2015 04-16 ./c/(1E IDIAN.- MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING
IDAHO COMMISSION MEETING
AGENDA
City Council Chambers
33 E. Broadway Avenue, Meridian, Idaho
Thursday, Thursday, April 16, 2015at 6:00 p.m.
1. Roll-call Attendance
X Patrick Oliver X Rhonda McCarvel
0 Gregory Wilson X Ryan Fitzgerald
O Steven Yearsley - Chairman
2. Adoption of the Agenda
3. Consent Agenda Approved
A. Approval of Minutes for April 2, 2015 Planning and Zoning
Commission Meeting
B. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: CUP
15-005 Sonic Drive-In at Paramount by Ken Lenz Located 4936
N. Linder Road Request: Conditional Use Permit Approval for
a Drive-Thru Establishment in a C-G Zoning District Within 300
Feet of Another Drive-Thru Facility and Existing Residences
C. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: CUP
15-004 Meridian Martial Arts by Heather Neitzell Located 535 N.
Locust Grove Road Request: Conditional Use Permit Approval
to Operate an indoor Recreation Facility in an I-L Zoning
District
4. Action Items
A. Continued Public Hearing from April 2, 2015: CUP 15-001
Franklin Mini-Storage by Osborne Enterprises Located 1975 E.
Franklin Road Request: Conditional Use Permit for a Self-
Service Facility in a C-G Zoning District Approved
B. Continued Public Hearing from April 2, 2015: RZ 15-004 Verona
East Subdivision by Primeland Investment Group, LLC
Located East of N. Ten Mile Road and North of W. McMillan
Road Request: Rezone of 0.67 Acres of Land from the L-O
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Agenda—
Thursday,Thursday,April 16,2015Page 1 of 2
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.
Zoning District to the R-8 Zoning District Recommend
Approval to City Council
C. Continued Public Hearing from April, 2015: PFP 15-001 Verona
East Subdivision by Primeland Investment Group, LLC
Located East of N. Ten Mile Road and North of W. McMillan
Road Request: Preliminary / Final Plat Consisting of Four (4)
Single Family Residential Lots and Two (2) Common Lots on
Approximately 0.62 Acres in a Proposed R-8 Zoning District
Recommend Approval to City Council
D. Public Hearing: AZ 15-002 Decatur Estates by 4345 Linder
Road, LLC Located at 4345 N. Linder Road Request:
Annexation and Zoning of 39.76 Acres of Land with an R-4
Zoning District Recommend Approval to City Council
E. Public Hearing: PP 15-004 Decatur Estates by 4345 Linder
Road, LLC Located at 4345 N. Linder Road Request:
Preliminary Plat Approval Consisting of Ninety-Nine (99)
Building Lots and Twelve (12) Common Lots on 39.76 Acres of
Land in the R-4 Zoning District Recommend Approval to City
Council
F. Public Hearing: RZ 15-005 Hamelin Village Subdivision by B&S
Investments, LLC Located 603 W. Pine Avenue Request:
Rezone 0.50 Acres from the R-15 Zoning District to the R-40
Zoning District Recommend Approval to City Council with
Modifications
G. Public Hearing: PFP 15-002 Hamelin Village Subdivision by
B&S Investments, LLC Located 603 W. Pine Avenue Request:
Combined Preliminary/Final Plat Approval Consisting of Two
(2) Multi-Family Residential Lots and One (1) Common Lot on
Approximately 0.45 Acres in the Proposed R-40 Zoning District
Recommend Approval to City Council with Modifications
H. Public Hearing: CUP 15-006 Hamelin Village Subdivision by
B&S Investments, LLC Located 603 W. Pine Avenue Request:
Conditional Use Permit Approval for a Multi-Family
Development Consisting of Eight (8) Dwelling Units (Two (2)
Four-Plex Structures) on Approximately 0.45 Acres in a
Proposed R-40 Zoning District Recommend Approval to City
Council with Modifications
5. Other Items None
Adjourned at 7:41 PM
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Agenda—
Thursday,Thursday,April 16,2015Page 2 of 2
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 Meeting April 16 2015
Meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission of April 16, 2015, was called to
order at 6:00 p.m. by Vice -Chairman Patrick Oliver.
Present: Commissioner Patrick Oliver, Commissioner Rhonda McCarvel and
Commissioner Ryan Fitzgerald.
Members Absent: Chairman Steven Yearsley and Commissioner Gregory.
Others Present: Jacy Jones, Ted Baird, Sonya Watters, Bill Parsons and Dean Willis.
Item 1: Roll -Call Attendance:
Roll -call
Gregory Wilson X Patrick Oliver
X Rhonda McCarvel X Ryan Fitzgerald
Steven Yearsley - Chairman
Oliver: Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. At this time I'd like to call to order the
regularly scheduled meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission for April 16th, 2015.
Let's begin with roll call.
Item 2: Adoption of the Agenda
Oliver: Next we would go to the adoption of the agenda. Do I have a motion to adopt the
agenda?
Fitzgerald: Mr. Chairman, I would move for adoption of the agenda.
McCarvel: Second.
Oliver: It's been moved and seconded that we adopt the agenda. All in favor say aye.
Opposed nay. Motion carried.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. TWO ABSENT.
Item 3: Consent Agenda
A. Approval of Minutes for April 2, 2015 Planning and Zoning
Commission Meeting
B. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: CUP 15-
005 Sonic Drive -In at Paramount by Ken Lenz Located 4936 N.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
April 16, 2015
Page 2 of 31
Linder Road Request: Conditional Use Permit Approval for a
Drive-Thru Establishment in a C -G Zoning District Within 300
Feet of Another Drive-Thru Facility and Existing Residences
C. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: CUP 15.
004 Meridian Martial Arts by Heather Neitzell Located 535 N.
Locust Grove Road Request: Conditional Use Permit Approval to
Operate an indoor Recreation Facility in an I -L Zoning District
Oliver: Next we move to the Consent Agenda. Tonight we do the items on the agenda --
for the Consent Agenda are items A through H. Any additions or corrections?
Fitzgerald: A through H or A through C?
McCarvel: A through C.
Oliver: Oh. Consent Agenda. A through C. Excuse me.
Fitzgerald: Mr. Chairman, I would move for approval of the Consent Agenda.
Oliver: I have a motion. Do I have a second?
McCarvel: Second.
Oliver: I have a motion and a second. All in favor say aye. Opposed if any. Motion
carries.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. TWO ABSENT.
Oliver: Moving on to the action items for this evening. So, before we get started this
morning and the -- or this morning. This afternoon in our action items, we will start by --
let me just explain the hearing process. We will start by opening each item and we will
have the staff report, which gives findings regarding how the item adheres to our
Comprehensive Plan and Uniform Development Code for staff's recommendation and the
applicant will have an opportunity to come forward to present their case for the approval of
the application and respond to any staff comments. The application -- or the applicant will
have up to 15 minutes to do so. Then we will have any public testimony which will follow.
There is a sign-up sheet that you can find at the back of the room as you enter that
anyone wishing to testify can. Anyone testifying will come forward and be allowed three
minutes. If they are speaking for a larger group, like an HOA, and there is a show of
hands to represent that, they will be given up to ten minutes. Then after all testimony has
been heard the applicant will have an opportunity to respond. If they desire so they will
have ten minutes and we will close the public hearing and the Commission will have the
opportunity to discuss and hopefully be able to make a recommendation to City Council.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
April 16, 2015
Page 3 of 31
Item 4: Action Items
A. Continued Public Hearing from April 2, 2015: CUP 15-001
Franklin Mini -Storage by Osborne Enterprises Located 1975 E.
Franklin Road Request: Conditional Use Permit for a Self -Service
Facility in a C -G Zoning District
Oliver: So, we will begin with our open hearing. At this time I'd like to open the public
hearing for item CUP 15-001, Franklin Mini Storage, Osborn Enterprises, located at 1975
East Franklin Road. We will start with staff.
Watters: Thank you, Chairman Oliver, Commissioners. First application before you
tonight is a request for a conditional use permit. This site consists of approximately ten
acres of land currently zoned C -G, located at 1975 East Franklin Road. This site is
surrounded by residential properties zoned R-4 and R-15 in the city and rural residential
property zoned RUT and R-1 in Ada County. This site was annexed in 2001 and a
development agreement was required as a provision of annexation, which limits
development to a mini storage facility on this site. The Comprehensive Plan future land
use map designation for this property is commercial. The applicant has submitted a
conditional use permit application for the construction of a self-service storage facility in a
C -G zoning district. This site is proposed to develop in two phases. The first phase is
proposed to consist of 77,595 square feet of storage area, which includes 4,445 square
feet of conditioned storage, which is climate controlled and 2,860 square feet of office
area. The conditioned storage and the office area are proposed here on the -- at the entry
on the north end of the property. The second phase is proposed to consist of 59,968
square feet of storage area. No outdoor storage is proposed. You can see the phasing
line here on this site plan on your right. This is the first phase and, then, the second
phase is to the south. Access is proposed via East Franklin Road, with two emergency
accesses also via Franklin Road on either side of the main driveway. They are proposed
here -- it's a little hard to see on this site plan, but these shaded areas here are the
emergency accesses. This is the main access to the facility. These accesses will have
the grasscrete, so it will be a hard driving surface, but it will look like grass as part of the
buffer area. Cross -access is also required to be provided to the west to this property here
for future redevelopment. Development is required to comply with the specific use
standards for self-service storage facilities, which require a six foot tall site obscuring
fence around the perimeter boundary of the storage facility. Restricted hours of operation
from 6:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m. and a 25 foot wide landscape buffer to residential uses.
There are residential uses currently to the east, west, and south. A segment of the city's
multi -use pathway system is required along the north side of the Five Mile Creek, which
lies here at the southwest boundary of the site. An easement for the pathway is required
with the first phase of development, but the pathway is not required to be constructed until
the second phase. And this shows -- the drawing on your left here shows a cross-section
of the elevation differences. The ground does slope significantly here. So, this -- this
shows the different points on the site, what the storage units will look like from the
adjacent residential properties. Building elevations were submitted as shown for the
Meridian Planning & Zoning
April 16, 2015
Page 4 of 31
proposed office and storage buildings, which is what you're looking at here and the
storage unit structures in phase one. This shows the -- the office and storage building
here and, then, the storage units down here along the edge of the boundaries. Elevations
were not submitted for the second phase. However, they will be consistent with those
proposed with the first phase. The building materials consist of -- for the office storage
building consists of a mix of stucco, metal panels with stone accents, clear anodized
aluminum and glass facades and metal roofing. Building materials for the storage units
consists of metal wall panels, metal roofing and metal overhead doors. The height of
storage structures range from approximately 11 feet to 21 feet at the ridge, with the
shortest of the structures proposed along the east and west perimeter boundaries of the
site adjacent to the residential uses. The applicant states the structures in phase two will
be consistent in height with those in phase one, with the shorter buildings along east and
west perimeter boundaries. Tamara Thompson, the applicant's representative, has
submitted written testimony in response to the staff report and a letter has also been
received from Arnold Burr. The applicant is in agreement with the staff report. I will let
them cover that, but just in short they are requesting -- or they plan to request a reduction
in the buffer width along the west boundary of the site from the City Council and the City
Council is the decision-making body that needs to request -- or, excuse me, that needs to
approve a reduction in the buffer width. Staff is recommending approval of the conditional
use permit with the conditions in the staff report. Staff will stand for any questions the
Commission may have.
Oliver: Any questions?
Fitzgerald: Sonya, only one question.
Oliver: Commissioner Fitzgerald.
Fitzgerald: You said something about a cross -access.
Watters: Yes.
Fitzgerald: Where would that go based on the fact that
Watters: Chairman Oliver, Commissioner Fitzgerald, the cross -access would go to the
west property boundary, probably in alignment this drive aisle right here.
Fitzgerald: Okay. Thank you, ma'am.
Oliver: Okay. Could I have the applicant, please, come forward. Please state your name
and address for the record.
