2018-03-15Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting March 15 ,
2018.
Meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission of Thursday, March 15,
2018, was called to order at 6:02 p.m. by Chairman Rhonda McCarvel.
Members Present: Chairman Rhonda McCarvel, Commissioner Steven Yearsley,
Commissioner Ryan Fitzgerald, Commissioner Jessica Perreault and Commissioner
Lisa Holland.
Members Absent: Commissioner Bill Cassinelli, Commissioner and Gregory Wilson.
Others Present: Chris Johnson, Andrea Pogue, Bill Parsons, Sonya Allen and Dean
Willis.
Item 1: Roll-call Attendance
___X___ Lisa Holland ___X___ Steven Yearsley
_______ Gregory Wilson ___X___ 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
March 15th, 2018. Let's begin with roll call.
Item 1: Adoption of Agenda
McCarvel: Thank you. The first item on the agenda is the adoption of the agenda.
Could I get a motion to adopt the agenda?
Holland: So moved.
Fitzgerald: Madam Chair -- yeah. So moved.
Perreault: Second.
Fitzgerald: Second. Third.
McCarvel: It has been moved and seconded to adopt the agenda. All those in favor
say aye. Opposed? Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. TWO ABSENT.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
March 15, 2018
Page 2 of 22
Item 2: Consent Agenda
McCarvel: Next item on the agenda is the Consent Agenda and we just have one item,
the approval of minutes for March 1st, 2018. Can I get a motion to accept the Consent
Agenda as presented --
Yearsley: Do we have --
Fitzgerald: So moved.
Perreault: Second.
Johnson: Madam Chair, there is no -- it came in after the -- we will have them on the
next Consent.
Fitzgerald: I will remove my motion.
McCarvel: Yeah. I will remove my request for a motion. There is nothing on the
Consent Agenda. Okay. So, at this time I would like to briefly explain the hearing
process for this evening. We will open each item individually and, then, start with the
staff report. The staff will report their findings regarding how the item adheres to our
Comprehensive Plan and Uniform Development Code, with the staff's
recommendations. After the staff has made their presentation the applicant will come
forward to present their case for the approval of their application and respond to any
staff comments. The applicant will have 15 minutes to do so. After the applicant has
finished we will open to public testimony. There is a sign-up sheet in the back as you
enter for anyone wishing to testify. Any person testifying will come forward and be
allowed three minutes. If they are speaking for a larger group, like an HOA, and there is
a show of hands to show -- to represent that group, they will be given up ten minutes.
After all testimony has been heard, the applicant will be given another ten minutes to
have the opportunity to come back and respond if they desire. After that we will close
the public hearing and the Commissioners will have the opportunity to discuss and,
hopefully, be able to make a recommendation to City Council.
Item 3: Action Items
A. Public Hearing Continued from February 15, 2018 for
Summertown Subdivision (H-2017-0142) By 745 W Ustick, LLC,
Located at 745 W Ustick Road
1. Request: An Annexation and Zoning of 15.13 Acres of Land
with a TN-R Zoning District
McCarvel: So, at this time I would like to continue Item H-2017-0142, Summertown
Subdivision, and we will begin -- no. Is that where we are -- could we have the staff
report.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
March 15, 2018
Page 3 of 22
Parsons: Thank you, Madam Chair, Members of the Commission. I'm filling in for Mr.
Beach this evening, so if you recall this project -- you heard both of this item on the
February 15th hearing. During that meeting there was discussions around the open
space and the appropriateness of this development and whether it was in the right
location and, ultimately, the Commission wanted the applicant to come back with
revisions to the elevations. Staff has prepared a memo for you to show those
elevations to you, but I briefly want to go over some of the history of the project, so we
have some members in the audience here just to kind of get you oriented with the
development again and kind of refresh you on what was discussed and I will go ahead
and transition into those elevations and let you take deliberation on this project. So, this
property does consist of 15.13 acres of land. Currently is zoned RUT in Ada county.
It's located on the west -- or, excuse me, the south side of West Ustick Road, midway
between Linder Road and Meridian Road. The applicant is asking to annexed it into --
with a TN-R zoning designation and if you recall at our previous Commission hearing
we discussed with you that once the zoning is in place for this property it does not have
to come back before this body in order to construct a multi-family portion of the
development. During that hearing you guys did deliberate or at least discuss the
proposed concept plan for the development. It consisted of 272 multi-family dwellings
contained within ten buildings and the amenities included a clubhouse, a pool, a couple
tot lots, a dog park, multiple play areas that measured -- or open space areas that were
50 by 100 and, then, there were also nine residential lots that will be subdivided at a
later date. So, if I could just step back a little bit. Again, the applicant as part of this
application is requesting to get -- if approved and get this annexed in with the TN-R
zone, they are recommending that they are allowed to get under construction with the
multi-family portion prior to subdividing the property. We have a recommended DA
provision in the staff report that they would have to record a final plat prior to getting
occupancy of the first structure on the site. So, I did want to share that with you as we -
- as we go through the proceedings tonight. So, going into kind of what transpired at
the last hearing, there was a lot of discussion -- if you recall, this is a mixed use
community designation on the comp plan, but what makes it different is it has a
neighborhood center designation on it and we spent a lot of time about how we were
going to get a mixed use on this property where we are only having residential, but we
noted there were some other commercials on the north side of Ustick and so, then, all of
a sudden the discussion transitioned into, well, is the multi-family and the single family
enough of a transition on this particular property because the applicant is proposing to
construct four story and three story structures. Our presentation to you at that time --
staff in our staff report currently is recommending that they construct nothing over three
story and along the perimeter of the development limit them to two story and that is how
it's currently written in our staff report and that's how it was conveyed to you at the last
hearing. So, tonight the applicant gave us some revised elevations. Staff did prepare a
memo for you. Basically, the difference -- it's still a very modern design as far as the
elevations go. There is no elevation -- or they are still proposing four and three story
structures this evening and they did add more mix of materials and tried to break up
those roof lines for you, because I think Commissioner Yearsley was asking to see how
they would transition on the bulk of that building, especially for the larger buildings that
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
March 15, 2018
Page 4 of 22
were up against the street if you recall on the site plan. So, here is some of the
proposed changes here and we also touched a little bit on the design of the structures
and how they would have to comply with our architectural standards manual. So, the
applicant has added more of those details for you this evening. I will quickly go through
these. We did prepare that memo for you as I mentioned to you. So, really, for
purposes of tonight -- you primarily continued this to discuss the elevations and to
determine whether or not this was still the appropriate location for this -- this project.
