2013 12-19E IDIAN~--r MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING
I b,q H p COMMISSION MEETING
AGENDA
Roll-call Attendance
Thursday, December 19, 2013 at 6:00 p.m.
1.
_X_ Macy Miller
_X Scott Freeman
_O
2.
3.
4
City Council Chambers
33 E. Broadway Avenue, Meridian, Idaho
_X Michael Rohm
_X Joe Marshall
Steven Yearsley -Chairman
Adoption of the Agenda Approved
Consent AgendaApproved
A. Approve Minutes of December 5, 2013 Planning and Zoning
Commission Meeting
B. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: CUP
13-014 Westmark Credit Union at Bridgetower Crossing by
Westmark Credit Union Located at 3115 W. Quintale Drive (Lot
66, Block 10 of Bridgetower Crossing Subdivision No. 7)
Request: Conditional Use Permit Approval for aDrive-Thru
Establishment (Bank with Drive-Thru) in a C-N Zoning District
Action Items
A. Public Hearing: CPAM 13-002 Solterra by Capital Christian
Center Inc. Located Northeast Corner of E. Fairview Avenue
and N. Hickory Way Request: Amend the Future Land Use Map
Contained in the Comprehensive Plan to Change the Land Use
Designation on Approximately 22.61 Acres from Office to
Mixed Use-Regional Recommend Approval to City Council
B. Public Hearing: RZ 13-015 Solterra by Capital Christian Center,
Inc. Located Northeast Corner of E. Fairview Avenue and N.
Hickory Way Request: Rezone of Approximately 22.61 Acres
from the L-O (Limited Ofgce) Zoning District to the C-G
(General Retail and Service Commercial) (2.39 acres); L-O
(Limited Office) (9.04 acres) and R-15 (Medium High Density
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Agenda -Thursday, December 19, 2013Page 1 of 3
All materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian.
Anyone desiring accommodation for disabilities related to documents and/or hearing,
please contact the City Clerk's Office at 888-4433 at least 48 hours prior to the public meeting.
Residential) (11.18 Acres) Zoning Districts Recommend
Approval to City Council
C. Public Hearing: PP 13-037 Solterra by Capital Christian Center
Inc. Located Northeast Corner of E. Fairview Avenue and N.
Hickory Way Request: Preliminary Plat Approval Consisting of
Three (3) Commercial Lots, One (1) Office Lot, Ninety-Three
(93) Residential Lots and Eleven (11) Common/Other Lots on
Approximately 21.51 Acres in a Proposed C-G, L-O and R-15
Zoning Districts Recommend Approval to City Council
D. Public Hearing: PP 13-012 Centre Point Square by Center Point
Square LLC Located West of N. Eagle Road and South of E.
Ustick Road Request: Preliminary Plat Approval Consisting of
Seventeen (17) Multi Family Buildable Lots and Five (5)
Common/Other Lots on Approximately 5.28 Acres of Land in
an R-15 Zoning District Application Withdrawn by Applicant
E. Public Hearing: CUP 13-007 Centre Point Square by Center
Point Square LLC Located West of N. Eagle Road and South of
E. Ustick Road Request: Conditional Use Permit Approval to
Construct a Multi Family Development Consisting of Sixty-
Eight (68) Residential Units in an R-15 Zoning District
Application Withdrawn by Applicant
F. Public Hearing: RZ 13-014 Summertree Subdivision by
Summer Woods, LLC Located Southwest Corner of W. Cherry
.Land and N. Summertree Way Request: Rezone Approximately
2.64 Acres from the R-4 (Medium-Low Density Residential)
Zoning District to the R-15 (Medium-High Density Residential)
Zoning District Public Hearing Continued to January 16, 2014
G. Public Hearing: PP 13-035 Summertree Subdivision by
Summer Woods, LLC Located Southwest Corner of W. Cherry
Lane and N. Summertree Way Request: Preliminary Plat
Approval for Sixteen (16) Single Family Residential Lots and
One (1) Common Lot on Approximately 2.30 Acres in a
Proposed R-15 Zoning District Public Hearing Continued to
January 16, 2014
H. Public Hearing: RZ 13-017 Sheryl 4-Plex by JTC Inc. or Assigns
Located 3150 W. Sheryl Drive Request: Rezone of 0.54 of an
Acre of Land from the L-O to the TN-R Zoning District
Recommend Denial to City Council
I. Public Hearing: CPAM 13-003 Da Vinci Park by CS2, LLC
Located Southwest Corner of N. Locust Grove Road and E.
McMillan Road Request: Amend the Future Land Use Map
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Agenda -Thursday, December 19, 2013Page 2 of 3
All materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian.
Anyone desiring accommodation for disabilities related to documents and/or hearing,
please contact the City Clerk's Office at 888-4433 at least 48 hours prior to the public meeting.
Contained in the Comprehensive Plan to Change the Future
Land Use Designation on 7.76 Acres of Land from Low Density
Residential to Medium Density Residential (6.36 Acres) and
Mixed Use -Neighborhood (1.4 Acres) Recommend Approval
to City Council
J. Public Hearing: RZ 13-016 Da Vinci Park by CS2, LLC Located
Southwest Corner of N. Locust Grove Road and E. McMillan
Road Request: Rezone of 2.65 Acres of Land from the R-4 and
R-8 Zoning Districts to the C-N Zoning District; and 6.3 Acres
of Land from the R-4 Zoning District to the R-8 Zoning District
Recommend Approval to City Council
K. Public Hearing: PP 13-036 Da Vinci Park by CS2, LLC Located
Southwest Corner of N. Locust Grove Road and E. McMillan
Road Request: Preliminary Plat Approval Consisting of Thirty-
Eight (38) Single Family Residential Attached Building Lots,
One (1) Commercial Building Lot and Eight (8) Common/Other
Lots on 7.76 Acres of Land in the Proposed R-8 and C-N
Zoning Districts Recommend Approval to City Council
L. Public Hearing: CUP 13-015 Terror Design Studio by Brian
Spangler Located 760 E. King Street Request: Conditional Use
Permit Approval to Operate an Indoor Recreation Facility in an
I-L Zoning District Approved -Prepare Findings of Fact and
Conclusions of Law for Approval
Meeting adjourned at 8:36 p.m.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Agenda -Thursday, December 19, 2013Page 3 of 3
All materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian.
Anyone desiring accommodation for disabilities related to documents and/or hearing,
please contact the City Clerk's Office at 888-4433 at least 48 hours prior to the public meeting.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission December 19, 2013
Meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission of December 19, 2013, was
called to order at 6:00 p.m. by Vice-Chairman Joe Marshall.
Present: Commissioner Joe Marshall, Commissioner Michael Rohm, Commissioner
Macy Miller and Commissioner Scott Freeman.
Members Absent: Commissioner Steven Yearsley.
Others Present: Holly Binkley, Ted Baird, Justin Lucas, Sonya Watters, Bill Parsons,
and Dean Willis.
Item 1: Roll-Call Attendance:
Roll-call
X Scott Freeman X Macy Miller
X Michael Rohm X Joe Marshall
Steven Yearsley -Chairman
Marshall: All right. Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. I'd like to welcome you to the
regularly scheduled meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission for December
17th, 2013, and I'd like to begin with roll call, please.
Item 2: Adoption of the Agenda
Marshall: All right. Well, I'd like to first start with the adoption of the agenda, but there
are a couple changes to the agenda for tonight. D and E for Centre Point Square, PP
13-012 and CUP 13-007, we are going to open that simply to acknowledge its
withdrawal. Items F and G in the packet, Summertree Subdivision, that's RZ 13-014
and PP 13-035, we will be opening that for the sole purpose of continuing it until
January 16th, 2014. With those changes can I get a motion?
Freeman: Mr. Chair, I'd move we adopt the agenda as amended.
Miller: Second.
Marshall: I have a motion and a second. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion
carries.
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Item 3: Consent Agenda
Meridian Planning & Zoning
December 19, 2013
Page 2 of 45
A. Approve Minutes of December 5, 2013 Planning and Zoning
Commission Meeting
B. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: CUP
13-014 Westmark Credit Union at Bridgetower Crossing by
Westmark Credit Union Located at 3115 W. Quintale Drive (Lot
66, Block 10 of Bridgetower Crossing Subdivision No. 7)
Request: Conditional Use Permit Approval for aDrive-Thru
Establishment (Bank with Drive-Thru) in a C-N Zoning District
Marshall: All right. The first item on the agenda is the Consent Agenda. We have two
items. We have the approval of the minutes for December 5th, 2013, and the Findings
of Fact and Conclusions of Law for CUP 13-014, Westmark Credit Union at
Bridgetower. Any comments or anything anyone would like to say before we may have
a motion?
Rohm: I have none.
Marshall: So, could I get a motion?
Rohm: So moved.
Freeman: Second.
Marshall: We have a motion and a second to approve the Consent Agenda. All those
in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Ayes have it.
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Marshall: All right. We are now to the Action Items and before we begin I'd like to
define a few rules here. First thing we are going to do is I will open each item for
hearing and ask for the staffs report and the staff has evaluated each of these projects
and will give us their findings as they adhere to the Comprehensive Plan and future land
use and their findings. After the staff has given their report I will ask for the applicant to
come up and the applicant will have 15 minutes to provide any additional information
they may choose to provide. After that I will call for public testimony and there are sign-
ups in the back and would appreciate it if you would like to testify -- even if you don't
want to testify you can sign up and mark whether you're for or against each of the items
and just before opening each of these we will go through that list and call each -- call up
each person and you will have three minutes each to testify, to say your peace. If
anyone is here to testify on behalf of a large group -- and we will have to have a show of
hands showing who they are testifying for -- we will be providing them ten minutes to
testify. After all public testimony is complete we will ask the applicant to come back up
and address any issues that might have come up during public testimony. At that time,
then, the Commission will close public testimony and we will deliberate and, hopefully,
Meridian Planning & Zoning
December 19, 2013
Page 3 of 45
provide some direction to the City Council or make an approval or recommendation as
so called for.
Item 4: Action Items
A. Public Hearing: CPAM 13-002 Solterra by Capital Christian
Center Inc. Located Northeast Corner of E. Fairview Avenue
and N. Hickory Way Request: Amend the Future Land Use Map
Contained in the Comprehensive Plan to Change the Land Use
Designation on Approximately 22.61 Acres from Ofgce to
Mixed Use-Regional
B. Public Hearing: RZ 13-015 Solterra by Capital Christian Center,
Inc. Located Northeast Corner of E. Fairview Avenue and N.
Hickory Way Request: Rezone of Approximately 22.61 Acres
from the L-O (Limited Office) Zoning District to the C-G
(General Retail and Service Commercial) (2.39 acres); L-O
(Limited Office) (9.04 acres) and R-15 (Medium High Density
Residential) (11.18 Acres) Zoning Districts
C. Public Hearing: PP 13-037 Solterra by Capital Christian Center
Inc. Located Northeast Corner of E. Fairview Avenue and N.
Hickory Way Request: Preliminary Plat Approval Consisting of
Three (3) Commercial Lots, One (1) Office Lot, Ninety-Three
(93) Residential Lots and Eleven (11) Common/Other Lots on
Approximately 21.51 Acres in a Proposed C-G, L-O and R-15
Zoning Districts
Marshall: So, that being said, I would like to open the public hearing for CPAM 13-002
RZ 13-015, and PP 13-037, for Solterra and ask for the staff report.
Parsons: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. The first item before
you this evening is the Solterra project. The subject property is located on the south --
northeast corner of East Fairview Avenue and North Hickory Way. It currently consists
of 21.55 acres of land and is zoned L-O within the city limits. Adjacent to this property
we have residential development to the north, zoned R-4. To the east we have
commercial property, zoned C-G, with a development agreement. To the south we
have developed commercial property zoned I-L. And to the west we have residential
development, vacant commercial, undeveloped -- and developed commercial property,
zoned C-G, L-O, and R-8. Here is the aerial of the property. You can see here the
large commercial piece to the east of the site. Currently this site is developed with a
40,000 square foot church on the property. The church is here tonight to, basically,
discuss selling off a surplus portion of their property. The north half is proposed for
residential and the frontage along Fairview Avenue is planned for acommercial --
proposed for commercial. This property was annexed in 1992. At that time there was a
larger parcel that the church owned and through the years they have sold off remnant
Meridian Planning & Zoning
December 19, 2013
Page 4 of 45
pieces and that's why we have the adjacent residential to the east, to the north, and also
the commercial that's located along their west boundary as well. The applicant is here
to discuss the Comprehensive Plan map future land use map change with you.
Currently the comp plan designates this property as office, which is the graphic to the
north and currently purple. They are here to discuss that change from office to a mixed
use regional. You can see in the surrounding areas much of the property to the east,
that large commercial piece that's currently zoned in the city, is designated mixed use
residential -- or residential -- yeah. Excuse me. Mixed used regional. When that
property came through there was a development plan that showed a mix of retail,
commercial, office uses on that site, so staff -- or the city anticipates a large amount of
commercial development adjacent to this property and so in speaking with the applicant
and the church, we felt -- the city's recommended the applicant to come forth with a
mixed use designation and plan a residential component and more commercial along
the Fairview corridor. That was in more alignment with the mixed designation. Under
our Comprehensive Plan we envision a mix of residential, office, retail and even
industrial uses in our mixed use designations and that's in order to get their plan as
presented to you this evening we need to have that land use in place to align their --
their plans with their proposal this evening. Here is their preliminary plat and the
rezone, so if you would allow me to go through it very quickly. The residential portion,
which is approximately the northern half of their development, is proposed to be zoned
R-15 -- from L-O to R-15. The central portion of the project, which is the church
property, will remain L-O, which is consistent with the current land use on the property
and as I mentioned to you, a small strip of commercial along the Fairview corridor the
applicant is proposing C-G zoning to emulate what already exists to the east. And,
then, the whole access to all this development will be provided by a collector street,
which is Hickory Road. The plat -- the residential portion of the plat does consist of '94
residential lots and 11 common lots and, then, the C-G portion -- the church lot is a
single lot and will be retained by the church and, then, the C-G zoned portion consists of
three lots. At this time development is not proposed for the church property. However,
one end user or one party is interested in developing the residential portion and, then,
there is another party interested in developing the commercial portion and so in order to
sell off the surplus property the church has to subdivide in order to convey ownership to
the two parties. One of the items with the residential portion -- currently I should say the
existing church site has three access points to Hickory Road that were developed with
the church property in '92. The central access here that I have highlighted with my
cursor will remain in place and serve as main access into the west side of the parking
lot. The northern -- northern curb cut will be converted to a public street with this
subdivision improvement, the residential portion, and ultimately there will be a stub
street to the east property to provide future public street connectivity to the C-G portion
of that large C-G tract to the east. The residential portion is to be a mix of residential
development, so along the north boundary we envision single family detached. The
central portion of development may also be single family detached homes and along the
shared boundary with the church lot the applicant is proposing single family attached
homes and I will get into the elevations a little bit further in my presentation. Along the
south -- south boundary where the commercial portion is the applicant is only proposing
to develop one of those commercial lots at this time. If you recall on my staff report I did
Meridian Planning & Zoning
December 19, 2013
Page 5 of 45
bring to your attention that some of these lots will encumber some of the church's
parking lot and there are some concerns moving forward with the development of that,
but, again, I will touch on that as I get into that. With the commercial portion of the lot
the applicant is proposing across-access drive and that's what this exhibit to the right is
to portray, so that would take access from that -- again, that existing curb cut here, go
through the commercial lots with the shared boundary between the office lots and the
commercial lots, head north and, then, ultimately, go to the east and stub to that
property -- again, that commercial property to the east for future connectivity. Because
the applicant is proposing a rezone with this application, staff is recommending a
development and as part of that development agreement we are requiring one -- two --
two access points of that property to the east, one in form of the public street and one in
form of the cross-access agreement that's shown here. The residential portion of the
development is required to provide ten percent open space, as required by the UDC.
