2015 03-051.
2.
3.
WE IDIAN*-- MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING
IDAHO COMMISSION MEETING
AGENDA
City Council Chambers
33 E. Broadway Avenue, Meridian, Idaho
Thursday, March 05, 2015 at 6:00 p.m.
Roll -call Attendance
Patrick Oliver
_x_ Gregory Wilson
Rhonda McCarvel
_x—Ryan Fitzgerald
Steven Yearsley - Chairman
Adoption of the Agenda Approved
Consent Agenda Approved
A. Approve Minutes of February 19, 2015 Planning and Zoning
Commission Meeting
4. Action Items
A. Public Hearing Continued and Re -Noticed from February 5,
2015: RZ 14-007 Southridge Estates Subdivision by DBTV
Southridge Farm, LLC Located South of W. Overland Road
Between S. Linder Road and S. Ten Mile Road Request:
Rezone of 3.05 Acres from R-15 to TN -R; 1.67 Acres from R-4
to R-8; and 0.83 of an acre from R-8 to R-4 Continue and
Renotice Public Hearing for May 7, Planning and Zoning
Commission Meeting
B. Public Hearing Continued and Re -Noticed from February 5,
2015: PP 14-017 Southridge Estates Subdivision by DBTV
Southridge Farm, LLC Located South of W. Overland Road
Between S. Linder Road and S. Ten Mile Road Request:
Preliminary Plat Approval Consisting of 167 Single -Family
Residential Building Lots and 329 Common/Other Lots on
48.56 Acres of Land in the R-4, R-8 and TN -R Zoning Districts
Continue and Renotice Public Hearing for May 7, Planning and
Zoning Commission Meeting
C. Public Hearing: RZ 15-001 Paramount Southeast Subdivision
by Brighton Investments, LLC Located Northwest Corner of N.
Meridian Road and W. McMillan Road Request: Rezone of
19.27 Acres of Land from the C -G to the R-40 Zoning District
Recommend Approval to City Council
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Agenda — Thursday, March 05, 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.
D. Public Hearing: PP 15-002 Paramount Southeast Subdivision
by Brighton Investments, LLC Located Northwest Corner of N.
Meridian Road and W. McMillan Road Request: Preliminary
Plat Approval Consisting of One (1) Building Lot in the R-40
Zoning District; Twenty -Two (22) Building Lots in the C -G
Zoning District and Five (5) Common/Other Lots on 36.04
Acres of Land Recommend Approval to City Council
E. Public Hearing: CUP 15-002 Paramount Southeast Subdivision
by Brighton Investments, LLC Located Northwest Corner of N.
Meridian Road and W. McMillan Road Request: Conditional
Use Permit Approval for a Multi -Family Development
Consisting of 280 Dwelling Units in an R-40 Zoning District
Recommend Approval to City Council
F. Public Hearing: RZ 15-003 Jayker Village Subdivision by Oak
Leaf Development Company, Inc. Located North Side of
Chinden Boulevard; West of N. Tree Farm Way and N. Tree
Haven Way Request: Rezone 26.09 Acres from the C -N and the
R-15 Districts to the R-15 (8.48 Acres) and C -C (17.61 Acres)
Zoning Districts Recommend Denial to City Council
G. Public Hearing: PP 15-003 Jayker Village Subdivision by Oak
Leaf Development Company, Inc. Located North Side of
Chinden Boulevard; West of N. Tree Farm Way and N. Tree
Haven Way Request: Preliminary Plat Approval Consisting of
One (1) Residential Lot, Three (3) Commercial Lots and Three
(3) Common Lots on Approximately 23.59 Acres in the
Proposed R-15 and C -C Zoning Districts Recommend Denial to
City Council
H. Public Hearing: CUP 15-003 Jayker Village Subdivision by Oak
Leaf Development Company, Inc. Located North Side of
Chinden Boulevard; West of N. Tree Farm Way and N. Tree
Haven Way Request: Conditional Use Permit for a Self -Service
Storage Facility Consisting of a Care -Taker's / Office Building
and Fifteen (15) Storage Buildings on Approximately 11.18
Acres of Land in a Proposed C -C Zoning District Recommend
Denial to City Council
L Public Hearing: 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 Public Hearing Continued to March 19, 2015
Meeting Adjourned at 9:06 p.m.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Agenda—Thursday, March 05, 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 March 5, 2015
Meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission of March 5, 2015, was called to
order at 6:00 p.m. by Chairman Steven Yearsley.
Present: Chairman Steven Yearsley, Commissioner Patrick Oliver. Commissioner
Gregory Wilson, Commission Rhonda McCarvel and Commissioner Ryan Fitzgerald.
Others Present: Machelle Hill, Ted Baird, Sonya Watters, Bill Parsons and Dean Willis.
Item 1: Roll -Call Attendance:
Roll -call
X Gregory Wilson X Patrick Oliver
X Rhonda McCarvel X Ryan Fitzgerald
X Steven Yearsley - Chairman
Yearsley: Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. At this point we -- at this time we'd like
to call to order the regularly scheduled meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning
Commission for the hearing date of March 5th, 2015. Let's begin with roll call.
Item 2: Adoption of the Agenda
Yearsley: Thank you. The next item on the agenda is the adoption of the agenda. A
couple of items. Action Items A and B, the continued and renoticed from February 2015
of RZ 14-007 and PP 14-017 will be continued -- needs to be continued to May 7th, 2015.
And Action Item I, the public hearing for CUP 15-001 is asked to be continued to March
19th, 2015. Sorry.
Baird: Mr. Chair?
Yearsley: Yes.
Baird: For those in attendance who don't have an agenda in front of you, the names
associated with those items, the first two would be Southridge Estates Subdivision and the
second one that you mentioned for continuance is the Franklin Mini Storage.
Yearsley: Thank you.
Watters: Chairman Yearsley?
Yearsley: Yes.
Meridian Planning 8 Zoning Commission
March 5, 2015
Page 2 of 47
Watters: Excuse me. If I may on that first item that you mentioned, Southridge Estates,
staff is recommending that that project be renoticed and that the applicant pay renoticing
fees.
Yearsley: Okay. Thank you. With that can I get an adoption of the agenda?
Oliver: Mr. Chairman?
Yearsley: Commissioner Oliver.
Oliver: I move that we adopt the agenda as read, with the exception of -- to change the --
to the agenda that Southridge Estates RZ 14-007 and PP 14-017 be continued to May
7th --
Yearsley: We are just asking for adoption of the agenda. We don't need to --
Oliver: Oh. Sorry.
Wilson: Second.
Yearsley: I have a motion and a second to adopt the agenda. All in favor say aye.
Opposed? Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Item 3: Consent Agenda
A. Approve Minutes of February 19, 2015 Planning and Zoning
Commission Meeting
Yearsley: Next item on the agenda is the Consent Agenda and we only have one item
and that is the approval of the minutes of February 19, 2015, Planning and Zoning
Commission meeting. Any questions or comments on that?
Fitzgerald: Mr. Chairman?
Yearsley: Commissioner Fitzgerald.
Fitzgerald: The only change I had was my name incorrectly labeled on the minutes. So,
that change I would move for approval.
Yearsley: Okay.
McCarvel: Second.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
March 5, 2015
Page 3 of 47
Yearsley: I have a motion and a second to approve the meeting minutes and the Consent
-- Consent Agenda as amended. All in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Item 4: Action Items
A. Public Hearing Continued and Re -Noticed from February 5, 2015:
RZ 14-007 Southridge Estates Subdivision by DBTV Southridge
Farm, LLC Located South of W. Overland Road Between S.
Linder Road and S. Ten Mile Road Request: Rezone of 3.05
Acres from R-15 to TN -R; 1.67 Acres from R-4 to R-8; and 0.83 of
an acre from R-8 to R-4
B. Public Hearing Continued and Re -Noticed from February 5, 2015:
PP 14-017 Southridge Estates Subdivision by DBTV Southridge
Farm, LLC Located South of W. Overland Road Between S.
Linder Road and S. Ten Mile Road Request: Preliminary Plat
Approval Consisting of 167 Single -Family Residential Building
Lots and 329 Common/Other Lots on 48.56 Acres of Land in the
R-4, R-8 and TN -R Zoning Districts
Yearsley: Okay. So, first off we are going to open public -- the continued public hearing
and renoticed from February 5th, 2015, of RZ 14-007 and PP 14-017, Southridge Estates
Subdivision for the sole purpose of -- to continue it to May 7th, 2015, and to have it
renoticed and that the -- the applicant will pay for the renoticing fee.
Wilson: Mr. Chairman?
Yearsley: Commissioner Wilson.
Wilson: I move that RZ 14-007 and PP 14-017, Southridge Estates hearing be continued
and renoticed for May 7th, 2015.
Fitzgerald: Second.
Yearsley: I have a motion and a second to continue the public hearing on RZ 14-007 and
PP 14-017. All in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
I. Public Hearing: 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
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
March 5, 2015
Page 4 of 47
Yearsley: We are going to drop down to Action Item I and we are going to open that
public hearing for the sole purpose -- so, we are going to open the public hearing on CUP
15-001, the Franklin Mini Storage, for the sole purpose of continuing that to March 19th,
2015.
McCarvel: Mr. Chairman?
Yearsley: Commissioner McCarvel.
McCarvel: I move that we open CUP 15-001 and continue that to March 19th, 2015, as
requested.
Fitzgerald: Second.
Yearsley: I have a motion and a second to continue public hearing of CUP 14-01 -- or
001. All in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Yearsley: All right. So, now let's explain with everyone here -- I want to explain the
process of how this is going to work tonight. The next two -- or the next items on the
agenda we are going to open them one at a time. We will start off with the staff report.
The staff will present their findings and how it adheres to the Comprehensive Plan and
Uniform Development Code with staff recommendations. At that point the applicant will
have an opportunity to come forward to present their case for approval. The applicant --
and respond to any staff questions. The applicant will be given up to 15 minutes to do so.
After the public -- after the applicant has had a chance to testify we will open the public
hearing to the public. There is a sign-up sheet in the back for those wishing to testify.
Any person coming up to testify will be given three minutes. If they are speaking for a
larger group and that there is a show of hands, they will be given up to ten minutes.
Given the large number of people here today, those people that they are speaking for, we
would ask that they not come up, because they are speaking already -- someone is
already speaking in behalf of them, unless they have something specific -- different to talk
about specifically and, then, to talk about that one item. After the public has had a
chance to testify, the applicant will have a chance to come up and respond to the
comments and do so and they will have an opportunity -- they will have up to ten minutes
to respond. At that point we will close the public hearing and, then, the council will have
an opportunity to deliberate and, hopefully, come to a decision and make
recommendations to City Council.
C. Public Hearing: RZ 15-001 Paramount Southeast Subdivision by
Brighton Investments, LLC Located Northwest Corner of N.
Meridian Road and W. McMillan Road Request: Rezone of 19.27
Acres of Land from the C -G to the R-40 Zoning District
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
March 5, 2015
Page 5 of 47
D. Public Hearing: PP 15-002 Paramount Southeast Subdivision by
Brighton Investments, LLC Located Northwest Corner of N.
Meridian Road and W. McMillan Road Request: Preliminary Plat
Approval Consisting of One (1) Building Lot in the R-40 Zoning
District; Twenty -Two (22) Building Lots in the C -G Zoning District
and Five (5) Common/Other Lots on 36.04 Acres of Land
E. Public Hearing: CUP 15-002 Paramount Southeast Subdivision
by Brighton Investments, LLC Located Northwest Corner of N.
