2014 12-04Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting December 4, 2014
Meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission of December 4, 2014, was
called to order at 6:00 p.m. by Chairman Joe Marshall.
Present: Chairman Joe Marshall, Commissioner Scott Freeman, Commissioner Steven
Yearsley, Commissioner Patrick Oliver and Commissioner Rhonda McCarvel.
Others Present: Machelle Hill, Ted Baird, Sonya Watters, Bill Parsons, and Dean Willis.
Item 1: Roll -Call Attendance:
Roll -call
X Steven Yearsley X Patrick Oliver
X Rhonda McCarvel X Scott Freeman
X Joe Marshall - Chairman
Marshall: Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. I'd like to welcome you to the regularly
scheduled meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission for December 4th, 2014, and
I'd like to begin with the roll call, please.
Item 2: Adoption of the Agenda
Marshall: All right. First thing on the agenda is the adoption of the agenda and I have no
modifications or changes to the agenda, so unless anybody has anything else they'd like
to add, if I might be able to find a motion.
Yearsley: Mr. Chairman, I move that we adopt the agenda as presented.
McCarvel: Second.
Marshall: I have a motion and a second to adopt the agenda as written. All those in favor
say aye. Opposed? That motion carried.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Item 3: Consent Agenda
A. Approve Minutes of November 20, 2014 Planning and Zoning
Commission Meeting
Marshall: First thing on the agenda is the Consent Agenda. The only thing on the
Consent Agenda is the minutes of the November 20th Planning and Zoning Commission
meeting. Does anybody have any comments, corrections, additions, subtractions? No?
Then could I get a motion to approved the Consent Agenda?
Meridian Planning & Zoning
December 4, 2014
Page 2 of 22
Freeman: So moved.
Oliver: Second.
McCarvel: Second.
Marshall: I have a motion and two seconds to approve the Consent Agenda. All those in
favor say aye. Opposed? That motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Marshall: Now we are onto the Action Items and before we begin I'd like to explain how
this process works. I am going to open each of the Action Items. Items that are together I
will open at the same time. There are sign-up sheets in back if you would like to address
any of these. First thing I will do is ask for the staff report. Staff will give their analysis of
the application and how it meets city code, ordinance, and the like. Then I will ask the
applicant to come forward and the application will have 15 minutes to present any other
additional information they would like to have the Commission hear. After that I will, then,
ask for public testimony and I will begin with those sign-up sheets. Anybody signed up I
will call your name and you will have three minutes to address anything you would like
about the application. If anybody is representing a large group of people -- I can see there
is several large groups of people here. If they so indicate they could do that. They could
have ten minutes to address the Commission by show of hands they would address the
Commission for all these people. After public testimony -- and I will ask for anybody else
that might have come in late and didn't get to sign up. After all public testimony has been
heard I will ask the applicant to come back up and re -address anything that might have
come up during the public hearing and, then, hopefully, we will close the public hearing
and deliberate and render a decision.
Item 4: Action Items
A. Public Hearing Continued and Re -Noticed from November 20,
2014: RZ 14-007 Southridge Estates Subdivision by DBTV
Southridge Farm, LLC Located South of W. Overland Road
Between S. Linder Road and S. Ten Mile Road Request: Rezone
of 3.05 Acres from R-15 to TN -R; 1.67 Acres from R-4 to R-8; and
0.83 of an acre from R-8 to R-4
B. Public Hearing Continued and Re -Noticed from November 20,
2014: PP 14-017 Southridge Estates Subdivision by DBTV
Southridge Farm, LLC Located South of W. Overland Road
Between S. Linder Road and S. Ten Mile Road Request:
Preliminary Plat Approval Consisting of 167 Single -Family
Residential Building Lots and 32 Common/Other Lots on 48.56
Acres of Land in the R-4, R-8 and TN -R Zoning Districts
Meridian Planning & Zoning
December 4, 2014
Page 3 of 22
Marshall: So, with that said, I would like to open the public hearing for RZ 14-007 and PP
14-017 for Southridge Estates and I would like to ask for the staff report, please.
Watters: Thank you, Chairman Marshall, Members of the Commission. The applications
before you tonight are a request for a rezone and a preliminary plat. This site consists of
48.56 acres of land. It's currently zoned R-4, R-8, R-15 and TN -R and is located south of
West Overland Road on the west side South Linder Road. Adjacent planned use and
zoning. To the north are future single family residential properties in Southridge
Subdivision No. 1, zoned R-8 and TN -R, and vacant undeveloped property zoned RUT in
Ada County and TN -C. To the east is South Linder Road and future single family
residential properties in Fall Creek Subdivision, zoned R-8. To the south is Ridenbaugh
Canal and rural residential properties in Aspen Cove and Arial Estates Subdivisions,
zoned RUT in Ada County. And to the west is the Ridenbaugh Canal and vacant and
undeveloped land zoned R-2, R-4 and R-15. The Comprehensive Plan future land use
map designates the majority of this site, approximately 48 acres, as medium density
residential, with a smaller three acre portion designated medium high density residential.
The applicant is requesting a rezone of 3.05 acres of land from the R-15 to the TN -R
zone. That's the portion you see right here. 1.67 acres from R-4 to R-8 and 1.83 of an
acre from R-8 to eight -- excuse me -- from R-8 to R-4, which staff deems generally
consistent with the medium density residential and medium high density residential future
land use map designations for this site. The proposed rezone to R-4 and R-8 will clean up
the existing zoning boundaries in accord with the proposed preliminary plat and the
proposed rezone to TN -R will increase the area of the existing TN -R zoned area.
