdivision (H-2017-0149) by Brighton Investments, LLC,
Located off the Northeast Corner of South Eagle Road and
East Lake Hazel Road
1. Amended Request: Preliminary Plat Approval Consisting
of 120 158 Building Lots and 11 17 Common Lots on 35.35
Acres of Land in the R-8 Zoning District.
2. Amended onto agenda: Annexation and Zoning of 35.35
acres of land with an R-8 zoning district
McCarvel: So, at this time we will open with the staff report for Item H-2017-0149, Turf
Farm Subdivision.
Allen: Thank you, Madam Chair, Members of the Commission. The applications before
you with this request is a preliminary plan and an annexation and zoning. This site
consists of 35.35 acres of land. It's zoned RUT in Ada county and located at the
northeast corner of South Eagle Road and East Lake Hazel Road. Adjacent land use
and zoning. To the north and east are existing and future single family residential
property in the Hill Century Farm Subdivision, zoned R-8. To the south is East Lake
Hazel Road and rural residential property, zoned RUT in Ada county. And to the west is
South Eagle Road and rural residential properties, zoned RUT in Ada county. The
Comprehensive Plan future land use map designates this property as medium high
density residential, which is eight to 15 residential units per acre. Since this application
was originally submitted, the plat has been revised per staff's recommendations to
include 38 more building lots than originally proposed, with an mix of attached and
detached units in an effort to increase the density and provide a mix of housing types
and that is because of the current medium high densi ty residential designation. The
applicant is requesting annexation and zoning of 35.35 acres of land, with an R-8
zoning district, with a step down in density from medium high density residential , as we
discussed is eight to 15 units per acre, to medium density residential, which is three to
eight units per acre. With the increase in density and provision of lots for attached
homes, staff is recommending an R-15 zoning district, instead of the requested R-8 to
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
January 18, 2018
Page 4 of 33
accommodate the smaller lot sizes proposed for attached dwellings. The preliminary
plan consists of 158 single family residential building lots for a mix of attached and
detached homes and 17 common area lots. The subdivision is proposed to develop in
two phases as shown, north and south, with the north half expected to develop later this
year with single family residential detached homes at a gross density of 3.32 units per
acre. The south half will include a mix of attached and detached units at a gross density
of 5.48 units per acre. Overall a gross density of 4.47 units per acre is proposed. This
development will be integrated into the adjacent Hill Century Farm development. One
access is proposed to the site via South Eagle Road and a stub street at the north
boundary will be extended from Hill Century Farm Subdivision No. 5 for
interconnectivity. Ten Mile Creek runs along the east boundary of the site. No access
is proposed to the east across the creek or via Lake Hazel Road. Because Lake Hazel
is designated as a residential mobility arterial, which is designated -- excuse me --
designed to accommodate high volumes of traffic and intended for regional movements ,
higher density is desired in this area. That is why the applicants revised the plan to
include more density up next to that residential mobility corridor. Higher density --
excuse me. Two stub streets are proposed to the property at the southwest corner of
the site for future access and interconnectivity. A segment of the city's regional pathway
system is proposed along the west side of the Ten Mile Creek in accord with the
pathways master plan. The creek is required to be left open as a natural amenity and
protected during construction. This is a copy of the proposed landscape plan. The
applicant has not revised this yet. They will prior to the Council meeting, so this does
not match the current configuration of the preliminary plat. Conceptual building
elevations were submitted for the single family residential detached home s with the
development that are consistent with those in the Hill Century Farm development.
Written testimony has been received from Mike Wardle, Brighton Corporation, in
agreement with the staff report. Staff is recommending approval with the conditions in
Exhibit B of the report. If Council determines a step down in density is appropriate for
this property, staff requests a revised landscape plan and open space exhibit and
engineering plans that coincide with the reconfigured plat. Concept elevations for the
attached units and revised legal descriptions for the R-8 and R-15 zoning districts, as
recommended by staff, are submitted prior to the City Council meeting. Staff will stand
for any questions.
McCarvel: Sonya, I have a question. Could you go back to either one of the Plats that
are -- okay. I just wanted to see that again. So, there is no access out to Lake Hazel?
Allen: Madam Chair, no access is proposed.
McCarvel: Okay. And probably won't be. That corner is developed as it's probably
going to be; right?
Allen: Yeah. There is a -- well, it doesn't show the preliminary plat here. The
preliminary plat for Hill Century Farm that comes down here does have an access
approximately in this location where the pointer is at.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
January 18, 2018
Page 5 of 33
McCarvel: Uh-huh.
Allen: So, the applicant did not propose an additional --
McCarvel: There is nothing going out there.
Allen: No.
McCarvel: Okay.
Allen: There is an emergency access for fire approved here right at the corner of the
site, though.
McCarvel: Any other questions for staff? Okay. Would the applicant like to come
forward.
Wardle: Madam Chair, Commission Members, Mike Wardle, Brighton Corporation,
12601 West Explorer Drive in Boise. It is rare that we find that staff demands greater
density than we propose, but, Sonya, if you would pull up the first slide on the slides that
I provided to you today. Just to illustrate exactly why we came to the -- well, a lot of
back and forth with staff on, really, the objectives of -- there we go. When we annexed
and zoned Hill Century Farm into the city several years ago we basically blended a low
density, medium density, and medium high density comprehensive -- Comprehensive
Plan designation into the medium density and so when we brought in the Turf Farm
addition to Hill Century Farm, we just kind of assumed that we would complete the
project in that same context, kind of a medium density residential. We do acknowledge
that Lake Hazel is a future mobility corridor that Sonya had mentioned and so higher
density is certainly a possibility, but part of the problem with this site is at the
intersection of Lake Hazel and Eagle Road is up on a hill and there is a lot of -- a lot of
grade to get back out of that, so ACHD was reluctant to give us anything other than a
temporary access to Lake Hazel that would eventually become just a right-in, right-out
only. In reality, the quarter mile access on Eagle Road that we propose with this
application is really the most functional and about the only way that it can be done. But
we do provide, as Sonya, noted a moment ago, an emergency access out of that cul-
de-sac area. The fire department has -- but we have two access points in and out of the
subdivision regardless. So, rather than fight and come to you and beg for a down
zoning or a down -- a step down, I guess, is the term for the Comprehensive Plan, we
agreed that let's deal with the area that's closest to Lake Hazel and we will go to a
product that we actually did in the Tuscany project several years ago called the Villas in
Tuscany. So, these are products that we have built. Some of them are -- well, they
have the ability to attach and paired homes. Some of them will have to be attached, but
clearly they have the opportunity to go either direction. So, we do increase the density
and overall in that southerly half that was revised since the submittal. The actual gross
density is five and a half units per acre and the net density is 11 units per acre. So, we
achieved kind of a middle ground agreement with staff on increasing the density
because of the location of the Comprehensive Plan. It works for us. It will, obviously,
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
January 18, 2018
Page 6 of 33
work with the city, so unless you have any other questions about it -- do I just hit the
button to go to -- I want to go to the slide, Sonya, that just is my hand graphic. It's about
-- there you go. Just to show kind of the open space element that comes with this -- this
change. We do a green way -- kind of a separation. It's not intended to segregate the
community, but just gives a nice buffer or so between the slightly larger single family
lots and these smaller attached and detached parcels, plus overall landscape open
space area in this plat is 21 percent. So, it really does accommodate -- gives us good
access to the pathway that we have already built to the north boundary of this down Ten
Mile Creek. And with that we are in full accord with the recommended conditions that
Sonya has proposed to the Commission, including the necessity of -- by noticing up City
Council going to an R-15 for the southerly area simply based on the size of the lots. It
doesn't really change the visibility, but, obviously, a slightly smaller product. I would end
there and answer your questions. Thank you.
Yearsley: Madam Chair?
McCarvel: Commissioner Yearsley.
Yearsley: Did you guys consider another access across the Ten Mile Creek to your
other side of the subdivision?
Wardle: Madam Chair, Commissioner Yearsley, we did, but we have already put in two
400,000 bollard crossings at Ten Mile Creek.
Yearsley: Okay.
Wardle: One on the project itself, but, then, we actually rebuilt the one on Eagle Road
before the project started, just so that we didn't get the project out there and have to
have it done in the future. So, we -- we opted not to put that kind of money in and,
frankly, it doesn't necessarily change the access and so forth, because this -- this
property needs to drain more into that Eagle Road access point than going to the east.
Yes, it would get us to that other access across the way, but it's -- it's an expensive
proposition.
Yearsley: I figured as much, but I thought I would at least ask. Then I'm assuming that
the blue line on the other side of the Ten Mile Creek is the pathway; is that not correct?
Wardle: Madam Chair. That actually is the center line. That's the creak itself.
Yearsley: Oh.
Wardle: So, you see it doesn't really show up here, because I -- I didn't finish it off, but
you can see the pathway coming down to that greenway connection there, yes. That
pathway exists at the north boundary thus far. So, it will come down and be in that -- at
least 50 foot wide corridor from center line, the blue line, to the property line of the lots.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
January 18, 2018
Page 7 of 33
Yearsley: But you won't extend it down to the -- the --
Wardle: Oh, it extends down -- all the way down to Lake Hazel Road.
Yearsley: Oh. Off of --
Wardle: My graphic was just a quick and dirty to send to Sonya and say is this
acceptable. So, I didn't finish in all of the detailing.
Yearsley: And I -- it's not something, but -- and I don't know how expensive it would be,
but is -- I know you can get some fairly inexpensive pedestrian bridges --
Wardle: Actually, when you look at the -- the north corner of this phase you see that
large green area --
Yearsley: Uh-huh.
Wardle: -- that is a -- where it connects across, it will go across there.
Yearsley: Oh. Awesome.
Wardle: So, yeah, there is a -- east-west connection across Ten Mile Creek about a
quart of a mile north of Lake Hazel and a quarter of a mile south of the entrance to the
north.
Yearsley: Okay.
Wardle: So, yeah, we have accommodated that. It just -- again, this is a schematic that
didn't show all of those details.
Yearsley: Right.
Wardle: The landscape plan probably does. I'm not sure, Sonya, if it does not, but it --
it clearly is part of the project, so --
Yearsley: Okay. That's all I have. Thank you.
Wardle: Thank you.
McCarvel: I have got a question. Sonya -- yeah, leave that landscape plan up there.
So, that was the original plan you suggest -- that you brought to staff?
Wardle Yes. Without the change in the southern phase.