Meridian Road and W. McMillan Road Request: Conditional Use
Permit Approval for a Multi -Family Development Consisting of
280 Dwelling Units in an R-40 Zoning District
Yearsley: So, with that I would like to open the public hearing on RZ 15-001, PP 15-002,
and CUP 15-002, Paramount Subdivision -- or Paramount Southeast Subdivision and let's
begin with the staff report.
Watters: Thank you, Chairman Yearsley, Members of the Commission. The next
applications before you are a request for a rezone, preliminary plat, and conditional use
permit. This site consists of 36 acres of land. It's currently zoned R-40 and C -G and it's
located at the northwest corner of North Meridian and West McMillan Roads. The zoning
map you see on the left here, the orange portion highlighted there is R-40 zoning and the
pinkish red color is C -G zoning. The map on the right is an aerial view of the property.
This site is surrounded by existing and future single family residential properties, primarily
zoned R-8 and Rocky Mountain High School to the east across Meridian Road, zoned
R-4. A little history on this property. It was annexed into the city in 2003 with R-40 and
C -G zoning and was included in the preliminary plat for Paramount Subdivision. A
conditional use permit and planned development was approved for the overall Paramount
development, which included multi -family and commercial uses on this site. And this is a
copy of the planned development concept plan that was,approved at that time in 2003 that
shows multi -family residential and commercial on this corner. A detailed conditional use
permit was required prior to development on the multi -family portion of the site and that is
what is before you tonight. The Comprehensive Plan future land use map designates this
property as high density residential and commercial, as shown here roughly on the zoning
map. The applicant requests approval of a rezone of 5.05 acres of land from C -G to R-40
and 3.37 acres from R-40 to C -G, increasing the R-40 area by approximately 1.68 acres.
A site plan was submitted showing how the site is proposed to develop with a multi -family
residential development and commercial lots. The applicant states that the northeast six
commercial lots -- these right here -- may develop with multi -family residential uses in the
future if market demand is insufficient to consume the available commercial property at
the corner. In this case a new conditional use permit would be required for a multi -family
development on that portion of the site. Staff is not recommending a new development
agreement or amendment to the existing agreement with the subject rezone request. A
28 lot preliminary plat is proposed as shown there on the left, consisting of one building lot
and five common lots in an R-40 district and 22 building lots in a C -G district on 36.04
acres of land. All of the lots comply with the dimensional standards of the applicable
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
March 5, 2015
Page 6 of 47
zone. Landscaped street buffers are required along all collector and arterial streets and
along the local street within the C -G district as shown on that landscape plan. Four public
street accesses are proposed for this development. Two via West McMillan Road, right
here where my pointer is and here. And two via North Meridian Road, here and here.
Both arterial streets. Additionally, two driveway accesses are proposed. One right here
on Meridian, one right here on McMillan. There are -- these driveways right here are
going to be restricted to right -in, right -out. Because the UDC limits access points to
arterial streets in an effort to improve safety, staff is recommending access to the site as
limited to the public street accesses and the driveway accesses are removed. Approval of
the accesses as proposed requires City Council approval of a waiver to UDC 11-3A-3.
ACHD did deem the proposed layout will provide a good split of vehicular traffic in all
directions within this development and approved the access points as proposed by the
applicant. ACHD did not require a traffic impact study for this development, as they
reviewed and approved this site in 2003 as part of the original Paramount preliminary plat
and planned development and the proposed density is substantially the same. There are
three existing stub streets from Cedar Creek and Paramount Subdivisions to this site that
will extend and connect to Studio Drive. Those are here at the left shown here. A
detached sidewalk exists along the entire frontage of North Meridian Road and along a
potion of the West McMillan Road frontage. The remainder of the sidewalk along
McMillan is required to be constructed with the first phase of development. Detached
sidewalks are also proposed along the public streets within the development. A
conditional use permit is requested for the multi -family development in an R-4 zoning
district as required by the Unified Development Code and the previously approved
planned development. The development is proposed to consist of a total of 280 dwelling
units within four two story, sixteen-plex structures fronting on the open space and
pedestrian corridor at the center of the project. Right here. And nine three story twenty-
four-plex structures containing a mix of one, two and three bedroom units. The previously
approved planned development for Paramount anticipated a total of 270 apartment units
in a density of 18 units per acre. The reconfigured R-40 area with 280 units results in
comparable density of 17.9 units per acre. The applicant is required to comply with the
specific use standards for multi -family developments listed in the UDC, which includes
requirements for private usable open space, common open space, and site amenities.
Building elevations were submitted as shown for the two and three story multi -family
structures and the garages. Just run through these real quick. There is a black and white
version. Two story structures and the garages here at the bottom right. Building materials
are proposed to consist of a mix of horizontal and vertical siding with the stone accents.
Final approval will take place with the certificate of zoning compliance and design review
applications. Staff finds the proposed development is consistent with the planned
development that was previously approved for this site, the UDC, and the Comprehensive
Plan. Written testimony has been received from Mike Wardle, the applicant's
representative, in agreement with the staff report. A letter was also submitted from Dr.
Linda Clark of West Ada School District in support of the development. The following
letters of testimony were received by the city in April and May of 2014 after the initial
neighborhood meeting was held by the applicant, prior to submittal of an application.
Brenda Duggan, Justin Lucas, Ken Swanson and Wendy Ann Trent. At that time the
applicant proposed to construct 360 units. Since that time the applicant has met with the
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
March 5, 2015
Page 7 of 47
neighbors several times and reduced the number of units to 280. Staff is recommending
approval of these applications with the conditions in the staff report. Staff will stand for
any questions Commission may have.
Yearsley: Thank you. Are there any questions? Would the applicant like to come
forward? Please state your name and address for the record, please.
Wardle: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, Mike Wardle, Brighton Corporation.
12601 West Explorer Drive in Boise. I am going to hand out just an excerpt, but it's not
something that you need to read, it's just to reaffirm what's contained in this document,
this binder, which is the record of the applications and approvals of a planned unit
development, conditional use permit, rezones and preliminary plat in 2003. It was
extensive and the record does show, obviously, that the project was approved and it has
moved on dramatically over the course of the last 12 years. The only reason that I'm
giving those to you -- and it's not that you need to necessarily read anything in them, but if
you were to just thumb through the eight pages you would see reference after reference
after reference to the apartment approvals that were noted at both the Planning and
Zoning Commission level, as well as at the Meridian City Council level. So, in fact, the
record is really very, very clear that apartments were anticipated from the get go and that
the only stipulation was that when we came back with a refined application that there
could be some variation in that number and that number is, in fact, 280 per the application
submitted to you this evening. So, the record shows that this project approved 12 years
ago and they -- the first slide simply is the latest Google Earth representation of that mile
section between Chinden and McMillan, Linder and Meridian Roads, with the -- the yellow
point showing the specific site that we are discussing this evening. Next slide. Okay. Let
me try that. This is the site plan that actually Sonya showed you in her presentation --
and, by the way, she asked me today are you in support of the staff recommendation and
I guess I surprised her by indicating that, yes, we are, with just one noted item that she
also brought up and that's a waiver that we would ask for a recommendation to the City
Council a bit later. The site plan had a lot of detailed single family residential component
to it. In fact, there were 764 single family lots depicted. There were areas that were not
yet detailed that would come back later. In fact, the letter D -- the bold letter D is an area
that was annexed and zoned R-8 at the time, but was not detailed. The areas designated
with the red A are properties that were subsequently acquired and annexed into the
project. The letter D -- the blue D down in the lower corner is the subject property this
evening and, then, there is an M on the east side and that is an area that was modified
from original office and townhome use. You will note that there is a minus 39 and a minus
27 and a plus ten. That's the difference in the number of units as originally proposed and
what the original project area consists of today. So, there was a significant reduction,
simply based on how the project was laid out as it was final platted and the modifications
on Meridian Road to the east where townhomes were removed and smaller lots were
approved previously in a project called Paramount East. So, we are moving forward,
then, with -- I'm sorry. Save me, Sonya. I'm going have to -- I don't -- technologically I'm
not perhaps up to speed. So, let's go to my third slide. Okay. Very good. And this is
something to show the decision made in 2003 for the R-40 multi -family zone and the C -G
commercial at that northwest corner of the Meridian -McMillan intersection. The zoning
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
March 5, 2015
Page 8 of 47
boundary pretty artificial at that point, was essentially tentative pending future detailed
conditional use applications. The next slide actually depicts the changes that are
occurring as a result of the specific proposal. So, a portion of the commercial zone from
2003 becomes R-40. A portion of the R-40 becomes commercial over on the east side
adjacent to Meridian Road. The first -- and that does actually represent the first of the
three applications before you this evening. The modification and the zoning boundary to
accommodate the specific proposal. The next slide simply shows the second and third
applications, the underlying -- there is a single lot for the apartment project and, then, 22
commercial lots and as Sonya noted and as actually was determined in negotiations with
the neighborhood, the six lots on the frontage of Meridian Road could at some point, if the
market demand for commercial is low and the rest of the project is built out, it could
become subject to a future conditional use application changing from commercial to
additional apartments. Three quick slides that show the evolution of the project. The very
first site plan that was provided to the public, in fact, was from February of 2004. Pretty
early in its inception, but it does show arrows at the bottom right -- show that the titles
adjacent to that intersection are for multi -family and commercial. The next site plan, 2006,
is modified a little bit, because the red A area to the southwest is what was then approved
as Paramount South 60 Subdivision and was incorporated into the project at that point.
So, that was July 2006. And the terminology also continues for multi -family and
commercial. And, then, finally, the current site plan that is on the Brighton website dated
November 13th, 2014, shows the extended project as it has evolved with additional
properties that were acquired, annexed, and zoned and platted, actually. And also carries
forward the multi -family residential and commercial. Just a couple of comments. There
have been some concerns -- the next slide shows Brighton initially is within that area,
because questions had come up about whether we had done what we should do in order
to provide facilities for the community. Specifically in starting as the project came into
being, the school district was negotiating for the high school site. That site was sold to the
district but at a discounted value. The elementary school site that's in the heart of the
project was donated to the school district. And, then, there were also some major
improvements -- Brighton did joint -- it did joint development agreements with ACHD in
2008 to improve both the Linder -McMillan and Meridian -McMillan intersections and Linder
improvements actually went all the way up to the entrance to the project on the east side
of the road. Also for students getting to the middle school east of Meridian Road at
McMillan led Brighton to do a sidewalk improvement down that frontage from Producer
Drive, so that there would be a safe means for those students to get to that school facility.
Next slide shows really the basis, then, of the discussion this evening for the conditional
use permit. Extensive neighborhood process that we were involved with from April until
October of last year led to this refined plan as Sonya noted from the original concept of
360 units down to the 280 and also, as Sonya noted, that while you're approving a
conditional use permit this evening and there are documents of record in the applications,
the multi -family project and future commercial are all subject to design review and the
certificate of zoning compliance process. So, there is a lot of detail that is yet ahead.