Development of the northwest portion of the site proposed to be zoned TN -R is governed
under the Southridge apartments development agreement. Again that is this area right
here. Prior to Council action on the subject rezone and plat the development agreement
is required to be modified to include a conceptual development plan for area consistent
with the proposed plat. A preliminary plat is also proposed as shown consisting of 167
single family residential building lots and 32 common lots on 48.56 acres of land. The
overall gross density of the subdivision 3.43 dwelling units per acre, with a range of
densities between 2.22, 3.74 and 5.91 dwelling units per acre between the R-4, R-8, and
TN -R zoned areas respectively. Access is proposed via existing streets to West Overland
and South Linder Roads. The stub street connections within phase one are proposed to
be extended with this development. Stub streets to adjacent undeveloped parcels to the
north and west are also proposed for future extension in accord with the approved
conceptual development plan for this site. Common driveways are proposed for access to
the lots along the southern boundary of the site. As you can see right here. The length of
the block along the southern boundary of the site next to the Ridenbaugh Canal exceeds
the maximum block length standards. That is this block right here. As do the common
driveways. Staff is recommending the plat as revised to comply with these standards prior
to the City Council hearing. Landscaping is proposed along Linder Road, an arterial
sheet, and South Bannock Sun Way, a collector street, in accord with UDC standards. A
segment of the city's multi -use pathway is proposed along the frontage of Block 3, which
is Street C, I believe, right here and along the west side of South Linder Road consistent
with the pathways master plan. Detached sidewalks with parkways proposed throughout
the development. Staff recommends the landscaping and pathway along Linder is
Meridian Planning & Zoning
December 4, 2014
Page 4 of 22
installed with the first phase of development. 5.31 acres or 11 point -- well, approximately
11 percent of qualified open space is proposed in accord with UDC standards, consisting
of the multi -use pathway corridor, parkways, common area and half of the street buffer
along Linder Road. A minimum of two site amenities are required. The applicant
proposes a ten foot wide multi -use pathway through the site as one amenity and staff
recommends the applicant identify a minimum of one other site amenity at the hearing
tonight. The applicant is requesting a waiver from Council to allow the Ridenbaugh Canal
to remain open and not be piped. Because this is a large facility staff is supportive of the
request, provided fencing is constructed to preserve public safety. The applicant has not
submitted building elevations for homes proposed within this development. Staff does
recommend that conceptual building elevations in compliance with the design guidelines
in the development agreement are submitted with the subject application for review and
approval during the public hearing process. Written testimony has been received from
Jason Densmer, the applicant's representative, in response to the staff report. He
requests the following changes to the conditions in Exhibit B of the staff report. The first is
provision 1.1-13. The applicant requests the condition is revised to reflect the
development agreement provision as follows: That prior to signature of the final plat for
each phase of development the applicant shall submit and obtain design review approval
if established or submit and obtain City Council approval or a development agreement
modification of plans that proposed specific and detailed architectural guidelines for this
development and that address at a minimum a variety of structures within a block, building
mass, building materials, roof lines, colors and architectural styles. Because design
review has not been established for single family residential detached homes, Council
approval or a development agreement modification of plans that meet the aforementioned
guidelines is required in accord with that provision. Staff feels that appropriate Council
approval is obtained with the preliminary plat at the public hearing, rather that the final
plat, as no public hearing is required with the final plat. Or that the DA is modified to
include such plans. Secondly, on condition number 1.1.1A the applicant contends the
common driveways within Block 3 are equivalent to an intersecting street or alley to break
up the block length and should be approved as proposed. The UDC states that no block
face shall be more than 750 feet in length without an intersecting street or alley, except in
certain situations as approved by Council. Common driveways are private and not listed
as an option to break up the block face in the UDC. Because the southern boundary of
the site is constrained by the Ridenbaugh Canal the applicant can request Council
approval to up to a 1,200 feet block length. However, the current block length is
approximately 1,350 feet. And the last -- condition one point -- or, excuse me -- condition
7.1 and 7.2, the applicant requests removal of the Ada County Highway District draft
conditions as they are working with ACHD on some revisions and the application will go
before the ACHD commission on January 7th. When ACHD issues a final staff report the
conditions will be updated by staff accordingly in the staff report. So, staff has no issue
with that. Staff is recommending approval of the subject rezone and preliminary plat
applications with the conditions in Exhibit B. Staff further recommends the plat is revised
prior to the Council hearing to comply with the block and common driveway length
requirements. Staff will stand for any questions the Commission may have.
Marshall: Commissioners, any questions of staff?
Meridian Planning & Zoning
December 4, 2014
Page 5 of 22
Yearsley: Mr. Chairman?
Marshall: Commissioner Yearsley.
Yearsley: Just wanted to clarify. Are we putting conditions on the homes along the Linder
boundary for the backyards -- or the back of the homes to be -- have I guess architectural
pleasing conditions?
Watters: Commissioner Yearsley, there is not a specific condition in the staff report, but
we could include that.
Yearsley: Okay.
Marshall: Any other questions, Commissioners? All right. I'd like to ask the applicant to
come forward, please.
