2013 07-18Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission July 18, 2013
Meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission of July 18, 2013, was
called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Chairman Steven Yearsley.
Present: Commissioner Steven Yearsley, Commissioner Joe Marshall, and
Commissioner Michael Rohm.
Members Absent: Commissioner Macy Miller and Commissioner Scott Freeman.
Others Present: Machelle Hill, Ted Baird, Caleb Hood, Sonya Watters, Justin
Lucas and Dean Willis.
Item 1: Roll-Call Attendance:
Roll-call
X Scott Freeman X Macy Miller
X Michael Rohm X Joe Marshall
X Steven Yearsley -Chairman
Yearsley: 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 July 18th, 2013. Let's begin with roll call.
Item 2: Adoption of the Agenda
Yearsley: The first item on the agenda is the adoption of the agenda. At this
point we have no changes. Can I get a motion to approve it?
Marshall: Mr. Chair, I move that we approve the agenda.
Rohm: Second.
Yearsley: Adopt the agenda.
Marshall: Adopt the agenda. Yes. Thank you. Adopt the agenda as written.
Rohm: And I second that.
Yearsley: I have a motion and a second to adopt the agenda. All in favor say
aye. Opposed? Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. TWO ABSENT.
Item 3: Consent Agenda
Meridian Planning & Zoning
July 18, 2013
Page 2 of 23
A. Approve Minutes of June 20, 2013 Planning and Zoning
Commission Special Workshop Meeting
B. Approve Minutes of June 20, 2013 Planning and Zoning
Commission Meeting
Yearsley: The next item on the agenda is the Consent Agenda. The items on
there are the approval of the meeting minutes for the June 20th, 2013, Planning
and Zoning Commission Special Workshop meeting and the approval of the June
20th, 2013, Planning and Zoning Commission meeting. Any comments or
changes to those?
Rohm: I have none.
Yearsley: If not can I get a motion to approve the Consent Agenda?
Marshall: So moved.
Rohm: Second.
Yearsley: I have a motion and a second to approve the Consent Agenda. All in
favor say aye. Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. TWO ABSENT.
Yearsley: Next we are going to start the public hearings. Let me explain that
process really quickly for you. We are going to open each item and start with the
staff report. The staff will prepare -- or explain the project and findings of how it
adheres to the Comprehensive Plan and Uniform Development Code with staff
recommendations. The applicant will, then, come forward and to present their
case for approval and the applicant will have up to 15 minutes to do so.
Afterwards we will follow with public testimony. There is a sign-up sheet in the
back. Anyone wishing to testify can sign up there. Any persons will be allowed
three minutes to testify. If they are speaking for a larger group, like an HOA, and
there is a show of hands they will be given up to ten minutes. After the testimony
has been heard the applicant will have an opportunity to respond if they desire
for up to ten minutes and, then, we will close the public hearing and the
Commission will have an opportunity to discuss and deliberate and, hopefully,
able make to a recommendation.
Item 4: Action Items
A. Continued Public Hearing from June 20, 2013: AZ 13-006
Jack's Place Subdivision by Jack's and Jesse Place,
LLC Located East Side of S. Meridian Road,
Meridian Planning & Zoning
July 18, 2013
Page 3 of 23
Approximately 1/4 Mile North of E. Victory Road
Request: Annexation of 5.34 Acres from RUT in Ada
County to the L-O (Limited Office) (1.71 Acres) and
R-8 (Medium-Density Residential) (3.63 Acres)
Zoning Districts Recommend
B. Continued Public Hearing from June 20, 2013: PP 13-010
Jack's Place Subdivision by Jack's and Jesse Place,
LLC Located East Side of S. Meridian Road,
Approximately 1/4 Mile North of E. Victory Road
Request: Preliminary Plat Approval Consisting of
Three (3) Office Lots, Twenty (20) Residential Lots
and Three (3) Common Lots on Approximately 4.52
Acres in the Proposed L-O and R-8 Zoning Districts
Yearsley: So, at this time I would like to open the continued public hearing from
June 20th, 2013, of AZ 13-006 and PP 13-010 Jack's Place Subdivision, and
start off with the staff report.
Lucas: Thank you, Chairman Yearsley, Members of the Commission. I will just
provide a real brief background, since this is a continued public hearing and,
then, just focus specifically on the items for the reason that this was continued.
The applicant has applied for annexation and zoning of 5.34 acres of land from
RUT in Ada County to the limited office district of 1.71 acres in an R-8 district of
3.63 acres. Also a preliminary plat is being proposed for three office lots and 20
single family detached residential units. As stated, this is a continued
application. The two items that were of primary concern to the Commission and
the reason this was continued to tonight's hearing -- one is cross-access to the
southern commercial property and the applicant in their revised plan has shown
that cross-access and the other was a specific request from the Commission to
provide a little bit more ~ detail on how the lots that are proposed to be
encumbered with that large irrigation easement would be situated with homes.
So, those are the two primary items that I wanted to share with you tonight. To
accommodate those homes and to make those lots a little bit more functional, the
applicant did shift East Whitehall Street to the north, which made the lots a little
bit deeper and allow for a little bit more space on those lots and in this graphic
you can also see -- you can also see the access that was provided to the
southern property. Here is an exhibit provided by the applicant showing how
homes will sit on each of those lots and some of the grading detail. This is
specific to the other lots to the west and I believe this is some profiles the
applicant has provided and I will let the applicant explain all this and the
information in more detail, but this is what the applicant has provided. This is
kind of a summary showing the -- what the subdivision looked like -- what it looks
like. Staff is recommending approval and working with the applicant we have
come to some -- what we think are some good conclusions on some of the
Meridian Planning & Zoning
July 18, 2013
Page 4 of 23
conditions, but I will allow the applicant to explain some of that and we can go
from there. But with that I will stand for any questions.
Yearsley: Are there any questions? Okay. Would the applicant like to, please,
come forward and state your name and -- name and address for the record,
please.
Yorgason: Yes. My name is Dave Yorgason, Tall Timber Consulting.
represent the applicant Jack and Jessie Place and my address is 14254 West
Battenburg Drive, Boise, Idaho. Ready forme to proceed?
Yearsley: Please.