Something that if you are considering making a recommendation for approval on this
project, there will be several conditions of approval that need to be modified in the staff
report. I will go ahead and allow you to deliberate and, then, if you would like me to
reference those particular conditions we can do that. I will go ahead and conclude my
presentation and stand for any questions you may have or -- and have the applicant
have their say as well.
McCarvel: Any questions for staff? Okay. Would the applicant like to come forward?
Brown: For the record Ken Brown. 3161 East Springwood, Meridian, Idaho, is my
address. These elevations are what you asked us to -- to come back with. As you look
at these, we have stepped to the edges that I talked about previously, down to the three
stories on the -- the end of the buildings. So, where we were at 39.9 feet on the four
story portion, we go down below 28 feet on those three story portions and, then, you
have ability for those four stories to have patios, if you will, balconies up there on top of
those third story units. With those changes and putting those along the perimeter, along
Venable, and along Ustick Road, that drops our number of units down also. We are yet
to work all of those numbers out, but it's over 250 -- we lose around 20 units when we --
we drop those down and the -- this design is a contemporary design. We have -- since
our last meeting we -- we spoke with the highway district. Again -- Bill, if you could go
back to the colored landscape one. There was a -- there is a condition that asked us to
take our southern road that splits between our single family and our multi-family and to
align that with the intersection of Stanhope. In discussions with the highway district they
are okay with us coming in at that location, because the road isn't extending any further
south, as long as we use that right of way. We are using up some of the stuff that's
already dedicated there and that means that we don't have to come back and do a
vacation of right of way that has already been done on our side. We would prefer that.
You have a site condition that asks us to close the middle entrance. We asked that we
could close the one closest to Ustick Road and leave the center one open and that's
where we want the traffic to come in, focused in on our common area, our clubhouse,
pool and patios that sit there in the center with all the grass and green space. Also on
the south side of that entrance is a water feature that is called out also in that area. I
think we have done everything that you asked us to do and understanding that these
drawings and the architecture still have to go through a design review process and
zoning certificates when we have to move forward in the future. So they will continue to
tweak if we do that. Are there any questions for me?
McCarvel: Any questions for the applicant? Okay. Thank you.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
March 15, 2018
Page 5 of 22
Brown: Thank you.
McCarvel: Okay. And now we will have public testimony and just to remind people, this
is just a continuation from our other hearing. So, if there is somebody who did not
testify at the last hearing, you are welcome to speak and the only issue at hand is the
design -- the changes in the design that the applicant has made.
McCarvel: So, with that being said is there anyone you wants -- who would like to
speak on that issue? Okay. As you approach the mic, please, state your name and
address for the record.
Haron: Tamara Haron. 3464 --
McCarvel: Yeah. Can you pull the microphone down.
Haron: Tamara Haron. 3464 West Fieno Drive in Eagle, Idaho. 83616. I -- my biggest
thing is that I don't know if I can even address it -- is I'm the property to the west and the
traffic -- they only have that one -- Venable is the only exit onto Ustick, so if that is 200
plus units that are there, all the traffic exits onto that street and the front -- I don't have a
picture of it. The front where they do propose -- where you had said that they needed to
close off that entrance, that may cause a huge traffic jam up with adding -- I'm 80 units,
so adding 290 on the other side is a lot of units. I'm two stories next door. I am fine
with development. I love development. I'm doing it myself. But I don't understand why
four stories rather than three. The three stories probably should get them enough units.
But there, again, I'm fine with the -- the amount of units that they can get, I just worry
about the traffic in that front exit because of the amount of units there are going to be
and the four stories -- I would love to see three and if they could get them extra units
elsewhere that would be awesome, too. Fine with me. But those are my concerns.
McCarvel: Okay. Thank you. And Cathrine Garcia had indicated would like to speak.
Do you have anything to add to this design change?
Garcia: Cathrine Garcia. 2970 Northwest 8th Avenue in Meridian. I'm the house that is
right on the corner. I am 8th Street, Stanhope, and Venable. So, the design will directly
affect me. It was proposed last time -- or not proposed, but that somehow this would
increase my property value. I fail to see how having four balconies one, two, three, four
across in one of the renderings -- will increase -- looking directly into my backyard,
having direct access to my house and all of that, in addition to the additional traffic
because people will find other ways to go -- will have any positive impact with regards to
me living in the neighborhood and my three boys as well. So, there is a lot of children
that are on my street. A lot of children. They are building up that and finishing that out
and there is a lot of young families moving in there and if there are two hundred and --
two hundred plus units trying to get in and out -- the cars trying to get in and out, people
barely stop as it is for the stop sign that's there. They fly through it all the time. I don't
suspect it's going to get any better with all of these vehicles and all of the additional
traffic. The concern for my children and the safety, the lack of schools, the lack of
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
March 15, 2018
Page 6 of 22
infrastructure as listed before. I know it's for the design, but the design also goes with
nothing within I would venture to say one or two mile radius. It goes with nothing.