Densmer: Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Members of the Commission. My name is
Jason Densmer, I'm with The Land Group, and we were pleased to work with the
applicant in submitting the rezoning and pre -plat applications that you are reviewing
tonight. Also wanted to thank your staff for the hard work that they have put as it's taken a
little bit of time to overcome some of the design challenges faced by this site. I think in the
end we have brought to you a project that complies both with your Comprehensive Plan
as it relates to your zoning ordinance requirement and with the existing underlying
development agreements, of which there are two, that govern this site. As staff
mentioned, the original development agreement was entered into for Southridge in 2006
and, then, a portion of that project was overlaid by a second development agreement for
the apartment site. This proposed preliminary plat actually lies primarily within the overall
development agreement, but a corner of it does go into the apartment development
agreement and so we are supportive of staffs recommendation that we present an
application to amend the apartment development agreement to reflect the master plan
change proposed by this pre -plat. Of the other conditions of approval, though, Sonya did
touch on the two really that were of the importance to us to bring to you and ask for
modification to staffs recommendation. First off, as it relates to those development
agreements that I mentioned earlier, in 2006 the overall Southridge development
agreement was adopted. It reflects that the overall master concept zoning that was
envisioned at that time to enable the master plan and, I don't know, about 25 pages of
other conditions and things that were necessary to govern the creation of the Southridge
project. Over time the vision for the project has changed and there have been two past
modifications of that original development agreement, the most recent of which was just
adopted in 2012. So, it has been an active application in front of the city throughout that
entire period and the most recent modification to the development agreement was only in
2012. That modification talks about the architectural guidelines for the project and as was
agreed to between the applicant and the city through the Council, the process for review
of architectural guidelines for the project. Those architectural guidelines, according to the
development are required for review prior to approval of the final plat, which really works
Meridian Planning & Zoning
December 4, 2014
Page 6 of 22
from a process standpoint quite well for the applicant. As you can tell within the project
there is a large variety of different types of lots and sizes of lots from alley loaded TN -R
lots, patio home lots more residential -- or more conventional 8,000 square foot lots, more
estate -type product and even in this proposal zipper lots, which are to our knowledge not
common in the valley yet, but are common in other market areas where two homes
actually are architecturally tied, so that you have a modulation in fagade and one garage
is forward and the next garage is back, all of which, of course, is quite complicated from
an architectural guideline standpoint and very specific to the lot. The reason that the
development agreement was written to ask for those guidelines at the time of final plat is
that we know this project will likely take several years to develop and we presented it as
six phases and anticipate constructing one phase per year. If that's the case, over that six
year period there is pretty good likelihood that we are going to learn what the market is
looking for in terms of architecturals in the project. We can't envision today all of those
different types of product, all the different styles of architecture that might be desired and
present one comprehensive package to cover these 167 lots. We think the development
agreement as written provides a reasonable way for us to present architecture to the city
for approval on a phase -by -phase basis as we present final plats for Council approval.
So, with that being our justification and the rationale, which is consistent with the rationale
that was presented at the time the development agreement was written, we would like
your relief on staff's recommended condition and return the process to what was adopted
through the development agreement. Secondly, I understand the -- the literal
interpretation of what a block face is and I understand also what I think the intent is of
having a block face requirement. In our case we are creating a project that has significant
topography along the south boundary, in addition to the Ridenbaugh Canal as a natural
barrier that prevents us from extending a pathway connection, which would be under code
a way to interrupt block length. We can't -- we can't take a pathway to the Ridenbaugh
Canal, because the Nampa -Meridian Irrigation District won't allow us to do that. We also
can't take a street or an alley to the canal, because on the other side there is no streets or
alleys for us to connect to. So, we have a natural feature that's preventing us from
interrupting the block length and yet we think that by design the way that we routed that
street takes the best advantage of the natural topography of the site. In order to access
the homes along there, though, we do have four different shared driveways and they are
roughly 250 feet apart, along that entire block length. What they allow us to do is to turn
the homes that are south of the street 90 degrees from the street and, therefore, vary the
streetscape as you drive along that 1,300 foot long block, so that on one side you have
what you might expect, homes facing the street and on the opposite hand side you have
streets that face the common driveways, therefore, you're seeing a different architecture
along the south side of the street. It's our view that the common driveways as it relates to
the esthetic of the street are equivalent to an alley certainly, nearly equivalent to having a
street intersection and certainly probably superior to having just a pathway -- micropath
connection would have been allowable under code to break up the block length. We think
that our proposed solution is at least as strong from a design standpoint, although
granted, in the UDC there is not the words common drive way as a way to interrupt a
block length. So, for your consideration we would ask for our design as it is, which is
different than staffs recommendation to you. Those are the only things for a project of
this scale I have to say we are quite pleased with staffs recommendation, that they are as
Meridian Planning & Zoning
December 4, 2014
Page 7 of 22
supportive as they are in view of our kind of complicated issues here. I look forward to
any questions you have.
Marshall: Commissioners? Well, I do have a question or two. Your common driveway
system looks similar to something I have seen in other states, a pod system. Have you
ever done this before? Have you ever done any pod systems anywhere within the state
or --
Densmer: Generally our topography here in the valley is too flat to need that kind of
design. It's much more of a hillside technique and part of the detailed grading of the
project will help us to create those kind of tiered -- excuse me -- kind of tiered lots that
step up along the common driveway. We think it's an ideal solution for this particular
situation.
Marshall: Okay. I guess what I was picturing when I say pod is flat topography is often
used and it could be used on any topography. I was just curious if you had done anything
like that in the past and when you said your zipper houses, where are you planning on
placing the zipper houses? In the smaller --
Densmer: Yes. The zipper class -- the TN -R -- is in the TN -R zoned area at the west
edge. We are using a transition between the R-15 zoned apartments and the R-8 zoned
kind of bulk of the project.
Marshall: Now, it sounds intriguing, but I would ask again if you have built any zipper
product anywhere?
Densmer: There isn't any to my knowledge in the valley. There has been a lot of it built in
California.
Marshall: Okay. Appreciate that. Commissioners, any other questions?
Yearsley: Mr. Chairman?
Marshall: Commissioner Yearsley.
Yearsley: Typically the planning and -- the -- or we put conditions along homes that face
Linder Road or a major thoroughfare to have some architectural features on the back
sides of the homes. Are you amenable to that type of a condition?
Marshall: I think we would be amenable to a condition that says that when those
architectural guidelines are submitted for the phase of lots adjacent to Linder Road, that
particular attention should be paid to the rear of the homes also.
Yearsley: Okay. Thank you.
Marshall: Anything else, Commissioners? No? Thank you very much.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
December 4, 2014
Page 8 of 22
Densmer: My pleasure. Thank you.