Yorgason: Okay. Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, we did go back
as requested to make a couple of alterations to the design as was discussed
specifically to the cross-access to the south. We made that adjustment. It's a
challenging site. The slopes that are there are significant. Elevation alteration
along from the south to the north and to the northwest, but with our engineer we
found a solution to make sure that that works. As said by staff we did move a
portion of the Whitehall Road to the north about five feet or more or less kind of
where it began and bring it to the left there. We didn't want to move it too far
north, now some lots north of Whitehall are no longer buildable, so we really are
and have been pinched and we have selected a solution that still works not only
for the market, but also specifically for the house plans we submitted to the city
for your consideration of what houses will fit on that site. With the grading plans
we submitted we recognize they are concept in nature. We also know that -- and
I have only been doing this 16 years or more and I have never been asked to do
grading plans for a preliminary plat, unless it was in the foothills of Boise. But we
have done that for you at this time and we hope that that is -- our submittal is
sufficient for your consideration. The submittal we did show you and presented
to staff does work. It will allow for the garages to be a slightly different elevation
and floor plans, so they will have a couple of steps up to the front doors, so that
way there is not significant steep slopes in the back yard, nor in the front. There
is a little bit of grading in the front, but that's -- there is 20 feet or so of slope to
carry that out to the sidewalk and that's really quite --quite achievable. As a side
I actually have been working with some friends on a subdivision building a home
with Coleman Homes in Oak Creek here in Meridian and they are actually closing
here in a couple weeks and they have similar slopes in their backyard as what
we are proposing to do in these yards here. Though grading plans are not
required, we know that this works and I just want to share that with you here
tonight. The conditions that we submitted in our previous submittal to the
Commission, to staff, we asked for some changes to staff the report. There is
one in which we will withdraw and that is the request for changes to the cross-
access. That condition we are agreeing with as requested by the staff in the staff
report. The other changes in the staff report we are still requesting and we have
talked with staff, they are, as I understand it, in agreeance with those requested
Meridian Planning & Zoning
July 18, 2013
Page 5 of 23
changes to the staff report and we still ask for changes to be included in the staff
report. Stand for any questions you may have.
Yearsley: Are there any questions?
Rohm: Just a comment. I -- this is exactly what we wanted you to come back to
us with and we were very concerned that the lots as proposed were not going to
be buildable lots and it would make very little sense to move something forward
that wouldn't work and so we appreciate your efforts very much and this really
answers the lion's share of questions that I had. So, thank you for your efforts.
Yearsley: Mr. Chairman and Commissioner Rohm, thank you very much. Sorry
we just didn't know the information was desired prior the application we
submitted or we would have done that for you.
Rohm: Okay.
Marshall: I, too, would like to say thank you. This does help immensely and I do
appreciate this. Our concern was -- is the grading, because this is, as you said,
a very challenging situation and it appears that things were very very tight. It still
does. But it does appear that it will work and I do appreciate your work on that.
Thank you.
Yorgason: You're welcome. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, if I could just add, there
are the slight condition changes we are requesting just -- I don' t know if there is
any specific questions to that. One of which addressed the question of common
lot versus an easement and, Mr. Chairman, if I could, I spoke to the county
assessor's office and asked them. specifically about that and for the public record
just, for all in the room to understand and know the area that we are identifying
as an easement can be identified and would be identified as a separate category
called wasteland. Wasteland in the county description would have zero
assessed value and so for that area of the easement which we are requesting
our design would not have any increased property tax to those homeowners in
that area.
Yearsley: Well, that's good to know. I appreciate that.
Yorgason: No different than if it was a common lot.
Yearsley: Right.
Yorgason: Which also has zero assessed value. I will share that with staff and
maybe they will use that in the future for future concerns.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
July 18, 2013
Page 6 of 23
Yearsley: Thanks. I do also want to echo my -- my appreciation. I have a lot
more level of comfort with this project than before and I appreciate you giving us
what we were asking for.
Yearsley: Thank you.
Marshall: I would simply ask will the homeowners when they purchase these
homes have to make any special type of application to have that land identified
as a wasteland and how is it that we can make that apparent to them, because
most people aren't going to even know. I mean I bought a piece of property and
thought it went to the back fence. It appears I got four foot beyond that and,
then, I'm trying to understand how I'm going to deal with that, because it drops
another 18 inches, things like that, and Ididn't -- I didn't realize I had an extra
four foot beyond that fence. Now if a homeowner goes and purchases this and
they have a back fence back there, 12 foot back, and yet they own all this parcel
all the way up, the assessor is going to assess on that unless they fill out this
special application, which is great that it could be identified as wasteland. Is
there some method that -- and I guess this is almost a question for staff, how we
can request that the homeowners when purchasing be notified that this is
available to them?
Yearsley: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to address Commissioner Marshall's concerns.
We have done this in another development called Castlebury West, which there
is a person in the audience that needs to listen, because it's next to one of their
future developments as well. But there will be a note on the plat which identifies
this as owned by the homeowner, but maintained by the HOA, so there is some
language there. Secondly, in the CC&Rs there will be additional language
addressing the maintenance obligations in more clarity and, third, when we do
submit our recorded plat to the county that is when we will be submitting the
notice to the -- to the county as far as identifying some portions as wasteland, the
other portion as traditional regular building lot. It is to our benefit to identify it as
wasteland, just as well as the future homeowners, because we would be paying
-- or my client would be paying property taxes, so we will be doing that at the
time the plat is recorded. So, it will be in the plat, in the CC&Rs, and we will be
taking the steps to insure that we minimize our tax burden at the time of
recording the plat.
Marshall: Usually when people purchase a home they are not looking at the plat,
they get a plot of the piece of property. That's it. They are oftentimes not very
versed in that fact that this is labeled wasteland and they have the ability to go
make application to the assessor and I understand why you -- wouldn't that
application, then, carry over to the new homeowner?
Yorgason: Yes.
Marshall: Okay. So, they don't have to make application.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
July 18, 2013
Page 7 of 23
Yorgason: That's correct. It's in perpetuity with the life of the property.
Marshall: Awesome. Thank you. That is awesome.
Yorgason: Thank you.
Yearsley: Any other questions? Thank you.
Yorgason: Thank you.
Yearsley: I do have a Dave Turner. Would he like to come up and testify? All
right. Is there anybody else that would like to testify on this application? With
that Iwould --
Marshall: Mr. Chair, I move that we close the public hearing on AZ 13-006 and
PP 13-010.
Rohm: Second.
Yearsley: I have a motion and a second to close the public hearing for AZ 13-
006 and PP 13-010. All in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. TWO ABSENT.
Yearsley: Any comments?