Amenities included in the multi -family project -- in addition to that pedestrian corridor that
actually links Paramount single family to the future commercial, there are two playground
areas. There are -- there is a clubhouse and a swimming pool and a number of other
amenities -- 3.2 acres of open space internal to the site and the two arrows that are
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
March 5, 2015
Page 9 of 47
depicted there are views that show the elevations and renderings from -- on the next
page. The first is down that pedestrian boulevard as it's referred to in the application,
fronted by two stories, 16 buildings and, then, the second one at the bottom is depicted
from just north of McMillan Road looking into the drive, showing the garages and the
landscape area out front, which the landscape area will actually be much deeper and
more significant than what it shows, providing a visual barrier and buffer to the three story
structures that sit some distance to the rear. So, the next slide really gets us to the one
item that -- it's not a difference, but in condition 1.1.3D Sonya notes that -- I'm sorry, I
have got to get some water. Thank you for indulging. That condition -- also requirement
for a waiver from City Council to allow those service drives, which are not a public street,
but just -- they would likely become right -in, right -out facilities. ACHD in its Condition
7.1.8 on page 31 of your staff report indicates approval not only of the public street access
points, but also of these and it's noted that these actually exist. The one to the north on
Meridian Road was constructed as part of that intersection improvement project as was
the one on McMillan Road just to the west. So, in your recommendation this evening we
would ask for your specific reference to granting that waiver and, obviously, that goes to
the Council that makes the ultimate decision. Next slide is simply a summary statement.
The fact that the apartments have been a component of the plan from the very beginning.
All public documents and renderings, except for marketing purposes, have identified that
proposed multi -family use. While the project has evolved, multi -family apartment proposal
has always been a constant and Brighton has taken the initiative to provide for the
neighborhood schools, enhancing pedestrian safety and the improvements of a
transportation system that significantly assists in traffic conditions in that area. And we
spent a lot of time, as noted from the meeting -- the first neighborhood meeting was late
April of last year, followed by another meeting on the 5th -- on the 4th of May and the
response that we got from the neighborhood at that point led us to a five month deferral as
we worked through the intensity of the project, the design of the project, and addressed a
number of issues that the neighborhood had identified. So, Mr. Chairman, Members of
the Commission, that really is the end of my presentation. We simply ask that you pass
on recommendations for approval to the City Council and would answer any questions
you might have.
Yearsley: Thank you. Are there any questions? Thank you very much
Wardle: Thank you.
Yearsley: I have a couple people signed up. Jan Rivett. A Jenny Withers. Please state
your name and address for the record, please.
Withers: Jennie Withers. 5226 North Mitchum Avenue, Paramount Subdivision. First of
all, I live on the street that is most newly developed. It's also the street that the
apartments will butt up against. During this whole process, obviously, we were very late
to the game. I just moved into my house a year ago -- bought my house a year ago.
When I first moved in I didn't hear about any of the neighborhood concerns and -- until late
and, then, I knew that there was a petition online that we could get on and sign. Myself
and my neighbors also new, could not do that petition or participate that way, because our
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
March 5, 2015
Page 10 of 47
street wasn't even recognized yet. So, I'm testifying against this project for two reasons. I
have been very involved in this process as much as I could. Both my husband and I and,
of course, my neighbors, who weren't able to be here tonight. So, the apartments will be
directly behind me. Before we purchased our house we asked several Brighton homes
representatives -- between our realtor and ourselves, no less than four, what would be
built behind us. We are not first time home buyers. We went into this knowing that we
didn't want a lot -- we didn't want commercial behind us and we didn't want apartments
behind us, we didn't want anything like that and each time we were told that it would be
multi -residential in the form of townhomes. Never were we told it would be apartment
buildings and we were certainly never told there would be three story apartment buildings
behind our house. If Brighton Corporation would have been honest with us we would not
have purchased our home. But that was not the case. And reason number two that I hate
seeing this go in. I was a secondary educator for 16 years. I know this project would put
too much strain on an already overburdened school system. The quality of education
suffers when teachers are faced with 30 plus students in a classroom, when they are
forced to travel because there is a lack of space and when they are teaching outside of
the school environment in a portable. I have been through all three of those things as a
teacher. Education does suffer. Our kids do suffer. This development would overwhelm
our schools. We just got in the mail from the superintendent, Heritage Middle School
where both of my children attend, 162 students over capacity. Thank you.
Yearsley: Thank you. Brian Heffley.
Heffley: Good evening. My name is Brian Heffley. I'm on 1101 West Bacall Street in
Paramount Sub. I was on the residents leadership team. I got Steven Collins who started
the -- kind of originated the coordination of the residents to fight against this project, which
led, eventually, through the meetings and everything the way that we worked with
Brighton turned into kind of a collaboration with them to reshape the project, as Mr.
Wardle mentioned earlier. Bringing the number of units down and making such
improvements as have been mentioned. The -- the concerns about schools not
supporting the project are still our resident concerns. However, my understanding is the
city is not really -- doesn't really have control over those things, being ACHD and the
school district and Dr. Linda Clark submitted a letter in support of this, I don't really have
much to say on that point anymore. The only thing that concerns -- a new piece of
information tonight, when we pitched this project starting in April of last year, we heard the
360 unit number and we have since settled on 280. The part that I'm not sure we really --
it was originally planned for 270 back in 2003, so that might be some really, really bad
negotiating on our part to end up with ten more units than originally planned for, but we
heard 360. The concern is the rezoning of the northeast section to commercial, with the
possibility of turning it back into R-40 someday if the market -- commercial market is soft.
That's very subjective. If I was going to plan more apartments that would be a strategy
that I would use to say with that 3.6 acres we can put another 100 or maybe even 120
units in there. So, I would only ask that -- and I'm not sure if the rezoning of that section is
commercial or if it's a factual like we are turning into commercial and at a later date we
can do conditional use like he discussed and turn it back into, but it's -- I'd like to see it --
zone the commercial with no real discussion formalities of the possibility of turning it back
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
March 5, 2015
Page 11 of 47
into residential -- you know, high density residential until the time comes. I'm not sure if
that's entirely clear, but I would hope that it would be a proper rezoning and not able to
quickly convert back to residential at this point, that more possibly would have to be done
with the Council at that point. That's all.
Yearsley: Thank you. Next on the list is Mark Wright. Okay. The next one I have is
Randy -- and I can't read his last name. So, with that is there anybody else that would like
to testify on this application? Well, I guess if no one else is wanting to testify, would the
applicant like to come up and comment?
Wardle: Mr. Chairman, Commission Members, once again Mike Wardle, 12601 West
Explorer Drive in Boise. We had several people during the discussions with the
neighborhood that indicated that they felt that they had not been properly apprised of what
was being proposed, but all of the information that Brighton has ever put out has been
clear and distinct and we can't control what some people that maybe are not involved in
either the development or the actual marketing of the project might say. So, if there was
any lack of clarity in -- the first person to testify indicated that was told multi -family
townhomes, perhaps a distinction that is difficult to address. Brighton has tried in all
cases to be honest and I think the effort that we put in after it was apparent that there was
a great deal of concern initially expressed in April and May. We did go to the drawing
board and in that process there was an e-mail that was sent to all of the neighbors on
October 3rd, a few days -- about a week before the final meeting that we had before we
submitted our application -- or started to prepare the application and it said: On
September 25th, 2014, the core members of the Paramount apartment team met with
Dave Turnbull and his team at Brighton to discuss updated apartment plans. We were
told that Dave and his team took seriously the concerns and constructive input that so
many of the community members have conveyed in the spring. Based on those
interactions Brighton modified the original plans to incorporate resident input. Density was
reduced from 360 to 280 and with regard to that number, originally the application did
specify 270, but that was based on 18 units per acre on a fairly arbitrary square line,
knowing that when that line was changed from -- and it turned out that the parcel changed
from 15.3 to 15.62 acres, then, our density is a bit lower than the 18 that was allowed. So,
it was just basically a configuration question of the parcel. It was noted also that Brighton
converted a portion of the land for the apartments to commercial or high density. This is is
now planned for office space and whatever as the market demands. However, if -- and
this is -- again, this is a homeowner document. If it doesn't lease Brighton will need to
rethink that land, reserving the right to develop as they choose, potentially including more
apartments. And, then, it talked about the improvements made to the transportation
system where we really had the access points out closest to the two arterial roadways.
And, finally, we felt that Brighton did address the concerns the community expressed in
the spring and represented a significant good faith effort. We understand that there was a
number of folks that felt strongly that it should be stopped altogether. This was, indeed,
the clear teams sentiment when all this started in the spring. However, since, then, we
have all learned that the property was zoned high density in 2002 -- actually 2003. And
whether it was disclosed to everyone or not, that would be a long and expensive process,
so -- to going forward. We feel this new plan represents a good compromise and reduces
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
March 5, 2015
Page 12 of 47
impact to the community. Then there was one other document -- e-mail that came
specifically to Mr. Turnbull and I'm going to give -- I will give the secretary a copy of this
document, but it was dated October 17th, three days after the last neighborhood meeting.
Dave, it was a pleasure to meet you at the meeting the other evening. The changes to the
project are welcome. And, then, toward the end. Personally, I feel you have made
considerable changes to the original scope, which will add value and livability to your
concept and appease most of the Paramount property owners. Thank you for your open
mind and gentlemanly attitude. All the best. So, Mr. Chairman, Commission Members,
we think this represents a great project and from the hundred people that came to the
original meeting, 35 came to the second meeting, because of the communication that had
gone back and forth within the community and, then, the few that are here this evening. I
think it does suggest that we have, in good faith, provided something that will be of benefit
to the community as it goes forward. I would be happy to answer any additional questions
you might have and I will give the secretary a copy of these statements.
Yearsley: Thank you. Are there any questions? Thanks.
Wardle: Thank you.
Yearsley: I have one question of legal. Do we need to have the clerk copy those, so we
can review that -- his comments before we make a decision?
Baird: Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission, because Mr. Wardle actually read those
verbatim, you don't need to separately read them, unless somebody would like to.
Yearsley: Okay. I'm good. Okay. So, I do have one question of staff before we close the
public hearing. With regard to the rezone of that commercial property, he's stating that he
in the future may come back before -- and request going back to the R-40, but he would
still have to go through a rezone process at that time; is that correct?
Watters: Chairman Yearsley, Members of the Commission, they would not have to
rezone the property. Multi -family residential is listed as a conditional use permit in the C-
G zoning district.
Yearsley: Okay. But he would still have to go after a conditional use permit?
Watters: That is correct. And it would require a public hearing like this one.
Yearsley: Okay. So, just want to make sure. Thank you very much. Any other questions
before we close? At this time can I get a motion to close the public hearing on RZ 15-001,
PP 15-002 and CUP 15-002?
Oliver: Mr. Chairman?
Yearsley: Commissioner Oliver.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
March 5, 2015
Page 13 of 47
Oliver: I move that we close the hearing on RZ 15-001, PP 15-002 and CUP 15-002,
Paramount Southeast.
Fitzgerald: Second.
Yearsley: I have a motion and a second to close the public hearing. All in favor say aye.
Opposed? Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Yearsley: So, any comments? If no one wants to go forward, I will start. I think Brighton
has done a good job. For the comments that were made I -- the comment about that the
real estate agents, you know, lied to them. I don't quite know how to respond to that. I'm
sorry that you were lied to. I really am. You know, with the schools overcrowded, the
school district actually sent a letter of recommendation to that and I think with the rezone
or making that other parcel going to commercial -- or to -- you know, the commercial
property back to apartments, you know, at that point in time if that ever happens you have
an opportunity to come and express your opposition to -- to that at that point in time. I
think Brighton has done a good job trying to screen the apartments from the residents.
So, with that I think I'm -- I'm in favor of the project.
Fitzgerald: Mr. Chairman?
Yearsley: Commissioner Fitzgerald.
Fitzgerald: I think I would agree with you completely. I think, you know, after, you know,
getting feedback back from the community and making adjustments as they did, there has
to be certainty in development, as you make a significant investment over ten, 15 years
and they have done a good job of mixed use -- mixed use residential, giving buffer zones
in between the smaller density, so I think they did a great job. I think they have been
responsive to the community and I appreciate the effort.