McCarvel: With just a little lower density, so --
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
January 18, 2018
Page 8 of 33
Wardle: Yes.
McCarvel: -- if you had your druthers --
Wardle: No. We are fine, because we are -- we are familiar with the other product that
-- that will fit into the southern phase now. It's a product that we have built. So, we are
not -- well, we are certainly not here asking for, you know, going back and doing less
density. We can -- we can accommodate the objectives of the Comprehensive Plan
and -- and do a project that we are comfortable with.
McCarvel: Yeah. I'm just -- I'm looking at it and the way everything is locked into that
corner I'm like the less density is almost -- it's a little better.
Wardle: It's -- it's, basically, the same as we have done in all of the rest of the Century
Farm project, so -- and by kind of separating and creating that to a slightly different
product in the southerly phase, it adds a little bit -- you know, I'm not here to -- we are
happy with the change if -- if the Commission concurs with the staff recommendation
and it -- again, it's an unusual circumstance where staff kind of drags us into a higher
density project than what we had proposed, but we are fine.
McCarvel: Any other questions for the applicant? Okay. Well, there is no one signed
up to testify on this issue, but is there anyone in the room who would like to at this
point? Okay.
Wardle: And I’m not going to rebut my testimony.
McCarvel: Okay.
Wardle: Thank you.
McCarvel: So, at this time could I get a motion to close the public hearing for item H-
2017-0149, Turf Farm Subdivision.
Wilson: Madam Mayor?
McCarvel: Commissioner Wilson.
Wilson: I move to close the public hearing on H-2017-0149.
Perreault: Second.
McCarvel: It has been moved and seconded to close the public hearing on H-2017-
0149. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. TWO ABSENT.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
January 18, 2018
Page 9 of 33
McCarvel: Any thoughts? I --
Wilson: I can kind of kick off and then -- I mean I --
McCarvel: Commissioner Wilson, go ahead.
Wilson: I'm okay. I mean I think -- I think it looks good. I appreciate the applicant
working with staff. I think the creek is great and I appreciate Commissioner Yearsley
kind of line of questioning, kind of flushing out what that's going to look like and I'm even
more impressed by what that's going to look like . I don't know. I think there is a lot of
open space and, you know, I -- I live near Tuscany and I -- and I know kind of what
that's going to look like, because I, you know, walk through that area a lot and I think it
will look really good, even though maybe on this plat it looks really, really dense. I think
-- I think what it's going to look like is going to be really nice. So, I would be open to
approving it.
McCarvel: Okay.
Yearsley: Madam Chair?
McCarvel: Commissioner Yearsley.
Yearsley: Yeah. I kind of find it interesting that it's not every day that staff actually
wants more density, so --
McCarvel: Yeah.
Yearsley: And I understand the reason why, because, you know, Lake Hazel is
anticipated to be a future seven lane roadway and , you know, people may not think
about it now, but it's good to plan for that in the future and having that density there I
think fits and I know it's not the applicant's purview, but that last remaining piece down
there is going to be really hard to develop , just given the grades and stuff, but it's -- it is
what it is. It might be a better park than anything. So, I think it fits. I like the -- you
know, the amenities, having the pathway through there and the -- the crossing just down
farther. I think that makes sense, because that gives them a better shot to the school --
for the elementary school that's just to the north of there and I think it looks well. The
one thing I would recommend -- so, I live in Tuscany, so I understand what units he's
talking about. The thing that we have noticed that works the best is if you can actually
give them one side instead of having small lots of both sides. If you give them one side
it gives them a little bit better yard. I think it looks -- it's not something that I'm going to
recommend or require, but I think it -- overall I think it looks a lot cleaner, so --
and that I'm for the project.
Holland: Madam Chair? I would just agree with the other commissioners that I think
they have done a thoughtful job of listening to the staff's requests and making sure that
they accommodated the higher density. It looks like they have been thoughtful about
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
January 18, 2018
Page 10 of 33
consistency with the other neighbors -- surrounding neighborhoods and the open space.
I feel comfortable moving forward as well.
McCarvel: Yeah. And I understand staff wanting to, you know, stay within the
guidelines of the Comprehensive Plan. I really liked the lower density, especially being
down here, you know, kind of locked into this corner, they are not going to have access
to Lake Hazel anyway, even though that's going to be a major -- you know, a really
major thoroughfare. But this is what's before us, so --
Perreault: Madam Chair?
McCarvel: Commissioner Perreault.
Perreault: I have a question for staff. It says on the staff report -- increasing density.
Staff recommends an R-15 zoning district instead of an R-8. Does that change their
need to do -- or request for a step down on the Comprehensive Plan or --
Allen: Madam Chair, Commissioner Perreault, the applicant is still -- a step down is still
needed. Again, the Comprehensive Plan designates this property medium high density
residential, which is eight to 15 units per acre. Medium density is three to eight units.
They are still mid range --
Perreault: Yeah.
Allen: -- in the medium density. The R-15 is to accommodate the smaller lot sizes
necessary for the attached units.
Perreault: Thank you. I wanted to make sure I understood that.
McCarvel: Okay.
Wilson: Madam Chair?
McCarvel: Commissioner Wilson.
Wilson: After considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony I move to recommend
approval to City Council of file number H-2017-0149 on the hearing date of January 18,
2018.
Yearsley: Second.
McCarvel: It has been moved and seconded to approve H-2017-0149. All those in
favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries. Congratulations.
MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. TWO ABSENT.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
January 18, 2018
Page 11 of 33
B. Public Hearing Continued from November 16, 2017, December
7, 2017 and December 21, 2017 For Timberline Subdivision (H-
2017-0140) by Bailey Investments, LLC Located at 655 and 735
W Victory Road
1. Request: Preliminary Plat Consisting of 59 Single Family
Residential Lots and 8 Common Lots on 17.3 Acres of Land
in the R-8 Zoning District.
McCarvel: So, at this time we will open the public hearing for H-2017-0140, Timberline
Subdivision, and we will begin with the staff report.
Beach: Give me two seconds here. Get my system up here. Okay. So, this project
before you this evening has been continued since -- from December 21st until tonight. I
can go through the entire staff report if you would like or we can touch on the things that
it was continued to discuss. There should be a memo -- or there is a memo in the file
that indicates a couple of things that Commission had concerns with. One was -- into
the plat here. If you follow my mouse, the original plat indicated that this common lot
here where the mouse is would be encumbered by a temporary turnaround. The way
the plat is there are only three common lots for the subdivision , which doesn't meet the
open space requirements. Having said that, with a large turnaround in here on this lot it
would have encumbered this common lot for an extended period of time. So,
Commission asked the applicant to revise the plan to show how that would be altered to
not have that be an issue. One of the other things that was discussed, the Planning and
Zoning Commission, they wanted to address was irrigation and how irrigation was going
to function on the property. There was some concerns from the surrounding neighbors
as to how that would work. So, having said that I can go through any items in the staff
report or the entire thing, if there are -- is a desire for me to do that this evening.
McCarvel: You know, Josh, why don't you go -- I don't know who was here and who
wasn't that night, so --
Beach: You got it.
McCarvel: -- do you want to -- I think even if it was before --
Beach: Happy to do so. So, this site consists of approximately 17.3 acres of land,
which is zoned R-8. So, this is just a plat, it's not an annexation, as the property is
already annexed into the city. The property to the north -- and just for orientation sake,
if you're looking at the plat itself here, north would be to the left. So, to the north are
single family homes in the Bear Creek Subdivision, which is zoned R-8. To the east is
rural residential property. To the south is single family residential property in the
Kentucky Ridge Estates Subdivision and Biltmore Estates Subdivision, which is zoned
R-4. To the west is single family residential property in the Kentucky Ridge Estates
Subdivision, also zoned R-4. So, in 2013 this property was annexed and zoned as part
of the city initiated annexation from RUT to entirely R-8. The Comprehensive Plan
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
January 18, 2018
Page 12 of 33
future land use map designation for the property is medium density residential. So, this
proposed plat consists of 58 building lots, seven common lots on the 17.3 acres of land.
The R-8 zoning district. Gross density for the subdivision is 3.41 dwellings units per
acre, with an average lot size of 8,490 square feet. All of the proposed lots comply with
the dimension standards of the UDC for R-8. There is a condition in the development
agreement that any lots that abut the Kentucky Ridge Subdivision be 10,000 square feet
in size and the applicant -- the plat does comply with that. So, those would be these
lots here along the -- Kentucky Ridge South and they are all 10,000 square feet or
larger. There are several existing structures on the site that will be demolished as part
of the project. The phasing plan as you can see here on the plat indicates that the -- the
southern portion or this right side here, with that being phase one coming from the
Biltmore Estates Subdivision and phase two being along Victory Road. Vehicular
access is proposed for this site via one access to Victory and a stub street to the south,
which is South Bear Claw Avenue. The applicant is proposing one additional stub street
in this case to the east. Previously there were two, but with this revision here to a
common lot now, instead of a public road, that stub street is no longer being proposed.
Sidewalks are required along all public streets. The applicant proposes to construct a
five foot wide attached sidewalk along internal streets and a five foot detached sidewalk
along the entire frontage of West Victory Road. I know there was some discussion at
the previous hearing in December that the sidewalk be extended in the first phase , this
being the second phase of development, that sidewalk be extended to a portion where
there would be a possibility for a crosswalk along Victory Road. So, just to -- just a
reminder on that. It was part of the discussion. There are several lots that are covered
by an existing easement. Any existing utility mains crossing this property that are no
longer in use or needed must be abandoned and any associated easements will be --
need to be released or relinquished. The applicant is aware of that. A minimum of ten
percent qualified open space is required to be provided for this development . With the
17.3 acres for the plat a minimum of 1.73 acres of qualified open space is required, as
-- as required in the UDC. Since the application was submitted the applicant has
revised the plat and has not yet submitted to revise landscape plan with the revised
open space calculations. All developments consisting of five acres or more are required
to provide a minimum of one site amenity and one additional site amenity is required for
each additional 20 acres. So, in this case one amenity is required. The applicant has
indicated that they are proposing several different amenities. Not nailed down those
exactly, because we do not have a landscape plan to indicate what those ame nities
would be, but they had indicated that it would be at the time a tot lot, half court
basketball court, and a section of the city's regional pathway. Back here to the
elevations. These are the conceptual elevations being proposed by the applicant . Did
receive testimony from Dustin Hilgert -- this was back in about October -- over concerns
with the noticing for the project. That concern has since been taken care of. They did
an additional neighborhood meeting. Was an error initially with the number of notices
that were sent out. So, with that staff is recommending approval with conditions and I
will stand for any questions you have.