Thompson: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, my name is Tamara Thompson,
I'm with The Land Group at 462 East Shore Drive in Eagle. I'm here tonight representing
the applicant and we have read the staff report and agree with most of its findings. We
have a couple items that we'd like to discuss. First thing I want to highlight is that this was
Meridian Planning & Zoning
April 16, 2015
Page 5 of 31
approved back in 2001. The layout is -- is considerably different than that, but with that
the property was annexed and zoned at that time with a development agreement and that
agreement -- that development agreement limits development on this site to mini storage.
So, we are complying with the development agreement. As far as the conditions of
approval, the two items that -- that we have some issue with is on the conditions of
approval 1.7, which is the cross -access and 1.8, which is the landscape buffer. We don't
have -- we are showing the east property boundary with the 25 foot. We will comply on
the south property boundary with 25 feet. On the west boundary is the one in question
and we are -- right now we have a building setback of 35 feet and a ten foot combined
landscape setback. There is two property owners on that western side. We have talked
to both of them. The letter that you received is from one of those two. He's in agreement
with what we have planned there and wrote a letter to that effect. The second gentleman
we have talked to -- he's in agreement also, but we don't have his letter yet, but we will
have that before our application to City Council. So, everybody is in agreement on -- on
how they would like to see -- see that. We have worked out that buffer situation with
them. Back to the cross -access. In -- I guess the issue on that is that the property to the
west, which this cross -access would be given to, has a future land use designation of
mixed use community and that allows -- and it's a fairly small parcel, just a little under .8
acres and that would allow a bank, a fast food drive-thru or restaurant and if all of that
traffic is going to be routed through this site it would be problematic, especially with -- we
had some -- we have continue this a couple times, you know, working with the fire
department on -- on how that emergency access would be take place. So, we have two
emergency accesses and, then, a main one and to point of all -- you know, if it came -- we
don't know what it's going to be. But say it's a fast food, pulling all that extra traffic onto
the site would be problematic. So, we are asking for relief on that condition. And, then,
1.8 -- I don't think there is anything we can do here tonight, that that's something we have
to take back to City Council. And with that I will stand for any questions.
Oliver: Okay. At this point we would have anybody that would -- signed up to come up
and testify, but I have nobody on my form that shows they are going to testify. Is there
anyone that would like to testify? Okay.
Fitzgerald: Mr. Chairman, can I ask one question? I have one question for you. In the
cross -access is there a secured fence gate somewhere that you're dealing with? I mean
you say traffic can pull through. I'm thinking there is a gate in between those two first
buildings; is that correct? Yeah. It's kind of hard. I'm looking at it, but it's kind of hard on
the screen. But it wouldn't impact your security or would it?
Thompson: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Fitzgerald, it would not affect security.
Basically, the buildings act as a fortress, if you will, that all the openings to the storage
units are on the interior.
Fitzgerald: Okay. Thank you.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
April 16, 2015
Page 6 of 31
Thompson: So, I just want to add that as far as cross -access, you know, maybe we could
do something where it's conditioned to a secondary emergency access, so if somebody
needed a secondary access for that that would be acceptable, but not a main entrance.
Oliver: So, along that same side, all along that perimeter, that will all be landscaped along
there or will it be fence?
Thompson: There -- on the west property line there we are planning a six foot high solid
fence. So, vinyl solid fence. And, then, there is roughly six feet of landscape setback
and, then, the drive aisle and then -- and, then, another four feet of landscaping against
the buildings.
Oliver: Okay. Thank you. Seeing no testimony -- nobody to testify, I guess I need to
close -- motion to close.
Fitzgerald: So moved, Mr. Chairman.
McCarvel: Second.
Oliver: I have a motion and a second. All in favor say aye. Opposed say nay. Motion
carries.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. TWO ABSENT.
Oliver: Okay. I would like to start by just saying I like the design that you presented
tonight. I think it's a really unique looking design. It's contemporary. I also like the fact of
I have never heard of a climate controlled -- which is very interesting to me and I also like
the fact that all those storage units are enclosed, rather than having a -- more of an
awning situation. So, I think with that I think it looks good. But I do agree with a lot of the
things that the staff has pointed out that should be taking place, so --
Fitzgerald: Mr. Chairman, I agree. I think it looks very well put together. The design for
the storage facility is exceptional, which is impressive. Also, the way he dealt with the
land grade there is very difficult, so I'm impressed with that. I -- my thought is the drive
aisle may be a little bit challenging. I have a -- I mean some of the type of storage units
that's my only concern of a storage facility. My only concern is that we are -- we are going
to have traffic rolling through there in a secured facility in some cases, but I'm kind of open
to some discussion on that point.
McCarvel: Yeah. I guess, Mr. Chairman, I'm having a hard time visualizing how that
access would change. I don't know if --
Fitzgerald: Yeah.
Oliver: No other discussion? Okay. I'd like to have a motion, please.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
April 16, 2015
Page 7 of 31
McCarvel: Mr. Chairman? After considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I
move to approve file numbers CUP 15-001 as presented in the staff report for the hearing
date of April 16th, 2015, with the staff recommendations and the exception of 1.7 -- is that
what it reads?
Fitzgerald: I think it's 1.8
McCarvel:
1.8 was landscape. Sorry.
Fitzgerald:
B? Is that what it is?
Oliver: With
the exception of 1.8?
McCarvel:
1.8 was landscape for the Council.
Fitzgerald:
I think there is another section of it, too.
McCarvel:
Okay.
Fitzgerald:
I can't find it right now. Hold on. I will get it.
Watters: Page 23 of the staff report.
Fitzgerald:
It's 1.81B.
McCarvel:
1.813. Okay.
Fitzgerald;
Is that correct, Sonya? Is that --
Watters: Are you asking about the --
Fitzgerald:
The stub over --
Watters: -- cross -access to the west?
Fitzgerald:
-- cross -access.
Watters: Yeah. 1.813.
McCarvel:
8B. Okay. Sorry.
Fitzgerald:
Also 1.7.
Watters: And also 1.7. Thank you.
McCarvel:
Okay. That's what I thought.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
April 16, 2015
Page 6 of 31
Fitzgerald: Okay.
Baird: Mr. Chair, in addition to those section comments by the maker of the motion, I'm
trying to -- there it is. The maker of the motion might specify -- does that mean you're
granting the request for relief from the cross -access or you're recommending as -- as
drafted?
Oliver: At this time.
Baird: Just for clarification.
McCarvel: Granting relief.
Oliver: You're granting the relief.
McCarvel: Yes.
Fitzgerald: Second.
Oliver: Okay. It's been moved and seconded that we have approval the Franklin Mini
Storage, CUP 15-001, with the exception of 1.7 and 1.8B. All in favor? Opposed?
Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. TWO ABSENT.
B. Continued Public Hearing from April 2, 2015: RZ 15-004 Verona
East Subdivision by Primeland Investment Group, LLC Located
East of N. Ten Mile Road and North of W. McMillan Road
Request: Rezone of 0.67 Acres of Land from the L -O Zoning
District to the R-8 Zoning District
C. Continued Public Hearing from April, 2015: PFP 15-001 Verona
East Subdivision by Primeland Investment Group, LLC Located
East of N. Ten Mile Road and North of W. McMillan Road
Request: Preliminary / Final Plat Consisting of Four (4) Single
Family Residential Lots and Two (2) Common Lots on
Approximately 0.62 Acres in a Proposed R-8 Zoning District
Oliver: Next up it's a continued public hearing from April 2nd, which is RZ 15-004 and -- is
that right? Yeah. PFP 15-001, Verona East Subdivision by Primeland Investment Group.
Staff report.
Watters: Thank you, Chairman Oliver, Members of the Commission. The next
applications before you tonight are a request for a rezone and combined preliminary and
final plat. This site consists of .67 of an acre of land, currently zoned L -O. It's located at
Meridian Planning & Zoning
April 16, 2015
Page 9 of 31
5048 North Cortona Way. This site is surrounded by single family residential properties in
Verona Subdivision No. 2 to the north, east and south, zoned R-8, and vacant commercial
property to the west across North Cortona Way, zoned C -G. This property was annexed
with an R-8 zoning district back in 2003 as part of the Verona Subdivision development. It
was rezoned in 2007 to L -O and a development agreement was required, which required
substantial conformance with the conceptual office elevations in the agreement. The
Comprehensive Plan future land use map designation for this property is medium density
residential. The applicant is requesting a modification to the development agreement to
remove this property from the agreement. This will allow the two single family residential
attached structures with four dwelling units to be constructed on the site, instead of offices
as originally planned. This application does not require action from the Commission. City
Council is the decision maker on this request. This is just for informational purposes. A
rezone of .67 of an acre is requested from the L -O to the R-8 zoning district consistent
with the future land use map designation of medium density residential for this site. The
applicant has submitted a site and landscape plan shown on your left that depicts how the
site is proposed to develop with two single family residential attached structures.
Conceptual building elevations for the dwellings were submitted as shown. Construction
materials appear to consist of horizontal lap siding with stucco accents. A certificate of
zoning compliance and design review application is required to be submitted for final
approval of these structures at staff level. A combined preliminary and final plat is
proposed consisting of four single family residential building lots and two common lots on
.62 of an acre in the R-8 zoning district. Access is proposed via North Cortona Way, a
collector street. Local street access is not available to this property. A common driveway
is proposed for access to these lots and that is shown right here along the west side of the
property. No written testimony has been received on this application. Staff is
recommending approval per the conditions in the staff report. Staff will stand for any
questions Commission may have.
Oliver: Do you have any questions? No? Seeing none, we will have the applicant come
forward, please. Please state your name and address for the record.
Martins: Thank you, Commissioners. My name is Gerald Martins. I am the
representative of the applicant Primeland Investments Group, LLC. We are here this
evening, as staff very well summarized, requesting a rezone back to R-8 to allow
construction of two structures with four residential units and we concur with staffs
recommendations.
Oliver: Any questions, Commissioners? Thank you. Okay. At this point we will have
anybody that would like to come up for public testimony. I have no one on my -- again on
my list. Is there anyone in the audience that would like to come forward? Okay. Seeing
none, I would like to have a motion to close the public hearing.
Fitzgerald: Mr. Chairman, I move we close the public hearing.
Oliver: We have a motion --
Meridian Planning & Zoning
April 16, 2015
Page 10 of 31
McCarvel: Second.
Oliver: -- and second. All in favor say aye. Opposed nay? Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. TWO ABSENT.
Oliver: I'll start again. It's very compatible to what's around it. I don't see anything that I
dislike about it. I think it fits with the surrounding area. So, it's just interesting how it's
going to work with those houses right together like that. That should be interesting. But it
looks good.
Fitzgerald: Mr. Chairman? I agree. I think it's a good buffer between the higher density
and, then, going into whatever that commercial corner is going to be. So, it was -- it's well
planned.
McCarvel: Yeah. Mr. Chairman. I agree. Seems pretty simple flip back to the original
zone. I don't see any issues with it.
Oliver: If we have nothing else can I get a motion?
McCarvel: After considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move to
recommend approval of file numbers RZ 15-004 and PFP 15-001 as presented in the staff
report for the hearing date of April 16th, 2015.
Fitzgerald: Second.
Oliver: It's been moved and seconded that we accept RZ 15-004 and PFP 15-001,
Verona East Subdivision. All in favor say aye. Opposed say nay. Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. TWO ABSENT.
D. Public Hearing: AZ 15-002 Decatur Estates by 4345 Linder Road,
LLC Located at 4345 N. Linder Road Request: Annexation and
Zoning of 39.76 Acres of Land with an R-4 Zoning District
E. Public Hearing: PP 15-004 Decatur Estates by 4345 Linder Road,
LLC Located at 4345 N. Linder Road Request: Preliminary Plat
Approval Consisting of Ninety -Nine (99) Building Lots and
Twelve (12) Common Lots on 39.76 Acres of Land in the R-4
Zoning District
Oliver: Okay. At this time we'd like to open the public hearing -- yeah. For AZ 15-002,
Decatur Estates, and PP 15-004, Decatur Estates, and we will start with staff report.