Yearsley: Thank you. Any other comments?
Wilson: Mr. Chair?
Yearsley: Commissioner Wilson.
Wilson: I'm also going to support this. I think if you look at the 2003 plan, it's a fulfillment
of that. I, too, like that they worked with the neighborhood and, then, also the fact that
they are working with the community to make improvements. They have been a good
partner with the West Ada School District and throughout they have been a collaborative
partner.
Yearsley: Thank you.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
March 5, 2015
Page 14 of 47
McCarvel: Mr. Chairman? I agree that -- my initial question as well was going to be the
rezoning of that commercial district come again for some public notice in the future and 1
think the rest of it just seems really well thought out and a well liked design.
Yearsley: Thank you.
Oliver: Mr. Chairman?
Yearsley: Commissioner Oliver.
Oliver: I also agree with my constituents that this is well done. I think Brighton did a good
job in doing their homework and bringing it up to date the way it should look and I think it
will be a nice representation out there for us.
Yearsley: Thank you
Oliver: I agree with it
Yearsley: So, with that just kind of one letter -- one comment, a quick clarification. The
applicant did ask for comment. We cannot approve that waiver, but we can make a
recommendation for yes or no on that waiver. So, however you guys want to do that. But
we cannot approve that waiver. So, at this point I would entertain a motion.
Wilson: Mr. Chair?
Yearsley: Commissioner Wilson.
Wilson: After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to recommend
approval of file number RZ 15-001, PP 15-002, and CUP 15-002 as presented in the staff
report for the -- on the hearing date March 5th, 2015, with the recommendation that -- that
the plan being put forward --
Yearsley: The driveway?
Wilson: The driveways be put forward.
Yearsley: Okay.
Oliver: Second.
Yearsley: I have a motion and a second to approve file number RZ 14-001, PP 15-002
and CUP 15-002, Paramount Sub -- Southeast Subdivision. All in favor say aye.
Opposed? Motion carries. Thank you. Congratulations.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
March 5, 2015
Page 15 of 47
F. Public Hearing: RZ 15-003 Jayker Village Subdivision by Oak
Leaf Development Company, Inc. Located North Side of Chinden
Boulevard; West of N. Tree Farm Way and N. Tree Haven Way
Request: Rezone 26.09 Acres from the C -N and the R-15 Districts
to the R-15 (8.48 Acres) and C -C (17.61 Acres) Zoning Districts
G. Public Hearing: PP 15-003 Jayker Village Subdivision by Oak
Leaf Development Company, Inc. Located North Side of Chinden
Boulevard; West of N. Tree Farm Way and N. Tree Haven Way
Request: Preliminary Plat Approval Consisting of One (1)
Residential Lot, Three (3) Commercial Lots and Three (3)
Common Lots on Approximately 23.59 Acres in the Proposed R-
15 and C -C Zoning Districts
H. Public Hearing: CUP 15-003 Jayker Village Subdivision by Oak
Leaf Development Company, Inc. Located North Side of Chinden
Boulevard; West of N. Tree Farm Way and N. Tree Haven Way
Request: Conditional Use Permit for a Self -Service Storage
Facility Consisting of a Care -Taker's / Office Building and Fifteen
(15) Storage Buildings on Approximately 11.18 Acres of Land in
a Proposed C -C Zoning District
Yearsley: Next item on the agenda is the public hearing for RZ 15-003, PP 15-003 and
CUP 15-003, Jayker Village Subdivision.
Fitzgerald: Mr. Chair?
Yearsley: Commissioner Fitzgerald.
Fitzgerald: I have to declare a conflict of interest, so I will be stepping out for this series of
discussions.
Yearsley: Thank you. So, with that I will give him a chance to leave, since he is recusing
himself of this application. What we are going to do on this process -- since there is so
many people here today and we want to make sure we get through everybody -- from
what I understand there is a list of people that want to speak for three minutes each on
each different topic. Those people who have signed up here, this does become a letter --
does go to the record. So -- so, what we would like to do is we have got a list of people
who would like to speak on different subjects and if there is any other concerns beyond
those subjects, please, come forward. We want to at least make sure everyone is heard,
but we don't -- not saying we don't want to, but we understand the concern and if there is
a lot of repetition, you know, we -- we understand that. So, we are going to do this a little
bit -- this will be in the record showing that -- all who showed up and showed that they are
against or for or neutral. But with that I am going to ask Robert Neufield to come forward,
please.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
March 5, 2015
Page 16 of 47
Baird: Mr. Chair?
Yearsley: Yes.
Baird: A couple of preliminary items. I also want to mention that we do have in the record
numerous written communications from the residents. Some were sent to the Mayor's
office, some were sent to the Planning and Zoning Commission. It appear from reviewing
that the staff responded to each one and said this is in receipt, it's in the record, I just
wanted to -- to go on record saying that those are part of the record, we have been
keeping the Commission informed, so you have reviewed those ahead of time. If there
are any written materials that will be submitted with the testimony tonight, please, hand it
to the clerk. When we are done taking testimony we will copy those, so that the
Commission can read them, take a short time out at that point. I also have a quick crowd
management request that -- this is being broadcast in the lobby, but for those people out
there we do have some seats available in front and now might be a good time to come in
if anybody is waiting for that opportunity. And, then, I wanted to recommend that we begin
with the staff report.
Yearsley: I just remembered that I -- I'm trying to adjust for what's going on I forgot that
we will start with the staff report. Thank you very much.
Parsons: I thought I was getting off easy tonight. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of
the Commission. The next item on the agenda this evening, as you stated, is the Jaykers
Village Subdivision. You can see here on the zoning map before you this evening this
property is annexed within the city. It's currently zoned C -N, which is our neighborhood
commercial district and a portion of it is zoned R-15. Surrounding this development is
primarily single family -- developed and vacant single family residential development that
was -- roughly went in approximately about 2009 with the first phase in 2007 known as
Jayker Subdivision and over time as the economy turned the subdivision was bought up
by some previous developers and now since -- it's morphed a little bit from what it was
originally approved as, but it always stayed within the context and the spirit of the concept
plan that was approved with the annexation of the property. So, you can see here that
this property is -- currently consists to two existing buildings and that will -- those will
remain with the development of the property. The Comprehensive Plan for this site is
medium density residential and mixed use community. The larger portion of it is medium
density residential, although when you look at the zoning map you can see a majority of it
is commercial. So, it's a little bit out of scale on what the comp plan is, but the
Comprehensive Plan is not parcel specific, zoning is, and so that's really what we are
focusing in on tonight. So, here is -- as I mentioned to you, this property was annexed
into the city in 2006. This is the concept plan that was tied to the -- to the original
development agreement approved with this project. I have placed a square around the
area that's part of our discussion this evening and you can see here that a portion of it
was planned for neighborhood commercial along Chinden Boulevard and north of that we
have the community park, which is currently built and constructed with a previous phase
and, then, we also have some additional housing that would be developed in the future.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
March 5, 2015
Page 17 of 47
Applicant is rezoning the property from the C -N zoning district and the R-15 zoning district
to the C -C zoning district and the R-15 zoning district and the primary reason for the
rezone is so that the applicant has -- can go concurrently with the submitted CUP
application in order to develop the storage facility. So, currently the way the project is
zoned now that type of use is not allowed in that C -N district and that's the main reason
why the push for the rezone this evening. But to insure that this site does develop in an
fashion consistent with the concept plan that I just presented to you, we wanted to make
sure that not only did we get a detailed site plan for the storage facility, but we also got a
detailed -- or a conceptual development plan for the other commercial lots as part of the
subdivision. So, as I go through my presentation tonight I'm going to focus on each
application individually, wrap up what the applicant wants to address and, then, close with
staff's recommendation. So, the plat before you this evening does consist of a single
residential parcel, which is approximately 6.41 acres located here consistent with that
concept plan and in the C -C zoning area will consist of three commercial lots and there
will also be three common lots within the proposed subdivision. Also with the annexation
and the concept plan and in the development agreement the applicant at that time was
required to provide a connection to Chinden Road -- Boulevard at the half mile mark,
which is consistent with the entrance into the subdivision today and it is consistent with
the current code as it's written in the UDC and it's also consistent with the ITD's -- the
Idaho Department of Transportation's access management policies. With that approval
and previous approval, this local street was also constructed to buffer the commercial
uses from the single family residences to the north as well. Now, since that time the
applicant has come forward and platted a six lot subdivision just north of this project with a
pool house and a collector facility -- or a pool house -- a pool facility and a pool as another
amenity to the residential portion of the development. Access to this development, again,
will be primarily from Chinden Boulevard to North Tree -- I think that's Tree Farm or --
yeah. Tree Farm Way. And, then, again, collector street -- the local street will provide
access to the commercial development moving forward. All right. Here is their landscape
plan with the preliminary plat. The only landscaping that is required are the street buffers
along Chinden Boulevard, a collector street into the development. On the commercial
portion of the development would be required to do a ten foot landscape buffer and, then,
as part of the subdivision approval the applicant is also required to construct a portion of
the collector road to this project to terminate at their west boundary. This is an important
connection not only for future connectivity, but also for this development and it's important
to the UDC as well, because not only does the code restrict access to the state facility, but
the code also requires that there is a backage road to parallel that state facility, so as
properties develop adjacent to that corridor we want to insure there is adequate
connectivity in the future to connect residences to these connection points at the state
highway, so that we aren't having multiple curb cuts onto state facilities to make sure that
they are -- we try to keep management and the congestion on that roadway to a minimum,
because that is a 55 mile an hour roadway. So, this is a very important piece of collector
road, although it's not being extended at this point in time, as I showed you in the concept
plan, you can see that that road is to be extended to Black Cat at some point in the future
and it was always part of the overall annexation. We will just have to wait -- and, again,
these -- these roadways are typically developed at the time of development, not ahead of
time. Here is the concept plan that I was mentioning to you as part of the commercial
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
March 5, 2015
Page 18 of 47
portion. As I presented to you, there are -- here are the two existing buildings that will
remain on Lot 2, Block 1. In the staff report I did bring to your attention that there are
current commercial businesses operating there and the applicant has not received city
approval for those tenants to operate there out of the site. So, moving forward in the staff
report we did recommend some DA provisions that required that the structures connect to
city services and also get approval for the city in order for those tenants -- basically they
need to get to the building department and get certificate of occupancies for them to
occupy the buildings. The concept plan is only primarily for Lot 3, Block 1, and it does
show two -- three commercial buildings on here, the largest being about 13,000 square
feet and the smallest is about 6,000 square feet. You can see here that the applicant has
tried to move the buildings away from the street and has no parking in between the
buildings here. The main reason for that is because there is an irrigation easement that
prohibits any structure from encroaching and it was the intent of the applicant to also
create separation from the residences and also have a building screen the parking area,
so those commercial businesses aren't impacting the adjacent residences. Again here is
the detailed site plan for Lot 4 of the subdivision. Again, the applicant is requesting a
conditional use permit to develop this site with approximately 183,000 square feet of
storage buildings and office -- and an office building. The office portion of the
development will consist of a caretakers unit, so they will have 24/7 management on site
here to make sure the trash is maintained, there is no riff raff going on, the crime is down,
and certainly these types of facilities also have surveillance cameras as well to keep an
eye on that. The main access into this development will be from Tree Haven Way, which
is that local street, again, which is consistent with the comp plan and the UDC. Per the
specific use standards for storage facilities, the applicant has to provide a secondary
means of access into the development and you can see here on the site plan that that
primary access or secondary access will be coming from Chinden Boulevard. It will be
gated for emergency access only. Typically when we have projects intensify we try to
restrict access as well. In this particular case, because of specific use standards require
that and the fire department requires it, staff is supportive of the secondary access to