McCarvel: Can you go back to that plat, Josh. Okay. So, we had just -- to refresh
everybody's memory on our concern because this was before Christmas, we had that
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
January 18, 2018
Page 13 of 33
road there that was going to go out to that common lot was going to be a big
turnaround. Do we have the original one?
Beach: I don't have it --
McCarvel: Okay.
Beach: -- but I can -- I can find it really quickly if you would like. But there was a --
there was a -- there was about a 90 degree turn right about here --
McCarvel: Yeah.
Beach: -- and because there is nothing on this lot next door -- or no development
proposed, in order to accommodate the hundred -- over 150 feet that that road would
have been, a common lot would have been encumbered by a turnaround to
accommodate a fire truck.
McCarvel: So, we have got that now that's turned into kind of a common driveway
almost; right?
Beach: Right.
McCarvel: Okay. And, then, the sidewalk that will be done in phase one, just to get the
crosswalk to Stoddard.
Beach: Correct.
McCarvel: Right?
Beach: I will also mention quickly that there is an easement -- two things I guess I will
mention. One, there is an easement here for utilities, so there is going to be a 14 foot
gravel road or -- to accommodate utility trucks that need to get back there from the city.
McCarvel: Okay.
Beach: There is also an easement that runs along this south side of -- of these lots
here that staff would recommend and having said that , this is proposed for a common
lot -- Biltmore Estates as a common lot that will abut the common lot in this subdivision.
So, staff's thinking is that if there was some sort of a pathway proposed , even a five foot
pathway to get out to the -- the road here, this -- this area could be a little bit more --
have greater accessibility than just down the common --
McCarvel: Right. Instead of going down in those people's common driveway that they
come --
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
January 18, 2018
Page 14 of 33
Beach: It may not be immediately visible with these homes here that surround this lot,
but there is a pathway -- a little bit --
McCarvel: Right. So, people can access it from the public street. Yeah. Okay. So,
those are the two main things why we -- we asked to continue it and bring it back.
Beach: Yeah. There was a question about irrigation as well.
McCarvel: The irrigation. Yeah.
Beach: I don't remember the details of that. Discussion from the neighbors might be a
able to enlighten us --
McCarvel: Right.
Beach: -- a little bit about that concern, but that was a major point of discussion at the
previous hearing.
McCarvel: Yeah. Okay. Okay. Any other questions for staff?
Perreault: Madam Chair?
McCarvel: Commissioner Perreault.
Perreault: So, I'm sorry, is that turn around no longer needed? Maybe I missed that. Is
that --
Beach: Correct. It's not 150 feet anymore, so --
Perreault: So, I see what you're saying.
Beach: They have indicated that --
Perreault: Okay. I understand.
Beach: -- the reduction of that length now --
Perreault: Right.
Beach: -- is not a requirement.
Perreault: Okay.
McCarvel: Okay. At this time would the applicant like to come forward?
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
January 18, 2018
Page 15 of 33
Riley: Madam Chairman, Members of the Commission, Penelope Riley, Post Office
Box 405, Boise, Idaho. 83701. I don't ever like to argue with staff , but I do have the
memorandum that I attached to our updated materials that we submitted on January 8th
and there was, in fact, an updated landscape plan that was submitted at that time and I
just happen to have a copy of it, so --
McCarvel: Okay.
Riley: -- I will give it to staff.
McCarvel: Okay.
Riley: Perhaps it was my bad, which is possible. And, let's see, I wanted to recap our
conversation at the last hearing. We discussed the improvements to Victory Road
adjacent to the site and the conclusion was that since there is full pedestrian facilities on
the north side of Victory Road all the way from Stoddard to Meridian Road, that
additional improvements were not needed on our side at this time and at the request of
the commissioner we are going to put in this stub sidewalk that goes across what would
be Stoddard, if it's extended southward and out a little bit farther, so that the pedestrians
can walk across that area and be able to access the crosswalk to get to the north side
of Victory Road. Let's see. So, as a part of that we are requesting the condition of
approval 1.1.7 be replaced with a condition that -- that references the stub sidewalk to a
slight -- to align slightly beyond the line extending from the east side of the existing
sidewalk on Stoddard south to the site and the references the landscape buffer on
Victory Road and the sidewalk will be removed from conditions of approval until phase
two is under formal consideration. For new discussion, the continuance of the hearing
for Timberline was based on a request for an updated landscape plan and if I did not get
that submitted I apologize. We did have it ready and were able to confirm that there is ,
in fact, ten percent common area, which meets the requirement for the City of Meridian.
There is a request for additional information regarding water rights and a request for
redesign of the southwest -- excuse me -- the southeast corner of the site. So, an
updated landscape plan and perhaps an updated preliminary plat and perhaps a
landscape plan was submitted to staff on January 8. The follow-up packet also included
water rights information obtained by the project engineer and photographic details of the
proposed subdivision community area amenity. The volume of the irrigation rights --
water rights for the site at this time is a minimum of 9.89 miners inches or about 89
gallons per minute. The site has been for the last few years receiving about 29 miners
inches and the project engineer and applicant are working to formalize the higher water
delivery, if possible. Just a sidebar on that. As development occurs, the demand for
irrigation water declines, so what was happening in the -- the property owner is getting
excess water -- is that the irrigation ditch company has excess water. They don't have
the same level of demand because the irrigated farmland is turning into residences , so
they are going to try and up that water right if possible, but the 89 -- the 9.89 miners
inches is, I believe, more than sufficient to provide the PI system for the subdivision. I
did want to note also that a pump station is proposed for the southeast corner of the
site. So, this will be a traditional pressurized irrigation system where there was a pump
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
January 18, 2018
Page 16 of 33
station and HOA ownership and management with, I'm sure, a contractor that maintains
the equipment and comes in and does repairs when they are necessary. There is a
minor modification to the location of a common area in phase two. Originally it was
proposed for Lot 34, Block 2, which is along the west side of the property about
midstream. The parcel that is now -- this parcel is now proposed to be residential,
which is probably a better use for it, because it's tucked away, it will be more private and
quiet and the new location of the common lot is a Lot 24, Block 2. So, if you look at the
access -- access driveway in and there is the center island and, then, you cross the first
street, it's the next lot on the right. It's actually labeled common lot there. We thought
that would be more centrally located, but away from Victory Road. The southeast
corner has been redesigned with this common lot shared driveway for the three
residential lots that are proposed there and, then, per your preference we now have a
large, unencumbered common area down in that corner. As discussed at the
December 21st hearing, the project team has submitted legal -- a legal description or
descriptions and exhibit materials for vacation of the utility easements not in the right of
way that are no longer needed by the City of Meridian. We stand ready to assist the
City of Meridian at any time with this. The holder of the easement is the City of
Meridian, so we cannot release the easement. Only the City of Meridian can release
the easement. So, we have provided them with the materials prepared by a surveyor
and we are all ready to help in any way we can to get those eas ements released.
Construction traffic. Just another sidebar. The applicant is going to prepare a gravel
surface that traverses the site from the north on Victory Road, so that all the
construction traffic coming into the site during development of phase one will come
down from Victory Road, they won't be driving through the subdivision and dropping big
clumps of mud, which is what they do, because they are driving around in muddy areas.
So, we are going to protect the neighbors to the south by providing that secondary
construction access. It will be closed once it's not needed anymore and the pathway
that was discussed along the south property line, that was a new one for me, and I'm
sure that we would be happy to accommodate you. I just didn't -- that was new. I don't
-- I didn't recall that discussion. So, if we can get feedback from staff on what they are
looking for specifically. With that I would be happy to answer any questions you have.
McCarvel: Okay. I have one question. On the common areas, do you have thoughts or
a proposal yet on what -- what amenities are provided in those or --
Riley: Yes. Excuse me. Madam Chairman, that was the set of photographs that we
submitted.
McCarvel: Okay.
Riley: It showed the covered area with the concrete pad and picnic tables. I call it kind
of a community area where people can gather. So, we did submit some photographs
for that.
Beach: I have those, too. I can show you.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
January 18, 2018
Page 17 of 33
Riley: It was a rainy day, obviously.
Beach: That's one there. Metal poles with wood -- it would be a metal roof, but on the
other side I guess there is -- standing here is --
Riley: Nice detail on the underneath of that.
McCarvel: And that's the same amenity on all the common lots?
Riley: No. Just one common lot needs to have the amenity. The others will be grassy
areas -- open grassy areas.
Beach: Our code does allow for a picnic -- covered picnic area with benches to be
considered an amenity. So, that would meet the requirement.
McCarvel: Okay. Any other questions for the applicant? Okay.
Riley: Thank you.
McCarvel: Okay. At this time we will take public testimony. I have one name on the
sign-up sheet, but it says they do not wish to testify, but is there anyone in the room that
would like to testify at this point in time? Okay. So, in that two seconds did anybody
decide they have more questions for the applicant ? All right. Then I would entertain a
motion to close the public hearing on Item H-2017-0140, Timberline Subdivision.
Perreault: So moved.
Yearsley: Second.
McCarvel: It has been moved and seconded to close the public hearing on H-2017-
0140. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. TWO ABSENT.
McCarvel: I think they have done exactly what we have asked him to do. When I was
reading the staff report I was having trouble remembering all that -- all what that was all
about, because I was --
Wilson: There is three issues -- there is also three different kind of not related issues.
McCarel: Yeah. Yeah. But I think to go ahead and change item 1.1.17, that was
specifically the detail that required them to do the landscape all along Victory, but I think
Commissioner Yearsley's suggestion that they just do it -- meet up with the crosswalk at
Stoddard is a good compromise in phase one. Josh -- or Madam Chair. Josh, on that
-- the -- that common lot to the north that goes to -- you talked about having a pathway
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
January 18, 2018
Page 18 of 33
there. Do we need to add that as a condition of approval or is that already in your staff
report?
Beach: No. So, let me make sure I understand. On the map here north is left.
Yearsley: Oh. So, to the south. Sorry.
McCarvel: Yeah.
Beach: On this south side here --
Yearsley: Yes.
Beach: -- you would need to add that as a condition.
McCarvel: Okay.
Yearsley: Okay.
McCarvel: Because that -- I like that.