There is nothing that is that tall that's in that much of a residential community. So, it's --
I'm not good at politics. You can put lipstick on a pig, but it's still kind of a pig. They
have done a beautiful rendering. I don't feel that it belongs there at all. I don't feel that
it's safe for the community. I don't feel it's safe for my children. That's a lot of traffic.
McCarvel: Thank you.
Garcia: Thank you.
McCarvel: Okay. That's all we had to -- sign up to speak this evening. Would the
applicant like to come forward again? Do you have anything else to add?
Brown: Kent Brown again. 3161 East Springwood. Just wanted to remind you when
we talked about this before, we -- we looked at the two story apartments that are next
door to us and that there are 34 feet and ours being at 39, nine inches, that we -- so we
are five feet, roughly, difference between their heights at the -- at tallest point of our
buildings and with us stepping those same buildings down that's adjacent to them, we
are lower than those existing buildings that are in that location. We have completed the
traffic study. We have submitted it to the highway district. And looking at -- at a higher
number, actually, than if we, you know, remove some of these down and step that down
and we lose 16, 20 -- 20 units, our numbers are a little bit less, but we have already
submitted that traffic study onto the -- to the highway district, so -- so that they could be
knowledgeable on -- about the approval of it. That's all I have.
McCarvel: Okay. Any questions for the applicant?
Brown: Thank you.
McCarvel: Thank you. So, at this time could I get a motion to close the public hearing
H-2017-0142?
Holland: So moved.
Fitzgerald: Second.
McCarvel: It has been moved and seconded to close the public hearing on H-2017-
0142. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. TWO ABSENT.
McCarvel: I got to -- you know, I truly like the overall design of this layout if it was
somewhere else. I just -- I don't see enough difference in adding that little elevation to
the roof to negate what is going to be -- and I get it. It's -- it's 40 feet and the buildings
around it maybe 40 feet, but they have got pitch to a roof. They have got more variation
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
March 15, 2018
Page 7 of 22
of design and it's not a 40 foot wall and this is a 40 foot wall I just feel like in the middle
of a neighborhood. You know, I'm sure the surrounding subdivisions have rules about
pitch on a roof and design and this many variations and I just -- I think this is going to be
a massive presence in amongst a residential area. But I love the idea and the concept,
just not in this location. My two cents.
Perrault: Madam Chair?
McCarvel: Commissioner Perreault.
Perreault: I agree. The buildings are -- are beautiful and -- but I don't think it's going to
fit into the area. I -- I'm a little bit surprised I guess. I felt like we communicated in our
last meeting that we -- that that's what we were looking for was for it to integrate better
into the surrounding area as far as the design went and I'm not seeing much of a
difference, other than changes to the ends of the building -- ends of the buildings with
the three stories instead of the four, but it's still, essentially, four stories. Most of the
building still has that height and it just doesn't seem like this is the right location for it.
McCarvel: Any other thoughts? Comments?
Yearsley: Madam Chair?
McCarvel: Want to think out loud.
Yearsley: No. I like it.
McCarvel: Commissioner Yearsley.
Yearsley: I like the design. I think the area fits where we have got the commercial to
the -- to the north and the other apartments to the -- the west. I think it fits. It is a little
big, but I -- I don't think it would be that bad personally. So, I like how they stepped the
end. I like how they put the patios on the rooftop on the ends for -- for them to be out on
the patio in the evening and stuff like that. I think it -- I think it's a good look. I like the
project.
McCarvel: Okay.
Hollman: Madam Chair?
McCarvel: Commissioner Holland.
Holland: I agree with Commissioner Yearsley. I actually really like this project, too,
because I think they have done a nice job of trying to put some open space in the
middle, which I appreciate how they laid it out. I agree maybe it's a lot of density for that
area, but I think being next to a park, being next to the commercial area that's across
the street and the apartments that are adjacent to it, I think they have done a thoughtful
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
March 15, 2018
Page 8 of 22
job of trying to keep it within five feet of what the neighboring structures look like, so I'm
okay with the project as well.
McCarvel: Okay.
Fitzgerald: Madam Chair?
McCarvel: Commissioner Fitzgerald.
Fitzgerald: And I -- I appreciate the applicant -- I agree with you. I would like to have
picked it up and moved it somewhere else. If it was directly next to a neighborhood and
not next to additional multi-family, I would have a bigger concern. I do really like the
design. I like the modern look. And we are talking about five or six feet difference with
the pitch of the roofs, whether that's a wall or it -- I think the different design is
refreshing. That's just my like of modern. So, I -- I do think there is some density there
that might be stepped down a little bit, but I like the overall design. I like the -- and it
lives -- MEW lives to the middle and so I like the changes and so I would tend to agree
with Commissioner Yearsley and Commissioner Holland.
McCarvel: Okay. With that, if there is a motion to be made in favor it sounds like Bill
has got some items that need to be changed or addressed.