Marshall: Well, my biggest concern, Mr. Chair -- my biggest concern about the --
treating this as an easement, as opposed to a common lot, appears to have been
addressed with the wasteland identifier with the assessor, because I was worried
these homeowners would be paying property taxes on property they couldn't do
anything with and I think the rest of the Commission was pretty comfortable in
moving forward with a common lot -- or with an easement, as opposed to
common lot. I think everything else has been addressed and I do appreciate that
it does appear that the homes are going to be -- the garage is going to be on a --
about eight foot drop from the rest of the home, looking at the -- at the property
here. There is actually two floors or the second floor is up higher by about eight
foot, so it's split, and that does make a considerable difference in addressing the
elevation of this lot. I'm happy to move forward --
Yearsley: Thank you.
Marshall: -- with the acceptance of the easement, as opposed to the common
lot.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
July 18, 2013
Page 8 of 23
Yearsley: Now, staff, is there any other comments -- or in the motion that we
need to make regarding this application?
Lucas: Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission, thank you. I think the best way
to go about this in your motion would be to allow for the use of that easement,
rather than a common lot as proposed by staff and, then, we can modify that
condition and any other conditions related to that that would then be needed to
change. The applicant is providing across-access, so there is no reason to
modify that condition any longer, and the -- I'm trying to think -- the only other
condition is when you do remove that requirement for a common lot the applicant
has some suggested language related to that CC&R restriction and maintenance
of the easement area and staff is amenable to that and we can include that
language. So, if you're not going to require the common lot, go ahead and
require it be placed in the easement to be maintained by the homeowners
association and I think other than that staff can make the necessary changes to
any other conditions that are affected by those -- by those comments.
Yearsley: Thank you. So, with that I would entertain a motion.
Marshall: Mr. Chair, I guess I will give a stab. I move that we recommend
approval of AZ 13-006 and PP 13-010 as written in the staff report for July 18,
2013, with the following modification: That the requirement for a common lot be
struck and to replace it with an easement to be maintained by the homeowners
association and staff has identified that there will a few other changes to address
that change; is that correct?
Lucas: Correct.
Marshall: Does that work for everybody?
Rohm: Works for me. Second.
Yearsley: I have a motion and a second to approve public hearing AZ 13-006
and PP 13-010. All in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries. Thank you.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. TWO ABSENT.
Rohm: Thanks again for coming in.
C. Public Hearing: RZ 13-005 Bainbridge Subdivision by
Brighton Investments, LLC Located South Side of
Chinden Boulevard
Midway Between N. Ten Mile Road and N. Black Cat Road
Request: Rezone of 5.85 Acres of Land from the L-O to the R-8
Zoning District Recommend
D. Public Hearing: PP 13-011 Bainbridge Subdivision by Brighton
Investments, LLC Located South Side of Chinden Boulevard,
Midway Between N. Ten Mile Road and N. Black Cat Road
Request: Preliminary Plat Approval Consisting of 551 Building
Lots and 55 Common/Other Lots on 191.30 Acres of Land in an
R-8 Zoning District
Yearsley: Next item on the agenda is public hearing RZ 13-005 and PP 13-011 and
let's begin with the staff report.
Watters: Thank you, Chairman Yearsley, Members of the Commission. Next
applications before you are a request for a rezone and a preliminary plat. This site
consists of 191.3 acres of land, currently zoned R-8 and L-O and it's located on the
south side of West Chinden Boulevard between North Ten Mile and North Black Cat
Roads. Adjacent land use and zoning. To the north is Chinden Boulevard and across
Chinden to the north are future commercial and residential uses in Jayker Subdivision,
zoned C-N and R-15. To the east is North Ten Mile Road, a church zoned L-O, and
residential property zoned R-4 and R-1 in Ada County. To the south are future
commercial and residential uses in Volterra Subdivision, zoned R-4 and L-O. And to the
west is Black Cat Road and vacant undeveloped property, zoned R-8, and rural
residential agricultural uses, zoned RUT in Ada County and R-4. A little history. This
property was previously included in preliminary plats for Bainbridge Subdivision and
Keego Springs Subdivision back in 2005, 2006. Bainbridge is still a valid preliminary
plat, while Keego Springs has expired back in 2009. The applicant proposes to rezone
5.5 acres of land here right at the north boundary as L-O -- L-O to the R-8 zoning
district. The proposed R-8 zone is consistent with the medium density residential future
land use map designation for this site. A church was originally planned for this area, but
ultimately was constructed on the east side of the development adjacent to Ten Mile
Road here. The current development agreement requires conditional use permit
approval of all future uses on preliminary plat Lots 2 and 3, Block 15, which is the L-O
zone portion proposed to be rezoned and the surrounding R-8 portion planned for
residential development. The applicant intends to apply for an amendment to the
development agreement to remove this requirement. Staff is recommending when the
development agreement is amended that the existing provisions in the Keego Springs
and Bainbridge development agreements be incorporated into a new development
agreement, which would replace the existing agreements. The preliminary plat you see
here is proposed to contain 551 single family residential building lots and 55 common
lots on 191.3 acres of land in an R-8 zoning district. A phasing plan was not submitted
with this preliminary plat. Access is proposed via Broadbent Way, a collector street, off
of Chinden and Ten Mile you can see here along the north boundary. Local streets are
provided for internal access and from Black Cat Road here. Staff is concerned with the
configuration of the lots and access to these lots here noted in red at the southeast
Meridian Planning & Zoning
July 18, 2013
Page 10 of 23
corner of the site. I would like the applicant to address the plan for this area. The area
to the south is zoned for commercial uses and a public stub street is not shown. Staff is
concerned about emergency access to this lot from the street and access through the
commercial development. There is a public stub street that's shown on the Volterra
plan that would connect to this street, but nothing in this area, just driveway to the
commercial development. Street buffers in accord with UDC standards are proposed
along Black Cat, Chinden, Ten Mile and Broadbent. A segment of the city's multi-use
pathway system is required along Chinden. A total of 31.66 acres or 16.55 percent of
the site is proposed for open space consisting of detached sidewalks and parkways,
street buffers, a large open grassy area and a 7.43 acre public park that has been
dedicated to the city. There is a large park right there. Nine site amenities are required
to be provided both on the area of the development. The application proposes to
provide pedestrian pathways leading to and around a public park, an additional five
percent open space above the required amount. A multi-use pathway along Chinden,
fitness stations, sports court, picnic areas, and two to three play structures within the
development. This is a colored version of that plan. Building elevations showing a
variety of styles have been submitted that appear to be of quality design and materials