Beach: And that's not a requirement that they do that, it -- it would just help with the --
Yearsley: Oh, no, I --
Beach: Originally there was a sidewalk going along there.
McCarvel: Yeah.
Beach: Had a concern.
Yearsley: Yeah.
McCarval: Yeah. No. I like that, having that access -- pedestrian access from the
public road, instead of going down -- but people feel a little funny walking down -- even
though it's a common driveway it still feels like somebody's driveway.
Beach: Just so you know, in order to meet code that would need to be a -- a ten foot
sidewalk or pathway with a -- with a five foot landscape buffer on one side to meet code.
Assuming the applicant can accommodate that was the point of that -- that's what code
requires.
Yearsley: Madam Chair?
McCarvel: Commissioner Yearsley.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
January 18, 2018
Page 19 of 33
Yearsley: I like the new layout. I think it looks much better. It gives them more of the
open space and it addresses that and I guess one of the thoughts that I -- you know, if
you ever wanted to potentially do a stub street we could actually look at th at little turn
around there before the common driveway. Could you actually put a -- at least a right of
way through that for a potential through street there or not?
Beach: Are you talking about the common driveway here?
Yearsley: No. No. Just the -- just to the south of that right there. Could you actually
put it potentially --
Beach: I think that would be a possibility, depending on how that's -- that's structured
and if the highway district is comfortable with this configuration of what will then be an
intersection here.
Yearsley: Yeah.
Beach: That would be a discussion for them to see if that would be okay. Sure.
Yearsley: That would --
Beach: It would be a little funky.
Yearsley: It be a little -- yeah. You know. And not -- I think mostly to allow it if it needs
to or, you know, if the other applicant doesn't want to have that they don't need to have
that, but as an option, so -- but other than that I think it looks good. I would be curious
what other people thought about not doing the landscaping as part of phase one, along
Victory Road, except for just that small piece. It just seems like it was a fairly decent
compromise, because there really is no other access to the north and so -- and given
today's climate I imagine that phase two will be pretty fast, so --
McCarvel: Yeah. That was kind of my thought and when we had the discussion on the
compromise that, you know, while all these trucks are going in and out of there , just
going to leave it, but I do like the pedestrian access being able to come from that other
subdivision and at least get across Victory to Stoddard in a crosswalk. Okay.
Perreault: Madam Chair?
McCarvel: Commissioner Perreault.
Perreault: If I understand correctly, there will be these -- this picnic area in one of the
common lots. The other two common lots will just be green grass and the staff report
suggests two site amenities, but that is sufficient?
McCarvel: Josh --
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
January 18, 2018
Page 20 of 33
Beach: I think code requires one for the first five acres and another for the next 20 and
they have 17. So, one is all that's required in this case.
McCarvel: Always appreciate going over --
Riley: Yes.
McCarvel: -- the minimum, but this does meet the minimum requirement, so --
Perreault: It just seems that the common lots are pretty far apart from one another and
that you would have a really -- if they chose to put it in this common lot to the south you
have a pretty long walk to utilize that from the northwest corner.
McCarvel: Well, there is --
Perreault: Depending on where it's located.
McCarvel: Yeah. There is another one right there on the corner --
Perreault: Right.
McCarvel: -- as you're coming in and, then, another one in the northeast corner.
Perreault: I just meant if they locate that picnic area on that south common lot by
chance.
McCarvel: Yeah.
Perreault: Then, you know, that's a pretty significant distance from --
Beach: Sure. Madam Chair, just -- just quickly. You may ask the applicant what --
where they are intending to put this picnic area. Looking through the landscape plan it
does not indicate exactly where that would be. So, it's the common lot down here, this
larger common lot here and, then, there is another up on Victory.
McCarvel: And on --
Beach: On the previous plat there was one in this location here that they have since
changed.
McCarvel: Yeah.
Beach: She's indicating it's this common lot.
McCarvel: Yeah. I would suggest one of the two farther to the south.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
January 18, 2018
Page 21 of 33
Beech: Larger.
McCarvel: Yeah. That way you're not inviting people off Victory into your subdivision.
Okay.
Yearsley: Madam Chair?
McCarvel: Commissioner Yearsley.
Yearsely: After considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move to
recommend approval to the City Council of file number H-2017-0140 as presented in
the staff report for the hearing date of January 18th, 2018, with the following
modifications: That modification 1.1.7 be revised to not require the full site amenities to
be constructed along Victory Road, but to provide a sidewalk to the north side of
Stoddard Road and a crosswalk -- or access to the road so they can have a potential
crosswalk there. And then --
McCarvel: In phase one. But it still needs to --
Yearsley: Part of phase one.
McCarvel: Yeah.
Yearsley: Yes. And then -- and, then, the frontage still needs to be done as part of
phase two, but -- and, then, to add a pathway in the common lot and make that common
lot a little bigger to the south to access that southern common lot area.
McCarvel: From the road.
Yearsley: From the road.
Perrault: I will second.
Wilson: Second.
McCarvel: It has been moved and seconded to approve file number H-2017-1040 with
amendments. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. TWO ABSENT.
C. Amended to add file number: Public Hearing for Kobe/Cope
Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment and Rezone (H-2017-
0157) by Kobe, LLC and Copy Holdings, LLC, Located on the
Northeast Corner of North Locust Grove and East Franklin
Road
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
January 18, 2018
Page 22 of 33
1. Request: For An Amendment to the Comprehensive Plan
Future Land Use Map to Change the Land Use Designation
on 10.12 Acres of Land from Commercial to Industrial and a
Rezone of 5.62 Acres of Land from C-G (General
Commercial) to I-L (Light Industrial)
McCarvel: At this time we will open file number H-2017-0157, and we will begin with the
staff report.
Beach: Just a second here. Madam Chair, Members of the Commission, this last
application for me before you tonight is the Kobe Cope Comprehensive Plan Map
Amendment and a rezone. This is approximately 10.12 acres of land and which, as you
see, is currently zoned C-G and I-L, located on the northeast corner of East Franklin
and North Locust Grove Roads. To the north is industrial -- are industrial uses. Now
the parks maintenance facility is zoned I-L. To the east is a single family residential
property and industrial property and a commercial auto repair business, which is zoned
C-G. To the south are single family residential homes, zoned RUT and multi-family
residential, which is zoned R-15 in the City of Meridian. And to the west is vacant
property, zoned C-G and I-L. In 2017 a rezone, which was called Gensco, and
associated development agreements and a combined preliminary/final plat for Madden
Subdivision, were approved for this property, which is the reasoning that this portion of
property to the north is currently zoned I-L. The Comprehensive Plan -- the current
Comprehensive Plan future land is map designation is commercial. The applicant
proposes to amend the future land use map within the Comprehensive Plan to change
the land use designation on approximately 10.12 acres of land from commercial to
industrial and to rezone the southern 5.62 acres of land from C-G to I-L, which would,
then, be in -- in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan being requested -- a map
amendment being requested rather. And it involved the previous development
application that more than half this parcel was recently rezoned to the I-L zoning district
and along with it -- with that, again, the rezone is to develop the east parcel and, again,
the east parcel meaning -- I don't have to the -- the subdivision plat showing here on the
map, but it would be at -- the east parcel is -- roughly indicated by my -- by my cursor
here, so that the east parcel can develop with an automotive repair facility. No other
development is proposed on the adjacent parcel or the parcel to the west on the corner.
To ensure that the site develops in conjunction with the submitted concept plan , which I
will show you here in a second and elevations, staff recommends the applicant enter
into a development agreement. So, again, the Comprehensive Plan on the top here is
the current Comprehensive Plan and future land use map indicated as commercial in
the red and the proposed would be industrial or indicated here in gray. And, as I
mentioned, the applicant is proposing to develop this parcel -- the parcel would be in the
-- the southeast corner of this property. The Cope Collision Center -- this is the
conceptual site plan that they have supplied to the -- to staff. Again, this would be
something that would be tied -- maybe tied even to a development agreement. They
have also given us some conceptual building elevations and part of the reason why staff
in certain cases will recommend a development agreement with a rezone is because in
this case this is substantially better -- or a nicer building than what we would normally
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
January 18, 2018
Page 23 of 33
see in an industrially zoned property. So, staff is of the opinion that we would like to tie
them to their proposed building elevations, so that there is a greater likelihood that
something like this would be constructed, rather than what we would normally get in a
residential -- excuse me -- in an industrial zone. Moving on. As I said, the applicant is
proposing an automotive repair facility or an automotive repair facility major, as our
code indicates, with an accessory outdoor storage yard as part of that concept plan.
Future use of the site must comply with the specific use standards for both of those
uses. As I said, there are some conceptual building elevations. Access to the site
restricts access to arterial streets when access is available from a local street. This has
frontage on Nola Road and Lanark Street, Franklin Road and Locust Grove Road.
There are two existing access points to the site . This is the site overall, not just the
Cope Collision site. These sites were -- these access points were defined with the
Madden Subdivision, giving them the access point. In this case staff has in the
development agreement that the sites share -- shown here. Share an access and have
a cross-access agreement for an access point approximate ly in this location, rather than
each having their own -- those accesses being granted again with the Madden
Subdivision. A ten foot wide street buffer is required to be provided along North Nola
Road as set forth in the UDC. A 25 foot landscape buffer is required along East
Franklin Road and North Locust Grove Road, which are both considered arterial
roadways. No fencing at this time is being proposed. Again, that will be something that
we will review with their certificate of zoning compliance for a -- any future businesses
that are developed here. They will have to come forward with a certificate of zoning
compliance and a design review, even though the conceptual plan would be tied to the
site with the development agreement. Staff is recommending approval of both the
rezone and the Comprehensive Plan map amendment and I will stand for any questions
you have.
McCarvel: Any questions for staff at this time? Would the applicant like to come
forward?