Parsons: Madam Chair, Members of the Commission, yeah, it's certainly -- as the
applicant pointed out, there is a couple items. One, we had addressed the alignment of
the driveways that we have specified in the staff report. As you mentioned -- as he
mentioned, we recommended that the center one get closed and the two -- the south --
the southern driveway and, then, both northern most driveway should align with the two
across from them -- across the other side of Venable. So, if -- if you're going to, again,
make a positive recommendation to move forward, then, we ask that either they close
that northern one, as I have testified to, or make it an emergency access only and leave
the other two alone. And, then, the other -- I'm looking at Provision D in the staff report
or at least the recommendation in the development agreement and as I mentioned to
you, we -- the applicant would like to proceed with construction ahead of a subdivision
and currently we have two conditions that conflict with themselves. We have Item D, it
says the property shall be subdivided prior to receipt of any building permits for the
project and that's not the intent. The intent was to -- if this is approved and gets
forwarded -- it's moving towards construction, the intent was to allow them to get moving
forward on the multi-family portion and later come back and subdivide that and take that
in front of you at that time and, then, ultimately have that plat recorded prior to the first
occupancy permit for one of those -- the first structure on the site. We have that
addressed in -- I believe we have that one addressed in Item G -- Item G-5, but what I'm
recommending is if you like that recommendation we strike that last sentence in Item D
and keep it as written in item G-5 and, then, the other item -- or the other action -- or the
other condition or provision we need to get struck through is the one that requires the
transition with three and two story structures and that would be Item G, number seven.
Are you saying six? I have the staff report up here and I'm seeing that --
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
March 15, 2018
Page 9 of 22
Fitzgerald: Madam Chair?
McCarvel: Commissioner Fitzgerald.
Fitzgerald: Bill, can I ask you a question real quick?
Parsons: Sure.
Fitzgerald: Because Venable is not going to -- going to come to a -- isn't expected to go
anywhere else, it's going to end, having a break between Stanhope and not having it be
a direct -- I guess an S curve there and having a stop on both sides, would that give
some of the neighbors a break? Because there is green space on the current layout.
That, hopefully, gives some buffer to some of the neighbors, so they are not looking at a
wall, instead of having to bring that S right into their area. I'm just trying to look at a
different way of laying this out. If you have a road dead ends into the back of the
properties, instead of having an S curve that goes to Stanhope, maybe that gives them
some green space and less of building behind them, so it's not looking down their
houses. Does staff have an opinion?
Parsons: Madam Chair, Members of the Commission, as I mentioned to you last time,
there is some right of way already dedicated along a portion of that open space lot that
is up against the residences, if you can see my cursor here. In speaking with the
highway district, they are amenable to that being vacated, but as the applicant
mentioned, they also have to provide drainage for the roadway and so they thought that
was a good dual purpose to incorporate that right of way into that green space, leave it -
- leave it the way it is, don't align that road as staff has recommended and, then, create
some kind of -- have that sidewalk or a multi-use pathway go down that side. So, that --
you're right, Venable won't get extended, but we would get maybe an interconnected
pathway through that area. So, yes, staff is comfortable with that terminating -- having
that intersection -- the T intersection there and not having that roadway align --
Fitzgerald: Okay.
Parsons: -- per ACHD's recommendation.
Fitzgerald: Madam Chair?
McCarvel: Commissioner Fitzgerald.
Fitzgerald: And I think that -- to me that makes sense. It does provide some additional
buffer to the neighbors that are on that corner, so there isn't balconies looking right in
their backyard and it does provide some additional green space. So, interconnectivity
with the pathway would make sense to me.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
March 15, 2018
Page 10 of 22
Parsons: And, Madam Chair, Members of the Commission, just for clarification, it would
still allow the property owner to the south to have his driveway access to Venable Lane.
Fitzgerald: That makes sense.
McCarvel: Would anyone care to make a motion?
Yearsley: Can you bring the staff report back up?
McCarvel: You didn't write all that down?
Parsons: So, Madam Chair, Members of the Commission, primarily strike number
seven in the last sentence and number A, provision D, would have to subdivide prior to
getting issuance of building permits.
Yearsley: So, you said DA provision D? Is that what you were saying?
Parsons: Yes. D.
Yearsley: Oh. Okay. Right there.
Parsons: D says the property shall be divided -- yeah. We want to strike that last
sentence in that. And, then, if -- then we have item again G-1 that speaks to the
alignment of the driveway, so we have to get -- change that to allow it as is -- allow it the
way they show it on the concept plan, with the exception of the emergency access for
the northern most and, then, item G-7 strike it, if that's what you choose to do.
Yearsley: Madam Chair?
McCarvel: Commissioner Yearsley.
Yearsley: After considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move to
recommend approval to the City Council of file number H-2017-0142 as presented in
the staff report for the hearing date of March -- what is it today, the 15th? 2018. With
the following provisions: That Item D, the last sentence, be removed. Item G to be
strike -- be stricken. G.1 to be removed. And to add that the northern driveway to be
removed or to provide a fire lane. Item G-5, that -- are we removing G-5? Or is that --
or just -- G-7. Except for the last sentence on that one. Because to leave the proposed
garage structures along the -- leave that last -- leave that one there with those.
Fitzgerald: Second.
McCarvel: It has been moved and seconded to approve Item H-2017-0142 with
modifications. All those in favor say aye. Opposed?
Perreault: Nay.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
March 15, 2018
Page 11 of 22
McCarvel: Nay. Motion carries.
Fitzgerald: Madam Chair?
McCarvel: Commissioner Fitzgerald.
Fitzgerald: Just per Commissioner Cassinelli's comments before, on votes like that, do
you want a roll call vote?
McCarvel: Yeah. I mean it's -- yeah. Yeah, I would -- probably this is -- we had enough
public interest in this, we probably -- let's make sure the record reflects --
Johnson: Absolutely.
McCarvel: The yeas and nays.
Roll call: McCarvel, nay; Yearsley, yea; Fitzgerald, yea; Perreault, nay; Holland, yea;
Wilson, absent; Cassinelli, absent.
McCarvel: Yeah. Usually it's clear enough from the discussions, but somebody could
change their mind at the last minute.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. TWO NAYS. TWO ABSENT.