The primary open space proposed is, again, the central park located along the west
boundary. There are some parkways -- eight foot parkways located along the internal
streets here and there is also a micropath lot that connects into the church property
here. This is meant to serve as two functions. One, it will serve as a pedestrian
connection to the church as envisioned in our mixed use standards. We like to have
both vehicular and pedestrian connectivity with our mixed use developments and it also
serve as an emergency access for the fire department if -- in case the roadway off of
Hickory gets blocked and the fire department has another way to get folks out of that
portion of the development. The amenities for the site will consist of a large tot lot here
within the central open space. In my staff report I did provide a detail of the tot lot, but
the applicant's also proposing a detail on the swing set and there is a condition that they
show me that detail with their final plat and, then, the micropath connection here does
also count as an amenity. Along the commercial portion of the development and along
Hickory the UDC requires a 20 foot landscape buffer. Those landscape buffers
currently exist and were installed with development of the -- the church lot. However,
along Fairview there are -- there is no pedestrian connectivity along that portion of the
corridor and a sidewalk was now required with the development of the church property.
But with this application tonight the UDC requires a ten foot pathway along the frontage
of Fairview Avenue. The plan here shown before you does depict a ten foot pathway
and so we will get that connectivity to the east as well, so we will be getting both cross-
access and additional pedestrian connectivity along Fairview Avenue as well. Here is
the proposed commercial elevation for you. Again, you can see it's -- contemporary in
design. It is a mix of metal, stucco, glass door fronts. It's pretty consistent with the
design standards in the UDC. A recommended provision of the DA requires compliance
with this elevation. And as I mentioned to you earlier, there is a mix of residential --
homes proposed for the residential portion. Here is the detached products proposed.
You can see there is a mix of siding, covered porches, modulations to roof forms and,
then, also on the proposed single family attached product these are single story, they
will be -- have some of the same similar design features and they will, again, be along
the south boundary or the north boundary of the church lot going forward. One thing
failed to mention to you -- if I can step back to my plat -- is the minimum lot size
proposed for the residential portion of the subdivision is 3,200 square feet and the
average lot size is approximately 3,600 square feet. With the R-15 zone the ordinance
Meridian Planning & Zoning
December 19, 2013
Page 6 of 45
requires a minimum lot size of 2,400 square feet. So, what the applicant is proposing
this evening is in excess of what the code requires, so all of these lots that are
presented for the residential portion of the subdivision, they do comply with the R-15
standards moving forward and the single family attached homes will have to come
through CZC and design review to insure compliance with their submitted elevations as
well. Gross density for the proposed subdivision is about 8.43 units -- dwelling units to
the acre. In the mixed use regional designation we anticipate densities between six and
40 to the acre. So, this -- this project is on the low side, even though they are
requesting R-15 it still falls below the density requirements of the requested zone and
on the low end of the mixed use regional standards as well. If I can go back to the
elevations. I did -- in closing on my presentation I did want to touch on some of the
written testimony that staff did receive on the application. We received written
testimony from Patrick Kenwild from -- he, actually, represents the church. He is a
pastor there and he's in support -- asks for your support on the application? And, then,
in your packet this evening you should have had quite a few letters written in opposition
of the project from the adjacent neighbors from the Dove Meadows Subdivision and
also Packard Estates Subdivision. Their primary concerns with the application has to
do with the density -- the two story elevations up against the existing Packard Estates
Subdivision. The impact on the existing transportation in the area, meaning Hickory
Way and how that additional traffic would impact that roadway. And, then, fencing
adjacent to the common open space per the residential portion. There is two adjacent
residences there that have four foot solid fencing and they are coordinating with the
applicant on how to handle that fencing issue. If the applicant could elaborate on that
for you this evening it would appreciated. The one thing that I wanted to mention to you
is we did -- late yesterday afternoon I did receive draft comments from ACRD on this --
on this application. I did have a chance to read through the conditions of approval and
their findings. In their draft comments they did provide -- they did support the
connectivity through cross-access and the local street connections. They did support
the road layouts proposed in the subdivision for you this evening. They have committed
to the neighbors that they will do an updated traffic count on Hickory Way to see how
this development will -- or what the current traffic counts there are on those roadways,
so that they can reflect that in their staff report before they finalize their staff report and
they could present those findings to their commission, so for you this evening there are
draft comments. As I pointed out, there is nothing to really be concerned as far as the
subdivision layout, but I want to at least put that all on the table, that they at least got
something before you to read this evening. We did get agreements from the applicant.
They are in agreement with all the provisions in the staff report and the conditions of
approval. This would conclude my presentation. I will stand for any questions you may
have.
Marshall: Thank you, Bill. Are there any questions of staff?
Miller: I have got a question, actually.
Marshall: Commissioner Miller.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
December 19, 2013
Page 7 of 45
Miller: I just want to clarify. If I heard you right, you said the north and south boundary
of the residential area was single story, but, then, the concern was two story.
Parsons: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Miller, no, the north boundary will be two -- as
presented they will be two story, single level -- or single family detached homes.
Miller: Okay.
Parsons: And, then, the south boundary would be the single level attached product.
Miller: Okay. Great. Thank you.
Marshall: All right. I'd like to ask the applicant to come forward. And I'm going to have
to ask for your name and address for the record, please.
Conger: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, Jim Conger, 6072 South Orchard
Street in Boise. First off, I'd like to really thank Bill and the rest of your city staff. We
have been working on this project borderline of ten months from planning. We have
had numerous meetings with your planning department as you can tell, your Public
Works for service in this -- this medium density, as well as your fire department. It's --
it's been quite a pleasure working through this process on this project. Also kudos
should go out to the neighbors. We have had several meetings with the neighbors and
-- and, then, I have had other personal meetings with them. They have -- it's been a
very productive process as we typically find as we go through this process. We are in
full agreement of stafFs conditions of approval and for the sake of time I'm not going to
run through my presentation, because Bill did a fantastic job on it, but I would stand for
questions. I would also note I have got the builder, as well as the -- the ultimate buyer
of the commercial up front as well, so we could stand for any questions.
Marshall: Commissioners, any questions?
Freeman: Not at this time.
Conger: Thank you.
Marshall: We will reserve that. Thank you. All right. At this time I would like to ask
Theresa Wingfield to, please -- would you like to testify? She has marked down that
she is neutral and I'm going to ask for your name and address for the record, please.
Wingfield: Theresa Wingfield. 2643 East Apricot Court.
Marshall: Thank you.
Wingfield: My husband and I are homeowners with that -- sorry, I'm out of -- short of
breath. My husband and I are homeowners with a house bordering the proposed
development site. We bought our home in appreciation of the open recreation area and
Meridian Planning & Zoning
December 19, 2013
Page 8 of 45
view of the foothills and we did not perceive a day when the church would sell their land
for development. Now that this has changed we have some concerns we would like to
address. We are concerned with the potential for reductions in our property value.
Negative impacts to our homes, increases in traffic and personal expense directly
related to the development. The proposed development creates a considerable
concern for our property value. I have talked to several real estate professionals who
believe this may reduce our property value by as much as ten percent through the loss
of the developed recreational area that our land borders upon. This type of creational
area is considered a premium, according to them. An active construction site also
means that our property will likely not realize its true value during the development of
Solterra and even then it would be reduced from what it could have been if the land
remained the same. The design includes a road that will bring noise and lights, as all
cars going out of the subdivision their headlights are going to shine directly into our
home through our living room, kitchen, and bedroom windows. We are one of the
homeowners with a four foot fence and so we see this as a very large negative impact
to us at this time. We have been discussing the construction of the fence and a shared
expense with the developer. However, we do feel strongly that the developer should
include the full cost of a new six foot fence in his project, rather than imposing that
burden upon us. Our fence is in good enough condition that we wouldn't have to
replace or maintain it for ten years. We have to maintain it, but not replace it. And so
we ask that that cost be shared. Or not be shared, be -- be taken by the developer. We
are also concerned about the potential increase in rental and investment properties with
a large percentage of attached housing. We ask for recommendation to limit the
percentage of homes that are attached. We want to maintain our neighborhoods as
family locations and our belief is that when owners occupy their homes they have more
care and regard for the neighborhood. Traffic is another concern. The intersection of
East Apricot Court where we live and Hickory Lane is on an inside curve and as a result
there is a blind corner in both directions. We and our neighbors all had a close call
turning onto Hickory Lane as existing traffic travels too fast. Additionally, there is no
marked crossing there, making a pedestrian crossing dangerous. Along with measures
to reduce the speed that vehicles can travel on Hickory and increase marked crossings.
We ask that the developer, Planning and Zoning and the city work together to help with
the congestion at the Fairview and Hickory light, such as more priority turn lanes onto
and off of Fairview. While we do not directly oppose the development and rezoning, we
are very interested in maintaining the property value and peace we currently have -- is
my time up?
Marshall: If you could just wrap up here.
Wingfield: I'm just at a -- we have in our neighborhoods making Hickory Lane safer and
reducing the personal expense we are currently facing. We choose to live in Meridian,
because we like the big town -- the small town in a big city feel and we hope that we can
maintain that. Thank you.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
December 19, 2013
Page 9 of 45
Marshall: Thank you. Any questions, Commissioners? No. Thank you very much. All
right. Susan Kassee. And, again, if you could state your name and address for the
record, please.
Kassee: My name is Susan Kassee. My address is 3626 East Mogue, Meridian, Idaho.
And I don't live directly next to the properties, but I am against this proposal -- only the
residential and only the part of the .residential, because it's such condensed housing.
I'm not as well prepared as the lady before me, but trying to measure the map of the
development -- Dove Meadows, I believe, is the one to the west and, then, Packard
Estates is to the north. When I tried to measure how many houses our two subdivisions
has compared to what this has, we in Packard had probably about 33 and Dove
Meadows had about 38 to 40 on the same -- I guess they are different. I don't have my
exact measurements, you're talking alittle -- they said 94 one time -- I thought they said
96 in the meeting I had and the one thing I saw in here said 92. Anyway, you're talking
at least double the amount of houses and this is tucked away, it's not amain -- we
realized -- they said, well, you're getting closer to Eagle and Fairview and you are, but it
doesn't go any -- the subdivision will not go any further east than our subdivision
Packard Estates and does not go any farther south than Fairview. So, to me this little
subdivision, which I would love to have a subdivision in there that fit the church needs to
sell their property, that to me would be ideal. The 90 some odd homes in here is just
too condensed. These lots are 32 to 30 feet they said. If you're putting a two story on
that you have three to five feet with no open space in between there, it's just going to be
too compact. I -- that's my argument. And, of course, my concerns also would be the --
the driving and the traffic, people are going to be driving their kids back and forth to
school. River Valley -- I live on a corner on Mogue Street there and the traffic is just
already a lot of cars coming through in the morning and school time for other
subdivisions, you have not -- potential, you know, 90 some odd homes that -- with some
more of them will be bringing their kids, because, because people drive there kids, there
is -- not going to get a bus. Going out of the subdivision -- when my daughter takes the
bus in the morning she said her school bus has -- sometimes has stopped to the light all
the way to where the proposed road is already from the traffic. So, then, you're going to
have that many more homes leaving approximately morning and rush hours are going
to be the worst and, of course, Sundays when the church gets out the traffic can be --
so, I am not against putting residential property in there, I just think -- and I asked them
if there was any way they could make it smaller and they said no, so -- thank you.
Marshall: Commissioners, any questions?
Miller: I have got a few.
Marshall: Commissioner Miller.
Miller: The school that you're referencing, where is it located? Are they going out to
Fairview or --
Kassee: River -- no. River Valley -- they would -- they would come into the subdivision.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
December 19, 2013
Page 10 of 45
Miller: Thank you.
Kassee: -- and depending which way you can go you can turn right on Hickory or Justin
-- Hickory turns to the left and right to Justin and, then, Lincoln turns right on Mogue,
that's where I live and, then, left and, then, you have got to wind your way around the
back way -- most likely no one -- even if the subdivision goes out the main road I doubt
they would go over to Eagle Road --
Miller: Right. Yes.
Kassee: -- and go back and turn left into River Valley. The people are going to drive
back this way to the school.
Miller: Thank you.
Marshall: All right. Thank you.
Kassee: Thank you.
Marshall: All right. I don't have anyone else signed up. Would anyone like to testify to
this project? No? Not seeing anyone, I would ask the applicant if they would like to
address any of the concerns. And, once again, I'm going to ask for your name and
address for the record.
Conger: You bet. Again, Jim Conger. 6072 South Orchard, Boise. Mr. Chairman,
Members of the Commission, I would quickly touch base. You know, these are items
we have addressed in -- we have had two different neighborhood meetings and some
individual meetings with the neighbors. The -- any light or -- from the traffic as far as
headlights we have already made a commitment to work with -- with these homeowners
and, really, that's field work and run the field portion, as well as other projects and we
will be able to strategically place evergreen landscaping -- typically it's better than
deciduous, it's year around protection and we have already made that commitment and
we will hold to that commitment and we do that in all of our neighborhoods. That is a
common occurrence and occurs as growth -- growth moves on. So, there is no issue
and we find that having merit. You know, as far as the traffic, again, that's kind of more
of an ACHD issue. We understand and are sympathetic to the traffic. We have already
given our offer to work with -- and I have already had a couple meetings with ACHD,
you know, really, with the existing street. The main road up front in Hickory is a
collector. ACHD is a little sensitive to -- trying to put speed bumps or other items in
collectors, so that will be a challenge. That road is there and it's signalized roadway
and it is meant to flow traffic and, again, we hold -- hold with my original commitment to
the neighbors to sit down with ACHD and work these out. That will take a function of
time. And traffic -- our traffic going back, yes, we will have some folks go back to the
school in the rear of the subdivision of -- of the other neighborhoods, but 80 percent of
our traffic would be going out to Fairview. It would only be our school traffic going the
Meridian Planning & Zoning
December 19, 2013
Page 11 of 45
other way. So, really, at the end of the day the existing neighbors will be traveling more
through the front of our neighborhood than we will be going the other way and, again,
not -- we are still sympathetic to it, but we feel our traffic -- most of it's going out to
Fairview. And with that I stand for any further questions that you may have.
Freeman: Mr. Chair, I have a question.
Marshall: Yes.