Stiles: Madam Chair and Commissioners, my name is Shari Stiles. I'm with
Engineering Solutions at 1029 North Rosario in Meridian and I'm here tonight
representing Cobe, LLC, and Cope Holdings, LLC, to rezone the property, as Josh said,
at the northeast corner of Franklin Road and North Locust Grove Road. You recently
saw this property come before you as the Madden Subdivision and the rezone for the
Gensco building. The Madden Subdivision plat is currently at Ada county right now
waiting for the review from the Ada county surveyor and they have also -- the owner of
the Madden Subdivision has also deposited by bond with ACHD slightly over a hundred
thousand dollars to complete the road improvements around this entire parcel. Cope
would be taking the area right at the northwest corner of Nola Road and Franklin. That
lot there. Cope Auto has been in Meridian. They began in 1963 at 210 East Fairview,
which is where the current Westside Body Works is and, then, in 1982 they moved to
their current location, which is at 1855 East Lanark. They actually have their facility
where they are located right now is virtually kitty-corner from -- from where they want to
build their new facility. So, as part of this we will be cleaning up the -- the comp plan
map to request that entire area be zoned industrial. The property was actually annexed
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
January 18, 2018
Page 24 of 33
in 1996 and at that time Locust Grove did not even extend north from Franklin. There
has been a tremendous amount of growth since then, of course, and the property has
been available for commercial use for all of these years and it's just not really had any
great interest. Now that there is less and less industrial ground in Meridian, the
industrial ground -- the prices are almost competitive with the commercial prices and so
this area -- the entire corridor at one time was designated industrial, but we think it's a
very good use for this and a good neighbor to all of the other uses in the area . As you
can see on the -- we have got Builder's Masonry Products about a quarter mile further
west there on Franklin. A lot of big, big trucks come through this intersection. I don't
know if you have ever been there at -- at rush hour. It's just really not conducive to
having a lot of in and out traffic and we think this is an excellent use and, of course, they
are excited to have Cope Auto building a new facility. This is showing the property as
you go looking to the Meridian parks facility on the north side of the road there.
Basically it's been a lot of horses out there and this project, once it's complete, they will
have sidewalks down Nola and on Lanark and, again, this is a conceptual site plan, as
Josh showed, and their -- their building is a very nice facility. I don't know if you have
seen their present facility. They run a very clean operation. If you go down there you
would be hard pressed to knowing which one was the one with the wrecked cars,
because they maintain it so well. With that I will stand for any questions and ask that
you consider this favorably and give us your recommendation.
McCarvel: Any questions for the applicant?
Perreault: Madam Chair?
McCarvel: Commissioner Perreault.
Perreault: You said that you are considering putting in an outdoor storage yard, but
there wasn't any fencing proposed.
Stiles: Yes, they will -- once they come in with the building permit they will have to go
through the design review. If they propose the outdoor storage at that time, if they are
not going to have room inside their facility, they will have to show their fencing details as
part of their building permit and the whole certificate of zoning compliance.
Holland: Madam Chair?
McCarvel: Commissioner Holland.
Holland: In the map that you have provided here, too, it says screen storage area in
future addition. Is future addition just talking about that extended parking storage area?
Stiles: Madam Chair, Commissioner Holland, I believe that if -- Rick Cope is here
today. At one point -- I mean if they needed to add a paint booth in the future or
something, they could come back, but that would probably be where there outdoor
storage would be, if they had it, and it would all be screened fencing.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
January 18, 2018
Page 25 of 33
McCarvel: Okay. Any other questions? Okay. Thank you.
Stiles: Thank you.
McCarvel: And we have no one else signed up to testify on this application , but is there
anyone in the room who would like to do so ? So, with no questions -- anymore
questions for the applicant or staff, I would entertain a motion to close the public hearing
on Item H-2017-0157.
Wilson: Madam Chair?
McCarvel: Commissioner Wilson.
Wilson: I move to close the public hearing on H-2017-0157.
Holland: I will second.
McCarvel: It has been moved and seconded to close the public hearing on H-2017-
0157. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. TWO ABSENT.
Perreault: Madam Chair?
McCarvel: Commissioner Perreault.
Perreault: I think this is a great proposal for this location. I don't -- as far as what they
are proposing, as far as changing it to industrial, it seems to me to fit -- to fit what --
what else is going on in that -- in that area.
McCarvel: Yeah. When I first started reading the staff report and I thought -- and I
know this -- part of this has been before us before, but I was just thinking, okay, that
intersection -- why do we want to do -- you know, it's a pretty visible intersection, but,
then, I saw the building that they wanted to put there and I was very impressed. I think
even though it has an industrial use, it's a beautiful facility and I agree that the
development agreement to make sure that that's the building that goes in there, I think it
would be a nice addition to that corner, as well as -- I don't know if we have any teeth in
there or if it just goes before design review, whatever other building goes next to it, even
though it's zoned industrial now, that it be a building for that corner.
Perreault: Madam Chair, if I remember right, when we first heard this they had talked
about putting a C store in one -- in that lot there on the corner. Does that change their
ability to do that if this goes to industrial use?
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
January 18, 2018
Page 26 of 33
Beach: Madam Chair, just a couple of things. One, yeah, there had been some
discussion about doing a convenience store on the corner . Talking with the owner of
the property, he's been trying to get that to happen for quite a while and hasn't had any
success in getting a C store. I'm not sure if the traffic flow is correct for that or what the
issue is on the corner, but he hasn't been able to do that, he's looking at other options.
One, I will say that the specific use standards -- you had some concerns or some of the
Commissioners had concerns about screening of an outdoor storage. Typically body
shops have an area where they will store their cars that are in need of repair . This
being a proposed body shop, the specific standards would classify that area as outdoor
storage and there are specific standards that say if you have something like that it has
to be fully screened from view. So, that -- again, that will be something that we will
review with the certificate of zoning compliance. Typically with a rezone like this we just
say get a concept plan and, obviously, some of those things aren't nailed down. We get
bike racks and landscaping and things like that. So, that's all stuff that we would review
in the future. The other thing I was going to mention -- now I have lost it. Oh. The --
so, yes, this is a rezone for that entire southern portion of the property. There is a
development agreement. Madam Chair, you had mentioned that you would like to see
something potentially be required for that other portion of the property -- would be the
western side. So, we have -- we have included some elevations and conceptual plan
for -- for this rezone, which, essentially, covers that entire, you know, southern portion
here. If the desire is to have something greater as far as elevations go for that, there is
the ability to add something to the development agreement and the first thing that
comes to mind is potentially requiring that any business that be building -- any building
to be built there be tied to the commercial standards that we have for the architectural
standards. So, that's something to think about if you want to go that direction . But,
currently, we don't have anything that's going to require a certain type of building
material for that.
McCarvel: I would just hate to see a metal building go up there. That's usually allowed
in an industrial area -- go on that corner. Yeah. Okay. Any other discussion?
Wilson: Madam Chair?
McCarvel: Commissioner Wilson.
Wilson: I was just happy, too, that this is a home grown company, has been around for
54 years. I thought that was really neat. You know, that's kind of -- that's kind of -- I
look at that as kind of an industrial corridor, knowing some of the other companies in
that area. Like I said, it fits with a busy corner. But, then, it also fulfills that industrial
purpose and even better it's a Meridian grown company. So, I'm very happy about that.
McCarvel: Any other comments? Are we ready for a motion? Vice-chair Perreault.
Perreault: Madam Chair. After considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I
move to recommend approval to the City Council of file number H-2017-0157, as
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
January 18, 2018
Page 27 of 33
presented in the staff report for the hearing date of January 18th, 2018, with no
modifications.
McCarvel: Oh. Include --
Perreault: With the following modification. Excuse me. Josh, how should I word this?
McCarvel: Just including the development agreement provision that --
Perreault: Okay. With including the proposed development agreement provisions A, B,
C, D and E.
Parsons: Madam Chair, Members of the Commission.
McCarvel: Mr. Parsons.
Parsons: I think if I heard you correctly -- and as Josh had explained to you, you could
add -- you can modify one of these provisions to say that they apply to commercial
architectural standards manual -- commercial standards for this site. Is that something
you want to do at this time? Because your motion didn't do that.
Perreault: That's what I'm trying to get to. Yes.
McCarvel: What he said.
Perreault: Including the commentary by Mr. Parsons.
Yearsley: Second.
McCarvel: It has been moved and seconded to approve file number H-2017-0157 with
modifications. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries. Congratulations.
MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. TWO ABSENT.
D. Amended to add file number: Public Hearing for Designing
Team Rezone (H-2017-0166) by Designing Team Located at
1226 Second and a Half Street
1. Request: A Rezone of 0.36 of an Acre from the R-15
(Medium High Density Residential) District to the O-T (Old
Town) District for the Purpose of Operating a Health and
Social Service Use
McCarvel: So, at this time we will move on with H-2017-0166, Designing Team
Rezone, and we will begin with the staff report. As soon as we change staff.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
January 18, 2018
Page 28 of 33
Parsons: Thank you, Madam Chair, Members of the Commission. The last item -- or
one of the last public hearing land use application s before you is the Designing Team
Rezone. The site consists of 0.36 acres of land, currently zoned R-15 within the city
limits. The subject site is located at 1226 2 1/2 Street. The map on the left actually
shows the current zoning and the map on the right is an exhibit that shows what the
current land uses on the properties are. So, currently it's kind of an anomaly here in our
downtown area. What you're seeing here is back in 2002 this applicant approached the
city to receive a conditional use permit and a variance to develop a hair salon on the
subject property. That must have been in a use exception or something allowed in that
ordinance at that time that we no longer have in our current code . The applicant has
expressed to staff that they are wanting to resale or sell this property to another
potential commercial use. However, since the approved conditional use specifies that
home salon, staff doesn't really have a mechanism to rezone this or allow them to
establish another commercial use on this without rezoning the property. As I mentioned
to you earlier in my presentation, you can see here -- as I mentioned this anomaly, you
have R-15, you have high density residential. The subject property is part of the urban
renewal district's boundary. So, in essence, what they are doing on the site does meet
the requirements of the Comprehensive Plan. The director has the ability to float that
designation across a street to allow the applicant to seek a rezone and the primary
reason for that is because, one, it is part of the urban renewal district's boundary. Two,
Comprehensive Plan maps -- the colors on the map aren't parcel specific, like a zoning
boundary is. And, three, the site is actually -- primarily developed and likely not to
redevelop anytime soon. So, those are really the three factors in which staff analyzes
the request and approved -- or supports the request to rezone to Old Town. This exhibit
here before you is the approved concept plan that was approved with the conditional
use in 2002. As I mentioned in the staff report, as it's currently constructed some of the
dimensional standards do not meet current code. However, the approved variance
somewhat runs with this land to allow them to stay vested with the current
improvements, so because the applicant is not proposing any changes to the site , staff
is not recommending that the site come into compliance with the UDC. However, we
have recommended that the applicant at least install a bike rack to comply with the bike
parking standards in our current UDC and I believe the applicant was told that at the
pre-application meeting and they were in agreement to add that facility to the front entry
of their building. So, to staff's knowledge we have not received any additional testimony
on this application. As I mentioned to you, the director has approved this site to float
the Old Town zoning designation across to this property, so that they can move forward
and develop this consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. I will conclude my
presentation and stand for any questions you may have.