B. Public Hearing for Oberg Subdivision (H-2018-0012) by DevCo,
LLC located at 2855 N. Wingate Lane
1. Request: Annexation and Zoning of 4.79 acres of land with
an R-15 zoning district; and
2. Request: Preliminary Plat consisting of 25 single-family
residential building lots, 3 common lots and 1 other lot on
4.79 acres of land in the proposed R-15 zoning district
McCarvel: Okay. Okay. So, at this time we would like to open the public hearing for
Item H-2018-0012, Oberg Subdivision, and we will begin with the staff report.
Allen: Thank you, Madam Chair, Members of the Commission. The next application
before you is a request for annexation and zoning and a preliminary plat. This site
consists of 4.79 acres of land, zoned RUT in Ada county, located at 2855 North Wingate
Lane. Adjacent land use and zoning. To the north and east are rural residential
properties, zoned RUT in Ada county. To the south is single family residential property
zoned R-4. And to the west are also single family residential properties zoned R-4 and
R-8. The Comprehensive Plan future land use map designation for this property is
medium density residential, which is three to eight units per acre. The applicant is
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
March 15, 2018
Page 12 of 22
requesting annexation and zoning of 4.79 acres of land with an R-15 zoning district for
the development of single family homes, 22 attached and three detached units, at a
gross density of 5.21 units per acre, consistent with the medium density designation. A
preliminary plat is proposed as shown that consists of 25 single family residential
building lot, three common lots, and one other lot on 4.79 acres of land. The
subdivision is proposed to develop in one phase. Access is proposed via the extension
of East Kamay Street at the west boundary of the property and emergency access only
is proposed at the east boundary via the existing private street which runs north-south
to Ustick Road, which is Wingate Lane. Two stub streets are proposed to the properties
to the east for future extension and interconnectivity upon redevelopment of those
properties and that is the Kamay Street at the north boundary and, then, the street at
the south. Staff is recommending an additional stub street is provided to the north
boundary and that's the extension of North Lapis Avenue. A 15 foot wide road access
for Wingate Lane and a utility easement exists along the east boundary of this site and
is proposed to be located within adjacent building lots until such time as it's no longer
needed for access to adjacent properties. At that time the easement may be vacated in
the area absorbed by the adjacent building lots. Until that time the easement area is to
remain as is for use by adjacent property owners for access to their properties.
Because this property is below five acres in size, qualified open space and site
amenities are not required by the UDC. However, the applicant is proposing .86 of an
acre or 17.95 percent of open space, consisting of the common area where the South
Slough and the Finch Lateral is located through the middle of this site. A segment of
the city's multi-use pathway system is also proposed along the north boundary of the
waterway. Conceptual building elevations for the proposed single family homes were
submitted as shown that demonstrate the quality and style of development proposed.
All single family residential attached homes are required to obtain designer review
approval and comply with the standards in the architectural standards manual. Written
testimony has been received from Laren Bailey, DevCo, the applicant, in agreement
with the staff report, except for condition number 1.3.5, which is requested to be
modified to reflect that the homeowners association, not the applicant, will have an
ongoing obligation to maintain all pathways. Staff is recommending approval of the
applicant's request for an amendment to 1.3.5 as stated and per the conditions of
approval on Exhibit B of the staff report. Staff will stand for any questions.
McCarvel: Any questions for staff? Would the applicant like to come forward?
Conger: Madam Chair, Members of the Commission, Jim Conger, 4824 West Fairview
Avenue. Good evening. First I would like to thank Sonya and all the team at the City of
Meridian for assisting us through this project and numerous neighbors and adjacent
neighbors that afforded us a lot of time. We actually are in full acceptance of the
conditions of approval, with the one modification as Sonya noted, and with that I would
stand for any questions.
McCarvel: Any questions for the applicant? Mr. Yearsley.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
March 15, 2018
Page 13 of 22
Yearsley: Madam Chair. Can you tell me which ones are the three lots that are going
to be -- or did I just read that wrong? So, you have 22 attached and three detached.
Can you tell me which ones are the three detached?
Conger: Yeah. Madam Chair, Commissioner Yearsley, that one that Sonya is
identifying there -- and I will let her move the mouse -- that item -- lot right there on the
waterway and in Lot 4 we are still debating between Lot 4 -- if you slide down further to
Lot 8. That -- that's just a pod of five right there. So, it will be either number four or
number eight. We will identify that with the final plat.
Yearsley: Okay.
Perrault: Madam Chair?
McCarvel: Commissioner Perreault.
Perreault: So, is Lot 9 the access to Lots 10, 11 and 12?
Conger: Madam Chair, Commissioner Perreault, yes, that is a typical common
driveway that can have up to six homes on it and will be fully laid out with the final plat
as well.
Yearsley: Madam Chair?
Conger: That should be color gray.
McCarvel: Commissioner Yearsley.
Yearsley: One more quick comment. On these homes -- I know what some of the
homes like this style -- they don't have much of an eave or very -- or zero eaves. Are
you planning to have eaves on these properties -- or these homes or are you -- because
I know with the R-15 you can have the really close setbacks, so you have to have fire
rated -- so, I wasn't quite sure what you were planning.