Freeman: I'm looking at the properties on the north end and I was reading some of the
testimony from the neighbors and I'm curious -- I understand they are going to be two
stories, single family detached, but how close will those get to the north property line?
Conger: Yes. Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Freeman, they will be no closer than 15
foot rear setback, which is identical to the setback of the homes that are there. We -- if
you look at a plat from a dimensional standpoint, those lots are a little deeper than the
rest of the lots in our neighborhood. We have -- we have added a couple feet to them,
but right now it's 15. We -- we feel we would respect the same setback that's directly
across the street and most of those homes, because of the lots they are on, they are
those pie-shaped cul-de-sac lots, their lots -- several of them. One is 93 feet deep.
think all of ours are 102 to 106 on this boundary. Their lots are 93 feet deep to a
hundred feet deep. So, they are -- they are pushed back to their minimum as well.
And, again, a majority of those are two stories.
Freeman: Well, you referred to the -- the lots on the other side of the street. Did you
mean the lots on the other side of the property line?
Conger: Other side of the fence.
Freeman: Okay. All right.
Conger: Thank you, Commissioner Freeman. Yes.
Freeman: All right. Thank you.
Marshall: Mr. Conger, I would ask you to address the fence issue that came up. Could
you enlighten us as to what's going on with that?
Conger: Yes, Mr. Chairman. The two homes that -- that do have a four foot fence, both
back up -- Bill is helping us. They both back up to our park area. So, they weren't
necessarily a concern for us. Typically speaking if I'm going to adhere with your
ordinance when I put a fence on a common area in my park I'm required to do a four
foot or a six foot open. So, if -- if it were my fence I wouldn't be able to do a six foot
solid. You would not allow me to. I have worked with both of these neighbors and we
are in the -- I went forward with a cost sharing and thought that was generous, because
we don't really need to change the fence and we would actually be changing it to a
Meridian Planning & Zoning
December 19, 2013
Page 12 of 45
fence that's not allowed per your code, but it's on the other side of our application, so it
wouldn't -- wouldn't hold. But I'm working with them. I have continued to work with
them. We have some verbal agreements, but we are still not quite happy with that.
Marshall: Thank you.
Miller: I have got one question. There was a concern that got brought up about an
active construction site. Just curious. Do you have a schedule of how long this would
be an active construction site for -- just for the record?
Conger: Sure. Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Miller, construction -- and, you know, from
a land development standpoint we typically see the neighbors not enjoying that as
much, because of dust and things of that nature. You know, we plan on doing this in
two phases. Hopefully it doesn't take three. So, each phase typically takes four months
to do a land development project and as far as building out goes, I'm really hesitant to
say. Yeah, if the market's good it goes a little faster, if the market is not good it goes a
little slower.
Miller: Thank you.
Marshall: Any other questions?
Freeman: I have one more question. When you were planning the site and checking
feasibility, I'm just curious if you investigated any opportunities to increase the depth of
those properties on the north and what -- how that may have impacted this
development. Physically I can see opportunities to do that, I'm just curious if you looked
at that and what you found.
Conger: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Freeman, I'm going to apologize, I'm going to
have to ask you to restate that question. I'm not sure I follow you.
Freeman: I apologize. I probably didn't state it very clearly. One of the things I'm
looking at is on that north property boundary again, it would seem that to alleviate one
of the neighbor's concerns, the -- the lots could be increased in depth, so that there was
more separation between the neighbors to the north and the structures to the south.
was just curious if you had looked at that in some of your alternative layouts and what
those impacts might have been if you did. Is that clear?
Conger: Yeah. It's pretty clear.
Freeman: Okay.
Conger: Yeah. Very clear. Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Freeman, we -- when we get
around projects like this and try to live up to the Comprehensive Plan and start getting a
few more -- a few more future homeowners in these projects, we are down to a game of
inches. If you look at our lot depths. On the south lots, we don't have an inch to give.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
December 19, 2013
Page 13 of 45
We, actually, had less buffer than what city conditions came out between the church
and we are going to have to pull -- pull several feet from there. But, ironically enough,
we are down to a game of inches. There is those common areas that are bookends,
you know, those are down to nine feet, which are all you need and what we try to
achieve to -- to buffer the side of the homes, but it would have to come out of those and
we just -- we are -- we gave it an extra six feet on those lots as it is for the six feet. But
there wouldn't be any other room. I know that seems odd to say on 11 acres that you're
out of inches, but we --
Freeman: Yeah, I -- well, I understand given the number of lots you desire to get on this
-- on this site and I -- I understand that if you were to deepen those lots you would lose
probably at least 12 of those lots that are oriented northeast in the middle of the
development in order to stretch that down and I move that road down. Okay. I'm
satisfied with your -- with your answer and what you were looking at. Thank you.
Marshall: I do have one more question, then, regarding something similar then. What
your response to staff's request that you are requesting from City Council the ability to
have a six foot setback and staff's recommending a seven foot setback from the parking
lot based on the UDC requirements for the parking lot, which would be considerably
less than what the UDC requires typically on an L-O.
Conger: Yeah. Mr. Chairman, great question. We have had lots of discussions on this.
The first is, you know, six foot is the adequate buffer for getting the trees and the -- and
really at the end of the day it's the vegetation that -- that's the buffer. We are somewhat
unique where we are bringing the homes in after the L-O. Typically you're bringing the
office in after the residential, so we are trying to utilize the existing resources out there
and we are bringing the. homes in and the residents in after the commercial. So, you
know, we -- we would prefer the six, but we are fine with the seven.
Marshall: Okay. I think I'm aware that the UDC requires -- you could have down to five,
but you would have to install parking bumpers to move the traffic back.
Conger: Mr. Chairman? Yeah. That is correct. In a typical environment, you know,
where you have six spots or some lighter commercial where you have eight spots it's
easier to maintain those parking bumpers. We would be given the church, you know,
probably 70 parking bumpers. They would break. There are maintenance issues in our
discussions with the church it was just -- we would be given them kind of maintenance
patches, so for us to give up to the foot --
Freeman: And that's why you have the seven foot requirement, so you only have five
foot for vegetation and that's why the two foot car overhang past the curb, which only
allows for five foot for vegetation.
Marshall: Correct. Which -- which, again, we were after the sixth, so we wanted more
than the five and --
Meridian Planning & Zoning
December 19, 2013
Page 14 of 45
Marshall: No. I mean as in a seven foot area.
Conger: Yes.
Marshall: Not requiring the bumpers allows cars to pull clear up to the curb, which
allows for -- then we calculated two overhang -- which only -- after that two foot
overhang only leaves five foot for vegetation and that's with the seven foot setback.
Conger: Mr. Chairman, yes, I -- I'm with you.
Marshall: Okay.
Conger: I don't know. In working through with staff we felt the seven foot was going to
still be protected with the depth of those parking spaces and would be full vegetation of
the seven foot. We do not anticipate being less that that or the cars damaging that.
Marshall: I think we are on the same page there.
Conger: I hope so.
Marshall: Thank you.
Conger: Thank you.
Marshall: No other questions?
Freeman: No.
Marshall: Thank you, sir.
Conger: Thanks for your time.
Marshall: Any questions for staff or anything else? Or could I get a motion to close the
public hearing?
Freeman: Mr. Chair, I would move to close the public hearing on CPAM 13-002, RZ 13-
014, PP 13-037.
Miller: I second that.
Marshall: I have a motion and a second to close the public hearing. All those in favor
say aye. Those opposed? Ayes have it.
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Marshall: All right. So, deliberation time. I would call for opinions or thoughts.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
December 19, 2013
Page 15 of 45
Rohm: Mr. Chairman?
Marshall: Commissioner Rohm.
Rohm: If we would have put this proposal together ourselves as a commission, this is
probably exactly how we would have laid it out, with the single family dwellings adjacent
to the existing single family dwellings, the more compact lots closer to the church, with
the commercial upfront. From my perspective it looks like the developer, along with the
input from the public at large, has done a pretty good job of adhering to the UDC and
the Comprehensive Plan and, for all intents and purposes, this looks like a pretty good
project to me. End.
Freeman: I needed more time.
Miller: I can go if you want.
Freeman: Go ahead.
Marshall: Commissioner Miller.
Miller: I tend to agree also. I hear the concerns and I completely appreciate the
concerns. I want to talk just a little bit about my opinion of some of them. The traffic
issue Ican -- I can understand it, that these people would have to come back around to
drop their kids off, but this is also opening an opportunity -- that whole property to the
east is going to be developed eventually. That's going happen. This is opening an
opportunity for them to bypass that and get to that school, which is something that we
tend to try to do. The home values I -- I think there is a lot of things here that can
increase the value of the home properties as this site develops out and this offers a
further buffer from any other commercial something that would go there that could
potentially be an amenity to the house. I hope that the issue between the lights can get
addressed between the developer. It sounds like there was some conversations
happening there and that's something that's fairly easily addressed and it sounds like he
is -- he is working towards that. One comment about requiring owner occupied and that
being better. I don't think we can require that from a Commission standpoint, but with
the economy how it is there is a lot of -- there is a lot of good people that are renters,
too, and there is a lot of good families and I think that's kind of a trend that's going away
that used to be, you know, common and real, but I think that's going away and
somebody that would want to come live here I think you're not going to find bad renters
necessarily out here. But maybe just a personal opinion on my standpoint, but -- let's
see. The compact issue on the residential side, I feel like it could be laid out a little
more creatively, but that's, again, just. a personal opinion on -- it meets the requirements
of the UDC as far as the compact area. The setbacks are all there. It's equal to what
you guys are having. It would be unfair for us to require something different. You know,
it does meet the requirements, so I'm not sure I'm opposing that particular issue and
think that that is all that I noted up.
Meridian Planning 8~ Zoning
December 19, 2013
Page 16 of 45
Marshall: Commissioner Freeman.
Freeman: Okay. Mr. Chair. I'm going to go after this in a haphazard order probably.
First of all, I just want to say that I -- I read all of the letters that we received from the
neighbors and enumerate all of the concerns and I have just an overall comment before
I get into some of those specifics. It's not uncommon that neighborhoods once had
open space adjacent to them, once a development is proposed adjacent to them people
are concerned about their views and the loss of their open space. While I understand
that, development does happen and development in any city is a natural phenomenon
and it's actually a healthy phenomenon and what we try to do in Planning and Zoning as
a Commission is make sure that it happens in an orderly and healthy way by developing
plans and requiring that everything adhere to the plan. A second note, kind of along
those same lines is -- I don't know if you're aware of it or not, but you guys live right next
to the center of the valley's population pretty much. That -- that is one of the more
significant commercial developments going on in this valley at -- at that major
intersection and because of that development is going to happen there. As you
probably heard tonight, if you weren't aware of it, there is going to be a significant
commercial development happening to the east of you eventually and that development
is going to be when it's residential it's going to be fairly dense because of the nature of
-- of where it's located. There were comments about the density of the project and
because of what I have just stated I -- I don't see that the density as an R-15 zone at
this location is in any way incompatible with the surrounding uses, R-4 and the R-8
zones around it. Traffic safety, again, I do hope that you will voice your concerns if this
project does move forward with ACHD to see what it is they can do. We don't have
jurisdiction over the street systems, but they do and perhaps there are measures if
enough people voice their opinions and their concerns perhaps there are measures they
can take to improve the safety. I would say, again, that whenever a development
happens one of the primary -- well, two of the primary things that we hear every time are
traffic and it doesn't matter whether it's four new trips in a day or whether it's 300 trips in
a day, we hear traffic concerns that's going to decrease our safety. Well, yeah, more
traffic tends to do that, but, again, more traffic -- unless there is some particular reason
that the development would put an undue safety hazard in place or carry one with it,
traffic has to -- traffic concerns are -- are ACHD's jurisdiction and on a development like
this I don't see that we are unduly increasing safety hazards by going ahead and doing
this in-fill project. Home heights. This is another one that comes up all the time. Home
heights. Frankly, if you have a residential property in the city I'm not aware of anything
that would deny you the ability to build two stories versus one story. I'm not aware of
any requirement that says you must build a single story home on this particular lot.
Homeowners on other properties just like you folks have the right to build two stories if
they want to build two stories. And the lot size on these lots is -- it's consistent with an
R-15 zone. However, I do have one concern and I'm going to -- I'm going to throw this
out there. Frankly, in looking at this plan I was very concerned with the fact that we
have got homes that are within 15 feet of that north boundary, because I can see that if
it were designed a little differently and at the sacrifice of a few lots like -- like I
mentioned earlier, that distance could be increased and it could alleviate some of the
Meridian Planning & Zoning
December 19, 2013
Page 17 of 45
felt pressure of the development right in the -- in the backyard of those homes to the
north. It is worth noting, though, that some of those homes to the north also are within
15 feet of the property line, which is the requirement. The park to the west actually,
think, offers a pretty good buffer to those properties along the west boundary. So, I --
debated after reading the testimony and I'm kind of still debating as I hear the testimony
here given verbally, whether or not I would prefer to see those lots to the north move
away from that property line to the -- to the north a bit more, even if it does reduce the
number of lots and take it from perhaps 94 lots to 74 or 70 lots and that could even
entail making part of this site perhaps R-8 zone versus R-15, but that wouldn't
necessarily have to be the case. In my opinion, that would be perhaps a better solution
to make this development fit within this context, but at the same time, even as it is, I
don't think that it's unduly incompatible with the surrounding developments in this area.
Overall I think it's a good in-fill project. It seems to work pretty well. So, those are my
thoughts. I told you it wasn't going to be in any particular order. Those are my thoughts
and I am at the moment still debating whether or not I'd like to see this come back with
some more consideration given for reducing the density and the impact on those --
along that north boundary. I guess I will figure that out as we deliberate further and
vote. Thank you, Mr. Chair. That's all I have.