Chinden Boulevard. As the applicant moves through the process they will have to gain
approval from ITD as well. Here is the street view of the proposed facility. I think in my
staff report there was a couple modifications that I had recommended as part of my
recommendation to you. Again, the applicant will have to go back through and go through
the design review process, just like the previous plat did. But a couple things to note is
this will be developing in two phases. So, the first phase will be, basically, all the
improvements around the perimeter and, then, the first seven interior buildings here and,
then, the second phase would be these additional structures here -- let's see. One, two --
five additional buildings. So, a lot of the contents will be screened from view from the
public and internally from the subdivision as they go through their first phase. Staff
wanted to make sure that there was some additional architectural embellishments to the
building, additional screening from Chinden Boulevard corridor and some additional
landscaping requirements along the east boundary and also the north boundary and those
are highlighted in the staff report. I will quickly go through those. Because this building
and the north building will be visible for quite some time until the office component
develops or the multi -family or the residential to the north develops -- I shouldn't say multi-
family, but the residential lot develops to the north, staff has recommended that they
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
March 5, 2015
Page 19 of 47
increase their amount of block on the back of that north facing fagade from four feet to six
feet. Because the facility will be screened by a six foot tall wall -- or fencing and a block
wall combination, we felt that wainscot at the height of the fence would actually have the
buildings blend into the surroundings and actually look more like it's walled off than just
metal buildings standing along the perimeter. The applicant was in agreement with that
recommendation. And, then, also on this north fagade we are also recommending some
additional windows moving forward. And, then, of course, the landscape buffer along this
perimeter -- if I can step back here. You can see here. The applicant is deficient in the
required trees by the UDC, so they have to put in several more trees along this boundary
to add additional screening. And, then, also along the east boundary they are missing the
required trees and staff has required them to put in the 12 required trees along this east
boundary and the applicant stated that they can -- can do that and can accommodate
those conditions. Again, here is the street view from the -- as you can see here along the
Chinden Boulevard originally the applicant had proposed berming, some block walls and,
then, some wrought iron fencing to kind of blend in with the adjacent neighborhood. But
you can see here based on the UDC standards for the storage facility, these areas -- the
storage facility must be screened from public view or public streets and this is just too
visible from the street and so staff's recommendation in the staff report was the applicant
was to provide a decorative block wall along the Chinden corridor and incorporate not only
the block walls -- or the stone walls you see here, but also the berming and that was our
recommendation this evening. The applicant was also required to provide you a detail of
the fencing around the compound and this exhibit here at the very bottom shows what
they are planning to do in order to comply with that requirement by staff. Here are the
conceptual elevations for Lot 3, which shows the three lots, the new buildings in the
future. The applicant tried to tie in architecture with the two existing buildings on Lot 2 and
these will have -- as you can see here a mix of wood products, metal siding -- or metal
roofing to compliment not only the storage buildings, but also the entry features into the
residential portion of the development and, then, also we have the same build and form
and the red barn that's currently constructed on the site as well. And, then, the storage
facility here is the proposed elevations for the manager's unit or the office building. Again,
this architecture is similar to what the pool facility is across the street. It has stucco,
stone, the metal -- the same metal roofing as the rest of the architecture within the
development as well. As I mentioned to you, the majority of the building materials in this
development will be metal. All the internal buildings are not subject to design review,
because they will be screened or walled off from adjacent view and I touched on it a little
bit, but you can see here where they -- the block wainscoting is along the building and this
would be the east side building, the east perimeter and the back of that building and so
staff is, again, requesting a six foot tall split face wainscot and, then, also on the end caps
or the north- south ends of the building we are requiring that they add two of these
windows to break up that metal siding, to -- to just add or at least meet the intent -- the
requirements of the design standards. Here are the buildings that are proposed along the
north boundary, which would be building number 13, number 14, and number 15. Again,
that wainscot is along the back of that building. Staff is, again, recommending that that be
raised in height to six feet in height to provide additional materials on the back of that
building and, then, the applicant this evening -- originally staff had required that the same
Lexan windows be applied to all the back fagade of these buildings. All of the buildings
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
March 5, 2015
Page 20 of 47
the applicant is proposing this evening to -- I know they do it on the center building,
because it's a taller building and the two end caps aren't as tall, so it would be difficult to
have a fix foot wainscot and put those windows in and I will get into that a little bit more as
I get through here -- through the presentation. But as you're aware -- and with all the
members in the audience, you can see we have quite a bit of public testimony. As the city
attorney had testified to, all of that information is in your packet. Not all of it is in
opposition of the project. We did receive one -- one positive vote on the project from one
of the residents in the neighborhood, so that's included in your packet as well. And, then,
staff also received written testimony from the applicant in rebuttal for the staff report and I
quickly want to go through what they want you to act on or take into consideration this
evening. So, that first condition would be CUP condition 1-B. As I mentioned to you in my
presentation -- if I could step back here very quickly to the landscape plan. Originally if
you looked at the required plat -- or the submitted plat here, the applicant is currently tiling
the existing irrigation facility on the property and when he -- when he did that the irrigation
district required a 40 foot wide irrigation easement and that runs along the east side of the
facility, cuts through the parking lot, then, runs down along the north and, then, exits up
along the west boundary. Originally -- and, again, this landscape plan doesn't show the
required trees. So, staff wasn't certain if the irrigation district would allow the trees to go in
their easement. Now, the pipe itself is offset in the easement, so from looking at the site
plan this evening and looking at the landscape plan, it appears that the trees could be
planted in there without widening that landscape strip, provided the irrigation district could
support that. Staff is amenable to the applicant's request to strike that condition, provided
they provide documentation from the irrigation district allowing the required trees within
the easement and they would have to submit that with their certificate of zoning
compliance and design review application. The next condition would be CUP condition
2.17 or 2-F, which requires the detail for the block wall and also the fencing materials along
the perimeter of the development. I can jump back to that very quickly. So, imagine along
the west boundary the applicant would do some kind of wood fence treatment to kind of
mimic the same fencing style as the Spurwing development has currently and, then, along
the Eagle Road corridor here we are looking at some decorative block pilasters and, then,
a combination of block wall and possible mixture. The applicant is asking for some
latitude on the requirement this evening and let them work with staff through the design
review process to work this staff as they submit their CZC and design review as to finalize
that design of how that landscaping and how that screening is to look. Again, staff is
amenable to that request. We feel as long as they screen it and make it an attractive
corridor along the Chinden corridor and staff believes that it would blend in with the
neighborhood and we believe that it would meet the intent of the ordinance and still
provide that screening as required by the UDC requirements. The other condition would
be 4 -- 4-B, which, as I stated to you on the back side of that building, 13 and 14, because
they are having a six foot wainscot block wall or split faced block, staff is amenable to only
requiring the Lexan panels on building number 14 and in the last condition of approval
they want you to take -- act on this evening is 4-C, which if you looked originally -- if you
look at the site plan here, because most of these entry gates into these facilities are
electric gates, it's difficult -- right now the way the staff report is written we require a solid
gate for the -- along entrance off of Tree Haven Way and most of these facilities have
electronic key pads to get into there, so it's very difficult to have a solid gate, because of
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
March 5, 2015
Page 21 of 47
the weight and have those control arms lift the gate up. So, as long as the applicant
complies with staff requirements for at least providing a solid material for the wing gates,
staff is amenable to having them decorative or some kind of wrought iron fencing for the
entrance off of the -- off of Tree Haven Way as you enter into this facility. With that staff
finds that the proposed development does comply with the Comprehensive Plan and the
concept plan that was originally proposed for this project in 2006. With the conditions that
I have laid out in the staff report, staff finds that they will comply with the UDC. Therefore,
we are recommending approval of this project tonight. This concludes my presentation
and I will stand for any questions you have.
Yearsley: Thank you. Are there any questions?
Oliver: Mr. Chairman?
Yearsley: Commissioner Oliver
Oliver: Could I ask staff a couple questions if I could? Go back -- there. Perfect. So, it's
two phases that's going to go in. So, if the first phase will consist of what we see here on
the right-hand side and on the dotted line will be the second. So, that will be a vacant lot
at that point. It will be there, but there just won't be buildings on it at that point.
Parsons: Correct. Mr. Chairman -- go ahead.
Oliver: So, my question is -- is that all of the items that would be placed in these storage
units in an enclosed environment or will -- like I see some storage where they have
outside vehicles -- recreational stored. And will that be used in that vacant area?
Parsons: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, the concept plans -- or at least the
site plan this evening shows enclosed storage and covered storage for the -- the RV
parking as you suggested. So, as they go through the first phase we are expecting
everything to be stored in their covered storage and enclosed storage and right now the
way the conditions are in the staff report we have approved no out -- open outdoor
storage. Everything has to be under covered storage. So, if that phase two is not
developed and it remains undeveloped, nothing is allowed to be parked on that and it will
be a condition in the -- in their CZC or in condition right now, it's not approved for storage
and when they come in with their first phase we would have a condition in their certificate
of zoning compliance that says phase two is not approved for storage or any kind of -- I
mean nothing. Everything has to be indoors per the CUP. Nothing outdoor -- no outdoor
storage is approved on this site.
Oliver: Yeah. And, then, the other question I had is that -- that will be butted up towards
the Chinden Road; correct? And, then, will that be a -- a raised buffer along Eagle --
along Chinden rather?
Parsons: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, Commissioner Oliver, as it stands
now there is three foot -- the decorative wall berm combination that I showed in the --
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
March 5, 2015
Page 22 of 47
provided by the applicant shows a three foot berm -- the wall is about three feet and the
berm is about three feet tall. Again, the applicant wants to change that a little bit because
of the requirement for providing a solid screen wall on the road and they are asking -- they
don't have a specific detail on how that landscape buffer would look, but they want the
latitude to work with staff through the design review process on those final details. But
they at least have complied with staff's recommendation of bringing forth what the wall is
to look like or the fencing material is to look like for you to take it under advisement this
evening.
Oliver: Thank you.
Yearsley: Any other questions? I actually have just a couple. Go back to -- keep going
back. Right there. Well, actually, go back -- keep going back. Keep going. One more I
think. Back one more. So -- sorry. Right now that area is zoned C -N, which is
neighborhood commercial; correct?
Parsons: That is correct.
Yearsley: So, he could actually go ahead and start building potential commercial units in
there without actually having to go through this process; is that not correct?
Parsons: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, that is correct. He would still have
to come back and plat it.
Yearsley: Correct
Parsons: But certainly if anything -- any commercial use in the UDC that was what we
deem principally permitted, that would be allowed at staff level and would not require --
the platting itself would require a public hearing. But as far as developing the office use or
some kind of retail use on this site is a principally permitted use and would not require a
public hearing.
Yearsley: Okay.
Parsons: It would be staff level approvals to construct an office building on the site or a
commercial retail building.
Yearsley: Okay. So, I just want to make sure I understand that clearly. So, that's all I
have. Would the applicant like to come forward? Please state your name and address for
the record.