Conger: Madam Chair, Mr. Yearsley, yes, we have worked with Black Rock and their
design team to kind of put the money where the value is with the homeowners. So, yes,
this has eaves in the front portion of the home. They do have minimized eaves from the
side -- in the sides to the rest of the back of the home. With the setbacks and the fire
code, you would have to basically fire rate those. That's a cost of about 2,000 dollars
per lot. We have worked hard to be innovative and figure out product that becomes,
you know, as affordable as possible in Meridian. We have sold over 400 -- about 350 of
these homes in as far as granite countertops, tile backsplash, everything that we put
and as you can also see where we put the money in the stone on the front of the homes
and -- and there is just so many more places to put the money, 2,000 dollars out of a
homeowner's budget for eaves, we don't understand that. We understand your -- your
eyesight, as much as my builder's eyesight is a little more keen than most, but the -- the
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
March 15, 2018
Page 14 of 22
value that would take away -- 2,000 dollars -- I mean for trying to hit the affordable
pocket in the core of Meridian, we don't -- we aren't able to build these on the outskirts
and compete with the -- the lesser houses and bigger lots. This is in the core and we
just decided the money is better spent in the product of the house.
Yearsley: Okay. Thank you.
McCarvel: Any other questions for the applicant? Okay. Thank you.
Conger: Thank you all.
McCarvel: Okay. And I don't have anybody that has signed up to testify. Is there
anyone here in the room that wishes to testify on this application? Okay. Unless we
have any recent thought up questions for the applicant, could I get a motion to close the
public hearing?
Fitzgerald: Madam Chair, I move to close the public hearing.
Holland: Second.
McCarvel: It has been moved and seconded to close the public hearing on H-2018-
0012. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. TWO ABSENT.
McCarvel: It think it's a pretty simple little subdivision. It's, obviously, a good transition
with the lots to the north and the ones to the south are a little bit bigger, but I think they
would appreciate having the single story homes lining up to them, even though it's
probably more lots.
Holland: Madam Chair?
McCarvel: Commissioner Holland.
Holland: I tend to agree and I like that they added some open space when they didn't
necessarily have to with the five acre lots. So, I think having some of the green space
in between some of those homes is a nice touch.
Yearsley: Madam Chair?
McCarvel: Commissioner Yearsley.
Yearsley: When I first initially looked at this application I was a little concerned. My
initial thought was, well, the R-15 would be good on the north side, but the south side
should be an R-4. However, I know a lot of people don't like them, but where are they
doing that detached homes it makes the lots look bigger and not so -- not so small a lot.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
March 15, 2018
Page 15 of 22
So, I have a tendency to lean more towards, yeah, this would be okay given that they
have the bigger -- the bigger homes, the combined homes, to make them look a little
bigger than just individual small little rows of homes.
Fitzgerald: Madam Chair?
McCarvel: Commissioner Fitzgerald.
Fitzgerald: And I agree. That's -- it does -- it provides sizeability comparison to the
other houses that are behind it and so I -- I think these -- I know a number of these units
right across and Champion Park have base -- every time they are in the market they are
gone immediately. So, there is, obviously, a need for them and I think it matches into
the -- the current subdivision that's already being built. So, I think it looks good and I
mean going across that lateral right there, it's got to be tough as it is and so I
understand for the detached houses being on that water it kind of is a unique spot, but I
think it works well.
McCarvel: And I agree with staff's recommendation that there needs to be probably that
stub street up there for future connectivity to those other -- the property in the future. Is
there any other intention -- Sonya, anything else we needed to address?
Allen: No. Nothing else.
McCarvel: This is pretty --
Fitzgerald: Madam Chair?
McCarvel: Commissioner Fitzgerald.
Fitzgerald: Just clarification. Sonya, you're okay with the change in 1.3.5; correct?
Okay. Madam Chair?
McCarvel: Commissioner Fitzgerald.
Fitzgerald: After considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move to
recommended approval to City Council of file number H-2018-0012 as presented in the
staff report for the hearing date of March 15th with the modification of changing 1.3.5 to
be HOA ongoing maintenance versus the applicant.
Holland: Second.
McCarvel: It has been moved and seconded to approve H-2018-0012 with
modifications. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. TWO ABSENT.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
March 15, 2018
Page 16 of 22
C. Public Hearing for Fast Eddy's (H-2018-0006) by ALC
Architecture, Located at 3775 N. Eagle Road
1. Request: Annexation and Zoning of 1.63 acres with a C-G
zoning; and
2. Request: A Conditional Use Permit for a Drive-Through
Establishment within 300 Feet of a Residential Use and
Extended Hours of Operation in the C-G zoning district of 24
Hours a Day/7 Days a week
McCarvel: At this time we would like to open H-2018-0006. Fast Eddy's.
Allen: Madam Chair, Members of the Commission, the next applications before you are
a request for annexation and zoning and a conditional use permit. The site consists of
1.63 acres of land, zoned RUT in Ada county, located at 3775 North Eagle Road.
Adjacent land use and zoning. To the north is a rural residential property, zoned A-1 in
Boise. To the east is State Highway 55 and Eagle Road and across that a church,
zoned A-1 in Boise. To the south is undeveloped commercial property, zoned C-G
that's also part of this property owner's development site. And to the west is future
multi-family residential development in the development process. That was the
brickyard subdivision that was before you guys a while back. It's zoned C-G. This
property was previously de-annexed from Boise and included in Meridian's area of city
impact boundary. The Comprehensive Plan future land use map does not include a
designation for this property, because it was not within our area. So, staff has
determined that floating the mixed use regional designation on the adjacent property to
the south that's under the same ownership would be appropriate for this property also.