in accord with the city's design guidelines for residential developments. Written
testimony has been received from Mike Wardle, the applicant, in response to the staff
report and I'm going to go ahead and cover staff's response to his response, which
should also be in front of you for your review. In Exhibit B, item 1.2.1 C, the applicant
has requested that the condition to revise Blocks 9 and 31 to comply with the minimum
block length requirements -- he's requesting that this condition be removed, because
the original street connections between Keego and Bainbridge are the same as what
was originally proposed in the street configuration and everything. Staff is generally
agreeable that the street alignments are fine, however, the resulting block lengths for
those two blocks do not comply with current UDC standards and block faces are
prohibited from being more than 750 feet in length without an intersecting street or alley,
except where a pedestrian connection is provided, then, the maximum block length may
be extended up to 1,000 feet in length. Providing a pathway connection through these
two blocks would satisfy this condition. So, that is what staff recommends the
applicants do. Item 1.2.1 E, the applicant has requested that the requirement to remove
all island knuckles be removed. I did touch base with Perry from the fire department
prior to the meeting tonight and he does request that these planter islands be removed
for emergency access to the cul-de-sac lots to prevent obstruction from vehicles parking
in the cul-de-sacs. Item F staff has asked the 4.9 acre parcel -- excuse me. G. They
are in agreement on F. Moving to G. Staffs requested the 70 foot wide strip that lies at
the east boundary of the site between the church property and the out parcel right here
-- you see this little gray strip right here -- be included in the boundary of the preliminary
plat. The applicant has just asked that that provision be modified to say or complete a
property boundary adjustment in conjunction with the final plat for that area. They are in
negotiations with that property owner to do an adjustment there. So, staff is in
agreement with the proposed modification. Item J requires the inclusion of micropaths
in Block 6 to the school property from the east and the north. This is the school
property right here. Block 6 consists of these lots here. It wraps around here. Staff has
asked that a pedestrian connection be provided from here and here. The applicant has
Meridian Planning & Zoning
July 18, 2013
Page 11 of 23
requested that the requirement from the east be stricken, which would be this one, and
that they do provide a connection from the north. Staff is okay with that, provided that
they provide a pedestrian walkway in this common area here on the south boundary.
This is only a 15 foot wide strip. There is an irrigation easement within this common
area. If the applicant's willing to provide a pathway in this to the school site staff would
be okay with modifying condition and let's see here. Item L there is a stub street, North
Hunsford Way right here, which stubs at the south boundary to Volterra Subdivision.
The applicant's requested that an additional residential lot be provided in the place of
the stub street. This is a logistics -- let me explain a little bit. This is originally proposed
to connect to a street in Volterra. Since that time the Volterra plat was revised. It was
originally approved in 2006, I believe, and was resubmitted in 2010 and a new
preliminary plat exists out there. This one shows it a little bit better. This is a common
lot now right here. So, this stub street would stub to the common area. Staff is
agreeable to amending the condition as requested by the applicant, but would also like
to allow for the options if agreement with this property owner can be obtained to
extending this stub street through the common area. That would be the preferable
option. However, if it's not possible, then, the applicant has some other alternatives
there to work with. Condition 1.2.4, the applicant is asked to be able to submit a public
use easement for the pathway along Chinden in conjunction with submittal of the final
plat application for that area, rather than prior to submittal of the first final plat. Staff is
agreeable with the applicant's proposal on that. And, lastly, the applicant commented
on 1.2.6 on the provision of nine site amenities, what their site amenities are proposed
to be. Staff is in agreement with the proposed amenities. That is just a general
requirement that can stay in the staff report on that one. Staff is recommending
approval of the proposed rezone and preliminary plat with the conditions in Exhibit B.
Staff will stand for any questions Commission may have.
Yearsley: Are there any questions?
Rohm: Not at this time.
Yearsley: Thank you. Would the applicant like to come forward.
Wardle: Mr. Chairman, Commission Members, Mike Wardle, Brighton Corporation,
12601 West Explorer Drive in Boise. Appreciate the work that Sonya has done on what
seems to be a large somewhat interesting project. I'm going to do a -- well, I will
respond to her comments and basically acknowledge that we are in concurrence on all
but just a couple of items. But I'm going to give you a real low tech presentation this
evening. Really very simple. The first of the two sheets that I have provided to you
shows the original site plan, simplified version of the preliminary plat for Bainbridge and
the area in yellow to the right is the relocated church that was originally approved and if
you have got really good eyesight or magnifying glasses on you would see up at the
very top with the intersection at Chinden that there was a church site up there and when
final negotiations came about it was a determination made to move that over to Ten
Mile Road so it then opened up the question we had to rezone the church site on Ten
Mile to L-O in order to get the appropriate use there. So, the church site on Chinden
Meridian Planning & Zoning
July 18, 2013
Page 12 of 23
currently is zoned L-O and that's what we are changing now to R-8 and because that
church site and the adjacent parcel had not been detailed, if you look at the second
sheet, there were modifications, then, made because of the change in that church
location and detailing of those previously unplatted parcels and so you will see that with
regard to Bainbridge there were an additional 46 lots plated in that original church area
to the north. There is a reduction of 27 lots at the relocated church site over on Ten
Mile. The net result of 19 lots within the total project as a result of that change, but very
likely that would have been the case when that unplatted parcel has been detailed in the
future regardless. The other change that occurred was when the owner of the property
that was formally known as Keego came to us and asked if we would develop that
property in conjunction with Bainbridge. We didn't buy it. We don't own it. We simply
have a development agreement with the property owner to -- to do that. Sonya made a
very important point when she said that Bainbridge as it currently exists is still a valid
preliminary plat. In fact, on April 25th, I believe, of this year the City Council approved
an extension to final platting to 2015, I believe. So, whatever that date was that they
extended it just a couple of months ago and, in fact, when we submitted the
applications, because the Keego portion had expired, we filed our application, paying
the appropriate fees for all of the Keego lots, which actually is 177 -- excuse me -- 143,
down from the original 177 that were approved with that project, which has since
expired and so we paid the fees based on the addition of Keego to the named
Bainbridge project, as well as just for the lots that were modified in Bainbridge, so that it
would cover the expenses of analysis that were required there. The rest of the project