Marshall: I had somebody signed up, but they crossed their name off, so is there anyone
else who would like to testify to this application? No? Well, that -- I guess given that I
won't have to call you back up to readdress any issues that might have come up. All right.
So, Commissioners, I guess unless you have any other questions of staff or anyone else,
we might want to close the public hearing.
Freeman: Mr. Chair, I move that we close the public hearing on RZ 14-007 and PP 14-
017.
McCarvel: Second.
Marshall: I have a motion and a second to close the public hearing on RZ 14-007 and PP
14-017. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? That motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Marshall: Well, Commissioners, based on the testimony and the application and the staff
report, what are your thoughts? I may give you a stab here real quick.
Yearsley: All right.
Marshall: First thing I'm going to address is -- I'm kind of interested to see how some of
this could play out. But to do that, to be honest, I'd like to see some of the architectural
stuff. And to be honest, because there are some unique things here I think that
architectural review -- the some of the architecture -- I understand it will change over time,
there might be some morphing, but some of this really ought to be available for public
testimony. That does concern me a little. I would like to see it before I start saying, yes,
these pods work. The zipper houses -- I understand what they are and I have seen them
in California, but not necessarily in this architectural style. I don't know. In fact, I don't
know that the architectural style is even -- even the general idea of the architecture style
here. As far as the block length goes, again, something probably needs to happen,
because we can't change or address the UDC. The UDC allows for an additional length
up 1,200 feet, but if that doesn't fly, then, our rezone becomes an issue. If -- if layout has
to change to address that block issue, then, the rezone is inappropriate, because in that
lower right corner we are rezoning a couple areas there for R-4 and R-8 -- well, we are
switching and based on this layout it seems very appropriate, but I can't -- personally,
can't approve the rezone if I can't approve the preliminary plat. It would make no sense.
And I think we have got an issue here with the block length and I think there are methods
of addressing block length a little different. I'm not totally opposed to this. but it doesn't
meet our UDC and I can't -- I can't change the UDC personally from this chair, so -- and,
to be honest, I'm not sure I would want to. I think there are ways of addressing it. It is a
difficult situation and I'm not absolutely convinced this is -- this is a bad proposal. I kind of
like some of the ideas going on here. I do appreciate Commissioner Yearsley trying to
Meridian Planning & Zoning
December 4, 2014
Page 9 of 22
address the articulation on the backside of homes that face major thoroughfares. That is
pretty common that we can do that on almost -- most all projects that back up to any major
thoroughfare. To me that's -- we do on a very regular basis. But to be honest, there is
enough going on here that's somewhat new and unique that I'd like to see the
architectural review -- maybe not -- and I guess I'm going to lean to staff a little bit here.
When we ask for those architectural details and plans, it's typically laid out in there that
they generally have to apply to these -- this look, this feel, this general idea and typically,
yeah, we do that on conceptual plans that are years out on a regular basis, don't we?
Watters: Yes, Chairman Marshall.
Marshall: And the purpose for that is to show some consistency within a given
community; is that correct?
Marshall: As far as I -- yes. Correct. And to insure a development standard for that
development.
Marshall: Well, I guess those are my thoughts right now. So, Commissioner Freeman --
Yearsley -- Commissioner Yearsley was about to go when I think I interrupted him.
Yearsley: I will go first -- or second, I guess. I have a tendency to agree with
Commissioner Marshall -- or Chairman Marshall. I understand that this project was
originally platted with a DA in 2006, but since then we have changed kind of our
guidelines and -- and we typically require some -- at least some lot -- or house
architectural guidelines prior to this and I think it's warranted for this type of project to
understand what we are looking to approve. Just because it was -- came in in an older
project and is going for a replat or rezone, I think this is an opportune time to have a -- to
look at that and to comment on those -- those architectural features. I also believe that we
need to -- like I stated earlier, is to provide some architectural features to the back lots and
some -- looks like there are a couple of side lots of those homes facing Linder as well. In
my opinion with the -- the block face I kind of agree that the block -- that the private
driveways do break up that block, but in my opinion that's not up to us to approve that,
that's got to be for, yeah, the City Council to make that decision or not, because we have
to follow the UDC and so -- so, I think -- you know, with that I think we will -- my opinion is
just to leave it with -- the conditions the way they are, so -- but other than that I think it
looks like a good layout. So, with that that's all I have.
Marshall: Commissioner Freeman?
Freeman: Okay, Mr. Chair. I'm kind of where you are I think. I'm mulling some of these
things around in my head trying to figure out where I come out and what I would
recommend we do at this point. I agree with both of you so far, that I think we do need to
see and allow the public to see what kind of designs are going to be perhaps placed on
here. If not anything else just to establish kind of a quality and an esthetic that can be
anticipated and, you know, is it too early to pin those things down as the applicant
mentioned? Perhaps that's going to be the case, but, you know, those can change, those
Meridian Planning & Zoning
December 4, 2014
Page 10 of 22
things can alter as long as we have a basis from which to determine whether we are
meeting that level of quality and that -- that esthetic. It makes me a little uncomfortable
approving something of this magnitude with these new features without seeing any of
these -- any of the intentions as far as architectural design. We have done it before, but
suppose this project -- the nature of this project warrants a little more -- and detail a little
more attention that we can review and see what we are getting as far as architecture.
Commissioner Marshal, you brought up something that at first confused me, but I think
you were very clever in pointing out the fact that we -- we have a couple of intertwined
issues here. The block length at 1,350 feet currently proposed is very much tied to the
boundary lines between the requested rezones if this does need to be altered somewhat
in a good way to accommodate the breakup of that block. Those lines very well may have
to change, unless something very simple is done, like, you know, removing some of the
lots and creating open space, which I'm sure is not something that's going to be favored
by the applicant at this point, but the driveways, frankly, are not -- they are not enough to
meet the intent of the UDC contrary to the applicant's hope. You can go to City Council.