Marshall: All right. I guess I could add my thoughts here. Okay. First off, I, too, read
all of the written testimony and I do appreciate -- it gives me more time to digest before I
come in and I can have those things in mind as I -- I listen and talk to everyone -- listen
to everyone and ask questions and I do appreciate that. Density. First off, as a plan for
the city, I can see -- and this is typically a concern. When I got a little lower density, no
matter how -- what the density is, if we have got some -- some real R-2 -- if R-4 goes
next door everybody is upset, because it's so much smaller than what I have got. I want
everybody to be just like me. But, unfortunately, densities -- we are trying to get higher
densities near employment centers, near traffic corridors, things like that. That way
people aren't driving as far to work. It actually decreases traffic overall as a city and we
are trying to decide what is best for the city overall, not just this one specific location,
although we must take that into account specifically right here, but also as a city does
this fit our needs and there have been dozens of committees and commissions over the
years and they are -- constantly there is a lot of tempering of them, there is a lot of
permanent ones, they are constantly working on these on the Comprehensive Plan and
the future land use map and those things identify where you want higher densities,
where we want lower densities and this is both near large employment centers, as well
as major traffic corridors. It is an area that the city points out and identifies we need
higher density residential here. Now, this is considerably less than what we see across
the street next to the -- on the north side there is some apartments across Eagle. There
is some R-40 and that's considerably more dense than this, but those are the densities
we are wanting to see up towards Eagle Road and these employment centers and
things where people can live close by and walk to work or it's a quick jaunt across to the
grocery store or the store, shopping, as well as a place of employment. I have to agree,
-- you know, first time I ever heard of was years ago heard of as small as 2,400 square
foot lots, it really concerned me and -- but I have seen some nice projects with that and,
namely, I go out to Harris Ranch and I -- I have seen some very small lots there, but,
Meridian Planning & Zoning
December 19, 2013
Page 18 of 45
actually, some very high quality housing, very high quality, very nice residences with --
and Ihave seen a lot of, you know, it's that high quality where people don't have to
spend a lot of time doing yard work. They may work a lot or whatever -- I don't know
what it is they choose to do, but, obviously, they are not wanting to spend most of their
time in the yard I would guess and I think that has a place. I think people need to have
that. So, where do we place it in the city? What's appropriate? And, again, I come
back to areas of closer to major traffic corridors, as well as near employment centers
and we have got Blue Cross up the road, a number of -- you know, we have also got the
Scentsy area, all the medical just up -- just up the road there and if -- and if they are
living this close to those locations as opposed to far outside Meridian, that takes a lot of
load off of all the roads coming into this area. The 15 foot in back. I would disagree.
think you could actually increase that by removing six lots, so I think that's possible. But
how important is that? I'm kind of torn in that, too, because that meets code and by
doing that you're lowering the density and we are to 8.4, essentially, per acre in an R-
15. We are -- there is, actually, considerably less than -- and I think, you know, looking
at the project and seeing some of the product that the identified builder has put together
in the past, I have been pretty impressed with the quality of the stuff. In fact, I live in
one of their homes, but --
Freeman: Mr. Chair, if I may respond?
Marshall: Please.
Freeman: You know, one thing that is in my mind -- and I didn't say this out loud -- is
that had this already been zoned R-15 I would be thinking differently about it. I would
be fine with this as it is if it was already zoned R-15. Given the quantity of neighbors
that are concerned with this proximity and the density, we don't necessarily have to
zone this R-15 is my thought, you know, in my thinking. We could -- we could designate
that as a lower density area through a DA, I'm guessing, or -- or R-8 to provide kind of a
buffer between the existing development to the north and the higher density that will be
in the middle and the south of this property. We could offer kind of a buffer between the
two by going with lesser density and getting those homes further away from the
property. So, like I said, if -- if it were already R-15 I would not have any issues with
this, because it complies with R-15. What's going through my mind is should we allow
R-15 right there up against those neighbors and I'm -- I would be tempted to actually
move that we -- we have the applicant come back with another plan, if I were making
that motion.
Marshall: I would ask staff really quick, if I could. What, again, was the zoning just
north of this -- immediately to the north?
Parsons: Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission. It's R-4. R-4. That is correct.
Marshall: All right. Thank you.
Rohm: Mr. Chairman?
Meridian Planning & Zoning
December 19, 2013
Page 19 of 45
Marshall: Yes, Commissioner Rohm.
Rohm: You know, there has been a lot of good discussion here and -- and for the most
part I support everything that's been said. But the thing that sticks in my mind is if the
properties to the north are currently 15 feet or potentially 15 feet from their property line
and, then, requiring this development to be further to provide a separation that wasn't
there from the property to the north coming this way, it doesn't seem to be in good
keeping and so from my perspective if you're 15 feet to the north, you got to be 15 feet
to the south and don't care if you're R-15 or R-200, makes no difference to me from that
perspective, it's -- it's what is on one side of the fence is fair to the other side of the
fence and so from my perspective, even though this is an R-15 up abutting an R-4, the
setback from the property line is the same and so from that perspective I'm in full
support of the project as proposed and at this time I would be prepared to make the
motion.
Marshall: I would like one last comment, though, before you do and I was going to echo
Commissioner Freeman's sentiment about the traffic, in that I am concerned about the
traffic, especially the traffic will travel back through if -- if people are going to take kids to
that school, people will travel back through that subdivision. They are not going to go
out around and that's why, number one, there is connectivity to the east, so that within a
few years when this property to the east develops that connectivity, the easier access
will be to go to the east through that property down to the school and that's why that
stub street is there. In the meantime I will go through the subdivision and that's a bit of
a concern to me, especially with school kids lining up to get in the bus and the like.
Again, that's off site, though. Hickory Way and Apricot is down the road and that's not --
and where I think that should be addressed is the City of Meridian has a Transportation
Commission that meets every month and if somebody would like to bring that up there
I'm sure they could address traffic calming at that location and that might be an
appropriate venue, as well as with ACHD, but you might get a more sympathetic ear at
the Transportation Commission here at the city and I think someone -- if that is a
sincere concern, then, it does need to be brought up there and would appreciate that.
Other than that, Commissioner Rohm, I'm going to give the floor to you, sir.
Rohm: Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And, seriously, it's -- it's always our honor to
be able to sit up here and take testimony and listen to arguments on both sides or
multiple sides of the issue and it's -- it's just our honor to be able to be part of this
process and with that being said I propose to make a motion. After considering all staff,
applicant, and public testimony, I move to recommend approval to City Council of file
number CPAM 13-002, RZ 13-015, and PP 13-037 as presented in the staff report
dated December 19th, 2013, with no modifications.
Miller: I will second that.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
December 19, 2013
Page 20 of 45
Marshall: I have a motion and a second to approve CPAM 13-002, RZ 13-015 and PP
13-037 and recommend approval to City Council. All those in favor say aye.
Opposed? Ayes have it.
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT.
D. Public Hearing: PP 13-012 Centre Point Square by Center Point
Square LLC Located West of N. Eagle Road and South of E.
Ustick Road Request: Preliminary Plat Approval Consisting of
Seventeen (17) Multi Family Buildable Lots and Five (5)
Common/Other Lots on Approximately 5.28 Acres of Land in
an R-15 Zoning District Application
E. Public Hearing: CUP 13-007 Centre Point Square by Center
Point Square LLC Located West of N. Eagle Road and South of
E. Ustick Road Request: Conditional Use Permit Approval to
Construct a Multi Family Development Consisting of Sixty-
Eight (68) Residential Units in an R-15 Zoning District
Marshall: All right. At this time I would like to open the hearing for -- I'll grab that here.
I'd like to open the hearing for PP 13-012 and CUP 13-007, Centre Point Square, for the
sole purpose of acknowledging the withdraw of the application. So, could I get a motion
to acknowledge that withdrawal?
Rohm: So moved.
Miller: Second.
Marshall: I have a motion and a second to acknowledge the withdrawal. All those in
favor say aye. Opposed? Ayes have it.
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT.
F. Public Hearing: RZ 13-014 Summertree Subdivision by
Summer Woods, LLC Located Southwest Corner of W. Cherry
Land and N. Summertree Way Request: Rezone Approximately
2.64 Acres from the R-4 (Medium-Low Density Residential)
Zoning District to the R-15 (Medium-High Density Residential)
Zoning District Public Hearing Continued to January 16, 2014
G. Public Hearing: PP 13-035 Summertree Subdivision by
Summer Woods, LLC Located Southwest Corner of W. Cherry
Lane and N. Summertree Way Request: Preliminary Plat
Approval for Sixteen (16) Single Family Residential Lots and
One (1) Common Lot on Approximately 2.30 Acres in a
Proposed R-15 Zoning District
Meridian Planning & Zoning
December 19, 2013
Page 21 of 45
Marshall: All right. Now, I'd like to open the public hearing for RZ 13-014 and PP 13-
035 for Summertree Subdivision for the sole purpose of continuing it until January 16th,
2014. Can I get a motion?
Miller: So moved.
Freeman: Second.
Marshall: I have a motion and a second to continue RZ 13-014 and PP 13-035,
Summertree Subdivision to January 16th, 2014. All those in favor say aye. Opposed?
The ayes I have it. That motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT.
H. Public Hearing: RZ 13-017 Sheryl 4-Plex by JTC Inc. or Assigns
Located 3150 W. Sheryl Drive Request: Rezone of 0.54 of an
Acre of Land from the L-O to the TN-R Zoning District
Marshall: All right. Public hearing RZ 13-017. I would like to open that and ask for the
staff report, please.
Wafters: Thank you, Chairman Marshall, Members of the Commission. The next
application before you is a request for a rezone. This site consists of .31 of an acre of
land. It's currently zoned L-O, limited office, and it's located at the northeast corner of
North Ten Mile Road and West Sheryl Drive at 3150 West Sheryl Drive. Adjacent land
use and zoning. To the north is a church, zoned R-4. To the east are single family
residential properties, zoned R-4 and R-8. To the south is a church and an office that's
under construction, zoned L-O. And to the west is North Ten Mile Road and a grocery
store, Albertson's, zoned C-N. A little history. This site was rezoned to L-O in 2004 and
at that time it was included in the development agreement and the plat for Tiburon
Meadows Subdivision. The Comprehensive Plan future land use map designation for
this site is mixed use community. The applicant is proposing to rezone .54 of an acre,
including the adjacent right of way of -- of land from the L-O to the TN-R district
consistent with the mixed use community future land use map designation. A concept
plan was submitted as shown here. It shows how the site is proposed to develop with
one multi-family four-plex structure, parking, enclosed bike parking and a play area. Six
foot tall fencing is shown along the north and east property boundaries. There is an
existing 25 foot wide landscape street buffer easement on the site adjacent to Ten Mile
Road. A driveway is proposed for access via West Sheryl Drive. Direct lot access via
Ten Mile is prohibited. The proposed multi-family residential use is principally permitted
in the proposed TN-R district. Staff finds the proposed use contributes to the variety of
uses desired in mixed use community designated areas such as this and should be
compatible with existing surrounding church, office, single family residential and retail
uses. The applicant did submit a conceptual building elevation of the proposed four-
Meridian Planning & Zoning
December 19, 2013
Page 22 of 45
plex structure as shown. Written testimony has been received from Tyler Johnson, the
applicant, in agreement with the staff report. Several letters of opposition have been
filed with the city on this application from the following -- apologies if I mispronounce
your name. Phillip Zaluska. Cindy Green. Judith Strike. Judith Titus. Two letters from
Ronald and Brenda Arnt. Don and Pat Baumback. Edward and Patricia Brown. Terry
Vice. One unsigned letter from a Tiburon Meadows residents. And a petition signed by
the residents of Tiburon Meadows Subdivision. All in opposition of the proposed
rezone. Staff is recommending approval, as it does comply with the UDC standards
and the Comprehensive Plan. Staff is requesting a new development agreement per
the provisions in the staff report, which restricts development of the site to one four-plex
structure consistent with the proposed concept plans. Staff will stand for any questions
Commission may have.
Marshall: Commissioners, any questions for staff? Not at this time. All right. I would
like to ask the applicant to, please, come forward. And I'd ask for your name and
address for the record, please.
Gibson: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Board, my name is James Gibson and my
address is P.O. Box 219 in Eagle. I am the project architect representing the project
before you. We have reviewed, of course, the staff report and find it favorable and
have no objection to the -- any of the proposed conditions or the staff report. Find it
appropriate. We recognize that there is a concern regarding the project and we
appreciate that. That is we appreciate knowing the concerns and figuring out a way that
we could appropriately respond to any valid concerns. It will, of course, be up to the
Commission to decide whether just not wanting the project is a valid other concern or if
there are actual reasons that this project may not comply with both the letter and the
intent of all of the applicable provisions of the ordinance. We believe that it is totally in
compliance with the intent of the ordinance and the letter of the ordinance with -- we are
not asking for anything other than what we believe is absolutely intended for this sort of
a spot, to provide a variety of residential options in the area. I don't want to make a
lengthy presentation, but simply to say that we agree with the staffs analysis and we will
be here for any questions and would ask for the opportunity to respond to any concerns
that may be expressed. And thank you.
Marshall: Commissioners?
Rohm: Mr. Chairman?
Marshall: Commissioner Rohm.
Rohm: Did you have a neighborhood meeting?
Gibson: Yes. Yes, sir. There was a neighborhood meeting.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
December 19, 2013
Page 23 of 45
Rohm: With the number of concerns received by the Commission it doesn't sound like a
lot of the issues from these letters were resolved in the neighborhood meeting. Can --
would you like to expand on that?
Gibson: I was not involved in the neighborhood meeting myself. That was handled by
the owners of the -- of the project and so I am less prepared to address that. However,
any concerns that were expressed we interpreted, basically, as just not wanting the
project and thinking that the project would increase the traffic. That was the major
concern that I detected from evaluating the communications. Of course, any
development there will generate some vehicular traffic. That's simply the nature of
development. We would remind the Commission that the project could, without a
rezone, be developed at a much higher intense use than the residential four-plex, which
is proposed with this application, which would generate considerably more traffic. We
have looked at the Ada County Highway District evaluation of the number of vehicular
trips proposed and the highest, most intense commercial use, which would be easily
permitted, would generate much more traffic, about two and a half times as much traffic
as this application would. So, we think that was the major concern that seemed to be
possible to address.
Rohm: Thank you.
Marshall: A couple other concerns and I'd like a little clarification. This lot, as was the
existing home to the east here, those are both part of the Tiburon Meadows Subdivision
--original subdivision; correct?
Gibson: That is correct.
Marshall: Can you clarify -- and I have heard -- are these excluded from the
homeowners association period -- from any of the CC&Rs?
Gibson: I have no specific knowledge of that, but I believe that that is correct.
Marshall: And I think one of the concerns, then, is the recreational amenities within
Tiburon are owned and maintained by those homeowners there, while these people in
this -- while I assume that -- that this four-plex will have -- if you're going to put
residences here, any kids or anyone here is going to feel like they have access to that
recreational facility, when in case -- when, in fact, they do not. Is that correct as well
then?
Gibson: Well, of course, it would be possible for someone to perceive that. However, if
they do not have access to that, the -- any residents could be informed that and the --
proposal before you -- it's a very small project, just four units, and we are proposing on-
site amenities, such as a playground and so on. So, I think it rather unlikely that there
would be a significant issue of residents here assuming that they could use a
neighborhood area that they are, obviously, not a part of and certainly that could be the
responsibility of the management of -- of this property to inform these residents.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
December 19, 2013
Page 24 of 45
Marshall: Management. So, these are going to be rentals is what you're saying?
Gibson: I believe so. Yes.
Marshall: All right. Thank you. Appreciate that. Any other questions? No? All right.
Thank you, sir.
Gibson: Thank you.
Marshall: All right. I have got a bunch of
receive a letter in the packet that stated Mr
for a number of people. Is that accurate?
number of hands that he is testifying for?
Zaluska, I'd like to give you ten minutes, sir,
and address for the record, please.
people signed up for this one. Now, I did
Zaluska is it? Might possibly be testifying
If I could have the number of hands -- the
Okay. We have got a bunch of you. Mr.
And if you could, please, state your name
Zaluska: My name is Phil Zaluska. I'm a resident at 1281 North Victor Way. It's part of
Tiburon Meadows, Meridian, Idaho. Okay. I will follow a format, basically, that was
included in a letter that was -- that I submitted to the Planning Commission about two
weeks ago or so, just because it addresses the points in the narrative letter submitted
by the architect and I'm assuming you have that in your possession and use that and
this would make it a little bit easier to go over the concerns of the residents of Tiburon
Meadows. Okay. First, presently, undeveloped and not likely to develop with single
family residents, that's a totally speculative assumption, as far as I can tell. I mean
originally there were three separate lots there, which were -- or could have been easily
developed as single family residents and just to make that statement is completely
arbitrary and perhaps capricious and certainly I don't see how you can make that claim
and substantiate it. The property is too small and there may be a discrepancy here.