is still valid, can be final platted without any changes or modifications. So, that kind of
leads us, then, to perhaps the biggest point of contention and would be condition
1.2.1 C, Blocks 9 and 31. Do we have the site plan up, Sonya? At least my screen is
blank here. I don't know what -- so, what do I have to do to this, being technologically
challenged with -- oh, power. Thank you, Caleb. And so the principal issues, then, that
have been raised are connections -- oops. Let me go back. I'm going to leave that
alone. Okay. Got you. All right. So, the question of some type of connection through
there and potentially a connection through here. This being Lot 9 on the east side of the
former Keego property adjacent to that southwest quadrant of the original Bainbridge
and, then, the area just to the east of the park. From a technical perspective
modifications could be made to make those connections. It's a question of what those
pathways or what those would do. We are talking about 60 feet. The requirement is
750. The -- those two blocks are about 810 feet curb to curb, so we are talking about a
60 foot deviation. But if you look at strictly the approved Bainbridge side, those -- those
blocks are developable just exactly as they are currently configured based on the fact
that there is no change in the valid preliminary plat. So, it would be up to the
Commission to -- to determine whether or not -- and I'm not certain from a legal
perspective what -- you know, whether it's a recommendation for a waiver from that
provision of the ordinance or whatever the recommendation might be, but we just want
to confirm on the record that those blocks are as originally approved in Bainbridge and
with the intent certainly to develop them as they are without an intervening pathway that
may not serve any purpose other than to fulfill the technical requirements of an
ordinance. With regard to the condition 1.2.1 E relative to the street knuckles, this is not
a big deal, obviously, but if you look at those -- those four items that are specifically
Meridian Planning & Zoning
July 18, 2013
Page 13 of 23
being addressed, those lots in that particular area the larger lots in the project, a little bit
more -- certainly not full estate size, but they are a little bit more exclusive. That area
has been specifically retained because of the character that was established in the
design of it originally back, frankly, in about 2003. I think it's important to remember that
the fire department is requesting. ACHD allows -- in fact, the fire department has not
contended with us on several islands that have put into cul-de-sacs in our Spurwing
project in most recent phases. So, we are simply asking for the recommendation that
that be removed and that we deal with the technical requirements for the fire
department for turning and clearance radiuses, because if you look at them and those
islands are not there, that's a sea of asphalt. It's huge. It's, you know, probably more
than a hundred feet wide just of asphalt and that's not a desirable solution. Sonya
mentioned also -- and it's not a -- again, a major issue, but on the third page of that
handout, 1.2.1 L regarding the stub street that no longer has a connection point in the
Volterra project to the south, frankly, we don't have a problem if it goes away, because it
will gain us a lot. But when I went to one of the other requirements that staff made was
that we include that school parcel, which half of the site is on the original Keego, half of
it is on Volterra and so I was kind of ignoring the fact that since the school district has
owned that site for six years -- well, since 2006 anyway -- that it needed to be included
in our plat. So, staff is asking that it be included and that we get an affidavit and a deed
from the school district. So, when I went and met with Dr. Gestron, who handles those
issues for the school district, he looked at it and I had both plats to show what the
original was and what is currently the situation, he said, um, I think it would be helpful to
have that street connection. So, our position is we don't have a problem if somebody
wants -- and let me be candid, that communication with the owners and developer of
Volterra is not an easy thing to accomplish. So, we will make, you know, another
attempt. We have had a discussion about it. That connection would be in what is now
designated as a common lot parcel, so I think it's -- we will probably try to facilitate one
more discussion between the developer of that project and the school district to
determine if there is a benefit in having that connection there. If not, then, frankly, we
have only pedestrian connections, unless you go quite a ways to the east and certainly
you can get to it by tracking through the back streets of Volterra and that might be
feasible. But -- so, either way we can -- we can work with that. It's not -- not a super
big issue. I guess the last item that Sonya raised this evening and, Sonya, can you go
back to the site plan. There you go. Is that little area. Originally when the Volterra
project was approved it was not commercial. They have not actually revised their plat
for that area. They have done some zoning, but they haven't revised -- I don't think they
have arevised -- an approved preliminary plat for the easterly portion of their project,
think it only goes to the park site that they have kind of in the central area. So, I don't
know what the solution is, if, in fact, that does develop as commercial, I can only assure
you that we don't necessarily want to see, yeah, that kind of a conflict, so we will look for
a solution. That's likely going to be among the last areas that's platted in our project,
because we will be starting immediately adjacent to Black Cat Road and working east.
Our first phase plat, in fact, will be coming in very shortly. We will, then, also in our
second phrase make the connection up to Chinden. So, we have got Black Cat and
Chinden connected, but going east into that corner, which also includes that little parcel
that Sonya talked about north of the Johnson property and south of the LDS church. I
Meridian Planning & Zoning
July 18, 2013
Page 14 of 23
would just note for -- to let you know how that parcel came about. Brighton owns it. We
pay taxes on it. That property owner Mr. Johnson somehow got an easement to use it
for farming purposes many years ago and is not interested in giving it up --giving up the
easement. So, we own it, we pay taxes on it, he uses it. So, we have actually come to
an agreement on how to deal with that and while, again, it's not a big item, let me just
give you something that shows what that agreement is and how we will resolve it in the
future. Mr. Johnson actually signed an affidavit for the application. In reality what will
happen is you see the yellow Johnson to Brighton, that northerly lot just kind of in the
upper left corner of that, part of that lot will be released from the easement, so that we
have a frontage lot there and Mr. Johnson, then, will provide potentially -- I will be done
in about one minute. Potentially a buffer lot or at least the necessary right of way out of
the corner of his property and so in exchange for those two pieces he gets the balance
of the area in kind of the gold color free and clear, unencumbered, and he can continue
to farm that as he desires. So, Mr. Chairman, Commission Members, I would stand for
questions that you have. I'm sure you will have some.
Yearsley: Are there any questions?
Watters: Chairman Yearsley?
Yearsley: Yes.
Watters: May I make a clarification real quick with Mr. Wardle?
Yearsley: Absolutely.
Watters: Condition number -- I don't believe he touched on this -- 1.1 -- excuse me --
1.2.1J that talks about the micropaths in Block 6 to the school property, would you
clarify, Mike, if you intend to do a pathway in that southerly common area or which way
you want to go on that?