McCarvel: Any questions for staff? Okay. Would the applicant like to come forward?
Gillaspy: I don't have a whole lot to say.
McCarvel: Please state your name and address for the record.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
January 18, 2018
Page 29 of 33
Gillaspy: Perry Gillaspy. I'm representing the Designing Team, my wife and her two
partners, Marci Rood and Lorinda Jenkins and, basically, we just want to get it zoned.
We did everything before 15 years ago. The business has been there 15 years. Very
successful. And we are looking to sell and the buyer, of course -- it says personal
services for a professional service. And don't throw a rock at me. Professional service,
which is a chiropractor, is actually looking to buy it. It would have to be zoned Old Town
to be a professional service.
McCarvel: And, I'm sorry, can you pull that mic up --
Gillaspy: Oh.
McCarvel: -- so our --
Gillaspy: Sure.
McCarvel: -- recorder can get it. Thanks.
Gillaspy: And, anyway, that's -- that's why we are going for the rezone.
McCarvel: Okay.
Gillaspy: At the time I worked with the City of Meridian, we built the sidewalks, the most
-- we were the first ones on the street to build according to the Old Town Meridian style,
which is the most -- a three foot walk and we got that changed with ACHD.
McCarvel Any questions for the applicant? Okay. Thank you.
Gillaspy: Thank you.
McCarvel: And I don't have anybody on the list who indicates that they would like to
testify, but is there anyone in the room who would like to testify at this time ? Okay.
Thank you. With there being no more questions for the applicant or staff, I would
entertain a motion to close the public hearing on Item H-2017-066.
Holland: So moved.
Wilson: Second.
McCarvel: It has been moved and seconded to close the public hearing on item
H-2017-0166, Designing Team Rezone. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion
carries.
MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. TWO ABSENT.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
January 18, 2018
Page 30 of 33
McCarvel: Any thoughts? Opinions? I don't see a problem with it. It's one service for
another and I think the Old Town designation is just fine to float across the street and I
think I did see in the staff report it does -- there are some things that don't conform to
today's code, but as long as they don't do any building changes that -- that's okay, but if
they start moving the building -- doing changes to the building, then, they have got to
bring other stuff up to code, so --
Perreault: Madam Chair?
McCarvel: Commissioner Perreault.
Perreault See if I can get this one right. After considering all staff, applicant, and public
testimony I move to recommend approval to the City Council of file number H-2017-
0166 as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of January 18th, 2018, with no
modifications.
Yearsley: Second.
McCarvel: It has been moved and seconded to approve File No. H-2017-0166,
Designing Team Rezone. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. TWO ABSENT.
Item 5: Review and Approval of the Final Plat Landscape Plan Modification
Checklist by the Planning Division
Wilson: Madam Chair?
McCarvel: No.
Wilson: Oh, no.
McCarvel: We have one more item on the agenda.
Wilson: That's right.
McCarvel: Congratulations, though, yours is finished. We have -- Mr. Parsons has a
review and approval of the final plat landscape modification checklist.
Parsons: Thank you, Madam Chair. Before I get into the changes to the checklist I just
wanted to let the applicant know that their project will be in front of City Council here in
about a month. Hey, Perry. Perry. Perry, I wanted to let you know that you're going to
be in front of City Council in about a month. So, ten days prior to the public hearing
you're going to have to repost again. So, keep that in mind. You will get an e-mail from
us. Madam Chair, Members of the Commission, thank you for that. Staff is here again
tonight to ask for your blessing on a new checklist and the reason for it is because our
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
January 18, 2018
Page 31 of 33
Unified Development Code requires us to become -- come before you whenever we
have major changes to our checklist, not necessarily minor changes. But as I
mentioned to you at the last Planning and Zoning Commission hearing and I brought
forth those changes, this checklist should have been accompanying those changes, but
it inadvertently got missed, so now I'm here before you this evening. But on Tuesday
evening of this week Council did approve new fees for this subject application. So, it's
-- it's paramount that you guys take action on this checklist today, so we can get the
new fees in and get the information out to the development community . So, basically,
what we have before you this evening is -- what we see -- and I think you guys have
seen it with all of the amount of applications that have come before you -- is typically we
go through a subdivision process. You guys don't act -- you act on the preliminary plat
and have conditions. Those conditions get forwarded onto City Council for
recommendation. Well, as the final plats come in they are not required by this body to
take action on them. Staff makes sure that the final plat conforms with the conditions in
the approved primary plat that you guys all recommended to City Council and,
ultimately, the one that they approved. Sometimes amenities and open space and
fencing, those types of things are discussed at a public hearing and the applicants and
developers agree to work with the neighbors on those types of things . In order to get
those things modified and changed, that requires what we call a final plat modification
and that's a 541 dollar application fee and that does go back to the Council for their
review and their approval ultimately. What this particular checklist does is allow the
developer -- say, for example, they go through City Council, they have an amenity that
they want to swap out. Fencing. They want wood fencing, rather than vinyl fencing,
and they weren't discussed at the public hearing. This is an administrative staff level
approval where they could come in, pay a 160 dollar fee, submit this checklist with an
application and staff could look through the minutes and verify that they, in fact, weren't
topics of discussion at the hearing and we could give the applicant a letter and an
administrative approval, just like we do with design review and our alternative
compliance requests. So, that's really the main purpose for this checklist. Currently this
just doesn't exist. This is a new check -- checklist. So, I am asking for your blessing
this evening and I would stand for any questions you may have.
McCarvel: Any questions for staff?
Perreault: Madam Chair?
McCarvel: Commissioner Perreault.
Perreault: So, if I remember from the memo correctly, it says that the director already
holds the right to approve those. You're just creating a checklist now to make sure that
the process is more clean?
Parsons: Madam Chair, Members of the Commission, that's -- that's an accurate
observation. Currently in Chapter 5 of the UDC the director has the authority to granted
by Council -- the city to approve landscape plans. So, this fee will basically accompany
that and the verbiage that's currently in Chapter 5.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
January 18, 2018
Page 32 of 33
Perreault: So, it's intended for minor changes that aren't really necessary to go through
a public hearing again and is there a list of the types of changes that staff can make ? Is
there a limitation to that? Or how does that --
Parsons: Madam Chair, Members of the Commission, currently there is not. Again, the
-- on the checklist we have specified the applicant provide that information to us in a
narrative. The project name. When it was approved. What are you modifying. Verify
with us that it meets the current code or meets code still and that it was not a topic of
discussion. So, we kind a bulletized those items on the checklist for the applicant to
kind of provide us that information and, then, ultimately staff will check that against the
record and that's where that fee comes in. It takes staff time to do that and look into the
record. But currently, like I said, the caveat is really minor changes. Say, for example,
they came in with a pool and now that was shared with you here it was in a
development agreement or something in the final plat that says you need to construct a
pool, that type of amenity for a basketball court or a walking path, I think the director
had some latitude to say that's not equal to that amenity, you need to go back through
the final flat process and take that up with Council.
Yearsley: Madam Chair?
McCarvel: Commissioner Yearsley.
Yearsley: So, on this application you have verify the item was not a topic of discussion
at the public hearing, so we go through the process, they pay the money, we find that it
is -- was a topic. Do they, then, have to come back and do an application before --
before City Council? Is that the process? Or how does that process work?
Parsons: Madam Chair, Members of the Commission, Commissioner Yearsley, that's --
that's how it would work. Correct. If we -- we make the determination that it is, one, we
will either deny their request or, two, we will say we can't process your application,
because we can't, you need to go back through this process and so we can maybe
apply that money towards that application. But staff at this level cannot approve that.
Yearsley: Okay. I just wanted to make sure that that was what my thinking was, so --
thank you.
McCarvel: Any other questions? Any other discussion or would somebody like to make
a motion?
Yearsley: So, we are making a motion to recommend approval to City Council; is that
correct? Or are we just approving this?
McCarvel: We are approving it.
Yearsley: All right. Madam Chair?
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
January 18, 2018
Page 33 of 33
McCarvel: Commissioner Yearsley.
Yearsley: I recommend that we approve the modification to the plan -- planning
development landscape plan modification checklist.
Perreault: Second that motion.
McCarvel: It has been moved and seconded to approve the final plat landscape plan
modification checklist. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. TWO ABSENT.
McCarvel: Commissioner Wilson.
Wilson: Madam Chair, I move we adjourn for this evening.
Yearsley: Second.
McCarvel: It has been moved and seconded to adjourn the meeting of January 18th.
All those in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. TWO ABSENT.
MEETING ADJOURNED AT 7:28 P.M.
(AUDIO RECORDING ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS.)
APPROVED
RHOINDA McCARVEL - CHAIRMAN DATE APPROVED
ATTEST; og4oRATEDgLCG
C " s�
1�
cW
C. JAY COL � - CITY ;tyof K LDIA
10A110
yT
SF -4L
tiw
ti
o`'bB rRFASUP�V�
Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
Meeting Date: January 18, 2018
Agenda Item Number: 3A
11 .. .. ...... ..... ......... . ....... . . ....... . .... . . .. . ......
Project/File Number:
. . . ....... . ...........
Item Title: Approve Minutes of the January 4, 2018 Planning and Zoning Commission
Meeting
Meeting Notes
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
January 4, 2018
Page 35 of 35
MEETING ADJOURNED AT 7:21 P.M.
(AUDIO RECORDING ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS.)