Watters: Thank you, Chairman Oliver, Members of the Commission. The next
applications before you are a request for annexation and zoning and a preliminary plat.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
April 16, 2015
Page 11 of 31
This site consists of 29.76 acres of land. It's currently zoned RUT in Ada County and is
located at 4345 North Linder Road on the west side of North Linder Road south of West
McMillan Road. This site is surrounded by single family residential properties, zoned R-4
and R-8. A church zoned L -O and vacant land with a shop across Linder Road to the
east, zoned L -O. The Comprehensive Plan future land use map designation for this site is
medium density residential. The applicant requests annexation and zoning of 39.76 acres
of land with an R-4 zoning district. Staff recommends a development agreement as a
provision of the annexation with the provisions in the staff report. A preliminary plat is also
proposed as shown there on your left, consisting of 99 buildable lots and 12 common lots
39.76 acres of land. The property is proposed to develop in four phases starting at the
north boundary as shown on the plat. The gross density for the proposed subdivision is
2.49 dwelling units per acre, with an average lot size of 11,413 square feet. Because the
density is under the three to eight dwelling units per acre desired in medium density
residential designated areas, the applicant requests a step down in density to low density
residential, which allows three or fewer dwelling units per acre as allowed by the
Comprehensive Plan without an amendment to the future land use map. The reason for
the lower density is the need for larger lot sizes to accommodate their desired product,
which incorporates an RV garage attached to some of the dwellings. Access is proposed
via one access from Linder Road and three existing stub streets from Bridgetower
Crossing and Watersong Estates Subdivisions. The White Drain bisects this side right
across here. You can see the pointer. The applicant requests City Council approval of a
waiver for the drainage to remain open and not be piped. A bridge is proposed for access
across the drain. A 25 foot wide street buffer is required along Linder as proposed on the
landscape plan. Six foot wide parkways are proposed throughout most of the
development. A total of 5.02 acres or 12.63 percent of the site is proposed in qualified
open space, with a segment of the city's regional pathway along the White Drain and
playground equipment as site amenities in accord with UDC standards. The applicant has
submitted five conceptual building elevations for future homes in this development.
Building materials appear to consists of a mix of horizontal lap siding and stucco, with
shake shingle and stone accents. Written testimony has been received from Becky
McKay, the applicant's representative, in response to the staff report. Staff is
recommending approval per the conditions in the staff report? Staff will stand for any
questions the Commission may have.
Oliver: Do you have any questions?
McCarvel: Mr. Chairman? Sonya, where was that where -- you're saying the staff would
like that area piped in and they want to -- they would like to leave it open?
Watters: Chairman Oliver, Commissioner McCarvel, Commissioners -- excuse me. Lost
my place here. The applicant is requesting that Council approve a waiver to allow the
White Drain to remain open and not be piped. Typically our code requires that any
irrigation ditches be piped, unless they are of substantial size. Council, is the determining
decision maker on that request.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
April 16, 2015
Page 12 of 31
McCannel: And just like a visual about -- do you know how much water goes through
there or how wide is that ditch?
Watters: Applicant can probably address that question for you.
Fitzgerald: But, Sonya, there is a -- the concept is to have a connection to the pathways
in the city; correct?
Watters: Yes. Correct.
Fitzgerald: So, It's kind of a common area type or -- supposed to be a common area
feature?
Watters: Yes, Commissioner Fitzgerald
Fitzgerald: Okay.
Oliver: Okay. Seeing no other, could I have the applicant come forward, please. State
your name and address for the record.
McKay: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. I'm Becky McKay with
Engineering Solutions. Business 1029 North Rosario in Meridian. I'm here representing
the applicant on this particular project, Todd Amyx with Amyx Signature Homes. As
Sonya indicated, this particular parcel is an enclave. The city limits wrap all the way
around it. We are located just south of McMillan on the east side of Linder Road.
Bridgetower wraps around the north and the west side of the project. On the south is
Watersong. To the east is Baldwin Park. As you can see, this is developed all the way
around this parcel. The White Drain traverses it. Comes across Linder Road and, then, it
exits the west boundary and I was the planner and we were the civil engineer on
Bridgetower and what we did through Bridgetower with the White Drain, since it is a drain,
it's not like a live canal system, we incorporated it into the project as a water amenity and,
then, we constructed a multi -use pathway all along the south side that's 14 feet in width.
So, -- I didn't touch it.
Watters: Sorry
McKay: I was thinking about it. So, when Mr. Amyx brought this particular project to me I
knew the property very well. In fact, the Brineger family had owned this property for years
and years and I met with Bud Brineger out at this property and we walked it as far as
coordinating the piping of the ditches and the drains and everything that were taking place
around the perimeter. So, obviously, it was the intent of myself and Mr. Amyx to
incorporate this, so that it meshed into Bridgetower development. It was a -- kind of a
seamless transition. So, what we did is, obviously, we are leaving the White Drain in its
historical location. It's our intent to install a ten foot multi -use pathway from our eastern
boundary all the way to match up with the asphalt pathway that is in Watersong along our
very southeast corner and, then, extend it -- it will be, then, for -- there -- oops. Therefore
Meridian Planning & Zoning
April 16, 2015
Page 13 of 31
extended out to Linder Road. One of the things that I looked at when -- after we had our
neighborhood meeting is I got a lot of input, we had a great turnout from the Bridgetower
Subdivision. We had some residents in Watersong. The primary concerns from the
people in Watersong is that they -- there is kind of an open space along our southwest
corner and they wanted to make sure that they were going to install some sight obscuring
fence, something like a vinyl fence. We did show that on our landscape plan,
incorporated those recommendations. The staff asked us to connect to Watersong, the
stub street, and extend it on into the development, which we -- we did. We also had a
stub street coming -- where is the little -- there it is. We also have a stub street that
comes in from Bridgetower on the north boundary. We had quite a few residents that live
in that particular loop there. Each -- each kind of pod we called it when we did
Bridgetower. It creates kind of a neighborhood within a neighborhood. They were
concerned about some cut -through traffic going over to Hunter Elementary, because the
elementary school is located just in a northwest fashion off the collector roadway that runs
through Bridgetower. So, their comment was they wanted this vehicular connection here
right in front of the LDS church. That is a public right of way. It's a reduced public right of
way, but it does come straight out to the collector roadway and doesn't loop around and
go out the pod like which -- this would be a more direct route and would cut down on the --
the traffic that may go through their neighborhood. So, we did go ahead and extend that
right of way in. We have ten foot landscape buffers on both sides of that right of way. If
people attend the LDS church hopefully they will walk, but they can drive without going
onto the arterials. We have a 30 foot landscape buffer all along the Linder corridor. We
will have a detached walk that slightly meanders in that 30 feet. We have Sawtooth
Middle School located at
our southeast corner. So, in looking at this I wanted to create convenient walkways for
Bridgetower kids and the children that may locate in our subdivisions. So, we -- we have
a pedestrian path located here. This will be our central amenity with playground
equipment and we have a pathway that comes through the linear open space and, then,
we have another micropath that hooks into the Linder Road right there and, then, in
addition we have our ten foot multi -use pathway. So, you know, based on good planning
on, you know, the surrounding projects, we have really good what I consider pedestrian
interconnectivity that promotes the kids ride their bike or walk to the school and, obviously,
creating the safe routes to school like is preferred. We matched our collector entrance
with Monument Drive across the street at Baldwin Park. We -- we brought the collector
into a -- for a short distance and, then, we have the traffic kind of split off so no one
particular street carried the burden of all the traffic. We will have a landscaped island at
the entrance and, then, we will have detached walks with a six foot landscape buffer
throughout the project, with the exception of this section here of Ashton Street and the
reason that we are doing attached walk at that southern section is because that area
isolated by the White Drain narrows up and we were having difficulty creating an adequate
depth for those lots that backed up to the White Drain. We will have a pump station
located here in the southeast corner and there is a ditch that comes down parallel with
Linder Road that we will put in pipe that will be our source for our pressurized irrigation
with an overflow to the White Drain. The average lot size in here is about 11,400 square
feet. We don't have any lot less than 8,000. So, what's before you this evening is a
request for annexation and zoning to an R-4 designation, which is consistent with the
Meridian Planning & Zoning
April 16, 2015
Page 14 of 31
Bridgetower development. We wanted to, obviously, keep our lots a little bit larger like we
have in Bridgetower and that drove our density down, so the medium density residential
designation on your comprehensive land use plan of three to eight, we are below that at
the 2.49. So, we are asking for a step down. We feel this is a great project. It will be a
good addition. When -- after we talked to the neighbors they seemed to be quite pleased
with our client -- that our client was doing the development, the quality of his homes, and
the size of the lots and we think we have a great project and it will be a good fit. This
particular area already has sewer and water stubbed to it. Hunter Elementary was
constructed to service that section with Bridgetower and in calculating the number of
students that included this parcel. The homes will kind of look like this. These are some
of the homes that my client's built and his builder team has built in Alpine Point off of
Eagle Road and McMillan Road. Just kind of gives you the idea of the quality of the
homes. We do have some varying lot sizes in here, so we will have a variety south of the
White Drain. The staff asked us to boost our density a little bit in there to provide a better
variety of lots which we did. So, we have 70 foot wide lots and, then, they range up
through into the 80s and even up to a hundred -- a little over a hundred. So, we feel that
we will get a good diversity of homeowners that will have a variety of different age kids, so
not to overwhelm Hunter Elementary. We reviewed the staff conditions. The only
conditions that we had a concern are dealing with the multi -use pathway. We will be
constructing the multi -use pathway through our parcel, however, the staff has included
that we come into the Bridgetower Homeowners Association common lot and build
approximately 115 feet of multi -use pathway to make the connection. The concern that
we have is we don't have any, nor do we have any easement to go onto an adjoining
property and make improvements. That would be considered an off-site improvement.
We are very glad to build the multi -use pathway on our property, but I -- I have had a
micropath connection to Bridgetower with Belano Creek over on the western edge of
Bridgetower on Ten Mile and they would not allow us to take the fence down to make the
connection of our micropath, so that people could walk north up to the -- the neighborhood
commercial area. So, I just don't want to be put in the position where I can't satisfy my
condition of approval, because it is completely out of my control. I did go back and look at
the paperwork when I did phase ten of Bridgetower to see why the multi -use pathway was
stopped at that location and it had to do with Settlers Irrigation District, they -- their path --
their access road is on the north side of the White Drain. In Bridgetower we combined
their northerly access road and the multi -use pathway and we constructed a 14 foot dual
purpose asphalt path. So, they can drive down it for maintenance. Also it's used for
pedestrians and bicyclists. In the project that's before you, Decatur, we will have a ten
foot multi -use pathway on the south side, but retain the Settlers gravel maintenance on
the north side and keep that separate. But at the time Bridgetower was done -- or phase
ten was constructed my recollection it was in 2004 was we stopped here because we
weren't sure was the pathway going to go north of the drain or was it going to go south. I
guess I -- I think it's -- this is something that the Parks Department and the city staff need
to talk to Bridgetower, but it is an off-site improvement that shouldn't be part of my
conditions of approval and that's 1.1.1 C, 1. 1.5 and 6.3. All three of those conditions that I
noted in my responses and I bolded in letter have a provision in there that says that we
shall make that connection off site. Do you have any questions?
Meridian Planning & Zoning
April 16, 2015
Page 15 of 31
Oliver: I have a couple if I could. I don't know if you can go back to the actual -- yeah.
So, the drainage right there, is that the responsibility of the owners when they buy that
property to put fence along that drainage or is that going to be the developer to put a
fence along that drainage?
McKay: Chairman Oliver, Members of the Commission, we will be installing wrought iron
fencing all along the White Drain at the perimeter of the lots. So, I put the White Drain,
which has an approximately 70 foot wide easement in a separate common lot under the
association's ownership and maintenance and, then, there will be a wrought iron fence on
both sides. We will also install wrought iron fencing along the linear open space and our
central common area and along our pedestrian pathways. It will be solid fence along this
perimeter here. One other thing that the Bridgetower residents asked that we match their
fence, so that there is kind of a seamless -- you know, no one notices it, you know, from --
from like a beige to, you know, a stark white or something, that it be the same type of
fence and my client has agreed to that.
Oliver: The other is -- is you have got four phases and over what period of time do you
feel like all four phases could be completed?