Wardle: Yes. That would be our intent. We actually -- this, again, is one of those
failures to communicate. When Volterra preliminary plat was revised there had been an
agreement between Mr. Turnbull and Mr. Varielle that previously owned that property,
because the -- the canal that goes down that north property line is just -- their fence will
be right at the water's edge and so I was agreed at that point that that whole three
quarters of a mile would be a 30 foot wide pedestrian corridor connecting all the way
through to the school site from Ten Mile Road, so that it would -- nobody had to deal
with a ditch under their fence in the backyards. That apparently didn't get passed onto
the new owners and developer of Volterra, hence, their project doesn't show any
accommodation for it. We still show our 15 feet and I guess the question from the city's
perspective is -- is a 15 foot micropath corridor acceptable and if it is, then, we will
provide that connection. From the east it would be going right into the back of that
school site and all of the streets from Bainbridge would be connecting to it. So, if that's
acceptable. But -- and, then, in terms of the one from the north, I have already
sketched up a solution, so that we do have the micropath coming in within this block
Meridian Planning & Zoning
July 18, 2013
Page 15 of 23
area, so the other one would come in right back here. But, yeah, we are agreeable to
that.
Yearsley: Any questions?
Marshall: Quick question with staff before Mr. Wardle steps away. Is a 15 foot
micropath acceptable to the city?
Watters: Chairman Yearsley, Commissioner Marshall, yes, it is acceptable to the city.
A five foot wide pathway with five feet of landscaping on each side would meet our
requirement. I do want to note that the building lots along that southern boundary would
be restricted to a four foot tall fence. I just would like that to be noted on record. Or six
foot open vision if they chose to go with wrought iron or something of the sort.
Wardle: Mr. Chairman, we have done that in other projects where that type of a facility
is provided.
Yearsley: Comments? Questions?
Rohm: I'm still not clear on the lots south of the property being farmed by Johnson right
on your south property line of this development. Those next to Ten Mile. How is the
access to those intended?
Wardle: Well, Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Rohm, at the moment, obviously, it depicts
what was originally approved in the preliminary plat. When staff raised that question
this evening I said we will look at it and come back with, you know, alternatives to see
what might be done, because if that, in fact, does develop commercial to the south it
does create a bit of a problem.
Rohm: Yeah. I think it's important that we just have on record that under -- I don't think
under any circumstances we would be able to go from a city street which is depicted
here and access to the roadway through -- what's it called?
Yearsley: The development --
Rohm: Well, through the --
Yearsley: Driveway.
Rohm: Yeah. Through Volterra's common lot or parking lot or whatever. You can't go
from a parking lot to a private street. I don't think that would ever work.
Wardle: Well, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Rohm, we agree, we understand that, but that change
has occurred after this plat was originally approved, so --
Rohm: So, basically, that would just have to be replatted if, in fact, there is not a
reasonable ingress-egress?
Meridian Planning & Zoning
July 18, 2013
Page 16 of 23
Wardle: Yes. Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Rohm, I think by the time we get to thal
corner, which, again, may be one of the later phases that we do, we will have solved
that problem as well as the agricultural easement that Mr. Johnson has to the north.
Rohm: Okay.
Wardle: Thank you.
Yearsley: Any other questions?
Marshall: I think I'm good.
Yearsley: Okay. Thank you.
Wardle: Thank you.
Yearsley: I do not have anybody signed up to testify for this subdivision. Is there -- or
this application. Is there anybody wishing to testify? With that can I get a motion to
close the public hearing for RZ 13-005 and PP 13-011?
Rohm: So moved.
Marshall: Second.
Yearsley: I have a motion and a second to close the public hearing for RZ 13-005 and
PP 13-011. All in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. TWO ABSENT.
Yearsley: Well, I think there is a lot to talk about. Who would like to go first?
Commissioner Marshall?
Marshall: Well, I am actually very pleased to see this try to include the surrounding
areas. You know, they could move forward with what they have and I appreciate the
fact they are coming back and trying to address some things and help some things out
here and I think we will all be better off for that. I do appreciate working with the 15 foot
micropath. I think that's a great resolution on that on everybody's part and I appreciate
that very much from both the applicant's perspective, as well as the city's and I do like it
where the kids have a way to get to school and they don't have to cut through
everybody's yards and jump over fences and things like that and as far as the islands,
don't have a problem with the applicant's request there on the islands. I don't have any
problem with that at all. I like the islands out there. I have been around them. I have
seen them. I think they look great, personally, and I think we used to require that.
know the city has been trying to go away from it. Personally I'm not necessarily in
agreement with that. I know the fire department doesn't like it, but as long as the fire
Meridian Planning & Zoning
July 18, 2013
Page 17 of 23
truck can get turned around and come back around to Lakewood and key turnarounds
or something, but --
Yearsley: Comment on the block length?
Marshall: Block length. Yeah. Getting to that one. To be honest, again, because this
is already platted or essentially ready to plat, it's ready -- it's ready to plat, it's all
approved there without that and by including this additional area now we are forcing
them to go back and put these in in an area that wouldn't have required them. I'm a
stickler for the rules and I think everybody is aware that, you know, rules are rules and
we need everybody to follow the rules, but in this case I think we are -- it's already ready
to go without that. We are talking 60 feet, 810 foot rather than 750. I am one to say
normally, you know, it's 751, we need to put the pathway in. But in this case, because --
I'd like to say that because they are including the additional area and trying to make it all
one seamless entity, I think we are all better off for it and I'd like to encourage that and
I'm -- as far as I'm concerned we could waive that.
Rohm: I'm in concurrence with that.
Yearsley: I am fine with it as well, so --
Rohm: I think we still have to just recommend to Council to waive that. I don't think we
can make that as part of our motion. I think Council has to act on that. Okay. I like
your assessment of the presentation and so, Commissioner Marshall, I'm in
concurrence.
Marshall: You want to take a stab at something there?
Rohm: Actually, the one that I was most interested in is the islands in the cul-de-sac. I
think that they are essential to this type of project to remain there and as long as the
turning radius is -- meets the standards, I think the island should remain, so --
Yearsley: The only thing I would recommend -- and it will be hard to -- I'm not quite sure
how to do this -- if we maybe recommend not to allow trees within those islands.
Rohm: I agree.
Yearsley: Because what I have heard is is people have a tendency to park in and
around those islands, which makes it hard for the fire trucks to get around. If we could
do some more -- I don't know if -- trees. But if needs be we want to make sure that fire
trucks can get access to those homes back up in there.
Rohm: I think that's where we leave it period, is the safety has to be the primary
concern and as long as the islands are built and the safety issues are addressed, then,
what they do with the islands -- as long as safety is not had adversely affected we leave
it to the developer. That's my opinion anyway.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
July 18, 2013
Page 18 of 23
Yearsley: Okay.