We don't make that decision here. You can go to City Council with this, if we were to
approve this, and ask for the 1,200 feet, but to go beyond that I'm not sure what they are
going to want to see, frankly, to go beyond even the 1,200 to 1,350 feet. So, it seems to
me that there is still an issue here that's going to need to be addressed. I don't know what
Council may do with this, but I think because the limitation is 1,200 feet they probably are
going to put some additional requirements on you to do something about that, because it
exceeds the maximum by -- by so much. I understand the limitations, but there are things
that can be done with the layout and I'm not saying you can do them retaining all of the
lots that you currently have configured, but maybe with some different configuration that
can be done, which, circling back, ties into changing what -- where those rezone area are
going to occur. I like the project. I think it's going to be a good project. This one I feel like
it's just undefined. There is still some things that could significantly change because of
that block and because we haven't seen the architecture that make me want to see more
before I can pass this on recommended to the Council myself. Those are my two cents.
Marshall: Commissioner Oliver? McCarvel? Commissioner Oliver.
Oliver: I think that I agree with the last statement by Mr. Freeman is that I think there is
some holes that need to be filled and some things that I would like to see before going
forward with it, but other than that everything has pretty much been and I agree with.
Marshall: Commissioner McCarvel?
McCarvel: I agree.
Marshall: Thank you.
Freeman: So, Mr. Chair, I -- you know, I still am not sure -- I'm not a hundred percent sure
what I would propose if I was to make a motion. I guess initially I would like to consider
continuing this, so that we can get some of those answers. How are we going to deal with
the block length and what can we expect architecturally before I would pass this onto
Meridian Planning & Zoning
December 4, 2014
Page 11 of 22
Council. Alternatively, I guess we could recommend approval, but, then, I feel like we are
passing on some of these issues to Council without having thoroughly gone through them
ourselves, just hoping that everything is going to work out.
Yearsley: Well -- Mr. Chairman?
Marshall: Commissioner Yearsley.
Yearsley: I -- after talking -- you know, I, too, I think, agree that -- that there is enough
things here that I think that the architectural features -- I would like to see them personally
as well. So, I think at this point I would move to -- I would recommend continuing to a
certain date to -- to review those items before we pass that onto Council.
Marshall: Well, Commissioners, we have got three choices. We can approve. We can
continue. We can deny. Recommend. That's all we are doing here. It is a
recommendation to City Council. Personally, I can't approve at this time. Too many other
issues need to be vetted and I need to have more information. So, I would not be able to
vote for approval. I can lean either towards continuance or towards denial. Before I could
move that way -- before I can move that way I would need to reopen the public hearing
and ask the applicant what their opinion is on some of this as to whether or not they would
be willing to make those adjustments. If so, what kind of time frame are they looking. But
if they insisted to be as it is, I would recommend denial in my case.
Freeman: Understood. I suppose we could reopen the public hearing. My suspicion is
that the applicant would be happy to continue and sort through some of these things, as
opposed to being denied.
Marshall: Well, it's just a recommendation, though, as well and --
Freeman: I agree.
Marshall: -- they can go around us, but --
Freeman: And, then, it would go to City Council and they could work those things out.
Boy, it's too good a project in my mind to recommend denial, frankly. It's a good project, it
just needs some -- some of these addressed in my opinion before it goes to Council.
Marshall: So, Commissioners, I'm looking at reopening the public hearing. Do you
agree?
Yearsley: I would agree.
Baird: Mr. Chair?
Marshall: Yes.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
December 4, 2014
Page 12 of 22
Baird: If you would take a motion and vote on it, please.
Marshall: Could I have a motion then?
Yearsley: I make a motion that we reopen the public hearing on file number RA 14-007
and PP 14-017 for the sole purpose of discussing what they would recommend -- what
they would like us to talk about denial or a continuance to a specific date.
McCarvel: Second.
Marshall: I have a motion and a second to reopen the public hearing on RZ 14-007 and
PP 14-017. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? That motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Marshall: At this time I would like to ask the applicant back up and I'm going to have to
ask for your name and your address for the record, please.
Densmer: No problem. I still know them. My name is Jason Densmer with The Land
Group. 462 East Shore Drive in Eagle. Thanks for the opportunity to address you. I think
Commissioner Freeman was spot on. I think we would much prefer to resolve these --
what seem to be kind of small issues at this level and proceed with your approval to
Council than the alternative of going to them with your recommendation of denial and
trying to explain why we are in that box. So, we would move towards continuance, if that's
all right with you. We have already been strategizing on ways that we might be able to
tweak the overall layout, preserve the vision of the design, and, in fact, probably not even
affect the rezone boundaries at all, but resolve the block length issue. We also think
within a very short time frame we could return to you with some photographs at least of
similar housing product from different areas that would at least be representative of what
we have a vision for now and, then, we could flush that out more completely as a more
detailed architectural guideline at some point in the future. At least it would help you I
think to get a vision into kind of what we are envisioning as you make a decision. So,
that's all I have to say.
Freeman: Mr. Chair, I would like to --
Marshall: Commissioner Freeman.
Freeman: I just want to make it clear to the applicant that I -- again, I reiterate I think this
is a very good project, headed in a very good direction. There are projects that we
actually will recommend approval for to City Council that have to deal with issues like this,
but in those we can I think -- as a Commission we can look at some of these things and
say, oh, yeah, they can -- they can tweak that and work within the framework and
everything is fine. I think it would be a disservice to your project. Things are so tight and
so unified here that when we start dealing with that block length it is -- it is potentially
going to change what you're going to request in a rezone and I hate to see, you know, you
Meridian Planning & Zoning
December 4, 2014
Page 13 of 22
have locked into a rezone and forced into a shape that's not going to work. So, that's why
I think for my part I would recommend that we continue this and you actually try to work
some of those things out before you end up having a similar conversation with the
Council.