McKay: We anticipate -- phrase one will -- will be -- consist of this secondary connection
and our primary entrance and, then, that will be -- the client intends on constructing that in
2015 and paving before the winter. The second phase Will most likely be in 2016, which
will be towards the center of the project and, then, the client -- we put four phases, but we
-- he anticipates three. We put four just to be safe in the event that we experience some
market changes that slows development down for whatever reason. He expressed to me
that -- that it was his plan to build it in three. So, I would say over the next three years.
Oliver: Okay. Then one final question is that you had some exemptions that you wanted
that the staff had and it was regarding the pavement or the sidewalk that you were looking
at. The 1.1C was one of them. Could you give me the others again, please?
McKay: 1.1 -- 1.1.1 C, 1. 1.5 and 6.3 all deal with the multi -use pathway, which the portion
of that condition that applies to construction of it on our site is applicable. The problem we
have is the -- the section that says that we shall build this off site pathway. It's not under
our control.
Oliver: Okay. Commissioners, do you have any other questions? Thank you. Okay. At
this time we would like to take public testimony. I do have a couple people that have
signed up. We will start with Adam Simons. Would you like to come up and testify?
Okay. Carolyn Yocum. If you would come up, please, state your name and address.
Yocum: My name is Carolyn Yocum and I live at 4498 North Abruzzo Avenue in the
Bridgetower Subdivision. From what she said I kind of got the impression that -- that
Bridgetower had a meeting. If they did I did not know about it. But I - I knew when the
little white house went down, that the houses were coming in, so -- but my main concern
is the street that goes between my property, the back side -- I live on the east side of
Meridian Planning & Zoning
April 16, 2015
Page 16 of 31
Bridgetower. There is my house -- our house is there, a common area, and, then, the
street. The street was originally designed to be an alley and it was supposed to be an
alley with single level businesses behind. Then they came in with the request from the
church that they build a church there, which we have no objection to, but at that time --
and I didn't realize that they decided that our alley was going to be a street. Now, the
church has only one entry off of Linder and the other entries are both on the back -- on the
backside of the church on that very narrow street. It's hardly wide enough for two cars to
pass. We have sidewalk on the Bridgetower side. On the church side they are
landscaping those clear to the asphalt. So, there is no sidewalk on that side of the street
either. It is really -- I really don't consider it a street, because it's only half a street. So, all
the church people come over on our side of the sidewalk, which is neither here nor there,
except my dogs bark all day Sunday, because of everybody that's walking by. We have
all these people driving out of the driveway all day long right behind our house, going onto
this narrow street and it is one of their main avenues of going to and from. So, I really
would object to them having this go into -- I think you can see on that picture -- I don't
have a copy of the picture, but that it -- it shows kind of a narrower type of a street than
the other one that's going to go into this new subdivision and I believe that this would
really put a high impact of traffic on that -- on Penngrove Way. That's what they call the
street, Penngrove Way, and if anybody were to take a second look at it they would see
that it is -- it was not a -- not a good street to have a high level of traffic going to and from.
So, I guess that's all I have to say.
Oliver: Questions?
Yocum: Thank you.
Oliver: Thank you. That's all we had for public testimony. Is there anyone else who
would like to come up? Would you like to come forward, please? State your name and
address.
Ebell: My name is Wayne Ebell. I live at 2122 West Maracay. If you bring up the graphic
-- or the -- this one here. My property is over on the west side and my house backs up to
the canal, which is there, and when I purchased that house in 2011 1 was told by
Bridgetower development and Coleman that there wasn't any plans to do anything with
that land for ten years and I happened to be down in Arizona for three weeks for spring
baseball with a couple of other guys and I come home and I see this sign up on Linder
Road and on the access road going into -- oh, I can't remember which street that is.
Anyway, indicating that there is going to be this public meeting tonight about the property.
Now, I have lived here five years in this subdivision over here and my biggest concern
with putting 99 new homes is who is going to pay for the widening and the signals and the
turn lanes that need to go into Sawtooth school and for the traffic coming out of
Bridgetower and the additional traffic now for these 100 homes or whatever. Sometimes
you can't even make a left-hand turn coming out onto Linder, because you have to wait for
16 to 26 cars that's come down Linder from the north going south and at 7:30 to 8:30 in
the morning people going to work and if we add these other 99 cars coming out of this
place, there has to be some kind of a traffic control. Buses and this -- this canal project
Meridian Planning & Zoning
April 16, 2015
Page 17 of 31
that we are talking about, I was not involved in the community meetings, because I wasn't
in town and, like I said, I just found out about it two weeks ago and I put this on my
calendar to come here. I'm really surprised there is not more people from my
neighborhood here, because we have all talked about it, but it seems like nobody has got
the gumption to come down and face, you know, the Council and I have no gumption -- I
mean I have -- you know, I have no problem coming down here and speaking my piece
and my piece is mainly the concern of the traffic flow. We need turn signals -- turn lanes.
We need some kind of street light there and, my God, that church that's over there, which
she's complaining about, is going to be horrendous, because those people are going to try
to sneak around getting out onto Linder --
Oliver: You need to finish up.
Ebell: -- and go to McMillan and turn right and, then, go to that signal and I can just see it
in my head now what's going on. And the other concern I have is the people in
Bridgetower -- I don't know about the people on the north side of the canal, but we love
that ease way. It goes to our parkway -- our parks. We have the perfect dog run that's
there and I believe that that same path should continue all the way to Linder. It should
look the same. The same fences, the same setback and everything. I don't know about
you, but wrought iron fences she's talking about putting, but I don't care about those. I
just want the back side of this house -- or this canal to maintain its look from Linder all the
way back to -- actually, it's our second pool area.
Oliver: Thank you. And your time is up.
Ebel[: Thank you.
Oliver: Thank you. Do I have someone else? I believe you were first on the list. You
changed your mind. State your name and address, please.
Simmons: My name is Adam Simmons. I live at 1885 West Torana Street, which is -- the
back of my property is just on the north end of this proposal here. Does this little thing
have any impact here? A pointer?
Watters: You can select a color at the top -- on the buttons along the top of the screen at
the --
Simmons: I see.
Watters: -- and, then, you can draw on it
Simmons: Thank you. Okay. So, I live right here. You can see that? I neighbors and --
I'm sorry, I did it again. Thank you. My neighbors and I here, we asked the developer to
continue Penngrove, which is right there by the church, to go through into this new
development, because we were concerned about the bi-directional nature of school traffic
going from this new development and Watersong up to Hunter and also going from
Meridian Planning & Zoning
April 16, 2015
Page 18 of 31
Bridgetower through this new development down to Sawtooth Middle School. So, we are
going to be having school traffic in the morning and in the afternoon in both directions and
there is a walking path in this loop here. I'm sorry. Yes. There is a walking path here
from this loop that connects right through here. Let me -- thank you. It's right here. You
can see that. And we were hopeful that we could minimize the vehicle traffic out of this
particular loop where that walking path is going to have the most walking traffic going to it
from school. So, that's why we were hopeful that this road on Penngrove would continue
through. Especially because it's a minimal impact to those in our loop whose property
does back up to that, but there isn't any frontage there that would impact those houses
that are in Bridgetower across from the church. So, I just wanted to speak in support of
continuing that road Penngrove through to the -- that was basically it. Thank you.
Oliver: Thank you. Is there any other public testimony? Please state your name and
address for the record.
Baranco: My name is Jeff Baranco and I live at 1971 Pachino, which is -- do I dare try
this? The pen? So -- will this write? Okay. So, I live here. It's not writing, but --
Watters: It should write, but it's not writing.
Baranco: Okay. So, can you see where I was pointing? Okay. So, I live on Pachino
Street and, obviously, that's one of the main thoroughfares coming from this new
subdivision and I would agree with the Hargrove -- I'm not sure what that name of that
street is -- that secondary street. I would agree that we do need to have that street in use.
But the second concern that I would have is with Hunter Elementary she mentioned that
that was a part of the original plan. My kids go to Hunter Elementary and I can assure you
that school is filling up. I mean it's virtually full. So, that now proposes a problem for the
school, but it also proposes a problem for the foot traffic and the cars that come through
there. We already deal with just the cars that come through our pod -- racing through that
thing and I can only imagine as it gets worse over time the amount of traffic that's going to
be coming through that pod. So, I would definitely echo that that street does need to be
there and in use. The second thing I would say is -- you know, we have some parks and,
then, I'm not sure -- she didn't elaborate on what kind of parks are going to be going into
this subdivision, but we do have a couple parks in Bridgetower and I can only imagine
how many children will be in this new -- these 90 homes. They are bound to be using not
only the parks, but probably the pool, because it's pretty easy to sneak into. But that's
going to impact Bridgetower itself in a negative way and so I would just -- I would ask that
that's considered, that this is not just a slam dunk, okay, there is an elementary school
right here and there is a junior high across the street -- these schools are full. There is
going to be impact. We talked about the traffic lights. That is a -- it has to happen. It's
already very dangerous for those children. You add however many more children to that
mix and that equation and you're just asking for an accident and so not only in our pod,
but across Linder. Linder is becoming a -- it's a hazard and I'm not sure you could even
put a light at Copper Cloud and Linder there to kind of mitigate some of that traffic, but the
gentleman is right, there is a line of traffic just sitting there. It's a blind corner and there is
kids walking out there and so -- so we can talk about throwing 90 houses into this -- into
Meridian Planning & Zoning
April 16, 2015
Page 19 of 31
this box, but we need to talk about the impact to not only the children that are coming
through here, but the impact down the road as we -- Meridian tries to grow. I mean we
are going to -- we are going to need more schools and more -- lots of assets in this area,
so -- that's all I have.
Oliver: Thank you. Is there anyone else that would like come forth? State your name
and address, please.
Johns: Good evening. My name is Jim Johns. I am at 4475 North Cool River Avenue.
There is two houses on my street. I'm right across from Jeff. We have had these lengthy
construction -- conversations. One thing I want to clarify is -- they brought up the issue of
Penngrove. Right now it's blocked off. Is that going to continue going through? Because
as far as the traffic flow, the safety issue, does that need to be addressed? The other little
entrance that comes into Belltower, which is our neighborhood, is that on the table to be
addressed or is that a final decision made on that? I have 26 years background
emergency medicine. I see kids hit all the time. The amount of children in that area and
the schools at Hunter and Sawtooth, are at max capacity. Another question I have is
Linder going to be widened? Two lane highway between McMillan and Ustick is not safe.
I don't know if the fire department has been involved, the police department has been
involved as far as codes, signals. When you put in 99 homes, which is equivalent to 400
more people, of an average of 104 cars coming through there, is there going to be one or
two entrances on Linder itself. I have one. That's the major thoroughfare, the major
entrance. I'm not sure if that's in the plan. It sounds like there is one on Linder, a
possibility on Penngrove and the one that goes into my neighborhood. That's three
entrances. Okay? And on that note, if this is a three year project, well, where are the
construction equipment -- the cement trucks, all the personnel, are they coming through
our neighborhoods? Are they coming through Linder? Are they coming through
Penngrove? That's going to have a direct impact traffic wise and safety wise. Okay. So,
my concern and question is what is the first access point you're going to have onto that
property for construction? Is it going to be Linder? Is it going to be Penngrove? Is it
going to be in my neighborhood. So, that's going to have a direct impact as far as us, the
residents, trying to get in and out. We have an issue now with Copper Cloud going to
Hunter School. We have got a lot of racing. We have had a lot of issues. That's a school
zone. The Mormon church that sits there on Penngrove, that's commercial land I assume.
That's a commercial street, not a residential street, which connects all the way to
McMillan. You know, our concern is that going to be going straight through in order to
alleviate some of that traffic congestion.
Oliver: Thank you. Is there anyone else? Would you like to come forward, please?
State your name and address for the record.
Young: My name is Lulette Young. I live at 4475 North Cool River Avenue, Meridian,
Idaho. We just recently purchased our house in December. We were not notified as far
as what plan was going to be going there, what was getting built, and, then, we never got
notified. We just got this copy from our neighbors Jeff about this hearing. And we saw
the hearing on the land, so we were never notified. Our realtor never told us about the
Meridian Planning 8 Zoning
April 16, 2015
Page 20 of 31
property that was going to, because that could have changed our decision in buying the
house that we bought and, then, the other thing, too, as far as the access mode, my
husband has been in critical care. I have as well. We see children on our street all the
time. They are out there playing, they are out there having a good time, which is fine, and
all the parents are out there watching them. But with more traffic coming in with these
homes, they are going to be subjected to more -- more cars coming in at a faster rate.