Carnahan: My name is Doug Carnahan and I live at 7270 North Tree Haven Place. I am
the owner and the developer of this project, the Jayker Village Subdivision. Bill did a good
job of describing the original master plan that was put in place nine years ago. The only
point I'd like to make -- there is two points. One is this is not a surprise. This has been in
place for nine years and it's consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. The other thing is
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
March 5, 2015
Page 23 of 47
it's a multi -use master plan. It's only been developed in single family residential units so
far. So, looking forward this is the first venture into commercial or a higher density --
higher density residential. About three years ago I retained Thornton Oliver Keller to both
list the property -- put it on the market to see what buyers would say about it and a second
thing is to do a study to find out what was -- the property could be used for. What would
be the best use based on the marketplace. I will not go through all the gory details of the
research project, but let me say this: The conclusions came back -- the one-third to the
north, the R-15 parcel, was proper, it can be sold as an R-15 parcel and there is demand
for it. The way they explained it to me they said draw a -- take a line that's one mile long
and extend it out to the north and clear around to the east. What do we find? You find
several very large stores, Fred Meyers, Walmart, and they have neighborhood
commercial around them. If you go across the street from Spurwing Country Club they
have neighborhood commercial. The bottom line was while the residential office fits, you
cannot sell lots, because there is no demand for it. There is just no market for
neighborhood commercial, because it's all taken up. So, that was the feedback. So, I
said as part of that study what did you conclude might be the best use. So, the answer
was the best use for that would be a storage parcel and it came from a number of
developers that we talked to. They looked at the marketplace, they looked at where other
storage parcels were and it's an underserved area in that regard. So, when I went out and
talked to different people in the storage business they validated that. Yeah, we have
interest in that, because we -- it's a place. The -- so, in thinking about storage, what was
top of mind for me? There were a couple things. One is that comes up as a question.
People have this vision of storage facilities like you see out in that agricultural area or
whatever and they don't see a facility that is as attractive as it might be and so that's
always an issue. So, that was on my mind. And the second thing that was on my mind
was traffic. Is this going to create a traffic problem. So, I said the right thing to do is to
understand these and set a goal where we come up with a plan that could be visually
palatable and compatible with the surrounding community. To do that we retained Cornel
Larson, Larson & Associates, architects, who have designed most of the infrastructure for
Spurwing Greens and a lot of the infrastructure for the club at Spurwing. So, Cornel is
going to speak to you in a few minutes and talk to you about how you take what might be
unattractive and turn it into an attractive -- or at least a visually pallatable design. On the
traffic, everybody questions is there going to be a traffic problem. So, I set out with the
engineer Barry Semple and he's going to talk to you in a couple minutes about the traffic.
There aren't traffic issues. People think there are and we are going to give you some
data, as opposed to just the emotional feel for it. So, the other thought that I had was that
we can talk about all the detail and the -- what the plants are going to look like and all that,
but I think you have to reflect a bit and look at these things more strategically. My
understanding of -- is that the City of Meridian has a strategic intent that they don't want to
be a bedroom community. They want to be a community that has jobs near homes. The
second thing applies to services. The strategic intent is to have services near homes.
There is so many people think that you have to have a bedroom community and travel a
long way away for a facility like that -- a storage facility. You don't. You can have it near
by. You just need to make it pallatable. So, my attitude about all this -- and we are going
to get Cornel to give you some specifics and Barry, too. But, one, it's a strategic to
Meridian, it's built in the nine year plan. It matches the Comprehensive Plan and as
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
March 5, 2015
Page 24 of 47
important we have found a partner in -- that owns a facility like this looks that's willing to
make the commitment and the financial investment to make it attractive. So, with that I
would ask for your favorable consideration of this proposal. And so now if I could get
Cornet and Barry to come up.
Yearsley: Please state your name and address for the record.
Larson: Thank you. Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, my name is Cornel
Larson. My address is 210 Murray in Garden City. I'm here tonight representing the
applicant and as the applicant mentioned we have been the architect -- is that better?
Sorry. We have been the architect on all of the facilities out at Spurwing, the original
clubhouse, all the entry features, all the estate entry features. We have actually laid out a
lot of the subdivision stuff and the planning phases as well. So, tonight I thought I would --
maybe if Bill would flip back to the slide that shows the commercial area -- or I guess it's
on the screen. So, we had a -- did you get a copy of the rendering of that? Did you get
the office buildings and that? There was a color rendering that we did for it. Anyway,
maybe it didn't make it into the packet, but the intent was that the offices on the corner or
the buildings on the corner be uses that were consistent with the existing zoning. Some of
those uses are, obviously, office buildings, medical buildings, retail. Retail could consist
of a restaurant, bike shop, furniture store, some of those items could be included in retail.
There could also be daycare there. Charter school. Fitness center. Coffee shop. Those
kind of uses we would typically see in a neighborhood facility. So, the buildings that were
designed there were a take off of what the existing structures look like, the existing red
barn that's there, in an attempt to try to incorporate some of that architecture into the new
office buildings that were proposed there. With the -- with that being said I think most
people are here tonight for the -- for the storage facility and we looked at the storage
facility and typically Republic Storage has had a color theme and a -- a look that they have
used for most of their facilities. But we have encouraged them to upgrade the facilities.
The existing residence -- office that's being proposed would look like the pool facility in the
sense of using the same materials, trying to use maybe not the same exact color roofing,
but a metal type roofing, stone fagade, blended into what was done across at the pool
house, community center, which is another building that we have done out there. So, we
were familiar with what the look needed to be and what we wanted it to be going into the
entry of the facility. Also along the Chinden side of the facility when we met with Bill
yesterday, went through the staff report with him to see what his concerns were and kind
of -- and he addressed those quite well in the meeting tonight, so I wasn't going to go back
though those in the interest of time. But we had submitted a proposal back to him on
things that we would be willing to do to help upgrade the landscape and the screening
along the -- the front of Chinden. We are trying to keep some of the stone elements that
are along Spurwing Greens now. Some of those features -- if you look at those features
out there they have stone, they have concrete walls, they have landscaping and berming.
Most of the time in a commercial instance berming is not required along a major arterial or
along a collector road. In this case businesses need some exposure to survive and to six
feet, so we lowered the berming down, but we have gone ahead and gone back and
looked at the screening and how we could handle that better. We looked at the -- the
conditions that Bill would add about a continuous block wall out there and we felt that that
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
March 5, 2015
Page 25 of 47
was an 860 foot block wall that we would like to see broken up a little bit with maybe some
different material and some different design features. So, we propose the items that you
see on the -- on the bottom of the page that's on the screen right now to give a little bit
more defined character to the front of the building. A lot of the mini storage buildings have
been -- that Republic Storage has done have been gray and white and in this case we
elected to change the colors, add some masonry wainscoting, vary the roof lines,
modulate some of the buildings back and forth in an effort to get some more character in
it, soften its appearance, make it look like it's a more quality product. Keep it in
conjunction with the colors that are consistent within the neighborhood. The tans, browns,
and stones have been used throughout that facility. And so to conclude, I think that the
upgrades that have been in the buildings, some of the things that are done with screening
-- we have increased the buffer on the north side. There is an irrigation easement. There
is distance between the buildings, as well as landscape. We have offset the irrigation line
in the easement, so we could get landscaping up next to the building, so all the irrigation
lines are set away from the mini storage facilities to allow for some additional landscaping
in those areas. The irrigation district, as you probably know, won't let us plant
landscaping, other than low grasses or bushes in their irrigation easements. Typically
they don't want trees, because they interfere with the pipes, so we have tried to hold the
buildings in different locations, so we can have a place to put trees and add some
additional screening. So, I would be happy to answer any questions. I know there was
one of the commissioners, excuse me, had the question about the vacant part of the yard.
That typically -- when Republic Storage does a project, they go in and do all the perimeter
work, they do their first phase work, but they also put a three-quarter gravel in on all of the
rest of the site, so that it -- and they maintain it, so there is no weeds or anything and no
one's usually allowed to drive on that, except for maintenance. They don't park on it.
They would not have outside storage in this facility. There would be no outdoor storage of
vehicles. And with that I would be happy to answer any questions.
Yearsley: Thank you. Are there any questions? Thank you. I think we had -- the
transportation guy was coming up.
Larson: Yeah. Barry was going to come up and had a few questions -- comments.
Yearsley: Please state your name and address for the record and, then, just also for
clarification, you have about two minutes left.
Semple: Got it. My name is Barry Semple. I'm with RiveRidge Engineering. 2447 South
Vista Avenue in Boise. I will be brief. I just wanted to speak briefly to the transportation
issues that may be associated with this. We anticipated that there may be some concerns
about transportation, so we had Thompson Engineering, who is a professional traffic
engineer, prepare a trip generation evaluation, comparing three different scenarios. The
first scenario is if the entire 23 acres was developed all as single family. The second
scenario is if the entire was all developed as office. And the third scenario is with the
proposed development as it is. Specifically the numbers produced were if the entire site
developed residential it would generate 1,589 trips per day. All office is 2,217 trips per
day. And with the proposed development it generated 1,313 trips per day. So, almost
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
March 5, 2015
Page 26 of 47
half of what all office would be and less than if the entire 23 acres developed as single
family residential. In addition, the City of Meridian requires that Ada County Highway
District to issue documentation as to whether a traffic study is required for each
application. We received an e-mail from Mindy Wallace with ACHD indicating that no
traffic study was required. Further, her staff report, which did come late, but it was
presented -- it was made available from them this afternoon, he indicated that they had no
issues with the proposed development and, in fact, they were planning to approve it
administratively and, finally, there is a referral response from Idaho Transportation
Authority -- or Idaho Transportation Department. It specifically says that no more trips
than anticipated by the City of Meridian Comprehensive Plan will be generated from the
proposal and, further, that the Comprehensive Plan does not allow access out to Chinden
Boulevard, except at the half mile marks and I think I may have gone over two minutes,
but I tried to go fast.
Yearsley: Thank you. Or do you have a couple more items, is that what you're saying?
Semple: No.
Yearsley: You're done?
Semple: Anybody have any questions?
Yearsley: Any questions? No? Thank you.
Semple: Thank you.
Yearsley: All right. Now, let's get back to where we were before. Now I will open up to
public comment. Like I again said, that there is an order -- Robert Neufield. Could you,
please, come forward.
Baird: Mr. Chair?
Yearsley: Yes.
Baird: At this time could we clarify if this gentleman is speaking for a group.
Neufield: I am not.
Baird: Okay.
Yearsley: Three minutes.
Neufield: Thank you very much.
Baird: You might want to find out if there is someone speaking for a group. I don't want to
interrupt you. As long as you're up there I think we will let you go.
Meridian Planning $ Zoning Commission
March 5, 2015
Page 27 of 47
Yearsley: Well -- and think I -- sorry. Just for clarification. I do have a list of people that
were going to talk about different items and all of them had talked about for three minutes.
Baird: Great. They have got a plan. Let's go for it.
Yearsley: Yeah. They have a plan, so -- so, that's kind of what we are following.
Neufield: Great. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, my name is
Robert Neufield. I live at 3756 Snow Cherry Court in the City of Meridian. I would at this
time like to present to the city clerk some additional late signatures that we had in
opposition to the project. These came in after --
Yearsley: Be back at the microphone. Sorry.
Neufield: These signatures came in after we had turned in the petition to the city clerk last
week. The thing that is significant about the petitions tonight is that it brings the total of
people who were opposed to this particular project to 238 individuals that represent 163
homes within the subdivision and that equals 81 percent of all the homes that are
opposed to this project. As the chairman of the Spurwing Greens Advisory Committee,
which is an advisory group that functions with the homeowners association, which is run
and controlled by the Brighton Corporation, we have looked at various aspects of this
proposed plan and we find numerous faults in the plan as presented by the developer.