The -- in the agenda it stated .54 acres, while in the application it states .309 acres. I'm
not sure which is exactly correct. So, if it's .309, that's certainly a little bit -- it's almost
half the size of the .54. So, that should probably be clarified somewhere along the line.
Also that statement is saying
misleading. Many small enterpri
consulting enterprise, somethinc
business interest on that locati~
provide an adequate buffer. Th
what an adequate buffer means
exactly sure how that applies
approved pending a rezoning of
dispute the ACHD impact study
that the developed use of the F
impact and there is no way that
make that claim. So, I'm not s~
point should actually carry. And
and cost residences in the area
it's too small for most commercial uses. I Hat's
yes, such as an insurance company, accounting firm, a
like this, could easily build a structure suitable to their
m. They are saying that the proposed four-plex will
is their point number three. I don't really understand
in this context, so that seems to be vague and I'm not
to their argument as to why this project should be
that parcel. And they talk about the traffic and I can't
that they cited, but it seems -- they seem to presume
roperty would be at the actual highest potential traffic
anyone has a crystal ball that they could, essentially,
re where they are -- how much weight that particular
they say there is a substantial need for moderate size
and I'm not sure what substantial need means and I'm
Meridian Planning & Zoning
December 19, 2013
Page 25 of 45
certainly not convinced that a single four-plex is going to have any reasonable impact
on addressing a substantial need, especially given the fact that south of there on Ten
Mile Road there area number of multi-family residential units which were just
completed, there are some that have been there going down Pine about two city blocks
worth and, then, there is additional development pending, I'm not sure when the
construction is going to start, behind the Fast Eddy's there. So, there is -- there seems
to be quite a bit in the immediate vicinity of high density, multi-family residential
structures in existence or potentially to be built in the near future. Okay. Okay. They
say that the rental units are compatible -- this is their point six -- with the existing
neighborhood where there are a number of not owner occupied. That's actually quite
incorrect. The -- there is about five units, which are in rental status right now. Three of
those are -- the owners actual are in -- they live out of state or certainly out of the region
and fully intend to actually move in there upon retirement or upon when circumstances
permit them to do that and they have been, you know, paying the homeowners dues
themselves, not passing it onto the renters, and -- and we know that for a fact, because
we live there and we communicate with these people on a regular basis. I was a former
board member and I kind of understand what's going -- of the homeowners association
and I kind of understand what's going on there. The other two properties you can't tell
what's going to happen, but given the -- the purchase time in history when they were
bought, the people put them into a rental, because they actually felt that they would lose
their value -- the initial investment value trying to sell them. You know, but given the
economic situation they bought like -- they were built five or six years ago, property
values crashed substantially, have not fully recovered and it's their decision to try and
maintain the value of their investment or, essentially, recover the value of their
investment by perhaps pulling it into rental status until they can actually sell it to at least
break even or whatever their economic motives might be. Okay. So, that really doesn't,
you know, make -- there are -- point six is pretty incorrect. Point seven -- presumably
they are in compliance with your plan or it wouldn't have probably gotten to this hearing
stage if it were not. And point eight, claims it would be an attractive addition. The word
attractive is a matter of opinion and they talk about the additional tax base for the city
and I'm not disputing that the city could probably use all the tax revenue that they could
get. But, on the other hand, it implies that there would be no higher value on a tax basis
for this lot, other than an empty lot and that's inconceivable, because it is a decent
location for something other than the rezone project, four-plex, this is proposed. Okay.
Exterior amenities. Point nine. The small playground. If you look at the concept
drawing, which was submitted to you folks, that playground area is so miniscule in size
as to be, you know, almost unusable. I mean most -- you know there are rooms in
people's homes which are larger than that allotted area for playground. Okay. Point
ten. They talk about landscaping in an attractive manner. I can't dispute the
attractiveness, but it says providing desire for screening and adequate open space.
Given the size of that lot and footprint of the structure and the parking area, there really
isn't hardly anything left and I don't see how you can possibly achieve reasonable
screening with landscaping when you only have five to six feet of space, which is shown
on the conceptual drawing. I really don't know what type of landscaping would actually
get in there to give you any meaningful screening from anything. Okay. And, then, the
vehicular traffic presumably it will -- and any -- anything is going to actually increase
Meridian Planning & Zoning
December 19, 2013
Page 26 of 45
traffic, so I really can't argue that this is going to be something worse than say an
accounting office or dental office or something like that. I don't have the ACHD
numbers at hand to back that up. But it is a concern and depending on the -- if it were
to be developed as a four-plex I don't understand how you can exactly predict with
perhaps two working members in the family, so that would be eight people working,
coming and going, you know, that -- it's certainly more than if it were to be developed as
a single family residents. It's going to be at least four times as much, perhaps as much
as eight times as much traffic as a single family residence. Exterior lighting. The city
has a code on this and I know lighting has to be directed down, you can't infringe on
adjacent properties. That's probably not going to be an issue assuming the project were
to be executed in compliance with the existing codes and, then, they talk about the --
the last point, number 13, the exterior would be in harmony with the neighborhood in
scale, composition, building mass and colors. The neighborhood from a residential
standpoint is, essentially, all single family homes, including the adjacent property and
this is neither in harmony with the existing Tiburon Meadows dwellings, because it's a
four-plex, it's not even in harmony with the nonresidential part of the neighborhood,
which is a church -- two churches, actually, a supermarket, and Colemans as being built
design center, which was part of the whole church property. So, it's really not in
harmony with anything existing there. It's a unique structure project on it's own two feet
and that, if anything, is -- creates additional disharmony, if there is such a word. That's
all the comments I have regarding standing for the homeowners association. I actually
have another comment on my own, which is -- I don't want to represent speaking for the
homeowners association, so I don't know how you want to handle that while I'm here at
the podium or continue on.
Marshall: At this point did anyone have any questions?
Freeman: I do have a question, but I'm not opposed to Mr. Zaluska expressing the
last --
Marshall: I would agree and I thought maybe we could ask the question and, then, he
could address that and, then, we can handle that separately.
Freeman: That would be fine.
Marshall: All right.
Freeman: My question -- I did notice that most of the letters that came to us also
followed the order of the applicant's letter and while you articulated well why you and
the neighbors you represent disagree with many of the statements in that letter, what I
still am not clear on is why do you oppose the project?
Zaluska: Actually, it's really -- for the reasons that we stated. It's incongruous with the
existing residential structures in the immediate vicinity. It's -- there are no multi-family
structures in the immediate vicinity. It's going to require rezoning to actually achieve
that. What's wrong with leaving it zoned as it is and let the chips fall where they may?
Meridian Planning & Zoning
December 19, 2013
Page 27 of 45
And if -- you're actually leading to the point where -- of my own personal comment,
which was the final paragraph in my letter to the Council. So, I don't know if --
Rohm: Additional question on your existing testimony. When was Tiburon developed
initially? Was that built ten years ago or --
Zaluska:. I think it was started -- we moved in a little over seven years ago. Our -- we
built and we moved in this past summer -- it was seven years this past summer. I don't
know exactly when the project was initiated -- when it first -- when dirt was moved. We
were out of state.
Rohm: Okay. Seven to ten years ago the development began. Were these three lots
part of that initial development? They were, were they not?
Zaluska: The single family residences immediately east of the -- the plot in question
here certainly appears to have been in existence prior to that. It's a quite an old
structure. It's being rehabilitated by the current owner right now. He's doing a major
renovation of that structure. But it is -- it was part of Tiburon Meadows, but it was
excluded from the homeowners association. This goes back to a point which was
raised when the architect was providing his testimony and as a former board member
I'm intimately familiar with the CC&Rs for a number of reasons and the church property,
which is one of the lots, and those three lots which were previously owned by Mr. -- a
Mr. Hewett I believe, they were excluded from the homeowners association portion of
Tiburon Meadows as an umbrella name.
Rohm: I -- you know, I have lived in Meridian for quite a little while and I drive down Ten
Mile quite frequently and I have seen that piece of property just sitting there for all these
years and I'm not ready to make a decision as far as how I feel about this particular
project, but the one thing that I do know is nothing has happened with that property for
all these years and at least this is a proposal to take that property and put it to a
productive use and -- and I'm not saying that I'm in support of it, but -- but what I can tell
you is that land has just sat there and -- and if a dental office or something was the
appropriate answer, it would have probably already been there. But that's just from my
perspective.
Zaluska: May I respond?
Rohm: Absolutely.
Zaluska: Okay. I understand your perspective and I appreciate it and it's right on. On
the other hand, there are other perspectives, one of which I hold is that given the
economy over the last, you know, eight to ten years -- and that wasn't the only piece of
land out there that -- you know, things have moved -- have developed westerly towards
Nampa from, you know, Main Street in Meridian in time, so, you know, whatever reason,
just from a standpoint of a perspective developer of that property, having been on the
board I -- I don't have any specific information, but it's anecdotal, but it's certainly
Meridian Planning & Zoning
December 19, 2013
Page 28 of 45
accurate enough from the issues which we have had as a homeowners association with
the previous owner Mr. Hewett -- the pricing -- if you look at the pricing and history of
that property, the asking price history of that property, it was way way up there when we
moved in and it has come down and down and down and down, but I suspect that
perhaps the -- his economic interests were incongruous with -- you know, from a seller's
standpoint with those of perspective developers or buyers of that property. He was just
holding out for more than what other people see the value of that property to be.
Marshall: So, I'm going to -- to address that personal comment when you get to that
real quick.
Zaluska: Okay. Great. When this was initially proposed I was one of the folks that
received a letter notifying residents in the immediate vicinity of the meeting sponsored
by the proponents of the project, because I was actually going to be on the wrong coast
of the United States during that meeting, I called the number given on the notice and I
spoke with one of the partners and I don't recall -- this was, you know, like six months
ago, five months ago, whenever it was, and I can't recall which individual I spoke to, but
he basically asserted that it would be a high end, really nice, you know, development. It
was -- wasn't going to be affordable housing and I says, well, gee, that seems like kind
of an odd location for something which is really the end, you know, for residential.
You're going through this rezoning process for something high end and it seems like,
well, how are you going to -- you know, I'm thinking in my mind how are you going to
sell this as a high end property in a particular location and -- but the assertion was it
was going to be developed, it was going to be really really nice, it's going to be high end
and the reality of the fact, as far as I can discern certainly doesn't meet my personal
definition of a high end property, because they are actually talking about affordable --
they are making an argument that it's going to be affordable housing of some sort,
which is exactly contrary to what I was led to believe over the telephone, speaking with
the proponents of the project -- unfortunately, I couldn't be at the meeting, because
was 3,000 miles away, so I didn't get a chance to pursue it any further. That's it.
Marshall: All right. Any other questions?
Zaluska: Thank you.
Marshall: Thank you very much. All right. So, if Mr. Zaluska spoke for you, please,
indicate here in a second. I'm going to do the best I can with some of these names. I'm
not necessarily the best at pronouncing names, but I'm going to give -- try the best here
in reading some of the handwriting. Actually, I'm struggling with the first one. McKay?
Someone McKay? He's spoken for you? Mr. Zaluska? Okay. And she has marked
down that she was against. I'm guessing this was Donald J. Titan? I'm sorry. Whitner.
Would you like to speak, sir? From the audience Mr. Whitner indicates that he has
been spoken for. Thank you, sir. And he also marked against. Marie Thrupp. And,
Marie, did Mr. Zaluska speak for you as well? And she indicates from the audience that
Mr. Zaluska represented her interest as well. All right. And Joan Zaluska. Did Mr.
Zaluska -- all right. And she indicates that she's against and Mr. Zaluska spoke for her
Meridian Planning & Zoning
December 19, 2013
Page 29 of 45
as well. Katherine Green. Kathleen Green. And would you like to speak or has Mr.
Zaluska represented you? All right. Thank you very much. Also marked against and
agrees with Mr. Zaluska. Larsen Tenny. And Mr. Zaluska represented you as well?
All right. Thank you. Ronald Arno. Is it Arno? Arnt. Mr. Zaluska represents you as
well? You would like to make a statement. Please come on up, sir. And I can give you
three minutes, sir.
Arnt: Ronald Arnt. 3058 West Santa Clara Street, Meridian, Idaho. Mr. Chairman and
Members, I'm a resident of Tiburon Meadows and my wife and I are both opposed to the
construction of Lot 4. Prior to my retirement I spent over 35 years in lending. During
that time I was responsible for the construction and loan financing of over 3,000 homes,
duplex, four-plexes and commercial dwellings. Across from Sheryl Street is Calvary
Chapel and we have all gone through this with the other buildings around there. Bill did
a very good job. This is currently L-O or light commercial building. According to my
calculations from the plat map, I have found and I agree with the architect that the size
of the lot is .309 acres. However, when you knock off the 25 feet -- allows for the right
of way, it drops it down to under a quarter of an acre. In my opinion, this makes the lot
entirely too small for afour-plex to add adequate parking for afour-plex. Therefore, I do
not believe that it should be built there. Also that very intersection, because Tiburon
Meadows is a circle drive, there is only one entrance connected to the intersection. We
currently have a do not block sign out in front there. I wish I would have taken a picture
on my cell phone to bring it in, because when we went there -- we come here tonight at
5:30 we were blocked. You are blocked primarily every day, every night in rush hour
traffic. You can turn right. Probability of turning left is bend over and pray, because
that's all you have. Also I agree with Bill, the architect said they were going to have an
upscale apartment complex. To me upscale means the outside, the exterior is brick or
stucco. The inside is upgraded carpet, perhaps Corian counter tops and up scale
carpet, fixtures of that nature. The exterior in an up scale would have parking inside
garages, not carports. You would have an adequate play area. According to what
read in the letter from the architect, it's supposed to be for moderate family. You can't
have both. That's really all 1 have to say.
Marshall: Any questions for Mr. Arnt? No? Thank you, sir.
Arnt: Thank you.
Marshall: And I'm guessing this is a relation. Glenda W. Arnt. And both gentlemen
have spoken for you. From the audience. All right. Thank you. And P. Braumback.
And the gentlemen previously have spoken for you, Mr. -- all right. All right. Thank you.
From the audience. And she's also marked against. P. Vice. And from the audience
the gentlemen prior have spoken for you; is that correct? All right. Thank you. Andre
Green. I'm sorry. Cindy Green. I apologize. I'm terrible at this. Cindy, thank you.
From the audience she is saying that the gentlemen prior have spoken for you and
she's also marked against. Thank you. Terry Vice. All right. And I'm confused. We
have got a mark in both for and against column. Okay. I'm sorry. This is Terry and --
okay. This is marked against. And the gentlemen prior have spoken for you; is that
Meridian Planning & Zoning
December 19, 2013
Page 30 of 45
correct? All right. Thank you. Okay. And, then, I have got -- is Jared Conden? Jake
Conden? Congren. All right. And you have marked for. Would you like to testify, sir?