Densmer: We agree. I think one approach at least for the block length would be to just
break that block in the middle and have two 90 degree corner streets and just allow the --
the pathway to continue through, but not the street to continue through, which would -- if
you can envision that or -- I don't know if I can sketch one thing or something, but I think
the remedy for the block length is readily available to us. Knowing that, that's a serious
issue to the city.
Freeman: It looks like it's going to have some repercussions in maybe number of lots,
size of lots, that kind of thing that you will certainly want to work out.
Densmer: Yeah. Correct.
Freeman: That's all.
Yearsley: Mr. Chairman?
Marshall: Commissioner Yearsley.
Yearsley: And I'm kind of particular. I'd kind of like to see examples of those zipper
homes, just because that's -- that's kind of a new product to the area, so understanding
how those are to look and to -- you know, how those are moving forward I think that would
be helpful for me.
Densmer: Okay. That's certainly one of the product types we will bring back
representative imagery for.
Yearsley: Thank you.
Marshall: My question to you -- what kind of time frame are you looking at -- at being able
to address these issues that we have been discussing? I'd like to get a little guidance
from you on how long do you think this might take?
Densmer: I think the revised preliminary plat drawing, you know, addressing the block
length issue, could be back in the city's hands within about five working days. The
imagery would probably be on a similar time frame. So, then, the question of how soon
we could return to meet with you is really how long would staff want to review.
Marshall: Appreciate that. Thank you.
Densmer: Certainly a priority for us, so --
Meridian Planning & Zoning
December 4, 2014
Page 14 of 22
Marshall: Commissioners, any other questions? No? Thank you very much.
Densmer: Thank you.
Marshall: Now that we have opened the public hearing I am going to ask again if there is
anyone else who would like to address anything that happened here? No hands raised,
so given that I think it would probably be appropriate to make a motion or close the public
hearing on RZ 14-007 and PP 14-017.
Yearsley: So moved.
Oliver: Second.
Marshall: I have a motion and a second to close the public hearing on RZ 14-007 and PP
14-017. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? That motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Yearsley: Mr. Chairman?
Marshall: Commissioner Yearsley.
Yearsley: I have one question of staff and I'm just making sure before we make a motion
on this. On your time frame, you know, if we get them back in five days will that give you
enough time for the public hearing on the Planning and Zoning meeting on the 18th or do
we want to push it back until after Christmas?
Watters: Commissioner Yearsley, staff would need at least ten days prior to the hearing
for revised plans for review. I would recommend January 15th, as I don't know that that
would give the applicant time enough -- ten days prior. That would put you at Monday or
Tuesday of this next week to -- no, to have revised plans submitted. Exactly. And, then,
we don't have a meeting on January 1st. That's New Years, obviously, the first meeting.
So, the next meeting would be January 15th.
Marshall: Okay. So, Commissioners?
Freeman: I don't know if Mr. Yearsley would like to make a motion. I'm certainly ready to
think.
Yearsley: Go for it.
Marshall: Commissioner Freeman.
Freeman: Okay.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
December 4, 2014
Page 15 of 22
Marshall: Can I have you hold for just a second, Commissioner Freeman. Ted, did you
have something?
Baird: A little technical thing about leaving the public hearing open so that you can
continue it to a date certain, so --
Marshall: So, we shouldn't have closed the public hearing.
Baird: Technically that's the way to do it. So, if you could reopen and, then, move to
continue to a date certain that would be the proper way to go.
Marshall: Thank you. Appreciate the procedural advice. At this time, Commissioners,
could I get a motion to reopen the public hearing for RZ 14-007 and PP 14-017?
Freeman: So moved.
Yearsley: Second.
Marshall: I have a motion and a second to reopen the public hearing for RZ 14-007 and
PP 14-017. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? That motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Freeman: Mr. Chair, if we are ready for a motion now.
Marshall: Commissioner Freeman.
Freeman: I move to continue file numbers RZ 14-007 and PP 14-017 to the hearing date
of January 15th, 2015, for the following reasons: So, that the applicant can revise his plan
to work out the Block 3 length issues, number one. And, number two, to provide some
examples of the various architectural styles and types that will be intended for this project,
so that those can be approved with the preliminary plat per Council's recommendation --
or staffs recommendations.
Yearsley: I will second that. I have a motion and a second to continue RZ 14-007 and PP
14-017. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? That motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
C. Public Hearing: CUP 14-016 ACNW Indoor Recreation Facility by
ACNW Properties, LLC Located 1471 E. Commercial Drive
Request: Conditional Use Permit to Operate an Indoor
Recreation Facility in an I -L Zoning District
Marshall: All right. Next on the agenda is CUP 14-016. ACNW Indoor Recreation Facility
and I'd like to ask for the staff report, please.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
December 4, 2014
Page 16 of 22
Parsons: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. The next item on the
agenda this evening is the indoor rec facility conditional use permit. The subject property
is currently zoned I -L within the city limits and it's located at 1471 East Commercial Drive.