You will hear tonight from the people that will follow me on various aspects that we have
worked very diligently to try to prepare cohesive and coherent talking points, so that they
will be understandable to you and, hopefully, not repetitious. The only thing that I assume
you will hear several times tonight is that we are opposed in total to this project and that
we will ask as a part of our comments that you deny the application in its totality and that
-- that is our -- that is our position. We have had several meetings with the community
here to bring this thing forward and we have had a tremendous amount of support from
the local residents to participate in what we feel would have many detrimental impacts on
the country club community that we live in called Spurwing Greens. The majority of the
residents in our area are 55 plus. There are, though, however, a very, very strong
population of middle aged and young families that were upwardly mobile, that were
attracted to the City of Meridian by the quality of life that is afforded in this city. A city with
a motto that says Built For Business, Designed For Living. When you live in a country
club community there is a certain expectation of what is to be around you in the way the
city is built. This particular proposal is -- as you will hear, is extremely detrimental to what
we believe is the -- what should be the proper use of that land. Again, we are asking that
you deny the application of Oak Leaf Development and the Jayker Village Subdivision for
their request for rezoning and for the conditional use permit. I thank you for your time.
Yearsley: I have one question for you.
Neufield: Yes, sir.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
March 5, 2015
Page 28 of 47
Yearsley: You mentioned you're -- you're in opposition of this -- trying to figure out how to
say this. Are you in opposition of the storage units or commercial in general?
Neufield: Just to this particular proposal, not to whether it's commercial. We understand
that it is currently zoned commercial and they could build as long as it meets the
requirements of the zoning for C -C, that they could build anything that falls within that
parameter right there. What we -- what we believe is that there are significant faults with
the traffic counts, the impacts on the local community in the way of safety to the kids that
live in that area. You will hear more details about that. But we are generally opposed to
this project, because we don't believe it has been properly studied as to the impact on the
local community.
Yearsley: Okay. Thank you.
Neufield: Thank you very much.
Yearsley: Next on the list is Travis Hawks. Again, state your name and address -- name
and address for the record.
Hawks: Travis Hawks. 6828 North Sunset Maple Way in Meridian and I am not 55 plus,
so I will start with that. By way of background, I have lived in Meridian for 18 years. I also
own a business in Meridian. I employ about 30 residents of Meridian and I give you that
context, because I want you to know that I love Meridian and I have chosen to live in and
do business in Meridian, because Meridian is pro growth and I'm very pro growth and I'm
very pro business. However, in this case this isn't smart growth and as a credit to our
Mayor and the City Council and to the Planning and Zoning Commission, Meridian has
also employed smart growth and this case is an exception to that. This is, as has been
mentioned, a country club community and there is -- there is not a reason to put an
industrial looking in use of a storage facility complex on -- in a country club community.
Now, one of the things -- one of the things -- when we moved we built this house two
years ago and with respect to the owner and developer of the property, this is a surprise
to us, because before we built the house and looked at the zoning to the adjacent property
of our subdivision, it was not zoned in a manner that would build storage units. So, it is a
surprise. It is a surprise to us. It doesn't fit. The best way I can describe it is this is a
square peg in a round hole and there is lots of other places in Meridian where a storage
facility and this change of zoning would make sense, but I don't see any justification for
the Commission here to recommend at change in zoning that would facilitate building of
storage units and access into this residential neighborhood where we have kids that play
and where we live and with that is there any questions?
Yearsley: Any questions?
Hawks: Thank you.
Baird: Mr. Chair?
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
March 5, 2015
Page 29 of 47
Yearsley: Yes.
Baird: If I could take an opportunity to remind the audience to keep the clapping down,
just so we can move through this efficiently. Appreciate your cooperation and you're
doing great so far.
Yearsley: Thank you. Next one on the list is Keith Allred. Again, state your name and
address for the record, please.
Allred: Can these microphones be raised?
Yearsley: Unfortunately, no.
Allred: Keith Allred. 6811 North Topaz Jewel Place in Meridian. For the first five and a
half years my wife and I have lived here we were in Lochsa Falls Subdivision. I commute
five to six days a week to Boise State University where I'm faculty. Approximately two and
a half years ago we moved a mile to a mile and a half west into the Spurwing Greens
Subdivision. So, I have been traveling Chinden for seven and a half years and I can say
that seven and a half years ago it took me 25 minutes to get to Boise State University,
now it takes 45 minutes. I don't need a traffic study to tell me how significantly the traffic
has increased on Chinden and I dispute any study that suggests it's negligible. A half
century ago a thoughtful man in his writings said that if a person goes down into a
basement and suddenly turns on the lights and sees rats, turning on the lights didn't
create or cause the rats to be there, but when you discover the rats you need to deal with
them. Turning off the lights doesn't take away the rats. This proposal by Oak Leaf
Development was the equivalent of turning on lights. Those of us who live in Spurwing
Greens began to see rats and we are here suggesting that turning off the lights or just
approving this proposal doesn't takeaway the rats. There are significant safety concerns
among most of us. There is over 500 people that live in that vision -- subdivision right now
and by the time its fully developed the number will be closer a thousand people. It's laugh
-- it would be laughable if there weren't a single entrance and exit into that subdivision if it
weren't so dangerous. To suggest that the -- there is regulations which say that it's okay
to have a single entrance and exit into a subdivision that's eventually going to hold close
to a thousand people, we are -- we are ignoring the rats when we do that. I have driven
up and down Chinden looking for another subdivision that has a single entrance and exit
and so far I have not found it. Staff may say that, oh, it's -- it's -- what we are doing is
legal. I would suggest to you that we need to distinguish between legal and ethical and it
may be legally permissible to get by with a single entrance and exit into Spurwing Greens,
but accidents will happen.
Yearsley: Can you, please, wrap it up? Your three minutes are up.
Allred: Okay. I'm suggesting that you be pro active and not reactive and that you take
into account that there is going to be the need for first responders and emergency
vehicles in and out of that area and if we -- there is a single entrance and exit, then, we
have put ourselves in a very precarious situation. Thank you.
Meridian Planning R Zoning Commission
March 5, 2015
Page 30 of 47
Yearsley: Thank you. Next one on the list is Helen Little. Again, name and address for
the record.
Little: Helen Little. 6523 North Salvia Way, Meridian. And I will make up -- I will be
shorter than him to make it up. About three weeks ago is when most of us found out there
was anything going on. I realize there may be this plan going on for some time, but we
were -- it was unbeknownst to us. What I'd like to bring to your attention tonight is -- are
two points. And first is the entrance into that storage unit is off of -- well, to the proposed
storage unit off of Tree Haven Way, which is situated on the local road and as far as we
understand that is subject to different requirements than our residential feeder road. Tree
Haven -- another problem with it is that it supposedly does not have current ACHD
approval for a business use off the local road and considering the next point, business
should not be considered for any reason at all, because my second point is that the pool
and club house across the way is within five hundred -- 50 to 100 feet from the proposed
entrance into that storage facility. There are children -- when that pool is in use there is
only six parking spaces in that little tiny pool area and so at full use for the pool there will
be either street parking, which I'm not sure is allowed, but there certainly will be a lot of
mothers and grandmothers walking their kids to the pool, perhaps their teenagers going to
the pool and at the same time on a little local road there is going to be big trailers pulling
boats and RVs and so forth and that right there is a hazard. So, we are concerned for our
kids and this does not sound like a liability that I think that the city or anybody else should
even consider, knowing of the dangers. It's so close to the pool, so close to kids playing.
They show on that map of -- that you can turn left from Tree Farm onto Tree Haven.
There is a lot of big vehicles now, because we are under construction that have to actually
-- they cannot negotiate that turn and turn, then, again left and go around the big catch
basin with these boats and trailers and things to be able to -- and still regardless of what
they do they will be going by the pool where the kids are. So, thank you for your time.
Yearsley: Thank you. Jennifer Domiano? Again, name and address for the record,
please.
Domiano: Jennifer Domiano and I'm at 3655 West Jayker Court in the Spurwing Greens
Estates Subdivision. I thank you for the consideration of the safety of the children. My
husband and I looked at a lot of different areas before settling in Meridian. We actually
moved from Boise. We looked at surrounding areas in Eagle and landed in Meridian in
the subdivision because of what -- the lifestyle that it afforded. In addition to that, because
we have two small children, ages nine and three, we took into consideration that our
number one priority is safety of where we would raise our children for the next 15 years
and we were unaware of the proposed storage units that were being built. We did our due
diligence and asked. My husband, then, went to the city as well to find out what the
vacant land was going to become. We would not have built our home and lived in
Meridian in that subdivision knowing that the storage units were there. Given that, what I
am most concerned about, along with a lot of other individuals that live in that subdivision
that are in my age group is that we have young children. There is a bus stop that's right
there at the Tree Farm Way entrance where it picks up small school children and quite
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
March 5, 2015
Page 31 of 47
often with the heavy fog that's in Meridian that we all understand on Ten Mile, it's hard to
see and with that storage unit being in there we are very fearful that our children won't be
seen as well. Our kids play outside, they ride scooters and bikes and walk and we walk to
the pool quite often during the summers and we enjoy that lifestyle and we are very afraid
that the additional proposed storage units are going to create potentially a hazardous
accident one day with one of our children, so thank you.
Yearsley: Thank you.
Domiano: Any questions?
Yearsley: Any questions? Thank you. Next one on the list is Don Lyman.
Lyman: Good evening, Commissioners. My name is Don Lyman. I live at 4204 West
Highland Fall Drive with a wife and two children ages three and five. One of the things --
I'm a firefighter by profession. Not here locally. But one of the things that raises my
concern -- and it's not really the developer's fault, nor the city's fault, it's the code's fault.
The Routine Fire Code and building codes for the City of Meridian don't offer a way for
periodic checking of what's being stored in these storage units. As I said, I'm a firefighter.
I have been on fires in similar storage units that have created hazardous emissions. They
have created a hazardous exposure to the residents when they are built in residential
areas, such things as drug labs, pot grows, flammable liquid storage, oxidizer and other
chemical storage. We cannot get in them as a public entity to inspect those on an annual
basis because of the codes and will tend the attendance of such storage units. So, while
it may not be legal, we know that there is -- we all know there is people out there that do
illegal things and we can't enhance our safety when these type of units go in. In addition
to that, I refer to the -- Meridian's motto, which is Built For Business, Designed For Living,
as others have alluded to. When we moved here we moved into this subdivision for the
country club lifestyle that is advertised and I don't think you would anymore want to ruin
the jewel of the residential development in Meridian than you would the commercial jewel
down in The Village. You wouldn't be a storage unit down there, because I guarantee you
they would probably be up in arms about it, too. So, with that the public safety hazards
come up and there is really nothing we can do about it, unless we change the Uniform
Fire Code or the building codes here in the City of Meridian. Seeings that probably is not
going to be done in time to take this to the Council, I would recommend that we deny the
development and I would like to see the development and the community that is most
affected by it get together and talk about maybe some solutions. Thank you.
Yearsley: Thank you. Wendell Welch.