Marshall: I have to admit I was just -- just this last week out for a drive checking out a
subdivision that had the islands in the -- in the cul-de-sacs and while I'm not a fan of cul-
de-sacs, I'm not, but -- because they dump traffic on everybody else's street, but, you
know, might want to live on one than down from one. The issue was it was nice in that
the developer had actually placed a couple parking stalls in the central area, so it was
very clear that you weren't to park along the outside of the island. People still do it,
though.
Yearsley: Oh, yeah.
Marshall: And we can't get -- I mean people will park in the middle of the street. We
can't control that. It's illegal and they should be ticketed and fined for it, you know, but
do think that a couple parking stalls in the islands itself -- and it was a nice landscaped
island with a full park --afire truck could easily get around it. It was a very large turn
around and it seemed apparent to me that this is where you're going to park if you're
going to park over here and not up against the curb out blocking anything.
Yearsley: No, I'm -- that's reasonable. I think, you know, allowing to make sure that it
provides safe access and let the developer -- I have a tendency to be the same way as,
you know, the developer has an opportunity to develop his property and try not to tread
on his ability to develop, so -- so, with that I would entertain a motion.
Marshall: He's working really hard over here, so --
Rohm: Okay.
Marshall: So, I think he wants to take a stab at it.
Rohm: Well, I don't really want to, but I will. Okay. Let's see. After considering all
staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move to recommend approval to the City Council
of file number RZ 13-005 and PP 13-011, presented in the staff report for the hearing
date of July 18th, 2013, with the following modifications: Addressing 1.2.1C, we
recommend to Council to waive that condition for the additional paths. Condition 1.2.1 E
we concur with the applicant that the islands should remain and the balance of this form
that we are given, dated July 17, 2013, be incorporated into the staff report with the
applicant's recommendations and staff's concurrence. End of motion.
Marshall: I will second that with one slight modification requiring the micro pathway on
the southern boundary, 15 foot, to the elementary school in 1.2.1 J.
Rohm: I accept the amendment.
Marshall: I will second it.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
July 18, 2013
Page 19 of 23
Yearsley: Just to verify, staffs okay with that? With understanding our motion?
Watters: Yes --
Yearsley: Okay.
Watters: -- Chairman Yearsley. Sorry.
Yearsley: I appreciate it. We have a motion and a second to approve public hearing
RZ 13-005 and PP 13-011, Bainbridge Subdivision. All in favor say aye. Opposed?
Motion carries. Thank you.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. TWO ABSENT.
E. Public Hearing: RZ 13-006 Fast Eddy's by Steve Eddy Located
at 710, 730, 750, 770 & 790 W. Ustick Road Request: Rezone of
a 5.52 Acres of Land from C-N to C-C Zoning District
Recommend Approval to City Council
F. Public Hearing: CUP 13-006 Fast Eddy's by Steve Eddy
Located 710 W. Ustick Road Request: Conditional Use Permit
Approval to Extend the Business Hours of Operation in the C-
CDistrict When a Property Abuts a Residential Use or District
From 11:00 P.M. to 12:00 A.M. on Fridays and Saturdays in
Accord With UDC 11-2B-3A.4
Yearsley: Next item on the agenda is a public hearing for RZ 13-006 and CUP 13-006,
Fast Eddy's Chevron. Can we start with the staff report.
Watters: Thank you, Chairman Yearsley, Members of the Commission. The next
applications before you are a request for a rezone and a conditional use permit. This
site consists of 5.52 acres of land. It's currently zoned C-N and is located at 710, 730,
750, 770 and 790 West Ustick Road at the northeast corner of West Ustick and Venable
Lane. Adjacent land use and zoning. To the north is vacant property owned by the
school district, zoned R-4. To the south is Ustick Road and rural residential property
zoned RUT in Ada County. To the east is residential property zoned RUT in Ada
County. And to the west is vacant commercial property zoned C-C and Venable Lane.
There is a Fast Eddy's car wash, convenience store, and fuel facility on this site located
on the corner lot here on Venable and Ustick. There are existing office buildings on the
other lots on the site as shown. The convenience store was previously approved to
operate 24 hours a day on this lot. The applicant is requesting approval to rezone the
site, platted as Cedar Springs Subdivision No. 6 from the C-N to the C-C district
consistent with the future land use map designation of mixed use community with a
neighborhood center overlay for this site. The applicant proposes to move the
convenience store to the adjacent lot to the east that fronts on Ustick Road here. The
Meridian Planning & Zoning
July 18, 2013
Page 20 of 23
shaded one you see. The existing convenience store will, then, be used for storage.
The primary reason for the proposed rezone is for extended hours of operation for the
convenience store in the new location. The current C-N district limits business hours of
operation from 6:00 a.m., to 10:00 p.m. In the proposed C-C district business hours
are restricted from 6:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m. when adjacent to a residential use or a zone.
There is an existing residence right here on this narrow strip of land. Other than that
there are no abutting residences or a residential district. The UDC does allow for
extended hours to be requested through a conditional use permit. Because there is a
residential use that abuts this site on the east the applicant is requesting a conditional
use permit to extend the hours of operation of the convenience store from 5:30 a.m. to
11:00 p.m., Monday through Thursday, and 5:30 a.m. to 12:00 a.m. Friday and
Saturday nights. Just to reiterate, the current convenience store is allowed to operate
24 hours a day. Written testimony has been received from Clyde Breneger, the
residential property owner to the east. He is in support of the rezone. Steve Eddy, the
applicant, did submit written testimony in agreement with the staff report. Staff is
recommending approval of the proposed rezone and conditional use permit with the
conditions in the staff report. Staff will stand for any questions Commission may have.
Yearsley: Thank you. Any questions?
Marshall: Sonya, so the sole purpose for the rezone is to allow for 24 hour operation in
the new location.
Wafters: Chairman Yearsley, Commissioner Marshall, no. The current location was
allowed through the previous development agreement to operate 24 hours a day. The
convenience store was. It was only for this lot on the corner that you see here.
Marshall: Right.
Wafters: This lot right here falls under the requirements of the C-N district, which is
6:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. So, that's the reason for the rezone to C-C. It would extend the
hours from 6:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m., but the applicant requests a further extension on the
hours from 5:30 a.m. until 11:00 p.m., Monday through Thursday and, then, 5:30 a.m.,
to 12:00 a.m. Friday and Saturday nights. Just for this lot right here.