APPROVED
1'Y)C
RH DA McCARVEL - CHAIRMAN
ATTEST:
QO
C. J4 COLE` - OITY CLERK
LI I�
DATE APPROVED
AUGUST
0
U �
of WI
IE IDIAN-
1 W
\s�, SEAL ,�I
Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
Meeting Date: January 18, 2018
Agenda Item Number: 313
Project/File Number: H-2017-0155
Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law for Escape Room (H-2017-0155) By Samuel Marvin, LMP
Enterprises Located at 2959 South Meridian Road
Meetina Notes
9 ; 3 � 6
IN
By motion of the Planning & Zoning Commission at its regular meeting held on the day of
SC,I L)6.e , 2017.
l'
COMMISSIONER RHONDA MCCARVEL, CHAIRMAN VOTED
COMMISSIONER RYAN FITZGERALD,
VOTED
COMMISSIONER STEVEN YEARSLEY
VOTED
COMMISSIONER GREGORY WILSON
VOTED
COMMISSIONER LISA HOLLAND
VOTED Y66
COMMISSIONER WILLIAM CASSINELLI
VOTED
COMMISSIONER JESSICA PERREAULT, U,'6,i
41'y VOTED 1
Qo�P,�EO AUGUST' ,90�
z
Rho 4a McCarvel Chairman
Attest:
C. ay Coles, itA Clerk
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:0100 1 o— Dated:
City Clerk's Office
CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION & ORDER
CASE NO(S). H-2017-0155
Page 3
Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
Meeting Date: January 18, 2018
Agenda Item Number: 4A
Project/File Number: H-2017-0149
Item Title: Public Hearing Continued from January 4, 2018 for Turf Farm Subdivision
Request: Preliminary Plat Approval Consisting of 120 Building Lots and 11 Common Lots on 35.35
Acres of Land in the R-8 Zoning District
Meetina Notes
/-kf P PLY4 `tv U t`I C�,✓c�'C
CITY OF MERIDIAN
PLANNING AND ZONING
PUBLIC HEARING SIGN -IN SHEET
Date: January 18, 2018 Item # 4A
Project Number: H-2017-0155
Project Name:
Turf Farm
Please print your name For Against Neutral Do you wish
to testify (YIN)
Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
Meeting Date: January 18, 2018
Agenda Item Number: 4B
Project/File Number: H-2017-0140
Item Title: Public Hearing Continued from November 16, 2017 for Timberline Subdivision
Request: Preliminary Plat Approval Consisting of 59 Single Family Residential Lots and 8 Common
Lots on 17.3 Acres of Land in the R-8 Zoning District
Meeting Notes
eAJrrOt/r �c.4 t"OT
CITY OF MERIDIAN
PLANNING AND ZONING
PUBLIC HEARING SIGN -IN SHEET
Date: January 18, 2018 Item #
Project Number: H-2017-0140
Project Name:
Please print your name
Timberline Subdivision
For I Against I Neutral
Do you wish
to testifv (Y(I'N)
Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
Meeting Date: January 18, 2018
Agenda Item Number: 4C
Project/File Number: H-2017-0157
Item Title: Amendment to the Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map to Change the Land
Use Designation.
Request: For an Amendment to the Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map to Change the Land Use
Designation on 10.12 Acres of Land from Commercial to Industrial.
Request: A Rezone of 5.62 Acres of Land from C -G (General Commercial) to II -L (Light Industrial)
Meetinq Notes
F�d �,,AP2Ad
CITY OF MERIDIAN
PLANNING AND ZONING
PUBLIC HEARING SIGN -IN SHEET
Date: January 18, 2018 Item # 4C
Project Number:
Project Name: Kobe/ Cope CPAM
Please print your name
For
Against
Neutral
Do you wish
to testify (Y/N)
(410; ao '�.
ul
����R�t ke e���
D
Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
Meeting Date: January 18, 2018
Agenda Item Number: 4D
Project/File Number: H-2017-0166
Item Title Public Hearing for Designing Team Rezone by Designing Team Located at 1226
Second and Half Street
Request: A Rezone of 0.36 of an Acre from the R-15 (Medium High Density Residential) District to
the O -T (Old Town) District for the Purpose of Operating a Health and Social Services Use
CITY OF MERIDIAN
PLANNING AND ZONING
PUBLIC HEARING SIGN -IN SHEET
Date: January 18, 2018 Item #
Project Number:
Project Name: Desingning Team
Please print your name
ecC
For I Against I Neutral
Do you wish
to testifv (Y/N)
Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
Meeting Date: January 18, 2018
Agenda Item Number: 5A
Project/File Number:
Item Title Review and Approval of the Final Plat Landscape Plan Modification Checklist by the
Planning Division
Meeting Notes
MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM: Bill Parsons, Planning Supervisor
RE: Request for Approval of the Landscape Modification Application Checklist
DATE: January 18, 2018
CC: City Clerk, Legal Department
Per UDC 11-5A-3B2, the Planning Division of the Community Development Department is
requesting approval from the Planning and Zoning Commission to approve a new checklist to be
used processing modifications to landscape plans approved primarily with final plat applications;
specifically fencing and/or site amenities that were not discussed at the public hearing. The
current process requires a developer submit a final plat modification application and seek City
Council’s approval of proposed changes.
Table 11-5A-2 grants the authority to the Director to review and approve landscape plans. The
intent behind the new checklist is to increase transparency with the public when minor changes
are made to the approved plans and stream-line the process when minor modifications are
requested without requiring the developer to go through a public meeting process.
On January 16th, City Council will be taking action on the new fee associated with the
corresponding checklist. Attached is the copy of the proposed checklist.
Exhibit 1. Attachment
Planning Division
LANDSCAPE PLAN MODIFICATION
■ Application Checklist
Project name: File #:
Applicant/agent:
All applications are required to contain one copy of the following:
Applicant
(√) Description Staff
(√)
Completed and signed Development Review Application
Narrative fully describing the proposed change(s) including the following:
Note the approved project number and project name
The specific requirement(s) that is proposed to be modified
Verify the item(s) was not a topic of discussion at a public hearing
A statement of conformance that the proposed change(s) complies with the
approved project’s conditions of approval and all applicable requirements of the
UDC
Recorded warranty deed for the subject property
Affidavit of Legal Interest signed and notarized by the property owner (If owner is a corporation,
submit a copy of the Articles of Incorporation or other evidence to show that the person signing is an authorized agent)
Submit an electronic copy of the approved landscape plan that is proposed to be modified
Submit one (1) full size to-scale copy and an electronic copy of the revised landscape plan
(i.e. fencing and amenities etc.)
Fee
APPLICATION WILL NOT BE ACCEPTED UNLESS ALL APPLICABLE ITEMS ON THE CHECKLIST ARE
SUBMITTED.
Community Development Planning Division 33 E. Broadway Avenue, Ste. 102 Meridian, Idaho 83642
Phone: 208-884-5533 Fax: 208-888-6854 www.meridiancity.org/planning
(01/18/2018)
D
z
z
z
S?°
N
0
z
Z
V/
n
00z
n
-C
Z
C
D
00
N
O
00
n
,
71�
rn
�
O
rn
�
Z
�
Z
�
�
rn
Ns�
rn
,
D
O
z
r
r
n
rn —
c7
O ' ^
D O
�z Z
w
M:!5C)
LOCUST GROVE RD.
m cn rn
E5 -p IZTI Ili
>�
T
p=�� I l z
o ��+ C
rn
o�
y D.
Z m c7
O z �
1
I
m
0 0
� Z
Z T M
IF
N. LOCUST GROVE RD.
i
D.
O N 7
m L_
m m
;P;Z7
r �
z
_ I
oq_ aus or GWORC y
m�x. a• �9E aaxieT
4. LOC ST GW- -IMD ae124' Stan'
\P fa•Hi IMM X3 f —'Ys 141•'l5
�z It 2Y
III �� QIIII
I NA � III
v k I j 1
IU I I vI
1+171-1-1!
c
�It" II��4 eysec'§� �IIIg �I
t
2r.'.' I.\.s' I I o
7 I 1 0� z
I slI I IIS I I ;c d�
I SlI �T� �yyyJ
r' +III � znT^ y
I I I oycL\
--
Io
Z-5
O
. u f III i I g a d H
II 'r.' IIIz9' JY IE3
g:0Fyy
fur SLS\ -�EPffi 1 e111 3)—a.. _ �..�_�.__. ' S• \�-1
y 5:' 1Y u•L :aR'1' " [)II,
_ 5]a.Ea'
_ S. Rom 4 s: fX ,F a 1001.9'
y a
SPNlddIhXO IKFLA� IONST GwO I '�3
SL6dN9C4 40. 2 wks' A.WK
9JX 9S PA�.l 1162 0=4 41. ML .7391
I I I I
iKVis»
J
a"
0-
w
C)
0
D
rn
U)
cn
0
1
NI,
"i wa
CD
n
0rn
LS■I
(D
r'1
0
Changes to Agenda: None
Item #4A: Turf Farm Subdivision - PP (H-2017.0149)
Application(s):
➢ Preliminary Plat
Size of property, existing zoning, and location: This site consists of 35.35 acres of land, zoned RUT in Ada County, located at the
NEC of S, Eagle Rd. & E. Lake Hazel Rd.
Adjacent Land Use & Zoning:
North & East: SFR properties in the development process in Hill's Century Farm Subdivision, zoned R-8
South: E. Lake Hazel Rd. & rural residential properties, zoned RUT in Ada County
West: Rural residential property, zoned RUT in Ada County
Comprehensive Plan FLUM Designation: MHDR (8-15 residential units/acre)
History: Since the time this application was submitted, the plat has been revised per staffs recommendation to include 38 more
building lots than originally proposed with a mix of attached & detached units in an effort to increase the density and provide a mix of
housing types.
Summary of Request: The applicant requests annexation & zoning of 35.35 acres of land with an R-8 zoning district with a "step"
down in density from MHDR to MDR (3-8 units/acre). With the increase in density and provision of lots for attached homes, staff
recommends an R-15 zoning district instead of the requested R-8 to accommodate the smaller lot sizes proposed for attached
dwellings.
The preliminary plat consists of 158 SFR building lots for a mix of attached & detached homes and 17 common area lots. The
subdivision is proposed to develop in 2 phases with the north half expected to develop later this year with SFR detached homes at a
gross density of 3.32 units/acre. The south half will include a mix of attached & detached units at a gross density of 5.48 units/acre.
Overall, a gross density of 4.47 units/acre is proposed. This development will be integrated into the adjacent Hill's Century Farm
development.
One access is proposed to the site via S. Eagle Rd. and a stub street at the north boundary will be extended from Hill's Century Farm
for interconnectivity. The Tenmile Creek runs along the east boundary of the site; no access is proposed to the east across the creek or
via Lake Hazel Rd. Because Lake Hazel is designated as a residential mobility arterial, which is designed to accommodate high
volumes of traffic and intended for regional movements, higher density is desired in this area. Two stub streets are proposed to the
property at the SWC of this site for future access & interconnectivity.
A segment of the City's regional pathway system is proposed along the west side of the Tenmile Creek in accord with the Pathways
Master Plan. The creek is required to be left open as a natural amenity & protected during construction.