As you can see in the aerial here this property is primarily surrounded by industrial zoned
and industrial developed properties in the area. In 2005 the city did approve a certificate
of zoning compliance for the construction of the warehouse building that sits at the rear of
the property. The applicant -- and this is the site plan that was approved with that
certificate of zoning compliance and this also represents the current conditions on the
property as well. The applicant is here tonight to establish the indoor recreation facility
within that rear building and that would be established with phase one. Currently they
occupy the front building here. This plan indicates it's a tenant B and a tenant A, but,
actually, the applicant or the owners operate here and will continue to do so, so the indoor
rec facility use will primarily be established in this building here. I'd also point out to the
Commission that there are several other indoor rec facilities operating within the area and
staff has not received any complaints from the industrial users out there as to whether or
not this impacts that. So, we are -- staff is confident that the proposal this evening
occupying the existing space here, we are confident that this use should not impact the
adjacent properties. As I pointed out in the staff report, phase one will consist of primarily
occupying the existing building. If this project takes off and there is more need for this
facility in the future, the applicant does plan on expanding that and that's what this slide is
to represent. So, if you look at the graphic of the elevations here, the taller structure is the
existing metal warehouse building and that's what's going to be occupied and that's what
have highlighted in the red square here. That's the 7,500 square feet existing footprint of
that building. Again, as this grows and become more popular and they want to add more
sporting events, the applicant does envision adding approximately another 5,800 square
feet to the building and you can see where they have depicted it here on this concept plan
and it also shows you how it's to wrap around the existing 7,500 square building. In my
staff report I -- staff was confident that with the first phase, the existing 26 parking stalls on
the site would more than likely accommodate the use, because like any business it takes
time to get that momentum and get that clientele. One thing that I did point out in the staff
report was staff was concerned with the added square footage or the expansion in the
future if this does get growing and expand in the future, there could be an impact to the
surrounding development. So, we don't know yet. We don't know the entire business
model for this site. We don't know if there will be any tournaments or anything like that
here as this thing continues to grow. So, we want to make sure we can at least address
that issue and so my recommendation in the staff report was the applicant when they
come through with their certificate of zoning compliance and their design review approval
with the building expansion that they -- staff would assess that expansion using the
parking standards for the commercial districts and under the UDC that standard is one
stall per every 500 gross floor area of building addition. Also using that method and
based on what the applicant shared with us in their narrative, staff has calculated that
approximately 12 more parking stalls would have to be added to this development and so
the applicant was kind enough to provide that exhibit to you this evening to show you the
existing parking along the front here and also along the west boundary and you can see
here how they could add the additional 12 stalls to accommodate the commercial
Meridian Planning & Zoning
December 4, 2014
Page 17 of 22
standards as conditioned in the staff report. Staff is recommending approval to you with
no modifications and we have not received any written testimony on this application.
Again, to my knowledge there aren't any outstanding issues before you this evening and
would stand for any questions you have.
Marshall: Commissioners, any questions of staff?
Freeman: Bill, I have one.
Marshall: Commissioner Freeman.
Freeman: In looking at the 12 proposed parking stalls, it's angled parking is what I'm
saying. Instead of 90 degree parking, which implies one way vehicular circulation. I'm
curious if there has been any discussions with the applicant about signing or by design
accommodating, making it clear that one way vehicular traffic is intended around the back
end of that. Those parking spaces are going to be very difficult to use if people are
coming in from the wrong side.
Parsons: Chairman, Commissioner Freeman, you say that absolutely correct. If they go
with that design it will have to be striped one way to accommodate the angled parking.
And, again, we would review that at certificate of zoning compliance and design. I think
the purpose of the graphic is to merely give you assurances that additional parking can be
added to the site, so that we don't just arbitrarily put a condition on a site that the applicant
can't comply with. So, we want to at least get you a concept plan, if you will, and nothing
is even dimensioned on here for you to even know if it meets the dimensional standards of
the UDC yet for the parking lot, but I scaled it out a little bit this afternoon and I'm
confident if they go the one way as you discussed, as you brought up, it would more than
likely work for them.
Freeman: Okay. If it's in staffs hands --
Parsons: It's in staffs hands, yes.
Freeman: -- I completely trust you to make that happen. Great. Thank you.
Yearsley: Mr. Chairman?
Marshall: Commissioner Yearsley.
Yearsley: Bill, isn't there another facility just to the east? A recreational type facility
already established?
Parsons: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Yearsley, you're absolutely correct. There are
actually two -- or there was two approved. One was -- one looked like a Gold's Gym
where you go in and have a fitness facility. The other one is a dance studio in that
adjacent warehouse building to the east.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
December 4, 2014
Page 18 of 22
Yearsley: Okay.
Parson: You're absolutely right, you have approved two conditional use permits there
Yearsley: Okay. That's what I just want to make sure.
Marshall: All right. At this time I'd like to ask for the applicant to come forward and I'm
going to have to ask for your name and address for the record.
Mendez: I'm Robert David Mendez. My address is 2821 North Lawson, Meridian, Idaho.
And I thank you guys for your time in listening to our proposal. You know, this is -- comes
from a need for the youth and most in the community just need more recreation to keep
people active and that's really what we are about. You know, we have Meridian United
Sports Center and we really push a lot of our sports and youth activities through that and I
think this is a good way to accommodate the need and, then, adding a baseball facility to
the -- to the west of it, so -- and that's what the image on there -- left-hand side there.
guess to the east it would be. So, I feel really confident and good about the project and
think that we are headed in the right direction. We have thrown our feelers out there and
have quite a bit of interest, you know, coming from the community and different people.
So, we don't think it's going to take long to really kick this off and need that expansion, so
-- I guess we just look for your approval and thanks for your time and completely agree
with his assessment of what we intend to do, so -- and the one-way traffic was completely
intended, so we just didn't get that on there -- on the pathway.
Freeman: Yeah. As long as you work with staff to make that work correctly --
Mendez: Yeah.
Freeman: -- I'm happy.
Mendez: That's what we will do. That's really all I had, so --
Marshall: Commissioners, any questions of Mr. Mendez? Thank you very much.
Mendez: Thank you, guys.
Marshall: Well, sir, you are the only one who signed up to testify. I'm making absolutely
certain you are called upon. Is there anyone else who would like to address this? Seeing
no other hands -- Mr. Mendez, I am not going to call you up to rebut your own testimony.
so, Commissioners, I guess I'm looking for a motion.