This is a residential area, so a lot of people already now in Meridian do not follow the
residential speed limits that are listed or posted, because from us coming from a different
state we notice all your speed limits and how they are. Nobody -- not that many people
acknowledge it. So, you could see kids crossing and cars are coming -- flying by, even in
the school areas. We did not choose Hunter Elementary for our daughter to go to school,
we did not -- because she's a middle school student. We did not choose Sawtooth Middle
School, but even from us just knowing the schools, they are impacted. We spoke with the
principal at Sawtooth, they are impacted and they can't say no. They cannot turn anybody
away. Our daughter went to Catholic school throughout her life, so she is continuing
Catholic school. So, we are driving to take her to school, which is no problem, but Linder
is a major impact -- from Major to Ustick. That's another one. You can see people waiting
in line for us to either make a left-hand turn -- right-hand turn is easier to go towards
Linder -- Ustick than it is going towards McMillan. So, it's a major impact. Kids are
crossing the street all the time with their skateboards or with their bicycles and cars are
not stopping and where the Mormon church is, that should be a totally full access road,
because it shouldn't be accessible towards our street. We are a residential street. We
are a family community and we have our kids playing there and they also have access to
the parks, but we are safe. If you open that road by our house we are not as safe
anymore. Our kids -- more people are coming in, we don't know who is who, who is
coming in or anybody in that matter. We need to see familiar faces. We won't know.
People already coming into our streets to drop off where the cul-de-sac is off of North
Cool River Road, if you make a right, they are dropping their kids off right there and that's
going to impact those residents there as well. Just to drop them off, because there is a
walkway that the kids can go to school at Hunter Elementary and, you know, like I said,
we weren't notified. We just bought our house. We settled in the middle of January. We
are pleased where we are. We would just like you to go ahead and make amendments or
to see what is the safety of our children.
Oliver: Thank you very much.
Young: You're welcome.
Oliver: Is there anyone else? Seeing none. Could I have the applicant come forward,
please.
McKay: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission.
Oliver: Would you restate our name?
Meridian Planning S Zoning
April 16, 2015
Page 21 of 31
McKay: Becky McKay. Engineering Solutions. To answer Mrs. Yocum's question
concerning Penngrove, we had a lengthy debate about what the staff -- the Meridian staff,
Ada County Highway District staff and -- and the neighbors as far as this stub street -- oh.
Watters: I don't know why it's not working right tonight, Becky. I just selected a color on
my end. See if it works now.
McKay: Okay. The pros and the cons of connecting the Penngrove stub street. No, it
wants to change. It's persnickety tonight. Sorry about that. Anyway, we had a lengthy
discussion about the pros and cons of the stub streets. The stub streets are put there for
a purpose. They are obviously to provide interconnectivity and that's pedestrian, bicycle,
and vehicular. Ada County Highway District does not give us the option of not extending a
street. Their policy manual and your ordinances say that stub streets shall be extended.
We are connecting single family residential, low density single family residential with low
density single family residential. So, we are definitely compatible. When we discussed
Penngrove we initially had it as a pedestrian path and we suggested that to your staff and
put it out there for ACHD. ACHD said they might consider it if the city could support it.
When I had the neighborhood meeting, which was after my pre -application with city staff,
the neighbors -- we had a lengthy discussion and I had a full room of Bridgetower people
and the pros and the cons. Obviously, if we have multiple options for vehicles it cuts
down and doesn't concentrate our traffic on any one particular street. So, it was the
consensus of the group that they -- that we make that connection to give two opportunities
for access into Bridgetower, whether it be vehicles or pedestrians. After looking at the
development in the area and the schools and the more the micropaths are located, I had
to agree with the neighbors, that was the best planning choice. The staff was supportive
of it and so was Ada County Highway District. That is a right of way. Penngrove is a
reduced right of way. It was initially proposed as just a -- kind of a private drive, but at
some point in time it changed and they made it into a public road and so connecting it is
standard. The same holds true for the Watersong connection. The Watersong
connections -- we don't have a choice. So, we have three stub streets that we are
connecting and we have one entrance to Linder. We want to reduce our number of
entrances out to Linder Road, because that, obviously, chokes off and causes conflict
along those arterials. But I think this is the best option and I -- you know, there is no
project I don't think in the City of Meridian that has better connectivity than Bridgetower as
far as options. We did a continuous collector. It ran through -- from Ustick and up to Ten
Mile, over to Linder and, then, there is a public street that goes out to McMillan. I
designed that drop off, pick up lane at the south side of Hunter Elementary right off the
collector, so that people could drop their kids off, if they choose to drive them, and not
have to go out on the arterial. So, you know, there were a lot of -- this whole section was
studied very heavily by your staff, by the highway district. We had multiple meetings
about how best to serve this section. Linder Road is two and three lanes. It needs to be
upgraded to five lanes. It's in Ada County Highway District's capital improvement plan. It
carries I think 12,000 -- over 12,000 vehicle trips. I guess I look at it from the perspective
that on your comp plan this is designated for single family residential. If I came in at your
four dwelling units per acre I would be at 159 homes and I'm at 99 and so I think we are
sensitive to traffic and to impact on the joining residents and we have chosen, obviously, a
Meridian Planning & Zoning
April 16, 2015
Page 22 of 31
development plan that we think is compatible. As far as the capacity of the schools.
Hunter Elementary, when Primeland sold that to the school district and we planned that
into the project -- they sold it to them at the cost of the land, what they paid the farmer.
So, the school district got in cheap on it, so it could be built in a quick fashion to serve this
area. Part of the service is this section. Ten Mile to Linder. Ustick to McMillan. That
includes this property. I have never heard as far as -- that was news to me that this
property -- someone said that it would never develop for ten years. Obviously somebody
was, you know, making it up. I -- this property has been under the Brinegers ever since I
started working this area in the late 1990s and I believe they owned it for many years prior
to that. So, that -- you know, I can't help what a realtor tells someone. They can tell
someone anything. I can't control it. Developers can't control it. As far as the gal that
indicated that she wasn't notified of the development. She lives within 300 feet. There is
always a lag time at the assessor's office when those home sales -- those new deeds
come in and when they update their GIS information. We get our list from the Ada County
assessor and, like I said, there is a lag time. The city gets their list from them, too. We
sign the property. We have the neighborhood meeting. The city notifies -- I mean we do
the best that we can. There is absolutely no guarantee that every single person -- they
might have moved in last week -- gets a notice. But we do the best we can. She's here
this evening. This is a good project. Our bigger -- our larger lots are over there on that
western boundary there, north of the creek, or the drain and this is a really -- it's going to
be an asset to this section and to their neighborhood and I don't think it gets any better
than this. You know, you see so many projects with higher -- medium to high density and
this is what I would consider low and it's consistent with the density that we did throughout
Bridgetower. Do you have any questions?
Oliver: I have just one. Could you just address the construction equipment as far as --
there was a question about where would that be parked, where would that be coming in
from during the construction phase of the subdivision?
McKay: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, the -- the construction traffic will
come off of Linder. We have to build a construction entrance. There is no reason to have
a construction entrance at a stub street when we have all of Linder have all frontage
available. We get -- we can get fined for tracking -- mud tracking. We have to have our
erosion control plan, our SWIP plan and report in place. So, Linder Road is where all the
big equipment will be coming in. We are going to establish the Linder entrance, so when
the homes start going up all of the contractors, builders, will be coming in off that Linder
approach. That's going to be the most convenient. I kind of view the stub streets to the
north as secondary access. You're going to have some traffic go through back and forth,
but that's not the primary. The focus of this development is to Linder.
Oliver: Thank you. Commissioner McCarvel or Commissioner Fitzgerald, do you have
anything to add?
McKay: Thank you.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
April 16, 2015
Page 23 of 31
Oliver: Thank you very much. Sorry. I can't. Okay. At this point, if we have no other
public testimony and we have heard from there, so I need a motion.
Fitzgerald: Mr. Chairman, I'd move we close the public hearing.
McCarvel: Second.
Oliver: Moved and seconded we close. All in favor say aye. Opposed say nay. Motion
carries. We are now closed.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. TWO ABSENT.
Oliver: Discussion? I will start if you don't mind again. I will just start. One of the things
the gentleman over here talked about -- and you were very passionate about what you
were saying. I totally understand what you're saying. There are some things that can be
done through this body and some things that can't be done. Unfortunately, the road is
ACHD and that's nothing that we can do anything about. It's just something that they
have to look at when they get done -- get to that point. As far as looking at the school
population, that's the school district, that's not ours. We don't have anything to say about
that. That's just unfortunate that the school has to look at how to handle that situation.
Using the facilities of Bridgetower. I can't say anything about that, because I'm not living
there. I won't be living there. I don't know what the parents will do, but you just have to
trust those people when they move in that they use their own facilities and not use
someone else's. Or maybe Bridgetower needs to up a little bit as far as what they do as
far as security to handle that. Hopefully, Linder will be widened. I would love to see that
go to a wider -- to where they have more of an entrance to where they can get off the
main traffic. That would help out. And, again, I agree with what was said with the realtor.
Who knows what was said. I can't do anything about that. And the speed zones within
the subdivision. That's -- again, contact your local law enforcement and see what they
can do to maybe slow some of the traffic down. Then as far as neighborhood problems, I
would like to think that this particular subdivision would be a very good neighborhood. I
have a feeling that the way I have seen it and the way I have looked at the -- the plan, that
I think you got a very good neighbor coming in versus who knows what. And so I really
think that you will find that it will be a good neighbor, not a bad neighbor.
Fitzgerald: Mr. Chairman?
Oliver: Mr. Fitzgerald.
Fitzgerald: I would agree with all those comments. I'd also like to -- I think they have a
significant effort made to get in touch with the community around them, to intermix and
interconnect both pathways and streets. I agree that the road may not be the best idea
next to the Mormon church, but I think it needs to be there to give that additional --
additional access points. I think it's a very well laid out -- even across the White Drain,
which is a difficult situation in land that gets cut in half -- bisected by that drain. It's difficult
and I thought it was well laid out. I think you have got a situation where you have got
Meridian Planning B Zoning
April 16, 2015
Page 24 of 31
excessive -- or very good job of laying out pathways and I think -- I think I would agree
with the applicant that it's almost impossible to do work on land that's not yours. So, I
think, in my opinion, we have to give them a pass on that one. But I think it is -- I think it's
a great neighbor and it also is a step down from what is actually called for on the
Comprehensive Plan. So, you're getting something smaller than you probably would if we
would go through with a project that was to the comp plan. So, I think it's -- it's a good
project. I think it fits well. I think this is very well laid out and you will get a good product
in there with Amyx building it.
Oliver: Thank you. Commissioner McCarvel?
McCarvel: Yes, Chairman Oliver. I mean you said almost verbatim what I was thinking up
here. I mean it's not very common that we get a request for a step down. So, you're
going -- I mean this is a lower density project than what it's planned -- what was originally
zoned in there, so -- and I think it's probably wise to leave that pathway -- that open there
just esthetically to blend in with Bridgetower. You know, this is not the first time we are
hearing about the issues on Linder. Again, it's -- there is nothing -- it's not within our
control. I think the more I hear about this -- I mean things need to be directed to ACHD
and just see if they can up their timeline if they can hear direct from you guys about, you
know, the kids and the congestion and everything on there, maybe they can up their
timeline, because that is planned to be widened and improvements done there and if there
is people speeding up and down there, 1 would call law enforcement and see if they can
get somebody posted out there during those times. But, you know, a big open piece of
land like that it's -- the owner's got rights and he's actually stepping down the density of
what it is zoned there for, so -- I'm in agreement. I think it's a great project.
Oliver: If I could ask a question of staff. Is that possible? Regarding the three items that
she was talking about, 1.1.0 and 1.115 and 6.3.
Watters: What is your question, Chairman Oliver?
Oliver: As far as how important is that that we stick with that -- pushing that -- finishing
that piece versus getting an exemption on that?
