2013 02-07Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission February 7, 2013
Meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission of February 7, 2013, was
called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Chairman Steven Yearsley.
Present: Chairman Scott Freeman, Commissioner Steven Yearsley, Commissioner
Michael Rohm, Commissioner Tom O'Brien and Commissioner Joe Marshall.
Others Present: Machelle Hill, Ted Baird, Caleb Hood, and Dean Willis.
Item 1: Roll-Call Attendance:
Roll-call
X Scott Freeman X Tom O'Brien
X Michael Rohm X Joe Marshall
X Steven Yearsley -Chairman
Yearsley: Good evening, gentlemen. At this time we would like to call to order the
regularly scheduled meeting for the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission, dated
February 7th, 2013. Let's begin with roll call.
Item 2: Adoption of the Agenda.
Yearsley: Thank you. The first thing we have
we have to do is adopt the agenda. One thing
information that we got yesterday, I would
Conclusions of Law of approval of CUP 12-021,
D. And with that can I get a motion?
on the agenda today is our -- first thing
I would like to do today is given the new
like to pull the Findings of Fact and
Heron Village, and put it as Action Item
Marshall: So moved.
Rohm: Second.
Yearsley: I have a move and a second. All in favor? Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Item 3: Consent Agenda
A. Approve Minutes of January 17, 2013 Planning and Zoning
Commission Meeting Minutes
Yearsley: Got to get used to this. The next on the agenda is the Consent Agenda. We
have one item on the Consent Agenda and that is the approval of the meeting minutes
for January 17th, 2013, Planning and Zoning Commission meeting. Any comments or
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
February 7, 2013
Page 2 of 9
changes?
Rohm: I have none.
Yearsley: With that we will stand for a motion.
Rohm: I move we accept the Consent Agenda.
Freeman: Second.
Yearsley: I got a motion and a second. All in favor say aye. Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Item 4: Action Items
A. Public Hearing: CUP 12-014 Rushmore by Tealey's Land
Surveying Located South of W. Pine Avenue and West of W.
Broadway Avenue Request: Conditional Use Permit Approval
for aMulti-Family Development Consisting of Three (3) 8-Plez
Structures (24 Dwelling Units) in a Proposed R-15 Zoning
District
B. Public Hearing: PP 12-019 Rushmore by Tealey's Land
Surveying Located South of W. Pine Avenue and West of W.
Broadway Avenue Request: Preliminary Plat Approval of Three
(3) Buildable Lots and Two (2) Common Lots on 2.17 Acres in
an Existing R-15 Zone
Yearsley: All right. Okay. For Items No. -- public hearing CUP 12-00 -- let me start
over. For our public hearing for CUP 12-014, Rushmore, and public hearing for PP
12-019, we are going to open this meeting for the sole purpose of continuing this
meeting to our -- what's --
Hood: Mr. Chair. They have requested February 21st, your next meeting.
Yearsley: Okay. For our February 21st meeting. And with that I can get a motion to
continue that.
Rohm: So moved.
O'Brien: Second.
Yearsley: Do I have a second?
Marshall: Tom said second. I was trying to second.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
February 7, 2013
Page 3 of 9
Yearsley: All right. So, we have got a motion and a second to continue the public
hearing for CUP 12-014 and PP 12-019, Rushmore, by Tealey Land Surveying to
February 21st. All in favor say aye. Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
C. Request for Approval to Create/Change New Development
Application Forms/Checklists by City of Meridian Community
Development Department Planning Division
Yearsley: The next item on the agenda is the request for approval to create -- change
new development application forms by the City of Meridian. And we will start with
Caleb.
Hood: Thank you, Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission. I will try to make this brief,
but a little bit of background on why we are requesting changes to multiple checklists.