Yearsley: Mr. Chairman?
Marshall: Commissioner Yearsley.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
December 4, 2014
Page 19 of 22
Yearsley: I move that we close the public hearing on CUP 14-016.
McCarvel: Second.
Marshall: I have a motion and a second to close the public hearing on CUP 14-016. All
those in favor say aye. Opposed? That motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Marshall: Well, Commissioners, thoughts?
Yearsley: Mr. Chairman?
Marshall: Mr. Yearsley.
Yearsley: You know, the -- we have already approved two next door. It seems to be
working just fine for those and, you know, we are seeing more of this and so I'm -- I'm
supportive of this project. I think it will be a -- a good, you know, place for kids to hang out
and provide activities for them, so -- absolutely.
Freeman: Not much to add. These seem to be really good types of uses for these --
these areas in this type of a situation. I'm fully in favor. That's all.
Marshall: Commissioner Oliver? Commissioner McCarvel?
Oliver: I just believe it's another good example of using existing facilities and getting them
put to use for a really good purpose, giving kids a place to go.
Marshall: Thank you. Commissioner McCarvel, anything you would like to add?
McCarvel: Not that anything -- everything's already been said.
Marshall: All right. Well, I, too -- I'm all in favor of the project. I would like to commend
staff for having the foresight to look at the expansion and say, look, in case you do expand
we want to make sure you're capable of putting this in. I think it was very appropriate and
I appreciate that and I appreciate the layout, just throwing those in and showing us that it
can and will work. And beyond that I am for the project. So, Commissioners?
Freeman: You need a motion, don't you?
Marshall: Commissioner Freeman, I am looking for a motion.
Freeman: But I don't intend to make a motion.
Marshall: Ah.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
December 4, 2014
Page 20 of 22
Freeman: Just pointing that out.
McCarvel: Mr. Chairman?
Marshall: Commissioner McCarvel.
McCarvel: I move to approve file number CUP 14-016 as presented by the staff report.
Yearsley: Second.
Marshall: I have a motion and a second to approve the application for CUP 14-016 as
presented in the staff report for December 4th, 2014, with no modifications. All those in
favor say aye. Opposed? That motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Item 5: Other Items
A. Development Agreement Checklist Revision Discussion
Marshall: All right. Last item on the agenda, the development agreement checklist
revision discussion and I would like to ask staffs analysis and explanation of this, please.
Parsons: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. You should have
received in your packet a memo from the planning division manager outlining the scope
and task at hand about modifying our checklist. On a periodical basis our Unified
Development Code requires us to come before you when we have major modifications to
our checklist and in that memo by our planning division manager he had stated the reason
why we were looking for your blessing this evening. It primarily comes down to the
amount of work or -- that our legal department has to do and one of those prime examples
is what you saw this evening with that Southridge DA where something comes into you
and gets a bubble plan and gets a development agreement, but, then, over time it
changes, properties get extracted from the development agreement and we have them
enter into a new development agreement. We are not capturing those costs for that work
based -- that our legal department has to do and so this is one way that we want to get it
out in front of the development community and let them know is you're not paying any
increase fees, we already have a fee that we charge for development agreement -- new
development agreements, which is a 303 dollar application fee, and a development
agreement modification fee is a 502 dollar application fee. So, what we are trying to do is
if we come before you and we work with the applicant and we tell them, okay, you need to
do a DA mod and extract property and enter into a new development agreement, we are
going to charge you double -- we are going to charge you the fee for the modification and
we are going to charge you the fee for a new development agreement. And that's,
basically, what that checklist does, in a nutshell. So, hopefully you have had a chance to
look at the checklist and I would be happy to stand for any questions you have.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
December 4, 2014
Page 21 of 22
Marshall: Real quick, Bill. I'm going to ask a question for clarification purposes. What
you're saying there are no new fees, this is just clarifying to the applicant of what the fees
would be, so there is no surprises and it's all on one list.
Parsons: That is correct, Mr. Chairman.
Marshall: Thank you. Commissioners, any questions of staff? I do have a question of
you, Ted. Are we supposed to approve this or deny this or do a little dance?
Baird: That's a good question. It's been a while since we have had one of these. I think
it would be appropriate for you to move to approve the changes, because the code does
require that it come to you before it's implemented, so there you have it.
Marshall: I figured we were going to vote on something, but the question was what and I
appreciate that. So, Commissioners, may I ask you -- do you have any opinions here or
does somebody want to just jump out and make a recommendation?
Freeman: I think it's fine. I'm not opposed to it. I think it's a wise move. Somebody want
to make a motion or should I make a motion? I will make a motion.
Marshall: Please, Commissioner Freeman, feel free to make a motion.
Freeman: I move to approve the development agreement checklist revision discussion as
presented by staff on the hearing date of December 4, 2014.
Oliver: I will second.
Marshall: I have a motion and a second to approve staffs recommended changes to the
development agreement list. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? That motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Marshall: Now, Commissioners, I do have another motion waiting.
Oliver: Mr. Chairman?
Marshall: Commissioner Oliver.
Oliver: I move that we close.
Freeman: Second.
Yearsley: Second.
Marshall: I have a motion and a second to adjourn the meeting. All those in favor say
aye. Opposed? That motion carries.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
December 4, 2014
Page 22 of 22
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
MEETING ADJOURNED AT 7:05 P.M.
(AUDIO RECORDING ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS.)
PPROVED
MARSHALL -- CHAIRMAN
ATTEST:
M&C&Croy
JAYCEE HOLMAN, CITY CLHRK
121 16114
DATE APPROVED
,v."TED ALjQt �
L �y
�City of
EIDIZ IAN,--
A IDAHO
SEAL v
4B�fAe TflEp`�Q