Watters: Chairman Oliver, Commissioners, it's very important to provide that missing
piece of pathway to complete the pathway system. It is an off-site improvement.
However, as part of an annexation the Commission and Council can require that that be
done. I did leave a caveat in the condition that the applicant shall connect the pathway
with consent from Bridgetower Crossing Subdivision HOA. So, I think we are covered on
that. There is an out in case they can't get it. I am going to check with the -- Jay Gibbons,
though, the pathway project coordinator, though, to see if they can go in under the city's
easement for the pathway and construct that. I'm not really sure about that. So, I can
check on that. But the way the condition is worded they have an out.
Oliver: That's my -- that makes me feel better to know that we have that covered, you
know. so --
Meridian Planning & Zoning
April 16, 2015
Page 25 of 31
Fitzgerald: Mr. Chairman, could I ask Sonya one question?
Oliver: Yes.
Fitzgerald: In regards to that, it sounds like Settlers has a play in this situation as well.
So, do they have an opinion and do they submit anything in regards to how they want that
pathway connected or what they are going to use for access north or south or -- because
it sounds like Bridgetower had a laid out plan.
Watters: I believe the access driveway is on the north side of the White Drain.
Oliver: It is.
Fitzgerald: So, building the pathway does that put them in a situation where they have to
cut across it anyway?
Watters: Oh, you mean off --
Fitzgerald: Because that's why Bridgetower did -- they didn't connect it in the first place
was because of the Settlers connection point.
Watters: No, I don't believe they would be crossing over, because they are just a tiny
segment, because they -- they go over to the north side of the White Drain. So, no, it
should be fine.
Oliver: Okay. Anything else? Hearing none, I would like to at this time ask for a motion.
McCannel: Mr. Chairman, after considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I
move to recommend approval to the City Council of file numbers AZ 15-002 and PP 15-
004 as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of April 16th, 2015, and granting --
which one was the -- I'm sorry , which one was the White Drain? Granting that being
open.
Fitzgerald: That's our recommendation. That's City Council.
McCarvel: That's City Council, so we don't have to -- okay.
Oliver: Okay. So, we have a motion to --
Fitzgerald: Do you feel comfortable we have an out?
McCarvel: Yes. I feel comfortable -- if there is an out for them I absolutely don't feel like
there is -- you can hold somebody to build on somebody else's property without their
permission.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
April 16, 2015
Page 26 of 31
Fitzgerald: Second.
Oliver: Okay. We have a motion and a second to approve AZ 15-002 and PP 15-004,
Decatur Estates. All in favor say aye. Opposed say nay. Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. TWO ABSENT.
F. Public Hearing: RZ 15-005 Hamelin Village Subdivision by B&S
Investments, LLC Located 603 W. Pine Avenue Request: Rezone
0.50 Acres from the R-15 Zoning District to the R-40 Zoning
District
G. Public Hearing: PFP 15-002 Hamelin Village Subdivision by B&S
Investments, LLC Located 603 W. Pine Avenue Request:
Combined Preliminary/Final Plat Approval Consisting of Two (2)
Multi -Family Residential Lots and One (1) Common Lot on
Approximately 0.45 Acres in the Proposed R-40 Zoning District
H. Public Hearing: CUP 15-006 Hamelin Village Subdivision by B&S
Investments, LLC Located 603 W. Pine Avenue Request:
Conditional Use Permit Approval for a Multi -Family Development
Consisting of Eight (8) Dwelling Units (Two (2) Four-Plex
Structures) on Approximately 0.45 Acres in a Proposed R-40
Zoning District
Oliver: Okay. Next up at this time I'd like to open the public hearing for Items RZ 15-005,
Hamelin Village Subdivision by B&F Investments and PFP 15-002, Hamelin Village
Subdivision, as well as CUP 15-006, Hamelin Village Subdivision. We will hear from the
staff report first.
Parsons: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. The last item on the
agenda this evening is the Hamelin Village Subdivision. The applicant is here this
evening to discuss a rezone of the property, a combined preliminary/final plat and a
conditional use permit to develop eight residential units on the property. You can see in
the aerial up here that the site is -- currently consists of a single family home and several
outbuildings that will be removed upon development of this site and all the adjacent
properties are contiguous properties to this development are also -- are zone R-15 as well
-- and, then, primarily all the developments around it are also -- consist of multi -family,
except for the single family home that is located along the northeast corner. So, this is
currently a single family home, but, again, it is zoned R-15 and it, too, could come forward
at some point in the future and request the same multi -family use, which would, again,
require a conditional use permit. The applicant is proposing the rezone from the R-15
district to the R-40 district and the main reason for that is because of the density that they
are requesting for the property. Under the UDC the R-15 zoning district allows a
maximum density of 15 dwelling units to the acre. The proposal before you this evening
has the density -- a proposed density of 17.8 dwelling units to the acre and so because
Meridian Planning & Zoning
April 16, 2015
Page 27 of 31
this property is designated high density residential on the Comprehensive Plan, our next
available zoning district for this property would be a bump up on the R-15 zone to the R-
40 zone, which is -- which would allow up to a maximum of 40 dwelling units to the acre
on the property, but as stated in the comp plan with that HDR designation we anticipate
dwelling units -- or we anticipate maximum dwelling units of higher than 15 or exceeding
that 15 units to the acre. So, what the applicant is proposing this evening is consistent
with not only the Comprehensive Plan of high density residential, but also the requested
R-40 zoning district as well. With the rezone application staff is not recommending a
development agreement. Typically we do require that with a rezone of the property, but
since the adjacent properties are multi -family, the majority of that is developed as multi-
family, the applicant -- if this applicant doesn't move forward on this application, anyone
else that purchases the property, because of the current existing and the requested
zoning district of the R-15 and R-40 zone, they would have to come back and ask for a
conditional use permit and because it's compatible with the adjacent properties staff feels
that in this particular application this evening and this rezone request we don't feel it's
appropriate to request a development agreement. So, this proposed combined
preliminary and final consists of two multi -family lots, which would be Lot 1 and Lot 2 and,
then, one common lot adjacent to Pine Avenue. Lot 1, Block 1, will serve as the primary
access to the development and that access will come off of Idaho Avenue and there is
also a note on the plat that requires shared parking and cross -access to Lot 2. So, there
is going to be a cross -access agreement in place, as well as shared parking for the entire
development. The landscaping is part of the combined preliminary/final plat. The only
landscape requirement would be the landscape would the landscape buffer along Pine
Avenue, which on this plat or this plan before you this evening showed the 15 foot wide
landscape buffer. Typically the city would require a 25 foot wide landscape buffer, but in
this instance in order to facilitate that access from Idaho and provide the common open
space required for the multi -family development and have all of that parking to the rear of
the project, staff has approved an alternative compliance request to allow that reduction in
the buffer from 25 feet to 15 feet and what that has done is allowed for a greater increase
in the central open space to be shared between the dwellers of the multi -family
development. Again, here are the two units that the applicant is proposing. Two four-plex
structures, so a total of eight dwelling units to the acre. The overall open space for this
development will consist of approximately -- again, that tree buffer, landscaping, and,
then, approximately 3,279 square feet of common open space. Under the multi -family
standards the minimum required is 2,000 square feet. So, you can see that the applicant
is providing in excess of what the UDC does require. The proposed amenities for the
development consist of a community garden, which you see here along the east boundary
and down along the west boundary the applicant is proposing public art. Again, these --
the development is required to have two amenities per the UDC and the applicant is
complying with that requirement as well. Per the UDC all of these units will be two
bedroom units and per the UDC the site must have 16 parking stalls. Half of those will
have to be covered and that is depicted on the concept plan or site plan before you this
evening. I would also mention to Commission that the applicant is also required --
requested alternative compliance and has been granted alternative compliance to
construct eight parking stalls as compact stalls and that would be located here along the
east boundary and, then, because of how narrow the lot is, the applicant isn't able to
Meridian Planning & Zoning
April 16, 2015
Page 28 of 31
comply with the perimeter landscape requirements along the parking area as well and so
they have been conditioned to at least landscape it with some shrubs and ornamental
grasses and, then, each parking stall is to have a wheel stop to prevent vehicles from
overhanging into the landscape and also hitting the adjacent fences that are surrounding
the perimeter of the property. In my staff report -- and before you this evening staff did
request some amended elevations for you to act on this evening and this graphic shows
what was originally submitted with the conditional use permit and attached in the staff
report, which is the elevation on the left and the elevations on the right are what the
applicant is proposing based on a majority of staff's recommendations. I think the design
professional got crossed with some of the requirements that staff had required, so I did
speak with -- have a chance to speak with the applicant, he's in agreement with the
changes that I want to propose to you this evening, but in general staff is supportive of the
revised elevations. The primary concern was adding some windows to not only the east --
to the east and west facade, which they have done, there are the transom windows. The
applicant has addressed staffs concerns with the design of the columns that they had on
the -- the northwest and east elevations. In speaking with the applicant before the hearing
I did want to communicate to them that if you look at the elevations that were submitted to
the application -- with the application, you can see here that the covered entryway actually
protruded from the rear elevation and it provided a column, so it gave a different -- a little
more relief to that fagade as you enter into that courtyard area. Staff has communicated
to the applicant that we would like to see that element incorporated into the proposed
elevations that you're seeing this evening and I believe that would be on this slide right
here. So, right now as proposed, if you look at this -- the adjacent rendering here you can
see they have attached the columns to the fagade. Staff is recommending that they pop
out the canopy like they had on the original elevation, but still use those same elements
on that column. So, we are supportive of these changes before you this evening, with the
inclusion of that change to rear elevation. So, staff -- if it's you desire to act on these
elevations tonight, please, include in your motion that you support the elevation changes
with the recommendation from staff that they have that pop out for the roof fagade and the
decorative column as shown or at least consistent with the elevations shown with the
original application submittal. Staff did receive written testimony from the applicant's
representative. They are in agreement with all of the conditions of approval, except one
minor modification for you this evening and that condition would be Condition of Approval
2.2.7, which is the Public Works condition, and I did confer with the Public Works
Department before I came this evening and they are amenable to the change
recommended by the applicant and, simply put, the original condition required that the
applicant record the final plat prior to issuance of a building permit. Because the applicant
doesn't really need to plat the property, it is a legal parcel of record, and it's not really
necessary, in order for them to get a building permit staff is recommending you modify
that condition that they get a building -- they won't -- they need to record the final plat prior
to occupancy of the first residential structure. That will give the applicant latitude to work
with the county assessor's office and work with the city in recording the plat as they are
constructing the multi -family development. So, we are in agreement -- both Planning
Department and Public Works Department are in agreement with that change to that
condition. With that I will conclude my presentation and I'd stand for any questions you
may have.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
April 16, 2015
Page 29 of 31
Oliver: Commissioners, any questions?
McCarvel: Yes, Mr. Chairman. You're saying if this -- if we rezone this to R-40 and for
some reason this project doesn't go forward, then, the next owner, if they sold it or
whatever -- the next owner would have to come back for a conditional use if he really
intended to max out the R-40? Okay. Thank you.
Parsons: That is accurate. Yes.
McCarvel: Okay.
Oliver: Mr. Fitzgerald, are you good?
Fitzgerald: I think so.
Oliver: Okay. With that can we have the applicant, please, come forward and state your
name and address for the record.
Nickel: Good evening, Mr. Chairman and Commissioners, for the record Shawn Nickel,
SLN Planning. Address is 1589 North Estancia Place, Eagle, Idaho. Here tonight for
Rennison Engineering representing B&F Investments. Staff did an excellent job at
explaining every aspect of the proposal, including our working with them up until the last
hour on getting those elevations figured out and we are acceptive -- those are acceptable
conditions as staff spoke on those -- on the elevation revisions. We also appreciate staff
working with us on the timing of those building permits in relationship to the final plat. So,
with that we are in favor of all the recommended conditions of approval that staff has
before you and I'm just here to answer any questions.
Oliver: Anything? Thank you.
Nickel: Thank you very much.
Oliver: At this time we would entertain anyone who would like to come forward with public
testimony. And that's not you. Nothing?
McCarvel: Only one left in the room.
Fitzgerald: An empty room.