We have a new database, it's called Accella -- is the maker of this automated system for
development tracking and one of the problems we have run into with this new database
is parcel numbers and addressing not matching up with what applicants may tell us is
the parcel number or address, but it doesn't match our GIS system and addressing. So,
what we would like to do is get parcel verification or address verification done earlier in
the process, that way when we put it in the system it's correct the first time and
everyone is using that same information through the life of a project, not using the
parcel number that an applicant gives us. We are giving it a good identification --
because this identification is paramount, it's built on everybody reviewing these projects.
So, just a little bit of background on why we are requesting this, but this request is that
we add that parcel -- a parcel verification form from Teri Ricks in our addressing
department here in Community Development, that they submit that and as part of a
development application submittal they get something from Teri saying, yes, in fact, we
verify your parcel number or, no, what you had is not wrong, please, use this -- or not
right, please, use this one. So, it shouldn't be too much more work for applicants, but,
really, in the long run will help everybody out, at least on the city side. So, that's our
request tonight is that we add it to multiple applications that this parcel verification form
be added to the checklist. So, with that I will stand for any questions.
Yearsley: Is there any questions?
Freeman: Sounds pretty straight forward.
Rohm: Makes sense.
Yearsley: Okay. So, with that I need a motion for approval or --
Marshall: Do we need to take -- ask for any public testimony on that?
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
February 7, 2013
Page 4 of 9
Yearsley: Or do we -- sorry. Do we --
Hood: I will note this is not a public hearing. Certainly if Ralph wants to testify we can
certainly get his testimony, but it is not a noticed public hearing. Our ordinance just
requires it be on an agenda at a noticed meeting. So, if you want to open it up, that's
fine, but you don't have to.
Yearsley: Okay.
Marshall: Mr. Chair, since it appears that we have only one member in the audience
tonight who is shaking his head no that he does not want to testify on this, it would -- I
would like to make a motion that we approve the city checklist -- did I have a number on
that?
Yearsley: I didn't have a number.
Marshall: That we approve this request by the Planning Department.
O'Brien: Second.
Yearsley: Okay. I have a motion and a second to approve the request for -- to modify --
for the new development -- for the new development application form checklist. All in
favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
D. Pulled from Consent Agenda Item 3B Findings of Fact and
Conclusions of Law for Approval: CUP 12-021 Heron Village by
Alliance Management Consultants Located at 2250 N. Meridian
Road Request: Conditional Use Permit for aMulti-Family
Development Consisting of 110 Dwelling Units on 5.5 Acres in
the R-40 and C-G Zoning Districts
Yearsley: Thank you. The next item on the agenda is the Finding of Facts and
Conclusion of Law of CUP 12-021, Heron Village. I'm assuming you all got the a-mail
yesterday from Sonya saying that there was another gentleman that had submitted a
letter of comment that didn't get onto the agenda for the public hearing. I wanted to
basically bring it up to you to see if his comment would sway your approval or your
comments to this. If it does, then, what we would do is we would have to reopen this --
or renotice this as a -- this application and rehear it as to my understanding and, then, if
not, then, we can go ahead and approve it. Is that --
Baird: Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission, I think an additional inquiry would be
were the individual commissioners aware of its presence in the record. The way it got in
there was a little bit of a snafu. It was a direct a-mail from a concerned citizen to the
applicant. The text is of a nature of what would normally go to the clerk and be included
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
February 7, 2013
Page 5 of 9
in your packet as part of the record. In fact, it was part of the record to the applicant's
packet -- applicant presentation, so we are not sure you folks saw it. So, it's a little .bit of
an anomaly, it's a no harm, no foul type thing, it's not really Bob Unger's fault, because
he had it and he included it, he didn't try to hide it, it just wasn't where you would
normally expect to see it, so we are not sure that you had a chance to deliberate on it.
If you do choose to send it back for a new hearing the city would more than likely pick
up the cost of renoticing, because it's -- like I said, it's a no harm, no foul situation.
might ask if Caleb has got any additional information from the Planning Department to
go along with my comments.
Hood: I do not. That's good.