Marshall: Right. And so my question is how was that done prior? Because the lot it's
on is still C-N, even though it's allowed 24 hour operation. That it's currently on.
Because C-N is allowed 24 hour operation; is that correct?
Wafters: That is correct. It was approved through a development agreement. I don't
know that we had a restriction in our code at that time when that was approved on the
hours of operation, but it is in the development agreement that they are allowed to
operate 24 hours for the C store.
Marshall: And we have no other venue for addressing hours other than changing the
zoning; is that correct?
Meridian Planning & Zoning
July 18, 2013
Page 21 of 23
Wafters: From the C-N district that is correct. Yes. The C-C and the C-G district
restricts hours when there is a residential use or district adjacent, but they -- but it does
allow for a conditional use permit to request extended hours. The C-N district does not.
Yearsley: Any other questions? Would the applicant like to come forward. Please
state your name and address for the record.
Eddy: Steve Eddy. 770 West Ustick, Meridian. Mr. Chairman and Members of the
Commission, Sonya pretty much covered it all and I think the only thing that was maybe
left off -- because we were going to just come in for a rezone of the new site and not the
adjacent lots, but I think it's -- we agreed with staff and agreed to not just spot zoning
and rezone the whole parcel, since we own the whole parcel now. With the current C
store, to answer your question, you know, we could stay open 24 hours a day. We
chose not to. That site closed at 11:00 o'clock five nights a week and just midnight on
Friday and Saturday and all we really ask is to have that same way we have been doing
business since 2007, the same, except move the footprint of the store and the adjacent
building and as Sonya said we did get from the only resident it affected, he did support
our rezone and our hours of operation when I met with him. So, I think we have tried to
cover all the objections or problems that could come up with the rezone of the property.
And with that if you have any other questions.
Yearsley: Thank you. Are there any other questions?
Rohm: I have some questions, not so much about the changes to the adjacent
property, but you're going to use the existing C store as storage?
Eddy: Well, the existing C store we envision on leaving the car wash there, use the
existing portion of the C store for storage right now, but at a later date look to maybe
explain that car wash possibly or give us an option to possibly -- if the area grows more
we could demo the existing C store and add two more fueling positions there.
Rohm: And the reason why I'm asking these questions, because I'm pretty familiar with
that area, I drive by there quite often, and, quite honestly, that is a very well received
commercial development at the half mile within the City of Meridian and that's
something that the city has been very supportive of and so, you know, I liked it as it is
and I don't think your application is really changing the integrity of the development as a
whole, but I just was curious that -- I didn't want to see that portion of it just turn into a
warehouse, which sounds kind of more industrial than -- than commercial. So, no,
think, you know, Fast Eddy's as a whole has done a great job working with the city and
-- and this application seems to fit that same bill. Thank you.
Eddy: Well, thank you.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
July 18, 2013
Page 22 of 23
Yearsley: Thank you. Any other questions? Thank you very much. I have nobody
signed up to testify. Is there anybody that would like to testify on this application? With
that Iwould --
Marshall: Mr. Chair, I move that we close the public hearing on RZ 13-006 and CUP
13-006.
Rohm: Second.
Yearsley: I have a motion and a second to close the public hearing on RZ 13-006 and
CUP 13-006. All in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. TWO ABSENT.
Yearsley: Comments? Questions?
Rohm: I pretty well already made mine, but, again, thanks for the applicant coming
forward.
Yearsley: Thank you.
Marshall: Couple comments?
Yearsley: Absolutely.
Marshall: I'm very much for the project. I do like this facility and I'm glad to see it
growing. I'm glad to see it doing well. I think Mr. Eddy has a great facility there, as well
as other places. My only concern is here is the half mile -- and I'm not sure that
residence will be there forever, I don't know, but -- and, then, you have got the park next
to that. But I'm not real fond of throwing a C-N in there. I so -- or a C-C. I so wish we
could provide it and had some other venue or some other avenue that we could use to
provide it with the same hours of operation that they had before, but still C-N, because,
God forbid, something happens to Mr. Eddy and it goes -- of course somebody else
buys it and, then, it's designated as C-C forever and somebody wants to come in there
and do something with it, I think this will be -- as long as Mr. Eddy owns it I think it's
going to be great and I hope it's handed down from generations to come, you know, and
it never changes. But we never can foresee the future and what could happen. I guess
I worry about putting the C-C in there. I'm willing to do it in this case because that's the
only avenue we have. I'm just saying as a city I sure wish we had a different avenue for
that, because C-C also opens this up to so much more than what C-N does. C-N is
limited on the size and everything else. I know we are limited a little bit on space here,
but that's a pretty good size lot and I don't know if somebody could come in down the
road and do -- it's C-C. But I'm willing to go forward with this today, but just future
reference I think that could bite us some day. Maybe not in this project, but in some
other project it has the same issues. That's all.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
July 18, 2013
Page 23 of 23
Yearsley: Well, I understand your point and I agree with them. I think it is that. The
only saving grace I think with this one is that the property next to them is very narrow,
so development into a residential area is going to be very scares for any future projects,
so -- but I think in the future we could have more issues with that. So, with that I would
entertain a motion.
Rohm: Mr. Chairman?
Yearsley: Commissioner Rohm.
Rohm: I'd like to -- after considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move to
approve file numbers RZ 13-006 and CUP 13-006 as presented in the staff report for
the hearing date of July 18, 2013, with no modifications.
Marshall: I will second it.
Yearsley: I have a motion and a second to approve file number RZ 13-006 and CUP
13-006. All in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. TWO ABSENT.
Yearsley: Thank you. Just as a reminder that the next Planning and Zoning meeting
August 1st will be at 6:00 o'clock instead of 7:00, so -- because of the change. So, with
that could I have one last motion?
Rohm: I move we adjourn.
Marshall: Second.
Yearsley: I have a motion and a second to adjourn. All in favor say aye.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. TWO ABSENT.
Yearsley: We stand adjourned.
MEETING ADJOURNED AT 8:16 P.M.
(AUDIO RECORDING ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS.)
APPROVED ,_
8 ~ 1 ~ ~3
T EN YEARS EY - CHAIRMA DA VED
~°~~ u~°S
ATTES 3`'~ ~'9
~ ~,
//11 [/~~~ City of
,, eu: pia ~
J Y MA Y ERK ~~ Ste,
Fy v
e
~~PO~+b° reg-S~`~~