If you're going to say anything I'm going to have to ask you to come to the mike and
state your name and address, because nothing can go into the record unless you're at
the mike. Thank you, sir.
Conklin: Jake Conklin. 11347 West Dallen Court in Boise, Idaho. 83713.
Marshall: All right.
Conklin: Mr. Chair, Members, I support the project. Thank you.
Marshall: All right. Thank you, sir. And I have Greg Mantra? Monta? Greg. No?
Okay. I don't have any hands there. Maybe it's Jerry. I can't -- is it Jannae Montana?
Jannae, you know, actually, I bet that's you. Jannae, thank you. Have the gentlemen
previously. Okay. And you are against and I appreciate that. From the audience she
acknowledges the gentlemen previously have spoken for her and she is against. And,
then, Jared Montana. Is it Jared? Oh, I got that one right. Finally. After the whole list.
All right. And the gentlemen previously have spoken for you and you also are against?
All right. Thank you. Now, I don't have any other names here. Is there anyone else
who would like to testify? I see no hands. So, at this time I would like to call the
applicant back and, again, I'm going to ask for your name and address as well for the
record.
Gibson: Yes, Mr. Chairman. My name is still James Gibson. P.O. Box 219 in Eagle.
First, we want to express appreciation for the valid comments of the neighbors. We
don't -- while we may see things differently, we don't mean to demonize these people or
minimize their concerns. We appreciate that and I can assure that you and everyone
here that I have appeared at many such meetings on different sides of the issue to
address the concerns as we have understood and expressed here. Yes, there is a
reason why the property has not been developed. The reason, of course, cannot be
stated with absolute certainty, because there are many variables. The economy. The
size of the property. The location, to da, to da. But for whatever reason this property
has not been developed and this is an opportunity to see the property developed.
Without this change in zone it's not likely, but, then, we get into the area of the
conjecture as to what might happen in the future that we have no control of. But one
thing we do have control of is allowing a rezone and a development agreement would
allow the property to develop. The question was raised about the area and there are
two different areas associated with the property. That's because the original stated area
includes a street which has been dedicated and the size of the property is the smaller of
the two areas. Apologize for any confusion. That simply is the nature of it, but it was
originally a larger property. We interpret the intent of the ordinance to provide a variety
of uses in this area and that's the reason that we -- the major reason why we think that a
residential four-plex is a very compatible use with that intent of the ordinance. No, it is
not -- it's not shall we say the same as the adjacent churches, it's not the same as the
adjacent commercial, it's not the same as the adjacent single family residence and
Meridian Planning & Zoning
December 19, 2013
Page 31 of 45
that's, shall we say, on purpose. That's the intent of the ordinance, to have a variety.
By definition variety implies some difference, not all the same. Now, we -- we must
apologize if there was any misunderstanding about the nature of this project being high
end or low end. It's intended -- and I think the illustrations would easily be interpreted
as moderate residential. No, it is -- it's not luxury housing, but neither is it -- shall we
say lower end subsidized housing. It, again, provides a variety. It's very much in
response to the intent of the ordinance. A variety of housing. And as the parent of
quite a number of young adult children Iknow -- and I'm sure that you realize that
moderate or affordable housing is very important to a number of people. Not everyone
is in a position to pay a very high price for a luxury home. This is not intended to be
high end luxury construction and we apologize if there was any misunderstanding, but
we do not believe it was really represented as such. The question about the owner or
rental occupied is probably irrelevant. But where we got the information is simply
looking up the addresses and finding that a number of the addresses of the owners did
not correspond to the residents, so we had to conclude that somebody other than the
owner lived there and that's -- we didn't mean to generate any misconception. That's
where the information came from and we simply provided that information. Whether this
illustration is attractive or not I would simply have to say that would be a matter of
opinion. It I don't believe is just a box or a barracks style building. We see some of
those constructed here and there. But admittedly it is -- it's not a very high end,
expensive construction. It -- we think with the lower one story portions at the end of the
building it's as attractive as a building is likely to be on that site. Now, whether the site
is large enough or not for the use, again, is a matter of interpretation and opinion. It
meets the ordinance. The ordinance was written for some reason and this use meets
the density requirements. The playground is, of course, small, because this is a very
small development. It seems unlikely that with just four units there there are going to be
dozens of young children playing there. We think it's sized appropriately for the size of
the unit. The question about the landscaping and an effective border between the
parking area and the neighbor adjacent, the proposal is to use an American arborvitae
hedge there and if -- you may be able to envision that, it forms a very dense hedge that
is -- as it's established it -- you can't see through it and it does provide some acoustical
separation and we think that's the most appropriate thing to do at that location. I wish I
could read my writing here. I think that, basically, summarizes our response. If you
have any questions that you feel we have not addressed, please, let me know and we
will do the best we can to -- to respond. Basically we think, yes, this -- this proposed
use is different than other uses in the area and it's that way on purpose in response to
the intent of the ordinance and we think that this is a response to the reason why this
property has not been developed. And thank you for your consideration.
Marshall: Commissioners, any questions? I do have one question. If you didn't run the
neighborhood meeting I would ask is the person who ran it here?
Gibson: Yes, I believe so.
Marshall: Maybe we could get him up here. Him or her.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
December 19, 2013
Page 32 of 45
Gibson: I think it's likely that we can.
Marshall: I would appreciate that if we could. I'm going to have to ask for your name
and address for the record, please.
Johnson: Tyler Johnson. 1099 South Wells, Meridian, Idaho. 83642.
Marshall: All right. So, I have a question for you.
Johnson: Okay.
Marshall: You had the neighborhood meeting.
Johnson: Yes.
Marshall: And how many people showed?
Johnson: We had -- I'd have to look at my sign-in, but I want to say eight.
Marshall: Eight people showed up. And I'm wondering how that progresses and how it
transpired -- what all transpired during that?
Marshall: They asked us some questions about the project. Voiced their concerns.
Most of the concerns that night were traffic and that it was going to bring down their
property value. I didn't feel many other concerns that were voiced at that point. They
felt our project was unattractive. And I didn't find any factual reasons against it. So, did
you ask them if you don't find it attractive what would you like to see -- what -- how
could we change this to make it attractive, as opposed to here is what we are doing,
thank you very much. I'm really -- I'm sensing a lot of hostility over here from the
neighbors. I mean it doesn't sound like anybody tried to appease them at all with this. It
sounds like it was just here is our project, thank you very much, just thank you for
coming. And it kind of comes across that way listening to them. Just guessing. And so
I'm wondering how we went about the neighborhood meeting here, because -- because,
really, those neighborhood -- and I'm speaking to everybody here -- from what I
understand those neighborhood -- the intent of those neighborhood meetings is to get
some input from the neighbors and say what is it that you want. Here is what we
concede, but we really want to work with you and be able to put out a project that we all
can be proud of and for some reason somehow we didn't get any of these people on our
side over here.
Johnson: Yes, that's true. I guess I didn't feel the opportunity to ask them what they
would want us to do with it. They opposed it so strongly being afour-plex, that without
changing it from afour-plex I didn't know what we could have done to make them
happy. It kind of came up later that one of them just mentioned that it was ugly. They
didn't really ask us much about that. I guess we didn't either. They just voiced that as a
Meridian Planning & Zoning
December 19, 2013
Page 33 of 45
comment, but they were so opposed to the project, not the specifics of it, that we didn't
know what to ask to change.
Marshall: And maybe that's what I'm throwing back at you, is that maybe in the future
maybe we can ask them questions as to, okay, if this isn't what you like, then, what is it
that you foresee? How -- how can this meet the needs of the neighborhood and
sometimes throw it back in their lap and let them explain that, because, to be honest,
haven't heard that tonight. I have had a difficult time hearing it expressed from these
people as well and it's just -- I just hear a lot of hostility.
Johnson: Yes. They didn't give us any ideas of what it could be. The letters later on
they said that it should remain limited office that it currently is.
Marshall: All right.
Johnson: But they didn't have a better suggestion for us.
Marshall: Well, thank you. I appreciate your honesty there and that's all I have.
Anybody else? No. All right. Thank you.
Johnson: Thank you.
Marshall: Would you like to come back up? Did you have anything else you'd like to
add here? Asking the applicant back up, for the record.
Gibson: James Gibson. P.O. Box 219 in Eagle. Thank you. Yes. The concerns that
have been expressed are -- basically, the only way we could respond to it is not do the
project. We haven't heard specific things that we could tweak this or tweak that or make
it more palatable, it's just they state their reasons they don't like the project. There are
some reasons. Those reasons we submit are largely interpretation of -- and could be
seen either way. But, no, we haven't seen anything -- any suggestion that we could
respond to. Thank you.
Marshall: Thank you. All right. Thank you. I'm sorry, we are done taking testimony
and I can no longer do that. The applicant has already responded and -- at this point in
time.
Rohm: Mr. Chairman?
Marshall: Yes, Commissioner Rohm.
Rohm: I move we close the public hearing on RZ 13-017.
Miller: Second.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
December 19, 2013
Page 34 of 45
Marshall: I have a motion and a second to close the public hearing on the project. All
those in favor say aye. Those opposed? Ayes have it. The public hearing is now
closed.
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Marshall: And I would ask for opinions. And, Commissioner Rohm, you seem to be
biting at the bit.
Rohm: I am. I'm ready to speak. The issue here, as I see it, is we got L-O as it's
currently zoned and we have the rezone to -- what is it?
Miller: TN-R.
Rohm: Okay. There are two different uses and the original L-O zoning is what was
deemed appropriate for that property at the time that development came through and all
be it that there are provisions within our city code that allow you to make application for
reasoning once a specific zoning has been obtained, I don't think that that's necessarily
always in good keeping for the city and the existing zoning, in my opinion, matches the
property that's there and I wouldn't be in favor of rezoning it to anything else, based
upon the lay of the land and the way it was put together initially and I think that this is a
significant departure from what the original rezoning to the L-O was at the time that the
project came through however many years ago. So, that's -- that's where I stand on this
project at this time.
Miller: Mr. Chair?
Marshall: Commissioner Miller.
Miller: I share the same feelings in a lot of ways. I feel like the huge representation we
have from existing people around the site is a very impactful statement, first of all. But
to me on this corner it just -- to have afour-plex right there does not seem unique. You
have all that other very affordable housing down below and when I look at this I don't
see it as a four-plex, it's -- it's zoned appropriately as it is right now in my opinion. It is a
very small lot. I think that that's a challenge and I think it's very doable. It does not
sound like any of these people are opposed to developing the lot, they are just opposed
to developing it this way. And 1 can certainly appreciate the concerns about esthetics as
well. With what was presented I think it's possible that it might have come across a little
better with some different elevations. I know this is a rezone, not, you know, design
review or anything, but to show some undulation and facades and maybe different
materials or something I think could have represented the case more. Neither here nor
there. I -- I am not personally in favor of rezoning this to amulti-housing lot. It seems
appropriately zoned to me.
Marshall: Commissioner Freeman.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
December 19, 2013
Page 35 of 45
Freeman: Mr. Chair. Coming from the other side. I lost my place on -- oh, here we go.
One of the things the Comprehensive Plan seeks to do is to encourage in-fill
development and white -- it may have been appropriate, as Commissioner Rohm
pointed out at one time that this be L-O, I think evidence against its appropriateness
now is the lack of interest in developing it up until this point. Frankly, I'm in favor of
changing it to a suitable zone so it can be developed as residential and I do not see that
as being incompatible with the surrounding properties. I see that as very compatible
and I see this as an appropriate use for that property. In listening to the -- the
comments from the neighbors, honestly, I still have a really hard time understanding
exactly what the main concern is. Most of the comments in the testimony were directed
at whether or not some of the statements in the architect's application letter were true or
not and, frankly, there are only a couple of those statements that are really at issue here
and I think it was number seven. I will find it here in just a second. This is the one that
the neighbors agreed with. Or said at least presumably. The zone change is in full
compliance with the Meridian master plan and I think that's what's at issue here and I
see that it is. To me that's the major factor to be considered. Comments such as it's
too small for this kind of development I think are contradicted by the fact that I am
seeing here a plan for afour-plex that fits within the setbacks, honors all the buffers,
and has the required parking for that square footage in that type of use. The other
comments about traffic, frankly, have -- have me wondering what the concern is,
because given all of the alternatives or most of the alternatives as the project has
developed, I would see nothing but an increase in traffic flow. If this was a business
that served any sort of customer and it could be, it could be a two story business that
serves a clientele, the trips are going to be all day long, instead of probably one in
morning and a couple in the evening and, frankly, with nine parking stalls -- nine cars is
not going to significantly impact the traffic flow in and out of this property. The two
stories, you know, even if this was developed commercially it could be two stories and
unlike the last application, which I know is irrelevant for this one, I don't see how this two
story proposed building has any impact upon the surrounding property. It's -- it's not
right on somebody's back door, it's up against a street, so two stories to me is not a real
concern. The one -- when I -- when I asked Mr. Zaluska -- I'm sure I'm not pronouncing
that correctly, but when I asked what the real issue was, what he told me was it's
incongruous and I have a hard time understanding that, too. If -- if he means that it's
incongruous because this is not the same type of building as in a single family dwelling
or a church, sure, but that's not what the code means by incongruous or compatible.
The fact that this is a fairly low density residential project by default makes it a
compatible use with the surrounding neighborhood, because that's what's developed
around it. And I -- I heard comments about it being promised or -- or it was implied or
something about it being high end versus low end and, frankly, whether a residential
project develops as high end or low end is really none of my business. I do know,
however -- I shouldn't say it's none of my business, because we are also charged with
providing for a wide diversity of housing types and protecting existing residential
properties from incompatible land use. Like I said, I don't see an incompatible land use
here. I do see a -- a different kind of a housing type available here and we still have --
this has to go through a CZC, we have design guidelines in place, and there is nothing
that is going to exempt this architecture, this project, from meeting those design
Meridian Planning & Zoning
December 19, 2013
Page 36 of 45
guidelines. Staff will assure that it does meet the requirements of the guidelines. So,
guess I'm done head scratching. I still fail to understand what the real dislike for this
project is, because the traffic doesn't make sense to me. It being too small doesn't
make sense to me. It being two stories doesn't make to me. It being incongruous or
incompatible doesn't make sense to me. And maybe that's just because I view those
things in a difficult way than you do. But, frankly, this -- this meets the requirements of
the UDC and the Comprehensive Plan. Furthermore, it in-fills a property that has not
developed and may not develop for a long time. I see it as a beneficial and a positive
thing for this piece of property and I will stop with that.