Freeman: Mr. Chair, I have a question of legal on this. I for one did not review the
letter. I didn't see it until now. My understanding is there is two parts to this. If we
didn't review it -- this letter says if we didn't review it and the Commission determines
the issue warrants further discussion, then, we may have to renotice it. From my
personal standpoint, looking at the issue and seeing that that building has been -- that
the distance between it and the property has been essentially doubled and the owner of
the property is well within his rights to construct a three story building there, I don't think
it warrants any further discussion on my part, but I guess the question is is this atwo-
part question. Number one, did we read it. My answer is no. Number two, does it
warrant further discussion. In my opinion, no. But that's for the rest of the Commission
to decide if I'm correct.
Yearsley: And I'm assuming we want everyone to respond on that question -- those two
questions; is that correct?
Baird: That's correct.
Yearsley: Okay. Commissioner O'Brien. Commissioner O'Brien, do you want to --
O'Brien: Yeah. My take is when -- his concern was when they moved in there it wasn't
zoned for high density and I think if a homeowner goes in and sees that, okay, it's -- the
possibility does not exist at that time that they are going to build apartment complexes
three stories high within, what, 50 feet of their property? I can see that concern and
would be -- I don't know. I would be kind of hard pressed to -- to understand where that
line is crossed where it would require us to have more discussion on that. I'm kind of
swayed in favor of his issue of trying to lower the -- that one particular section to two
stories, instead of three, but, again, I'd like to hear what other concerns the other
Commissioners have on that. But I'm kind of -- I haven't decided yet on exactly where
to go.
Marshall: Mr. Chair, if I could.
Yearsley: Commissioner Marshall.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
February 7, 2013
Page 6 of 9
Marshall: Well, concerning if, with the very first revision, it was within 50 feet, I have to
agree this would have swayed me pretty hard, but concerning the fact that that building
is now 160 feet away, no longer 50 foot, and there are carports between the building
and the houses, as well as the road, I'm not sure -- I really do not believe that would
have swayed me that -- you know, given that there is green space with plantings and
the road and the carports, then, the building, which is different than what he was
responding to. He was responding to the first original version that put that building
within 50 foot of his home. It's now 160 feet away, with considerable more things in
between. So, in that case, no, it probably would not have swayed me. And, no, I did
not see it in the pack. I missed it somehow. I thought I was reading pretty thoroughly,
but I caught it and not understood exactly what -- who it was from and how it placed in
there. I'm sorry for the issue and sorry for the inconvenience. I would have liked to
have addressed it at that time, but my feeling is, no, I would not have changed my mind.
Yearsley: Thank you very much. Commissioner Rohm.
Rohm: I think that it's always good to have a full docket of information available to us
prior to making a decision, but like Commissioner Marshall just stated, that his concerns
were submitted in association with the building being 50 feet away, not the 160, and
given the distance that the new proposal has before us, I'm pretty sure that I would
have, you know, taken into consideration his letter, but would have ultimately gone the
same route that we did in the findings at the last hearing. So, I don't think that it
warrants renoticing and -- and going through this process again.
Yearsley: Thank you very much. I have one --one question for -- I don't know if, Caleb,
if you can answer that for me. This wasn't a rezone when they came into this, it was
already zoned prior to this application being submitted; correct?
Hood: Mr. Chair, that is correct.
Yearsley: So, the rezone is not an issue, it's just the distance from, you know, the two
story versus three story is -- is what I see.
Hood: Correct. Mr. Brower or Brower, or however you say his name, did make
reference to it not being zoned R-40 when he moved in there, but what you acted on
two weeks ago was not requested for the rezone. It has been R-40 since I think
sometime in the '80s. It's been a long time that that property has been zoned for high
density residential. So, that was not part of your action. It was just a conditional use
permit for the multi-family development.