Oliver: All right. With that I would entertain a motion.
Fitzgerald: Mr. Chair, I would move we close the public hearing.
McCarvel: Second.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
April 16, 2015
Page 30 of 31
Oliver: It's been moved and seconded that we close public testimony. All in favor say
aye. Opposed say nay. Closed.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. TWO ABSENT.
Oliver: Okay
McCarvel: Mr. Chairman, I like the changes that staff has made. I mean for a high
density type environment I really like the common areas and all those things that they
have done to make it esthetically pleasing around there. I think it -- you know, in amongst
the multi -family dwellings and stuff around there I think it's probably a good fit.
Oliver: I agree. I think it's a perfect fit for what is in that area. So, I -- and I think the
structures look very nice with the changes -- the changed elevations. So, I agree.
Fitzgerald: Mr. Chairman, I would agree with both of your comments and I also applaud
the staff and the applicant for bringing the -- the access and the parking off of Idaho,
instead of Pine. I thought that was -- Pine is busy and it's getting busier and so I think
that's great. Very well laid out. The amenities are great. I think it's -- it's well done.
Oliver: Okay
McCarvel: Mr. Chairman?
Oliver: Commissioner McCarvel.
McCarvel: After considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move to
recommend approval of file numbers RZ 15-005, PFP 15-002, CUP 15-006 and did -- was
that ALT 15, is that -- we don't need that. Okay. With the following modifications:
Support of the elevation changes recommended by staff and the relief on 2.2.7 to record
the final plat prior to first occupancy.
Fitzgerald: Second.
Oliver: We have a motion and a second to accept RZ 15-005, PFP 15-002 and CUP 15-
006 with the following modifications: Supporting the elevation changes and 2.2.7, the
Public Works condition to modify that. So, all in favor say aye. Opposed say nay. Motion
carries.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. TWO ABSENT.
Item 5: Other Items
Oliver: Thank you very much. We have one more item on the docket for tonight. Does
anybody want to do that?
Meridian Planning & Zoning
April 16, 2015
Page 31 of 31
Fitzgerald: Mr. Chairman, I move for adjournment.
McCarvel: Second.
Oliver: It's been moved and seconded to adjourn. All in favor say aye. Opposed say nay.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. TWO ABSENT.
Oliver: Meeting is now closed.
MEETING ADJOURNED AT 7:41 P.M.
(AUDIO RECORDING ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS.)
PRO ED
r
P TRI K OLIVER - CE -CHAIRMAN DATE APPROVED
ATTEST:
JAYCEE HOLMAN, CITY CLERK
Changes to Agenda: None
RE C EI VIT
Item#4A: Franklin Mini-Storage(CUP-15-001)
Application(s): (( JJ 1
fid{ �a.�� 4
➢ Conditional Use Permit ; I-rY r R,:.f ) 1 ;F
Size of property,existing zoning, and location: This site consists of approximately 10 acres of land,currently zoned C-G, located at
1975 E. Franklin Road.
Adjacent Land Use&Zoning:The site is surrounded by residential properties,zoned R-4&R-15 in the City and rural residential
properties,zoned RUT&R1 in Ada County.
History:This site was annexed in 2001 &a development agreement was required as a provision of annexation which limits
development to a mini-storage facility.
Comprehensive Plan FLUM Designation: Commercial
Summary of Request: The applicant has submitted a CUP application for the construction of a self-service storage facility in a C-G
zoning district.The site is proposed to develop in 2 phases.The first phase is proposed to consist of 77,595 s.f.of storage area
(including 4,445 s.f.of conditioned storage which is climate controlled)and 2,860 s.f.of office area;the second phase is proposed to
consist of 59,968 s.f.of storage area. No outdoor storage is proposed.
Access is proposed via E. Franklin Road with 2 emergency accesses also via Franklin Road on either side of the main driveway.
Development is required to comply with the specific use standards for self-storage facilities which require a 6'tall sight obscuring fence
around the perimeter boundary of the storage facility; restricted hours of operation from 6 am to 11 pm; and a 25'wide landscape buffer
to residential uses.
A segment of the City's multi-use pathway system is required along the north side of the Fivemile Creek at the southern boundary of
the site.An easement for the pathway is required with the 1St phase of development but the pathway isn't required to be constructed
until the 2nd phase.
Building elevations were submitted for the proposed office/storage building and storage unit structures in Phase 1. Elevations were not
submitted for the 2nd phase; however,they will be consistent with those proposed in the 1St phase. Building materials for the
office/storage building consist of mix of stucco(white)&metal panels(silver and dark blue)with stone accents, clear anodized
aluminum and glass facades and metal roofing. Building materials for the storage unit structures consist of metal wall panels(light
gray), metal roofing (dark blue) &metal overhead doors(dark blue).
The height of storage structures range from approximately 11 to 21 +/-feet at the ridge with the shortest of the structures proposed
along the east and west perimeter boundaries of the site. The applicant states the structures in Phase 2 will be consistent in height with
those in Phase 1 with the shorter buildings along the east and west perimeter boundaries.
Written Testimony: Tamara Thompson,Applicant's Representative(response to the staff report);Arnold Burr
Staff Recommendation:Approval
Notes:
. Item#4B,C:Verona East Subdivision (RZ-15-004; PFP-15.001; MDA-15-002)
Application(s):
➢ Rezone
➢ Preliminary&Final Plat
➢ Development Agreement Modification
Size of property,existing zoning, and location: This site consists of 0.67 of an acre of land, currently zoned L-0, located at 5048 N.
Cortona Way.
Adjacent Land Use&Zoning:This site is surrounded by SFR properties in Verona Subdivision No.2 to the north,east&south,
zoned R-8; and vacant commercial property to the west across N. Cortona Way,zoned C-G.
History:This property was annexed with an R-8 zoning district in 2003 as part of the Verona Subdivision development. It was rezoned
in 2007 to L-0 and a DA was required which requires substantial conformance with the concept office elevations in the agreement.
Comprehensive Plan FLUM Designation: MDR
Summary of Request: The applicant requests a modification to the DA to remove this property from the agreement. This will allow the
2 SFR attached structures with 4 dwelling units to be constructed on the site instead offices as originally planned. This application does
not require action from the Commission; City Council is the decision maker on this request.
A rezone of 0.67 of an acre is requested from the L-0 to the R-8 zoning district consistent with the MDR FLUM designation for this
property.The applicant has submitted a site/landscape plan that depicts how the site is proposed to develop with 2 single-family
attached structures. Conceptual building elevations for the dwellings were submitted;construction materials appear to consist of
horizontal lap siding with stucco accents.A Certificate of Zoning Compliance&Design Review application is required to be submitted
for final approval of these structures.
A combined preliminary and final plat is proposed consisting of 4 SFR building lots and 2 common lots on 0.62 of an acre in the R-8
zoning district.Access is proposed via N. Cortona Way, a collector street; local street access is not available to this property.A
common driveway is proposed for access to these lots.
Written Testimony: None
Staff Recommendation:Approval
Notes:
Item#4D, E: Decatur Estates Subdivision (AZ-15.002; PP-15-004)
Application(s):
➢ Annexation &Zoning
➢ Preliminary Plat
Size of property, existing zoning,and location: This site consists of 39.76 acres of land, is currently zoned RUT in Ada County, and
is located at 4345 N. Linder Road on the west side of N. Linder Road,south of W. McMillan Road.
Adjacent Land Use&Zoning: This site is surrounded by single-family residential properties,zoned R-4&R-8; a church,zoned L-0;
and vacant land with a shop across Linder Road to the east,zoned L-0.
History: None
Comprehensive Plan FLUM Designation: MDR
Summary of Request:The applicant requests annexation&zoning of 39.76 acres of land with an R-4 zoning district. Staff
recommends a DA as a provision of annexation.
A preliminary plat is also proposed consisting of 99 building lots& 12 common lots on 39.76 acres of land.The property is proposed to
develop in 4 phases starting at the north boundary as shown on the plat. The gross density for the proposed subdivision is 2.49
d.u./acre with an average lots size of 11,413 s.f. Because the density is under the 3-8 d.u./acre desired in MDR designation areas,the
applicant requests a"step"down in density to LDR which allows 3 or fewer d.u./acre, as allowed by the Comp Plan without an
amendment to the FLUM.The reason for the lower density is the need for larger lots sizes to accommodate their desired product which
incorporates an RV garage attached to some of the dwellings.
Access is proposed via one access from Linder Road and 3 existing stub streets from Bridgetower Crossing and Watersong Estates
subdivisions. The White Drain bisects this site;the applicant requests Council approval of a waiver for the drain to remain open and not
be piped.A bridge is proposed for access over the drain.
A 25-foot wide street buffer is required along Linder as proposed on the landscape plan.6'wide parkways are proposed throughout
most of the development.A total of 5.02 acres(or 12.63%)of qualified open space is proposed with a segment of the City's regional
pathway along the White Drain and playground equipment as site amenities in accord with UDC standards.
The applicant submitted of 5 conceptual sample building elevations for future homes in this development. Building materials appear to
consist of a mix of horizontal lap siding and stucco with shake shingle and stone accents.
Written Testimony: Becky McKay,Applicant's Representative(response to the staff report)
Staff Recommendation:Approval
Notes:
Item#4F,G&H: Hamelin Village(RZ-15-005; PFP-15-002; CUP-15-006 and ALT-15-006)
Application(s):
➢ Rezone
➢ Combined preliminary/final plat
➢ Conditional use permit
➢ Alternative Compliance
Size of property,existing zoning, and location: This site consists of 0.50 acres of land, is currently zoned R-15, and is located at
603 W. Pine Avenue.
Adjacent Land Use&Zoning:The subject property is primarily surrounded by multi-family developments except for a single family
residence that abuts the northeast corner of the proposed development.The contiguous properties are zoned R-15.
Comprehensive Plan FLUM Designation: HDR
Summary of Request: The applicant proposes to rezone 0.50 acres of land from the R-15 to the R-40 zoning district; PFP for two(2)
multi-family building lots and one(1)common lot and conditional use permit to develop the property with eight(8)multi-family dwelling
units;two(2)four-plex structures. The proposed density is 17.8 dwelling units to the acre which is consistent with the Comprehensive
Plan and the requested R-40 zoning district.
Access to the development will be provided from W. Idaho Street consistent with the UDC. Per plat note#7, Lot 1, Block 1 is to provide
a cross access and share parking for the entire development. Both requirements are in compliance with UDC 11-3A.3.
The submitted landscape plan depicts a 15-foot wide landscape buffer adjacent to Pine Avenue and approximately 3,279 square feet of
common open space in excess of the multi-family standards.The Director has approved an alternative compliance request to reduce
the buffer width adjacent to Pine which has allowed the applicant to increase the common open space between the two four-plex
structures and facilitate the only access from Idaho.
Amenities for the multi-family development consist of public art and community garden in accord with the multi-family standards.
The site plan depicts 16 parking stalls;eight of which are covered consistent with UDC standards. The Director has approved an
alternative compliance to allow 8 of the parking stalls to be compact.
The applicant has submitted revised elevations for the Commission consideration however staff is recommending the applicant
incorporate the stone wainscot and the rock on the columns on the rear elevations as originally proposed.
Written Testimony: John Rennisson, In agreement with the conditions except for condition of approval 2.2.7.The applicant is
requesting the Commission modify this condition to allow the issuance of building permits prior to the final plat recording. Staff is
amenable to this request and recommends the condition be modified to require the final plat be recorded prior to occupancy of the first
structure.