Marshall: I guess it's my turn. Again, there is a number of things that really concern me
with this. First and foremost, it doesn't appear to me that the applicant has worked well
with the neighbors. It really concerns me. And Item No. 1 is all of both the written and
the verbal testimony that we have had and I have gone through each and every one of
these. To be honest, much like Commissioner Freeman said, I do have a difficult time
finding specifics about this particular project, other than we don't want it. Traffic is not
an issue. It fits on the lot. I'm sorry, t do -- with the complaints that were registered, just
as Commissioner Freeman just stated, I see a very different side of that and I'm having
a difficult time finding fault with the issues that were addressed here. Do question
whether or not residential up against Ten Mile Road is appropriate. I do question that,
because Ten Mile Road is changing. That is dramatically changing and I drive some of
the roads within the valley that have changed character over the years and you will see
occasional houses facing those roads, but still a little surely they are disappearing and,
then, there is the occasion where -- this is not one that would face Ten Mile, but it's
going to back right up to it and Ten Mile is not a small side street, that's going to be a
major thoroughfare, especially when Highway 16 pops through. I am concerned about
that. You're going to see major commercial development along Ten Mile as well. There
is some areas that have already been deemed appropriate for commercial development
and this is -- this is -- you have got the Ten Mile interchange and it goes all the way to
20-26 and with the -- later the connection across going north, you're going to see a
considerable amount of traffic down through here. Do I think residential abutting Ten
Mile Road is appropriate? I don't generally. I mean higher densities towards large
traffic corridors, as we were discussing earlier, seems appropriate. I don't -- again, is it
harmonious with everything around it? Wouldn't be my first pick of buildings to say,
geez, I really like that building, I want it there, but yet it doesn't seem to be totally out of
place with the churches and things like that. No, it's not the same as the residences
and everybody we are hearing from is actually buffered from this project with an existing
residence, because Idon't -- we did not hear from the existing residents in between. I'm
really torn on this one, to be honest and I don't think it's totally inappropriate, but at the
same time I am not fond of how it's moved forward to this point. But, then, again, is that
enough to say no. I don't think so.
Freeman: Commissioner Marshall, lunderstand -- I heard you voice your concerns
about the inability of the applicant to work with the -- with the neighbors, but, frankly, if
put myself in the applicant's shoes I wouldn't be really sure how to respond to some of
these comments. Like I said, I can't identify if you're telling me it's too small -- well, no,
Meridian Planning & Zoning
December 19, 2013
Page 37 of 45
it's not. I have just shown you that it -- it fits. It's going to increase traffic. Well, no, it's
not and I'm not going to be able to convince anybody otherwise that feels differently. It's
two stories. Well, yeah, so it can be two stories. I think --
Marshall: I agree with you.
Freeman: I see that there are a lot of people who are opposed to this, but what I do not
see is an articulated reason for why this project is wrong or does not comply with the
UDC and the Comprehensive Plan. I don't see that. And without that Ican't -- I can't in
good conscience vote against it. I think it's -- I think it's appropriate. I think it meets all
the requirements. I think it provides in-fill. I think it provides variety. I think for all those
reasons it's a good project and leaving a little tiny lot like this up against other residential
that isn't going to be developed for awhile and hasn't -- I'd prefer not to wait. I prefer to
get this one going.
Miller: I --
Marshall: Commissioner Miller?
Miller: I -- disagree. I don't agree with in-fill just for the sheer fact that nothing else is
happening. I think it should be good in-fill and you have your play area right next to Ten
Mile .Road, I think I would feel maybe slightly different if it was say flipped or something
where the kids aren't backing up right to Ten Mile Road. I don't think it's good to do a
development if it's not going to get rented out either. I -- you know, I look at projects as
they come through and would I like to be there, would I like to live there, and there is no
way that I would want to live that close to Ten Mile Road. So, I can see this being built
and, then, just sitting vacant and, then, as the economy bumps back, which it's doing,
it's just taking up a lot that would make an excellent office lot, in my opinion.
Marshall: I would suggest, though, flipping this would go against what some of our
Comprehensive Plan suggests is trying to hide all that parking area back behind the
building and things like that.
Miller: That's why you do not put residential right up next to the road.
Rohm: Mr. Chairman?
Marshall: Commissioner Rohm.
Rohm: Yes. It complies with the UDC only if it's rezoned. You couldn't put this
development in the existing zoning. So, even though the city has a vehicle to make that
transfer of property zoning from where it currently is to the proposed, that vehicle there,
that doesn't necessarily mean just because a vehicle is there that we have to grant it.
That's the point of the -- that's the point of the hearing. And so I still maintain that this is
inappropriate and existing zoning is appropriate for the property as it -- as it is. So, with
that being said, unless there is additional --
Meridian Planning & Zoning
December 19, 2013
Page 38 of 45
Marshall: Commissioner Rohm, please, go ahead.
Rohm: Okay. Mr. Chairman, after considering staff, applicant, and public testimony,
move to recommend denial to the City Council of number RZ 13-017 as presented in
the staff report for the hearing date of December 19th, 2013, for the following reasons:
Reason being that the existing zoning, in my opinion, is more appropriate for that
property than the proposed application. End of motion.
Miller: I second that.
Marshall: I have a motion and a second to recommend denial to the City Council for RZ
13-017. All those in favor say aye. Against?
Freeman: Aye.
Marshall: Motion carries. Three to one.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE NAY. ONE ABSENT.
Public Hearing: CPAM 13-003 Da Vinci Park by CS2, LLC
Located Southwest Corner of N. Locust Grove Road and E.
McMillan Road Request: Amend the Future Land Use Map
Contained in the Comprehensive Plan to Change the Future
Land Use Designation on 7.76 Acres of Land from Low Density
Residential to Medium Density Residential (6.36 Acres) and
Mixed Use -Neighborhood (1.4 Acres) Recommend Approval
to City Council
J. Public Hearing: RZ 13-016 Da Vinci Park by CS2, LLC Located
Southwest Corner of N. Locust Grove Road and E. McMillan
Road Request: Rezone of 2.65 Acres of Land from the R-4 and
R-8 Zoning Districts to the C-N Zoning District; and 6.3 Acres
of Land from the R-4 Zoning District to the R-8 Zoning District
K. Public Hearing: PP 13-036 Da Vinci Park by CS2, LLC Located
Southwest Corner of N. Locust Grove Road and E. McMillan
Road Request: Preliminary Plat Approval Consisting of Thirty-
Eight (38) Single Family Residential Attached Building Lots,
One (1) Commercial Building Lot and Eight (8) Common/Other
Lots on 7.76 Acres of Land in the Proposed R-8 and C-N
Zoning Districts
Meridian Planning & Zoning
December 19, 2013
Page 39 of 45
Marshall: All right. Next up is the public hearing for CPAM 13-003, RZ 13-016 and PP
13-036 for Da Vinci Park and I'd like to ask for the staff report, please.
Waters: Thank you, Chairman Marshall, Members of the Commission. The next
applications before you are a request for a Comprehensive Plan map amendment, a
rezone, and a preliminary plat. This property consists of 7.7 acres of land. It's currently
zoned R-4 and R-8 and is located at the southwest corner of East McMillan Road and
North Locust Grove Road. Adjacent land use and zoning. To the north is McMillan
Road and across McMillan is single family residential and agricultural property, zoned
RUT in Ada County and R-4. To the south are single family residential properties in
Havasu Creek Subdivision, zoned R-4. And to the east is North Locust Grove Road
and an Idaho Power substation across the street and single family residential properties
in Settlement Bridge Subdivision, zoned R-8. To the west is rural residential agricultural
properties, zoned RUT in Ada County. This site was annexed in 2006 with the R-4 and
R-8 zoning, with a development agreement. The plat was also approved, but has since
expired. The Comprehensive Plan future land use map designation for this site is
currently low density residential and this is a copy of the current future land use map
you see here on top and the proposed changes to the map below. The applicant
proposes to develop the site with 38 single family residential attached homes, with
neighborhood commercial uses on the corner. In order to develop the site as proposed
an amendment to the future land use map is necessary to change the land use
designation on 6.36 acres of land from low density residential to medium density
residential and 1.4 acres from low density residential to mixed use neighborhood. A
rezone of 2.65 acres of land from the R-4 and R-8 zoning districts to the C-N zoning
district, neighborhood commercial, consistent with the proposed mixed use
neighborhood designation. The exhibit map on the left you see there is the rezone
exhibit. And the rezone of 6.3 acres from R-4 to R-8 is proposed consistent with the
proposed medium density residential designation. A concept plan was submitted for the
commercial portion that shows two building pads and associated parking and drive
aisles. This is only a concept, just showing how this site may develop in the future. The
pad site on the right there does include a drive-thru, which would possibly
accommodate a bank with adrive-thru. An amendment to the existing development
agreement is proposed to change the development plan for the site from 22 single
family residential lots are previously proposed to 38 attached residential lots and one
neighborhood commercial lot consistent with the proposed concept plan. Staff has
recommended provisions be added to the development agreement that require
development of this site to be consistent with the concept plan proposed with this
application. And requirement pertaining to the design of structures that back up to the
arterial streets and consistent design elements between the residential and commercial
structures. A preliminary plat consisting of 38 single family residential attached building
lots, 1.14 acre commercial building lot and eight common lots on 7.7 acres of land is
proposed to subdivide the property. One full access via East McMillan Road, one right-
out access via North Locust Grove Road. And an extension of the existing stub street
at the south boundary of the site is proposed for access. A stub street to the west is
also proposed for future extension. Because access is available to the site via local
street, North Bright Angel Avenue here from the south, the accesses via McMillan and
Meridian Planning & Zoning
December 19, 2013
Page 40 of 45
Locust Grove will require City Council waiver to the access provisions in the UDC.
ACHD is recommending approval of both of the proposed accesses to McMillan and
Locust Grove as proposed. A 25 foot wide street buffer is required along McMillan and
Locust Grove. Both are arterial streets. A 20 foot wide buffer is required on the
commercial portion adjacent to the residential properties. A total of .74 of an acre of
qualified open space is proposed, along with a covered picnic area, playground
equipment, pathway, picnic tables and benches in accord with the open space and site
amenity requirements. Because there is a large mixed use neighborhood center
designated area to the south of this site that consists primarily of professional office and
healthcare uses, staff recommends those types of uses not be allowed on this site.
Other neighborhood friendly uses as allowed in the C-N district are recommended.
Hours of operation of businesses in the C-N district are limited from 6:00 a.m. to 10:00
p.m., per the UDC. Conceptual building elevations for the single family attached homes
have been submitted with this application as shown. Bob Unger submitted written
testimony in agreement with the staff report. He is the applicant's representative. No
other written testimony was received. Staff is recommending approval with the
conditions in the staff report. Staff will stand for any questions Commission may have.
Marshall: Any questions of staff? I guess I don't. So, at this time I'd like to ask for the
applicant to come forward, please. And, please, state your name and address for the
record.
Unger: Chairman, Commissioner Members, my name is Bob Unger. I'm with ULC
Management and our address is 6104 North Gary Lane, Boise, Idaho. 83714. And we
represent CS2, LLC, who is the developer on the property. Right off the bat I -- I want
to applaud Sonya and also Justin. They have really -- I have worked with them on other
projects. I have worked with them on this project and they have really been helpful. It's
been a long night. I don't have anything more to add than what Sonya has presented to
you in her staff report and certainly we are in total agreeance with the staff report and
the recommendations of approval and the conditions of approval. So, I will stand for
any questions you might have.
Marshall: Any questions for the applicant?
Rohm: Just -- I have a comment. It says concept only on the drawing there and I can
tell you that this Commission is very dedicated to having separation between
commercial and residential and this concept looks pretty darn good and so that might be
a hint to the future. End of comment.
Unger: Mr. Chair, Mr. Rohm, the reason we put in -- put it in concept and we wanted to
make it very specific, because in the past we have shown some conceptual ideas on a
project and we got locked into it and it wasn't what we intended. This is -- our
assumption is this is what's probably going to work and it's going to work very nicely,
so --
Meridian Planning & Zoning
December 19, 2013
Page 41 of 45
Rohm: Well, I'm not specific to lots as much as the separation and I think you have
done a very good job of depicting it in a -- separating the uses very well in your concept
and I can just say that this Commission has tried very hard to adhere to that as we have
moved forward with projects and I just throw that out as FYI.
Unger: Thank you very much.
Marshall: I guess that's it, sir.
Unger: Thank you.
Marshall: All right. And, Mr. Unger, it appears you're the only one I have signed up to
testify. Since I have just taken your testimony I'm going to ask is there anyone else that
would like to testify to this project? And that appears, since there is no raising their
hand and no one coming forth, I guess there is nothing to ask you to come up and
respond to.
Unger: Okay. Mr. Chair and Commissioners, thank you very much and we ask for your
recommendation of approval.
Marshall: Thank you. All right. So, since that's the end of our public testimony at this
point in time, I would ask for a motion, possibly, to close the public hearing on CPAM
13-003, RZ 13-016 and PP 13-036.
Miller: So moved.
Marshall: I have a motion and a second to close the public hearing. All those in favor
say aye. Opposed? And the motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Marshall: Okay. So, comments?
Rohm: I have already made mine.
Marshall: All right.
Freeman: Mr. Chair, we have a good plan. We have agreement from the applicant with
staffs comments. We have nobody here opposed and no written testimony in
opposition, what more is there to say? This works. I like it for it.
Miller: It's an easy one to me, too.
Marshall: I will point out one interesting fact -- well, two. First off, we got aright-out
only on Locust Grove and, then, I'm hoping that maintains right-out only, as opposed to
-- it now appears it's approved by ACRD as a right-out only, not a full access. That the
Meridian Planning & Zoning
December 19, 2013
Page 42 of 45
full access is coming in off the Park Crossing Avenue. I will also point out that on the
Comprehensive Plan amendment, that the commercial area is the only area marked
mixed use and I have heard a lot of rationale about this and it seemed appropriate, I'm
buying it, that the mixed use area actually has only one use and it was zoned
commercial. C-N is what the application is. So, we are going against that, again,
because mixed use is typically at least if not three different uses and if we were to, then,
hold three mixed uses, then, actually start then bleeding over to the property we see to
the west or possibly to the east or to the south, that may eventually want to start putting
in more mixed use and, really, I would also point out that staff did a nice job of
identifying some professional services and excluding those in the DA simply because
we have a lot of professional services and stuff at the half mile point where we have
identified we wanted those to grow and this is -- this would appropriately move to
something that serves the local area, but more in a commercial ice cream establishment
or something like that, as opposed to health services and professional services, which
are only a half mile away. I'm just pointing those out. But I think staff did a phenomenal
job in putting this together. That's my -- I appreciate the applicant's project and, again,
I'm going to reiterate that I hope that right-out, I'm sorry, but I hope it remains aright-out
only. I think a full access is inappropriate, but there we have it. So, can I get a motion
on this?
Miller: Mr. Chair?
Marshall: Commissioner Miller.
Miller: After considering all staff and applicant testimony, I move to recommend
approval for file number CPAM 13-003, RZ 13-016, PP 13-36 as presented in the staff
report for the hearing date of December 19th, 2013, with no modifications.
Freeman: Second.
Marshall: I have a motion and a second to recommend approval to City Council of
CPAM 13-003, RZ 13-016 and PP 13-036. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? Ayes
have it and it carries.
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT.