Yearsley: Okay. And that was my recollection as well, so I wanted to just clarify that
before I moved forward. My opinion is is I did not see the -- the letter itself or the a-mail
as well. However, you know, the -- like everyone else has said, the building has been
moved back significantly and it's also been turned, so the profile that you're actually
going to see is even reduced even more and so I don't think that that would have --
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
February 7, 2013
Page 7 of 9
Marshall: I'm wondering, because I'm looking at the -- I'm sorry -- the original plans --
and lapologize for interrupting.
Yearsley: Absolutely.
Marshall: The only thing I see on the original plan that was in the 50 feet is the furthest
back building, which changed from a larger building to a 12-plex --
Yearsley: Are you talking this back building?
Marshall: That's the only thing I can see that is in 50 foot --
Yearsley: Well, this one next to Blue Heron was a two story, I believe, wasn't it? Oh,
no, that's --
Marshall: You're talking at the north?
Yearsley: At the north end. Yeah.
Marshall: Okay. But that's against the street there as well.
Hood: And, if I can, that's my understanding from Sonya, that is the -- the building. The
most northwestern most building is the one he has the greatest concern about, because
he lives across Meridian Road somewhere in that general vicinity of Blue Heron and
Meridian Road. So, that -- that one was the -- and it has turned 90 degrees and moved
back, what, a hundred feet or whatever the --
Yearsley: And the carports. So, based on those two -- two things, I don't think I would
have changed my -- my findings based on that information. So -- Commissioner
O'Brien.
O'Brien: Well, yeah, with that information I have to agree with you. I would have said
the same thing. It's -- now that I see this revised version I agree I would have said no
also.
Yearsley: Okay.
Rohm: Mr. Chairman?
Yearsley: Yes.
Rohm: I move that we approve the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for
approval of CUP 12-021, Heron Village, by Alliance Management Consultants.
Marshall: I will second that.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
February 7, 2013
Page 8 of 9
Yearsley: I have a motion and a second to approve the Findings of Facts and
Conclusion of Law of approval, CUP 12-021, Heron Village. All in favor say aye.
Opposed? Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Yearsley: So, I think with that -- two items I believe. One is this is Commissioner
O'Brien's last time. I would like to thank you for your long service of this and appreciate
all the work that you have put in on the Planning and Zoning Commission and just give
you aheart-felt thank you.
O'Brien: You're welcome. It's been a great learning experience and a fun time. I mean
I really enjoyed this. I think my -- my tenure of volunteering in things in my lifetime has
come to a close. I have volunteered for so many different things over the years that as
I'm getting up to pushing 70 here pretty quick that it's time for me to do other things. So,
yeah, this has been agreat -- great experience and I appreciate all of the help and
support I got over the years from everybody.
Yearsley: Well, thank you. Any other comments before we --
Rohm: I would, too, like to say a few things. Commissioner O'Brien, I was part of the
group that brought you on board and I would have to say that you have been a very
valued asset to the Commission and you have offered up a number of opinions that
have not been shared by myself, but, quite honestly, they have opened my eyes to a
different way of seeing things that is beneficial and I think that's exactly what a
commission is all about is seeing differing opinions and come up with a conclusion that
is most beneficial to the community has a whole and I think that you have brought that
to the commission and I thank you for that.
O'Brien: I appreciate that very much. Thank you.
Yearsley: So, with that I have one more motion.
O'Brien: Mr. Chair?
Yearsley: Yes.
O'Brien: I move that we adjourn.
Rohm: Second.
Yearsley: I have a motion and a second to adjourn. All in favor say aye. Motion
carries.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
February 7, 2013
Page 9 of 9
Rohm: We are adjourned. Thank you very much.
MEETING ADJOURNED AT 7:23 P.M.
(AUDIO RECORDING ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS.)
APPROVED
STEVEN YEARSLEY - AI
ATTEST:
JAYCEE HOLMAN, CITY CLERK
~I ~ ~ 1~3
DATE APPROVED
/~pItATBD q LCG
~~
~.p l• c,~y ~ '~
~ - - 1L
a ~e.._
~r68o, ~~ ° PAY E7ALSU~~' v ~~~W~