The applicant requests annexation and zoning of 1.63 acres of land with a C-G zoning
district, consistent with the mixed use regional future land use map designation. A site
plan has been submitted as shown that demonstrates how the annexation area, as well
as the overall site is proposed to develop and, again, just this north part here is the
subject of the annexation and the conditional use permit application. The annexation
area is proposed to develop with a 16,399 square feet convenience retail store, with a
drive-thru establishment and a fuel sales facility along the south boundary there. An
associated car wash and quick lube is planned on the abutting property to the south that
is not a part of this application, but is under the same ownership. A conditional use
permit is requested for a drive-thru establishment within 300 feet of an existing
residence and extended business hours of operation within the C-G zoning district for
the convenience store and fuel sales facility to operate 24 hours a day, seven days a
week, instead of 6:00 p.m. -- excuse me -- 6:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m. as required when
abutting a residential use or district, unless otherwise approved through a conditional
use permit. So, I'm just going to go back to the aerial property -- or aerial map here for
a minute. This is the existing residence right here that is kicking the conditional use
permit into effect there. The drive-thru is proposed along the north side of the retail
store and that is right here in this area along the north boundary of the site. That is
within the 300 feet of the existing residence, as I pointed out. A right-in, right-out
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
March 15, 2018
Page 17 of 22
access is proposed by an existing driveway from State Highway 55 and Eagle Road and
from a driveway that runs along the south boundary the site by Eagle Road. Both of
these accesses from the state highway were approved through a prior variance
application several years back. Because this site abuts a state highway and access is
limited, staff recommends a driveway stub is provided to the property to the north, along
with the property -- excuse me -- pathway connection. Staff also recommends a
pedestrian walkway is provided along the southern boundary of the site for connection
to the pathway along Eagle Road. There was some notes in the -- in the staff report
about the applicant submitting a pedestrian circulation plan that is shown here on this
site plan, so that they are showing the pathway connection from the north here as
requested and, then, also the pathway connection along the southern boundary of the
site and, then, they were already showing a pathway connection here kind of midway in
the site and this all ties into the sidewalk that's proposed to the west on the brickyard
property, as well as the multi-use pathway planned along Eagle Road. Conceptual
building elevations were submitted as shown here and a Welcome to Meridian
monument sign is proposed at the northeast corner of the site within the buffer along
Eagle Road at the entryway into the city. Written testimony has been received from
James Doolin, FIG Development, LLC. He is the property owner to the west. States
that he is in favor of the proposed development plan with the driveway along the west
property line, because a landscape buffer and six foot tall privacy fence is planned
along the east boundary of the future residential property to buffer the commercial uses.
Typically the -- I shouldn't say typically. It is required by the UDC that the buffer be
placed on the commercial property to buffer the residential uses. In this case the
residential property is providing a buffer and they are saying they are okay with it being
on their property. So, the applicant is requesting that the City Council approve a
modified buffer on this. Written testimony was also received from Steve Eddy, the
applicant. He is requesting that they be allowed to leave the existing office building on
this site for use as a construction office to be demolished before a certificate of
occupancy is issued and staff is in agreement with this request. It is condition of
approval number 1.1.1A and that is -- you can see here where this arrow is pointing,
that is the existing office building right here. He also requests that they be allowed to do
a property boundary adjustment for two parcels, instead of one. Staff is in agreement
with that request as well. That is a condition of approval 1.1.1C. Third, they not be
required to provide a driveway stub and cross-access easement to the property to the
north, as he feels it will negatively impact internal circulation to the development and will
be a safety concern to pedestrian access to the site. Staff is not in support of that
request. The UDC requires cross-access to adjacent properties to reduce access
points to state highways. So, that is condition of approval 1.1.1E and staff is not in
support of that, as I stated. The last issue is a reduction in the landscape buffer along
the north property boundary. Again, that's a landscape buffer to residential uses. It's
required to be 25 feet. The applicant is requesting a modified buffer to 12 feet with a
berm and four foot tall fully screened fence. That is condition of approval 1.1.3D and
Council approval of a modification to the buffer width is required to remove that. Staff is
recommending approval with the requirement of the development agreement and the
conditions of approval in Exhibit B. Staff will stand for any questions.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
March 15, 2018
Page 18 of 22
McCarvel: Sonya, can you go back to that slide you just had. So, when I was just
reading in there, it said residential to the north, but, really, it's the one house there. Do
you know what that is -- is that a house that's likely to stay or is that something that's --
Allen: Madam Chair, that property is currently designated on the future land use map --
on Boise's -- for residential uses, but staff does anticipate that that will go commercial in
the future.
McCarvel: Okay.
Allen: But it is currently residential. So, the code requires a buffer.
McCarvel: Okay. Any other questions for staff?
Perreault: Madam Chair?
McCarvel: Commissioner Perreault.
Perreault: Sonya, can you show where that driveway stub to the north would be?
Allen: Yes. Chairman, Commissioner Perreault, it would be right in this area right here.
Perreault: Okay. Thank you.
Allen: I will just flip back to the aerial here and show you on this as well. So, it would be
approximately in this location.
Perreault: Okay.
McCarvel: Any other questions for staff? Okay. Would the applicant like to come
forward?
Eddy: I'm Steve Eddy. 3775 North Eagle Road, Boise, Idaho. Today hopefully to be
Meridian, Idaho, soon. I'm the applicant and owner of this facility and I think the only
thing I want to address that Sonya didn't cover -- Sonya and Bill worked hard on this
and I think we have pretty much covered everything and the access point that Sonya
brought up, the reason that I would prefer not doing that is this is probably one of the
biggest -- we don't want to be really classified as a convenience store, we are more of a
market and with the size of this and the magnitude and hopefully as busy as we will be
with the drive-thru and what we had going on there, I just felt like it would an unsafe
condition to put traffic through to the north and that's the only reason why. The property
owner to the north, you know, if we need a letter he has been in support of my project. I
have met with him numerous times in his house. He is totally in support of the project.
We have -- when I met with him we said ten feet of landscaping and a fence. It's 12.