Conceptual building elevations were submitted for the SFR detached homes within the development that are consistent with those in
the Hill's Century Farm development.
Written Testimony: Mike Wardle, Brighton Corp. — In agreement w/staff report
Staff Recommendation: Approval w/conditions if Council determines a "step" down in density is appropriate for this property. Staff
requests that a revised landscape plan, open space exhibit & engineering plans that coincide with the reconfigured plat; concept
elevations for the attached units; and revised legal descriptions for the R-8 & R-15 zoning districts as recommended by Staff are
submitted prior to the Council meeting.
Notes:
Item #413: Timberline Subdivision (H-2017-0140)
Application(s):
➢ Preliminary Plat
Size of property, existing zoning, and location: This site consists of 17.3 acres of land, zoned R-8, located at 655 and 7355 W.
Victory Road.
Adjacent Land Use & Zoning:
1. North: Single-family homes in the Bear Creek Subdivision, zoned R-8.
2. East: Rural residential property, zoned R-8.
3. South: Single-family residential property in the Kentucky Ridge Estates Subdivision and Biltmore Estates Subdivision,
zoned R-4.
4. West: Single-family residential property in the Kentucky Ridge Estates Subdivision, zoned R-4.
History: In 2013, the property was annexed and zoned as part of a City initiated annexation from RUT to entirely R-8 (AZ -13-014, DA
Instrument # 114007668).
Comprehensive Plan FLUM Designation: MDR
Summary of Request: The proposed plat consists of fifty-eight (58) building lots and seven (7) common lots on 17.3 acres of land in
the R-8 zoning district. The gross density for the subdivision is 3.41 d.u./acre. The average lot size is 8,490 square feet. All of the
proposed lots comply with the dimensional standards of the UDC. The recorded development agreement for the subject property
requires 10,000 square foot lots adjacent to the Kentucky Ridge Subdivision.
Existing Structures: There are several existing structures on the site that will be demolished as part of this project,
Phasing: The phasing plan as presented by the applicant indicates the first phase of the development will come from the
south and that the second phase will include the Victory Road frontage. In an effort to ensure that pedestrian connectivity in
the area occurs sooner rather than later, staff is requiring the applicant to construct the landscape buffer and sidewalk along
W. Victory Road with the first phase of development.
Access: Vehicular access is proposed for this site via one access to W. Victory Road and on to the stub street to the south (S. Bear
Claw Avenue). The applicant is also proposing two additional stub streets to the parcel to the east that will connect to future
development (W. Cumberland Drive and S. Winnipeg Ave.).
Streets: The proposed internal streets depicted on the plat are public streets. A total of 50 -feet of right-of-way is proposed for the
internal streets.
Sidewalks: Sidewalks are required along all public streets as set forth in UDC 11-3A-17. The applicant proposes to construct 5 -foot
wide attached sidewalk along internal streets and a 5 -foot detached sidewalk along the entire frontage of W. Victory Road in accord
with UDC standards
Tree Mitigation: If there are any existing trees on the site that are proposed to be removed, the applicant should contact Elroy Huff,
City Arborist, at 888-3579 to schedule an appointment to confirm mitigation requirements prior to removal of any trees on the site.
Fencing: Any existing and proposed fencing for the development shall be included on either a site plan or landscape plan and shall
comply with the standards listed in UDC 11 -3A -6B and 11-3A-7.
Easements: There are several lots that are encumbered by an existing easement. Any existing utility mains crossing this property that
are no longer in use or needed, must be abandoned, and any associated easements will need to be released/relinquished.
Open Space: A minimum of 10% qualified open space is required to be provided for this development in accord with UDC 11 -3G -3A.1.
Based on the area of the preliminary plat (17.3 acres), a minimum of 1.73 acres of qualified open space is required to be provided as
set forth in UDC 11 -3A -3B. Since the application was submitted, the applicant has revised the plat and has not yet submitted a revised
landscaping plan with the revised open space calculations. At least 10 days prior to the City Council hearing the applicant shall submit
a revised landscape plan to the City to ensure compliance with UDC requirements.
Site Amenities: All developments consisting of five acres of more are required to provide a minimum of one site amenity; one
additional site amenity is required for each additional 20 acres per UDC 11 -3G -3A.2, in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11 -3G -
3C.
Based on the area of the preliminary plat (21.02 acres), a minimum of 2 qualified site amenities are required to be provided. The
Item #4C: Kobe/Cope (H-2017-)
Application(s):
➢ Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment
➢ Rezone
Size of property, existing zoning, and location: This site consists of 10.12 acres of land, zoned C -G and I -L, located on the north
east corner of E. Franklin and N. Locust Grove Roads.
Adjacent Land Use & Zoning:
1. North: Industrial use; Parks Maintenance Facility, 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: In 2017 a rezone (Gensco H-2017-0098 and associated development agreement Instrument # 2017-119617) and a combined
preliminary final plat (Madden Subdivision H-2017-0121) application were approved for the property.
Comprehensive Plan FLUM Designation: Commercial
Summary of Request: The applicant proposes to amend the future land use map (FLUM) contained in the Comprehensive Plan to
change the land use designation on approximately 10.12 acres of land from Commercial to Industrial and to rezone 5.62 acres of land
from C -G to I -L. As noted above, with a previous development application the northern half of this parcel was recently rezoned to the I-
L district.
The rezone is desired so the applicant can develop the east parcel with an automotive repair facility. No other development is proposed
on the adjacent parcel. To ensure the site develops in conjunction with the submitted concept plan and elevations staff recommends
the applicant enter into a development agreement.
Site Plan: At this time, two of the parcels are proposed to develop. These parcels were subdivided with the recant approval of the
Madden Subdivision. Future users for the lots that were previously subdivided include an industrial user to the north which includes an
approximately 50,000 square foot industrial building. With this application, the applicant has submitted an additional concept plan for a
separate auto body/collision repair business with a secured storage yard and the associated parking area.
The applicant is proposing an automotive repair facility, major with accessory outdoor storage yard as part of the concept
plan. The future use of the site must comply with the specific use standards set forth in UDC 11-4-3-37, UDC 11-3A-14 and UDC 11-4-
3-33 for Outdoor Storage Facilities.
Building Elevations: Conceptual building elevations were submitted for the proposed building. Design features include a large amount
of glass, what appear to be steel panels and steel roll -up garage doors. Per the UDC, the flex building is characterized as a use of a
building for office and warehouse designed with an attractive exterior appearance. Staff is supportive of the proposed building
materials.
Access: The UDC (11-3A-3) restricts access to arterial streets when access is available from a local street. This property has frontage
on Nola Road, Lanark Street, Franklin Road and Locust Grove Road. There are two existing access points to the site from both E.
Franklin Road and N. Locust Grove, both classified arterial roadways. Since this property has access to Nola and Lanark, access to the
arterials should be restricted. The applicant has indicated that they will also construct access points to N. Nola Road and E. Lanark
Street, both local commercial streets.
City Council approved the previously named access points with the Madden Subdivision (H-2017-0121). Because there is a
proposed shared access drive, the applicant shall provide a copy of a recorded cross access agreement between the Cope Collision
property and the property to the west. The agreement shall be provided prior to application of a building permit.
Landscaping: A 10 -foot wide street buffer is required to be provided along N. Nola Road as set forth in UDC Table 11-2B-3. A 25 -foot
landscape buffer is required along E. Franklin Road and N. Locust Grove Road, an arterial roadway, as set forth in UDC 11-2B-3.
Landscaping within the street buffer should be provided in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-313-7C. Any interior parking lot
landscaping will be required with development of the property.
Fencing: No fencing is depicted on the landscape plan for this site. Any new fencing should comply with the standards listed in UDC
11-3A-7.
Sidewalks: Sidewalks are required to be provided with development in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3A-17. A 7 -foot
Item #4D: Designing Team Rezone (H-2017-0166)
Application(s): Rezone
Size of property, existing zoning, and location: This site consists of 0.36 acres of land, zoned R-15, located at 1226 2and a Half
Street.
Adjacent Land Use & Zoning: The area is developed with a mix of commercial and residential uses.
History: In 2002, the applicant received approval of a conditional use permit (CUP -02-020) to operate a hair salon from the subject
property. A variance (VAR -02-011) was also granted to deviate from the some of the landscape and parking requirements.
Comprehensive Plan FLUM Designation: High Density Residential
Summary of Request: This site consists of 0.36 of an acre of land currently zoned R-15. The applicant proposes to rezone the
property to 0-T zone to allow greater flexibility in the types of commercial uses that can operate on the subject property.
The owner's now wish to sell the property. Because the ordinance has changed and the conditional use permit specifies a specific use,
the only option to allow other commercial uses to operate on the site is to rezone the property to the 0-T district. At the time the CUP
was approved the owner's also received the approval of a variance to the landscape and parking standards, specifically buffer
reductions and parking area dimensions.
If the rezone is approved, the use that was approved with the CUP will still remain an allowed use in the 0-T zone however, the on-site
parking areas do not meet current standards, because this site is entirely developed and the applicant is not proposing any site
modifications, staff is not requiring the site to conform to current UDC standards, the site will remain as approved in accord with the
site/landscape plan approved with the previous City approvals. However, staff recommends that the applicant install a bike rack
near the main entry in accord with the standards set forth in UDC 113C -5C and 11 -3C -6G.
Although not required, the City typically requires the execution of a development agreement (DA) with rezone requests. Staff is not
recommending a development agreement with the subject rezone request for the following reasons:
1) The site is currently developed in accord with previous City approvals and additional development on the site is not likely;
2) The existing salon use is a principally permitted use in the proposed 0-T zone. With redevelopment and/or change of use
for the site, a Certificate of Zoning Compliance application may be required to be submitted to the Planning Division for
review and approval. The applicant will be responsible for ensuring the site complies with all City of Meridian ordinances
in effect at the time development. Further, the applicant will be responsible for obtaining approvals from the Building
Division if/when a change of use is proposed for the property and;
3) The Comprehensive Plan encourages the revitalization of Downtown and part of the Urban Renewal Agency boundary.
Continuing the existing commercial use on this property is in the best interest of the City.
Staff recommends approval of the proposed RZ application.
Written Testimony: None
Staff Recommendation: Approval
Notes:
Possible Motions:
Approval
After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to recommend approval to the City Council of File Number H-
2017-0166, as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of January 18, 2018, with the following modifications: (Add any
proposed modifications to conditions)