L. Public Hearing: CUP 13-015 Terror Design Studio by Brian
Spangler Located 760 E. King Street Request: Conditional Use
Permit Approval to Operate an Indoor Recreation Facility in an
I-L Zoning District
Marshall: All right. Last item on the agenda and I'm scared. Well, I hope to be. Let's
see. CUP 13-015 for the Terror Design Studio and I'd like ask for the staff report on this
one.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
December 19, 2013
Page 43 of 45
Lucas: Thank you, Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission. Hopefully we can -- I'm
going to try to keep this as brief as I can. It's been a long night and hopefully this one
won't take us too much longer. The applicant is requesting a conditional use permit to
operate an indoor entertainment or recreation facility in an I-L zone. In that zoning
designation a conditional use permit is required for that type of use. As you can see in
that area it's pretty much all industrial, except for like kitty corner there is a section of
commercial zoned property. The applicant is proposing to operate this use within an
existing industrial office or warehouse, so there is no new -- no new buildings and no
new development really proposed. This is purely the applicant requesting the ability to
use an existing building for this use that is not principally permitted in the I-L zoning
designation. The applicant already has space within this -- within this complex and uses
it primarily for fabrication and manufacturing of haunted house items and his business
plan and plan is to set up during a seasonal use a haunted house within his -- within his
building, so people can come in, use and participate in the items that primarily he
fabricates on site. So, his primary use really is fabrication and this is an accessory or
secondary use to that fabrication business. That being stated, it does require a
conditional use permit in the I-L zone. We have received written testimony from the
property owner and indicating that they are in full agreement with the staffs conditions.
The one issue that staff looked at pretty carefully is parking. These types of uses, these
seasonal uses, in the City of Meridian can generate quite a bit of traffic and I'm sure
that's the applicant's intent is to have a lot of people come through. We see this with
corn mazes and other things where, you know, seasonally they become very popular.
The applicant proposed a parking plan, which staff looked at and felt was -- was more
than adequate to address the parking and the applicant will continue to work on parking
issues as they arise, as the use becomes more popular. That stated, staff can certainly
stand for any questions you might have.
Marshall: Any question of staff? No? I would like to ask the applicant to come forward.
As you have heard several times tonight, I'm going to ask for your name and address for
the record, please.
Spangler: Brian Spangler. 2659 North Santee Place in Meridian. And, first of all,
want to thank Justin very much for going through the process with us and -- because
this is my first time ever doing this and it has been very lengthy and unique and so we
appreciate him, but we are in full approval of -- with staff's recommendation for the
proposal.
Marshall: Any questions of the applicant?
Rohm: I have none.
Marshall: Thank you. We have several people signed up and all have marked -- each
and every one has marked that they are for the project and my guess is it's the four
people that we still have in the audience. That was Mr. Spangler. Brian Spangler is
marked down here. Steven Hill? Would you like to speak to this? For the record he's
saying he's fine and that Mr. Spangler has already spoken for him and he's just for the
Meridian Planning & Zoning
December 19, 2013
Page 44 of 45
project. Dave Kettles? Also Mr. Spangler spoke for you and you're for the project. And
Debbie Kettles. Mr. Spangler spoke for you and for the project. That is everybody we
have in the audience tonight. So, since Mr. Spangler spoke for everyone I am not sure
he has anything to respond to at this time, so maybe I can get a motion.
Freeman: Mr. Chair, I move that we close the hearing for CUP 13-015, Terror Design
Studios.
Miller: I second that.
Marshall: I have a motion and a second to close the public hearing. All those in favor
say aye. Opposed? And the motion carries. The public hearing is closed.
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Marshall: Any discussion?
Miller: It seems pretty straight forward.
Marshall: I was impressed he went across the street and got an agreement for the
parking places across the way, so there is an additional 225 parking places across the
way, I think he's got plenty of parking in the future. I'm impressed with that. Twenty-five
on site, 30 on the street. I'm excited to see that go forth and I wish him the very best of
luck. In fact, my kids will probably be down there hopefully this next year. So --
Freeman: Mr. Chairman?
Marshall: -- good project. Yes.
Freeman: After considering all staff and applicant testimony, I move to approve file
number CUP 13-015 as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of December
9th, 2013, with no modifications.
Miller: I second that.
Marshall: I have a motion and a second to approve CUP 13-015. All those in favor say
aye. Opposed? And that motion passes unanimously.
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Miller: Sorry you guys had to wait so long.
Marshall: All right. I believe I have one last motion to hear.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
December 19, 2013
Page 45 of 45
Freeman: But do we need to point out before we close that this is perhaps Commission
Rohm's second to the last meeting with us? And we can discuss off the record how we
are going to party hard after that, possibly.
Marshall: Wow. Commissioner Rohm, this is -- you served two terms.
Rohm: And then some.
Marshall: And then some.
Rohm: It's been -- I have enjoyed every bit of it. I have thoroughly enjoyed being part
of this process and I have learned a lot and I have met a lot of great people and -- and
I'm going to miss it.
Freeman: You are going to be here in January for at least one more meeting.
Rohm: I'm sure I will.
Freeman: So, then, we can sing your praises and decide how to congratulate you
afterwards.
Rohm: Okay. All right. Mr. Chairman, I move we adjourn.
Miller: I second that.
Marshall: I have movement -- motion to adjourn. All those in favor say aye. Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Marshall: We are adjourned.
MEETING ADJOURNED AT 8:36 P.M.
(AUDIO RECORDING ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS.)
APPROVED
- ICE-CHAIR IAN DATE APPROVED
ATTEST:
o~~tio Pucvsr7 ~9~
ova
JAYCEE HOLMAN, CITY C ERK ~ ~ z ,~~'"?°ntP~~
~y r
~' .,
S o!
T ,~
J
aCFNr6Q o t t h ~ t~E~S ~
Meridian Planning Zoning Commission Meeting
DATE: December 19, 2o~s ITEM NUMBER: 3A
PROJECT NUMBER:
ITEM TITLE:
Approve Minutes of December 5, 2013 Planning and Zoning Commission meeting
MEETING NOTES
~~~~~~
a~i ~5
CLERKS OFFICE FINAL ACTION
DATE: E-MAILED TO
STAFF SENT TO
AGENCY SENT TO
.APPLICANT NOTES INITIALS
Meridian Planning Zoning Commission Meeting
DATE: December 19, 203 ITEM NUMBER:. 3B
PROJECT NUMBER: CUP 13-014
ITEM TITLE: Westmark Credit Union ~ Bridgetower Crossing
FFCL for approval: Conditional use permit for a drive thru establishment (bank with dreive thru) in a C-N
zoning district by Westmark Credit Union - 3115 W. Quintale Drive (Lot 66, Block 10 of Bridgetower
Crossing Sub No. 7)
MEETING NOTES
~, X/ ~„~
l`p~P-/g4 N"" ~h
F~`
CLERKS OFFICE FINAL ACTION
DATE: E-MAILED TO
STAFF 8ENT TO
AGENCY SENT TO
APPLICANT NOTES INITIALS
( a~
i
~/ ~
Meridian Planning Zoning Commission Meeting
DATE: December 19, 2013 ITEM NUMBER: 4/.~
PROJECT NUMBER: CPAM 13-002
ITEM TITLE: Solterra
Public Hearing: Amend the future land use map contained in the comprehensive plan to change the
land use designation on approximately 22.61 acres from Office to Mixed use Regional by Capital
Christian Center, Inc. -NEC of E. Fairview Avenue and N. Hickory Way
MEETING NOTES
Y G ~~ .
~-I~"~.~
CLERKS OFFICE FINAL ACTION
DATE: E-MAILED TO
STAFF SENT TO
AGENCY SENT TO
APPLICANT NOTES INITIALS
Meridian Planning Zoning Commission Meeting
DATE: December 19, 203 ITEM NUMBER: 4B
PROJECT NUMBER: RZ 13-015
ITEM TITLE: Solterra
Public Hearing: Rezone approximately 22.61 acres from the L-O (Limited Office) zoning district to the C-
G (General Retail and Service Comercial) (2.39 acres); L-O (Limited Office) (9.04 acres) and R-15
(Medium High Density Residential) (11.18 acres) zoning districts by Capital Christian Center, Inc. -NEC
of E. Fairview Avenue and N. Hickory Way
MEETING NOTES
5'e-F f,,. ~~~ L -~ L~ ~y-
~~~<
~~
~~~,~
~' ,,,,~
CLERKS OFFICE FINAL ACTION
DATE: E-MAILED TO
STAFF SENT TO
AGENCY SENT TO
APPLICANT NOTES INITIALS
Meridian Planning Zoning Commission Meeting
DATE: December 19, 2013 ITEM NUMBER: 4C
PROJECT NUMBER: PP 13-037
ITEM TITLE: Solterra
Public Hearing: Preliminary plat approval for three commercial lots, 1 office lot, 93 residential lots and
11 common /other lots on approximately 21.51 acres ina proposed C-G, L-O and R-15 zoning dfistricts
by Capital Christian Center, Inc. -NEC of E. Fairview Avenue and N. Hickory Way
MEETING NOTES
~`~~~~
~I~' ,~~
~'~
CLERKS OFFICE FINAL ACTION
DATE: E-MAILED TO
STAFF SENT TO
AGENCY SENT TO
APPLICANT NOTES INITIALS
Meridian Planning Zoning Commission Meeting
DATE: December 19, 2013 ITEM NUMBER: 4D
PROJECT NUMBER: PP 13-012
ITEM TITLE: Centre Point Square
Public Hearing: Conditional use permit approval to construct amulti-family development consisting of
68 residential units in an R-15 zoning district by Center Point Square, LLC -west of N. Eagle Road and
south of E. Ustick Road
MEETING NOTES
~~
CLERKS OFFICE FINAL ACTION
DATE: E-MAILED TO
STAFF SENT TO
AGENCY SENT TO
APPLICANT NOTES INITIALS
Meridian Planning Zoning Commission Meeting
DATE: December 19, 2013 ITEM NUMBER: 4E
PROJECT NUMBER: PP 13-012
ITEM TITLE: Centre Point Square
Public Hearing: Preliminary plat consisting of 17 multi family buildable lots and 5 common/other lots on
approximately 5.28 acres of land in an R-15 zoning district by Center Point Square, LLC -west of N.
Eagle Road and south of E. Ustick Road
MEETING NOTES
a~~
CLERKS OFFICE FINAL ACTION
DATE: E-MAILED TO
STAFF SENT TO
AGENCY SENT TO
APPLICANT NOTES INITIALS
Meridian Planning Zoning Commission Meeting
DATE: December 19, 2013 ITEM NUMBER: 4F
PROJECT NUMBER: RZ 13-014
ITEM TITLE: Summertree Subdivision
Public Hearing: Rezone approximately 2.64 acres from the R-4 (medium-low residential) zoning district
to the R-15 (medium-high density residential) zoning district by Summer Woods, LLC - SWC of W. Cherry
Lane and N. Summertree Way
MEETING NOTES
cv~~ ~a~~'~~,g
~-~~-~~
CLERKS OFFICE FINAL ACTION
DATE: E-MAILED TO
STAFF SENT TO
AGENCY SENT TO
APPLICANT NOTES INITIALS
Meridian Planning Zoning Commission Meeting
DATE: December 19, 2013 ITEM NUMBER: 4G
PROJECT NUMBER: PP 13-035
ITEM TITLE: Summertree Subdivision
Public Hearing:Preliminary plat of 156 single family residential lots and 1 common lot on approximately
2.30 acres in a proposed R-15 zoning district by Summer Woods, LLC - SWC of W. Cherry Lane and N.
Summertree Way
MEETING NOTES
C~~~~~1'~~~,e
-~~-1~-
CLERKS OFFICE FINAL ACTION
DATE: E-MAILED TO
STAFF SENT TO
AGENCY 8ENT TO
APPLICANT NOTES INITIALS
Meridian Planning Zoning Commission Meeting
DATE: December 19, 2013 ITEM NUMBER: 4H
PROJECT NUMBER: RZ 13-017
ITEM TITLE: Sheryl 4-Plex
Public Hearing: Rezone of 0.54 of an acre of alnd from the L-O to the TN-R zoning district by JTC Inc. or
Assigns - 3150 W. Sheryl Drive
MEETING NOTES
~~~~`
~.
~5~~ ~~'~` 2 I ~~
~ ~~
CLERKS OFFICE FINAL ACTION
DATE: E-MAILED TO
STAFF SENT TO
AGENCY SENT TO
APPLICANT NOTES INITIAL8
Meridian Planning Zoning Commission Meeting
DATE: December 19, 203 ITEM NUMBER: 41
PROJECT NUMBER: CPAM 13-003
ITEM TITLE: Da Vinci Park
Public Hearing: Amend the future land use map contained in the comp plan to change the future land
use designation on 7.76 acres of land from low density residential to medium density residential (6.36
acres) and mixed use neighborhood X1.4 acres) by CS2, LLC - SWC of N. Locust Grove and E. McMillan
MEETING NOTES
~p C L S,~ .
~~
Sep ~v,- c/C 1-a~-/~{
CLERKS OFFICE FINAL ACTION
DATE: E-MAILED TO
STAFF .SENT TO
AGENCY SENT TO
APPLICANT NOTES INITIALS
Meridian Planning Zoning Commission Meeting
DATE: December 19, 2013 ITEM NUMBER: 4,1
PROJECT NUMBER: RZ 13-016
ITEM TITLE: Da Vinci Park
Public Hearing: Rezone of 2.65 acres of land from the R-4 & R-8 zoning districts to the C-N zoning district;
and 6.3 acres of land from the R-4 zoning district to the R-8 zoning district by CS2, LLC - SWC of N. Locust
Grove and E. McMillan
MEETING NOTES
~~
C~G~~" Q~~~\
LL
Sc~ -~.- c~c ~ a-.31
CLERKS OFFICE FINAL ACTION
DATE: E-MAILED TO
STAFF SENT TO
AGENCY SENT TO
APPLICANT NOTES INITIALS
Meridian Planning Zoning Commission Meeting
DATE: December 19, 203 ITEM NUMBER: 4K
PROJECT NUMBER: PP 13-036
ITEM TITLE: Da Vinci Park
Public Hearing: Preliminary Plat approval consisting of 38 single family residential attached building lots,
1 commercial buildng lot and 8 common/other lots on 7.76 acres of land in the proposed R$ and C-N
zoning districts by CS2, LLC - SWC of N. Locust Grove and E. McMillan
MEETING NOTES
~~ ,
~~
`~~
~~
C~ ~ S'~~ r~ y~
~ ~,~ 6L
CLERKS OFFICE FINAL ACTION
DATE: E-MAILED TO
STAFF SENT TO
AGENCY SENT TO
APPLICANT NOTES INITIALS
Meridian Planning Zoning Commission Meeting
DATE: December 19, 2013 ITEM NUMBE~t: 4L
PROJECT NUMBER: CUP 13-015
ITEM TITLE: Terror Design Studio
Public Hearing: Conditional Use Permit approval to operate an indoor recreation facility in an I-L zoning
district by Brian Spangler - 760 E. King Street
MEETING NOTES
~~~ ~
5
~C~ ~ I--I(~-13
~~
a~~
CLERKS OFFICE FINAL ACTION
DATE: E-MAILED TO
STAFF SENT TO
AGENCY SENT TO
APPLICANT NOTE8 INITIAL8