So, we have exceeded what I have told him all along the way and he is acceptable with
that with no problem. I think the only other thing is what Sonya brought up is the office
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
March 15, 2018
Page 19 of 22
building. We would just like to leave and utilize as an office for during construction and,
then, you know, that will be torn down before the facility receives occupancy and I think
the only other thing -- she's covered everything else -- is questions from you guys, if you
have any questions.
McCarvel: Any questions for the applicant? Okay. I do have one, Steve. What -- what
time are most of your deliveries -- the bigger trucks coming in here? I know you said
you want to operate 24/7 and you just don't have a residential component close to you,
so what's your scheduling for those big trucks?
Eddy: The only trucks we would have come in in the middle of the night that I typically
do is just fuel deliveries, just to not obstruct the site, but all other delivers would be
daylight hours. Our facilities that we had before -- and I will do the same thing here --
10:00 to 5:00 p.m. is the only time I will have trucks in for delivery of the products we will
use in the store. But nothing in the middle of the night or outside of normal business
hours. Other than fuel and the fuel is more in the center of the site, so it won't be up
against the residential area at all.
McCarvel: They won't what?
Eddy: It won't be up against the residential area.
McCarvel: Okay. And those are typically in the middle of the night? Yeah.
Eddy: And that's just -- the delivery for fuel would prefer the middle of night, because of
traffic and the valley we live in now and it's just easier.
McCarvel: Okay. Any other questions for the applicant? All right.
Eddy: Thank you.
McCarvel: We don't have anybody signed up. Is there anybody in the room who
wishes the testifying on this application? All right. And unless we have additional
questions for the applicant, can I get a motion to close the public hearing?
Holland: So moved.
Fitzgerald: Second.
McCarvel: It has been moved and seconded to close the public hearing on H-2018-
0006. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. TWO ABSENT.
McCarvel: I guess a big part of me says, well, what took so long. This site has been
there forever and I think everybody would love to see it come. I do -- I do think we need
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
March 15, 2018
Page 20 of 22
to -- I would be in support of staff in recommending keeping that cross-access to the
north. I just think that's important along Eagle Road to have cross-access along all that
stuff behind there.
Fitzgerald: Madam Chair?
McCarvel: Commissioner Fitzgerald.
Fitzgerald: Yeah. No. I agree. I -- Mr. Eddy -- he has built great product in the past
around our valley and so it's a -- we know what kind of neighbor he will be to the people
around him, but I do agree, having a -- depending on what happens to the north, you
need to have an access there and so I agree with that. But I think all the rest of the
requested changes I think Sonya is good with, so I think we are good to move forward.
McCarvel: Okay.
Yearsley: Madam Chair?
McCarvel: Commissioner Yearsley.
Yearsley: I agree. I think it's good and we really enjoy the facility there at Overland and
Locust Grove. So, it's -- so, I think it would be a good fit and I agree with the same --
the stuff to the north is good, so -- and I would even -- I know it's not our action, but I
think the reduced buffer would be acceptable as well.
McCarvel: Yeah. Yeah. I think especially if the neighbor has the buffer and is in
agreement.
Fitzgerald: And we have it in writing.
McCarvel: Yeah. Okay. And I think -- you know, Eagle is probably busy enough. I
think whatever residential -- I mean the traffic is what it is and deliveries of fuel -- I
guess, you know, you're close enough to Eagle Road it's -- you're going to get that kind
of noise. Okay. Okay. Would anybody like to make a motion?
Perreault: Madam Chair?
McCarvel: Commissioner Perreault.
Perreault: So, no modifications to the staff report; correct? Is that what I'm
understanding?
Yearsley: No.
Perreault: Where -- I'm sorry.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
March 15, 2018
Page 21 of 22
Fitzgerald: We have a few.
McCarvel: 1.1.1 --
Fitzgerald: A.
Perreault: So, they have already required this.
Fitzgerald: Yes.
McCarvel: A. E.
Fitzgerald: C.
Perreault: In agreement with this one. Okay.
Yearsley: Go for it. You can do it.
Fitzgerald: Go forth.
Perreault: Madam Chair, after considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony I
move to recommend approval to City Council of file number H-2018-0006 as presented
in the staff report for the hearing date of March 15th, 2018, with the following
modifications: That the applicant be allowed to leave the existing office building on this
site for use as a construction office and to be demolished before a certificate of
occupancy is issued. That's 1.1.1A. That the applicant be allowed to do a property
boundary adjustment for two parcels instead of one, which is number 1.1.1C. And that
the applicant -- that there be -- the applicant be allowed to make a reduction in the
landscape buffer along the northern property boundary from 25 feet to 12 feet with a
berm and a four feet tall fully screened fence, which is number 1.1.3D.
Fitzgerald: Second.
McCarvel: Do we need anything in there about the access to the north or is that in the
staff report as written?
Allen: In the staff report as written.
McCarvel: Okay. It has been moved and seconded to approve file number H-2018-
0006 with modifications. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. TWO ABSENT.
Fitzgerald: Madam Chair?
McCarvel: Commissioner Fitzgerald.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
March 15, 2018
Page 22 of 22
Fitzgerald: I move we adjourn.
Holland: Second.
McCarvel: It has been moved and seconded to adjourn the meeting. All those in favor
say aye. Opposed? Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. TWO ABSENT.
MEETING ADJOURNED AT 7:03 P.M.
(AUDIO RECORDING ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS.)
APPROVED
RHO DA McCARVEL - CHAIRMAN
ATTEST;
C. JAY C0LIN3�rTY CLERK
DATE APPROVED
-,�D AUG
Jl l'�p
`U u
Q ,(' City of
IDAHO
SEA
r