Staff Recommendation:Approval w/conditions
Notes:
Meridian Planning Zoning Commission Meeting
DATE: April 16, 2015 ITEM NUMBER: 3B
PROJECT NUMBER: CUP 15-005
ITEM TITLE:
B. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: CUP 15-005 Sonic Drive-In at
Paramount by Ken Lenz Located 4936 N. Linder Road Request: Conditional Use Permit
Approval for a Drive-Thru Establishment in a C-G Zoning District Within 300 Feet of
Another Drive-Thru Facility and Existing Residences
MEETING NOTES
CLERKS OFFICE FINAL ACTION
DATE: E-MAILED TO SENT TO SENT TO NOTES INITIALS
STAFF AGENCY APPLICANT
Meridian Planning Zoning Commission Meeting
i
DATE: April 16, 2015 ITEM NUMBER: 3C
PROJECT NUMBER: CUP 15-004
ITEM TITLE:
C. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: CUP 15-004 Meridian Martial
Arts by Heather Neitzell Located 535 N. Locust Grove Road Request: Conditional Use
Permit Approval to Operate an indoor Recreation Facility in an I-L Zoning District
MEETING NOTES
g - -
CLERKS OFFICE FINAL ACTION
DATE: E-MAILED TO SENT TO SENT TO NOTES INITIALS
STAFF AGENCY APPLICANT
Meridian Planning Zoning Commission Meeting
DATE: April 16, 2015 ITEM NUMBER: 3A
PROJECT NUMBER:
ITEM TITLE:
ii
A. Approval of Minutes for April 2, 2015 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
MEETING NOTES
3��r�OS 110 All
.�.ay O Al
tyr IPPRJF(D
CLERKS OFFICE FINAL ACTION
DATE: E-MAILED TO SENT TO SENT TO NOTES INITIALS
STAFF AGENCY APPLICANT
Pl
a
n
n
i
n
g
&
Z
o
n
i
n
g
C
o
m
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
M
e
e
t
i
n
g
Pl
a
n
n
i
n
g
&
Z
o
n
i
n
g
C
o
m
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
M
e
e
t
i
n
g
Pl
a
n
n
i
n
g
&
Z
o
n
i
n
g
C
o
m
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
M
e
e
t
i
n
g
Pl
a
n
n
i
n
g
&
Z
o
n
i
n
g
C
o
m
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
M
e
e
t
i
n
g
Ap
r
i
l
1
6
,
2
0
1
5
Ap
r
i
l
1
6
,
2
0
1
5
Ap
r
i
l
1
6
,
2
0
1
5
Ap
r
i
l
1
6
,
2
0
1
5
It
e
m
#
4
A
:
F
r
a
n
k
l
i
n
M
i
n
i
-
S
t
o
r
a
g
e
–
Z
o
n
i
n
g
&
A
e
r
i
a
l
M
a
p
s
Fr
a
n
k
l
i
n
M
i
n
i
-
S
t
o
r
a
g
e
Si
t
e
P
l
a
n
Fr
a
n
k
l
i
n
M
i
n
i
-
S
t
o
r
a
g
e
Cr
o
s
s
-
S
e
c
t
i
o
n
&
L
a
n
d
s
c
a
p
e
P
l
a
n
No
r
t
h
We
s
t
South
Ea
s
t
We
s
t
Fr
a
n
k
l
i
n
M
i
n
i
-
S
t
o
r
a
g
e
Bu
i
l
d
i
n
g
E
l
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
s
Fr
a
n
k
l
i
n
M
i
n
i
-
S
t
o
r
a
g
e
Bu
i
l
d
i
n
g
E
l
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
s
No
r
t
h
We
s
t
So
u
t
h
Ea
s
t
It
e
m
#
4
B
,
C
:
V
e
r
o
n
a
E
a
s
t
–
Z
o
n
i
n
g
&
A
e
r
i
a
l
M
a
p
s
Ve
r
o
n
a
E
a
s
t
La
n
d
s
c
a
p
e
P
l
a
n
&
B
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
E
l
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
s
Ve
r
o
n
a
E
a
s
t
–
P
r
e
l
i
m
i
n
a
r
y
&
F
i
n
a
l
P
l
a
t
It
e
m
#
4
D
,
E
:
D
e
c
a
t
u
r
E
s
t
a
t
e
s
–
Z
o
n
i
n
g
&
A
e
r
i
a
l
M
a
p
s
De
c
a
t
u
r
E
s
t
a
t
e
s
–
P
r
e
l
i
m
i
n
a
r
y
P
l
a
t
&
L
a
n
d
s
c
a
p
e
P
l
a
n
De
c
a
t
u
r
E
s
t
a
t
e
s
Co
n
c
e
p
t
u
a
l
B
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
E
l
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
s
It
e
m
#
4
F
,
G
,
H
:
H
a
m
l
i
n
V
i
l
l
a
g
e
Ha
m
e
l
i
n
V
i
l
l
a
g
e
–
P
r
e
l
i
m
i
n
a
r
y
&
F
i
n
a
l
P
l
a
t
Hamelin Village – Site Plan and Landscape Plan
Ha
m
e
l
i
n
V
i
l
l
a
g
e
–
P
r
o
p
o
s
e
d
E
l
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
s
a
n
d
R
e
v
i
s
e
d
E
l
e
va
t
i
o
n
s
Meridian Planning Zoning Commission Meeting
DATE: April 16, 2015 ITEM NUMBER: 4A
PROJECT NUMBER: CUP 15-001
ITEM TITLE:
A. Continued Public Hearing from April 2, 2015: CUP 15-001 Franklin Mini-Storage by
Osborne Enterprises Located 1975 E. Franklin Road Request: Conditional Use Permit for
a Self-Service Facility in a C-G Zoning District
MEETING NOTES
Son+x V0ai-t eN S
—amo ,o, —Vino YKpSov-/ , A[rl.A-
RT 1 � 9
CLERKS OFFICE FINAL ACTION
DATE: E-MAILED TO SENT TO SENT TO NOTES INITIALS
STAFF AGENCY APPLICANT
Meridian Planning Zoning Commission Meeting
DATE: April ri1 16, 2015
ITEM NUMBER: 4B
PROJECT NUMBER: RZ 15-004
ITEM TITLE:
B. Continued Public Hearing from April 2, 2015: RZ 15-004 Verona East Subdivision by
Primeland Investment Group, LLC Located East of N. Ten Mile Road and North of W.
McMillan Road Request: Rezone of 0.67 Acres of Land from the L-O Zoning District to
the R-8 Zoning District
MEETING NOTES
CLERKS OFFICE FINAL ACTION
DATE: E-MAILED TO SENT TO SENT TO NOTES INITIALS
STAFF AGENCY APPLICANT
Meridian Planning Zoning Commission Meeting
DATE: April 16, 2015 ITEM NUMBER: 4C
PROJECT NUMBER: PFP 15-001
ITEM TITLE:
C. Continued Public Hearing from April, 2015: PFP 15-001 Verona East Subdivision by
Primeland Investment Group, LLC Located East of N. Ten Mile Road and North of W.
McMillan Road Request: Preliminary / Final Plat Consisting of Four (4) Single Family
Residential Lots and Two (2) Common Lots on Approximately 0.62 Acres in a Proposed
R-8 Zoning District
MEETING NOTES
CLERKS OFFICE FINAL ACTION
DATE: E-MAILED TO SENT TO SENT TO NOTES INITIALS
STAFF AGENCY APPLICANT
Meridian Planning Zoning Commission Meeting
DATE: April 16, 2015 ITEM NUMBER: 4D
PROJECT NUMBER: AZ 15-002
ITEM TITLE:
D. Public Hearing: AZ 15-002 Decatur Estates by 4345 Linder Road, LLC Located at
4345 N. Linder Road Request: Annexation and Zoning of 39.76 Acres of Land with an R-
4 Zoning District
MEETING NOTES
CLERKS OFFICE FINAL ACTION
DATE: E-MAILED TO SENT TO SENT TO NOTES INITIALS
STAFF AGENCY APPLICANT
Meridian Planning Zoning Commission Meeting
DATE: April 16, 2015
ITEM NUMBER: 4E
PROJECT NUMBER: PP 15-004
ITEM TITLE:
E. Public Hearing: PP 15-004 Decatur Estates by 4345 Linder Road, LLC Located at 4345
N. Linder Road Request: Preliminary Plat Approval Consisting of Ninety-Nine (99)
Building Lots and Twelve (12) Common Lots on 39.76 Acres of Land in the R-4 Zoning
District
MEETING NOTES
CLERKS OFFICE FINAL ACTION
DATE: E-MAILED TO SENT TO SENT TO NOTES INITIALS
STAFF AGENCY APPLICANT
De
c
a
t
u
r
E
s
t
a
t
e
s
S
u
b
d
i
v
i
s
i
o
n
An
n
e
x
a
t
i
o
n
a
n
d
Z
o
n
i
n
g
a
n
d
Pr
e
l
i
m
i
n
a
r
y
P
l
a
t
Me
r
i
d
i
a
n
P
l
a
n
n
i
n
g
&
Z
o
n
i
n
g
C
o
m
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
Ap
r
i
l
1
6
,
2
0
1
5
De
c
a
t
u
r
E
s
t
a
t
e
s
S
u
b
d
i
v
i
s
i
o
n
Vi
c
i
n
i
t
y
M
a
p
L.
C
.
D
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
L
L
C
De
c
a
t
u
r
E
s
t
a
t
e
s
S
u
b
d
i
v
i
s
i
o
n
A
e
r
i
a
l
M
a
p
De
c
a
t
u
r
E
s
t
a
t
e
s
S
u
b
d
i
v
i
s
i
o
n
L
a
n
d
s
c
a
p
e
P
l
a
n
DE
C
A
T
U
R
E
S
T
A
T
E
S
S
U
B
D
I
V
I
S
I
O
N
BR
I
D
G
E
T
O
W
E
R
C
R
O
S
S
I
N
G
–
I
N
C
O
M
P
L
E
T
E
P
A
T
H
W
A
Y
De
c
a
t
u
r
E
s
t
a
t
e
s
S
u
b
d
i
v
i
s
i
o
n
L
a
n
d
s
c
a
p
e
P
l
a
n
LI
N
D
E
R
R
O
A
D
–
L
O
O
K
I
N
G
N
O
R
T
H
LI
N
D
E
R
R
O
A
D
–
L
O
O
K
I
N
G
S
O
U
T
H
Meridian Planning ZoningCommission Meeting
1 a g
DATE: April 16, 2015 ITEM NUMBER: 4F
PROJECT NUMBER: RZ 15-005
ITEM TITLE:
F. Public Hearing: RZ 15-005 Hamelin Village Subdivision by B&S Investments, LLC
Located 603 W. Pine Avenue Request: Rezone 0.50 Acres from the R-15 Zoning District
to the R-40 Zoning District
MEETING NOTES
- I\10 DA beArvck red v„-eck
CLERKS OFFICE FINAL ACTION
DATE: E-MAILED TO SENT TO SENT TO NOTES INITIALS
STAFF AGENCY APPLICANT
Meridian Planning Zoning Commission Meeting
DATE: April 16, 2015 ITEM NUMBER: 4G
PROJECT NUMBER: PFP 15-002
ITEM TITLE:
G. Public Hearing: PFP 15-002 Hamelin Village Subdivision by B&S Investments, LLC
Located 603 W. Pine Avenue Request: Combined Preliminary/Final Plat Approval
Consisting of Two (2) Multi-Family Residential Lots and One (1) Common Lot on
Approximately 0.45 Acres in the Proposed R-40 Zoning District
MEETING NOTES
CLERKS OFFICE FINAL ACTION
DATE: E-MAILED TO SENT TO SENT TO NOTES INITIALS
STAFF AGENCY APPLICANT
Meridian Planning Zoning Commission Meeting
DATE: April 6 1 , 2015 ITEM NUMBER: 4H
PROJECT NUMBER: CUP 15-006
ITEM TITLE:
H. Public Hearing: CUP 15-006 Hamelin Village Subdivision by B&S Investments, LLC
Located 603 W. Pine Avenue Request: Conditional Use Permit Approval for a Multi-
Family Development Consisting of Eight (8) Dwelling Units (Two (2) Four-Plex Structures)
on Approximately 0.45 Acres in a Proposed R-40 Zoning District
MEETING NOTES
CLERKS OFFICE FINAL ACTION
DATE: E-MAILED TO SENT TO SENT TO NOTES INITIALS
STAFF AGENCY APPLICANT
Meridian Planning Zoning Commission Meeting
DATE: April 16, 2015 ITEM NUMBER: 5
PROJECT NUMBER:
ITEM TITLE:
Other Items
MEETING NOTES
CLERKS OFFICE FINAL ACTION
DATE: E-MAILED TO SENT TO SENT TO NOTES INITIALS
STAFF AGENCY APPLICANT