Welch: Mr. Chairman, thank you. My name is Wendell Welch. I live at 4094 West
Highland Fall Court. My wife and I have lived there for about two years now -- almost two
years now. I bought her a house on her birthday March 14th and we signed on that day
and so that was the house I bought for my wife because of the community that we are
living in. But one thing that concerns me is the challenge of a single entrance and exit
from Spurwing has been brought up. I wanted to bring my personal reality of what traffic
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
March 5, 2015
Page 32 of 47
means to me at 7:30 in the morning. I'm dodging cars that are parked on North Jayker
Way that are protecting their children so they can get to the bus on time. I'm dodging the
construction workers in their vehicles who are coming right onto Jayker Way, because
they have got a job to do. And, then, I'm worried about hitting -- as you notice I'm not
under the 55 bunch, but I'm worried about hitting those little guys that are coming out
between those cars, even though their parents have good intentions trying to save --
protect them to get to the bus and I can't see them in my truck. So, I'm concerned about
that. Also there is a subdivision going to be developed to the north of us and that single
entrance is going to access to that other side. That's a lot of traffic coming by. Nine years
ago when a cow got loose and walked on the road that was a traffic hazard. Today,
though, it has changed in that area and we need to look at the single entrance. The traffic
light that's at that entrance is not managing traffic very well, I might add. I have sat many
times there waiting for a legal left turn when there is no traffic on the road and so I just
appeal to you that there is a traffic issue at that single entrance and when you put more
traffic available units -- storage units in particular there, that traffic is going to go up.
When you get traffic on the other side of the subdivision north of us, traffic is going to go
up and there is a single entrance. There is a coded gate that goes out the other way.
Some might say there is a second exit there. I haven't been given the code yet, so, you
know, bear with me. I will find it out and share it, I guess. But there is a problem with
traffic there. I see it every morning at 7:30. 1 called the bus people about moving that bus
stop, but so far it has not moved and I -- I appreciate the fact that this is being looked at
and would ask that it be looked at a little closer. That's all I have. Thank you.
Yearsley: Thank you. Next on list is Larry Graham. Just a reminder. Please state your
name and address for the record, please.
Graham: Larry Graham. 6824 North Tree Haven Way. Good evening, ladies and
gentlemen. I'd like to thank the representatives of the City of Meridian, the citizens and
the members of the Planning and Zoning Commission here tonight for the opportunity just
to share a few comments with you regarding the proposed Jayker Village development
application and more specifically the proposed conditional use permit for a storage facility
consisting of an office building and 15 storage buildings to be located next to our
Spurwing development. My wife and I relocated to Meridian from out of state and
purchased our home in the Spurwing development in July of 2013. It took us several
years to reach our decision. We carefully analyzed where we wanted to locate to. We
looked at the Boise metro area in its entirety, the City of Meridian, and the lifestyle as
presented by Brighton Corporation and the Spurwing development builders. We, like
many others here tonight, would not have selected our present home location or the
Spurwing development if a storage facility existed next to this neighborhood at that point
in time that we made our purchase decision. The potential placement of a storage facility
next to Spurwing and other developments nearby will have a direct impact on whether
potential new residents will select this area for their home, will cause many current
residents to move, will have a major financial impact on homeowner -- homeowner
investments. As each of you can imagine, no one wants to invest 300 to 700 thousand
dollars to reside in a neighborhood located next to a storage facility and commercial
development. My question to you is is there actually a need for an additional storage
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
March 5, 2015
Page 33 of 47
facility at this location? I did a quick Google search today and it shows approximately 20
plus storage facilities are currently available in Meridian. That's today. There are four
existing storage facilities located within approximately three miles of the Spurwing
development. I think the needs are being met by the City of Meridian for storage facilities
at this point in time. I printed a quick map, if you would like to have that as a matter of
record to look at where these storage locations are located at present. It's my
understanding that the proposed storage facilities within a residential area do not follow
the City of Meridian's Comprehensive Plan. This plan encourages compatible uses to
minimize conflicts and maximize use of -- of land. We request that the City of Meridian
reject this application for an additional storage facility. This type of business is typically
located in an industrial zone and does not belong in a residential area. It is not needed,
nor wanted, by the majority of residents in this area. I would also like to add -- just very
briefly I'd like to add that on the north side of that proposed storage facility -- I believe you
mentioned a six foot fence going in around there. Most RVs are typically ten to 14 feet
high, so that facility is not going to cover -- the tops of that fence is not going to cover the
tops of those facilities and will definitely be visible from the Spurwing neighborhood.
Appreciate your thoughtful consideration. Thank you.
Yearsley: Thank you
Graham: Any questions?
Yearsley: No. Thank you. Next on the list is Steve Humble -- Hubble
Hubble: I don't think I'm going to be humble. It's Hubble.
Yearsley: Sorry.
Hubble: Steve Hubble. And my address is 6748 North Moon Drummer Way. I don't want
to add to what already has been stated today by my good neighbors, but I do want to say
that it was a few years back where this planning commission basically staged a country
club sub to be started and I know there was a vision that this was going to be a star sub
for the City of Meridian. Maybe competing even against Hillcrest in Boise. Well, you have
accomplished that and the last four years there have been over 200 homes built in there,
ranging from 250,000 way up to a million dollars. But more so -- and something you may
not know -- there is a neighborhood of friends and just good neighbors coming together as
one and standing together, protecting their investments, but more so protecting the most
wonderful lifestyle that any neighborhood could present. So, why would you, as -- as
decision makers here for us, shoot yourself in the foot and cripple this growth of a
wonderful, wonderful community. It doesn't just make sense to us why that would happen,
allowing storage units that just don't fit a community like this to come into play. So, yes,
we oppose the storage units in total, because it's not a fit and we are so afraid that this
star that really shines in Meridian is going to be a negative reflection not only on the sub
and the community, but also on the City of Meridian. We have people that have come in
-- I serve as a semi -real estate agent and I have people coming from out of state and
when I show them Spurwing as a place to live, they say, wow, we have never seen
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
March 5, 2015
Page 34 of 47
anything like this. I do not want to cripple that vision. I appreciate your attention. Thank
you.
Yearsley: Thank you. Next on the list is Karen Dawson.
Dawson: I hope this is tall enough. Hello. My name is Karen Dawson. I reside in
Spurwing Greens at 3808 West Magic Spruce Drive. Welcome to Spurwing Greens, a
country club community. This is how Spurwing Greens is branded through Brighton
Homes advertising and marketing team. This is what the Spurwing Greens residents
bought into and this is how it will remain. There are three storage unit facilities in our
northwest Meridian neighborhood and not one of them requires storage unit renters to
drive throughout the neighborhood, unlike the Oak Leaf Development proposal. Spurwing
Greens has strict CC&Rs that residents are required to abide by at all times. Spurwing
Greens residents can only have RV, boats, and other recreational vehicles on their
property for loading and unloading purposes only. Yet we will see those same vehicles
that aren't allowed in our neighborhood 24/7. Garbage cans are to be taken in and stored
in one's garage or behind fences and not in view of the neighbors. Yet this garbage
development of storage units will be in our view 24/7. A month ago I went to an open
house in the Estates. There were four couples looking at the home. I asked the agent if
he was aware that there is a proposal for an 11 acre storage unit to be developed. Two
couples left upon hearing this and the other two couples were concerned. I told them
there is a meeting on March 5th at City Hall. How does this proposed allowance of this
indiscriminate development affect the builders that bought these lots? How will the
builders perpetuate the sale of dirt lots for the further development of Spurwing Greens
with a cheap and shoddy storage unit facility and full deal. Not only will the builders be
impacted negatively, but also the contractors, the plumbers, the electricians, the framers,
the landscapers and the roofers. The mission statement of the planning division is to be
an innovative planning team that advances the quality of lifestyle and economic -- and
economy envisioned by our Comprehensive Plan. Mayor Tammy de Weerd states that
Meridian is a vibrant community who vision is to be the premier city to work with and raise
a family. How can the City of Meridian hold onto its high city rating when junk
development is allowed to be built in a country club community. Oak Leaf Development
has been for sale for 13 months with a four million dollar price tag. Oak Leaf
Development must be having trouble off loading this land and are asking for these zoning
changes and conditional use permits in order to make this land a more desirable sale
advantage for them. This is why we are all here tonight. I'd like to present you a quote
from Mr. David Packard of Hewlett Packard. I grew up with the Packards. My father went
to Stanford with Mr. Packard. Mr. Packard kept a quote on the family refrigerator that I
remember to this day. A company that focuses solely on profits ultimately betrays both
itself and society. The planning commission, do not betray the Spurwing Greens
residents. I ask that you reject the conditional use permit for a storage facility to Oak Leaf
Development.
Yearsley: Thank you. Lee Dawson is the next on the list.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
March 5, 2015
Page 35 of 47
L.Dawson: Hi. My name is Lee Dawson. I live at 3808 West Magic Spruce, Spurwing
Greens. Most everything's been touched upon here. I'm vehemently opposed to this
project as well. I retired in May 2013. We have lived in this community for about ten
years, but up until May 2013 1 was working and my commute was back to Los Angeles. I
just retired up to 38 years in the motion picture business. I know a little bit about nine year
plans. I know a little bit about --
Yearsley: Speak in the microphone. Sorry.
L. Dawson: -- a lot about motion. I know how -- that's my business. So, for the first eight
years the commute wasn't really in a lovely place. Be here three weeks. I go back to Los
Angeles. I'd be there for two weeks, I go to Nevada somewhere and film something. I
have been here for two years and I'm here to testify that if you let this get out of control --
because you're already going to have Bainbridge across the street. We have talked about
the traffic -- and I want to make this very brief. I come from a city -- proud of it -- that's out
of control and we all know that to be true. Takes you two hours, 15 minutes to drive 26
miles. I know. We lived in Malibu for 26 years. Not unlike when you drive a race car --
and raced go carts and cars as a young man growing up and when you get in your car
and drive and you look at the front of the hood, you're looking for traffic, but when you
start growing as a city and you start going faster in that car, you got to start looking down
the road and if you don't look down the road you end up like Los Angeles and I love Los
Angeles and it's a mess and if you want to see a mess here, keep letting this happen and
the Idaho Department of Transportation calls a Highway 20-26, Chinden, but it's,
essentially, a two lane road and you're asking for big problems right now from experience
in having done that. I appreciate the hearing, the chance to stand and speak to you. But
I'm more proud that I get to stand with my neighborhood upward of that 80 percent range
and I'm sorry I missed the joke or who the one person was that's for this project. But I still
don't get it. But, anyway, I will find out. And my regards to Mr. Fitzgerald and I'm asking
for a no vote on the entire proposal. Thank you.
Yearsley: Thank you. Next on the list is Lynn South -- Southam. Southam
Southam: Before I speak, we had someone whose name was left off.
Yearsley: Oh, I'm so sorry.
Southam: Sue Fillman I think is over here. We wanted her to go first
Yearsley: Okay. Sue. Sorry.
Fillman: Good evening. My name is Sue Fillman. I live at 6550 North Lonicera Way. I
have come to you tonight because I have lived in Spurwing Greens since 2011 and as
everyone has stated it's been a fantastic place to live, but there are there things that I
found in our own City of Meridian Comprehensive Plan that some of them have been
touched on tonight, but I wanted to just enforce a little bit the quality of life, our own
Comprehensive Plan says: Sustain, enhance, promote and protect elements that
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
March 5, 2015
Page 36 of 47
contribute to the livability and high quality of life for all Meridian residents. Make Meridian
a premier place to live, work, and raise a family. So, as we have all gathered in our
meeting, approve the rezoning application will have such a detrimental effect on the entire
Spurwing Greens community and, therefore, Meridian will also suffer. When it comes to
land use our Comprehensive Plan says: Encourage compatible use to minimize conflicts
and maximize use of land. You have heard how many storage units there already are.
How is this the best use of land? And talk about a conflict, putting a storage facility --
approving a rezoning to put that in a residential community that's a country club
community. Property rights. Insure that all planning decisions and ordinance
implementation balance the interest of the community with the protection of property rights
for owners today and future generations. So, neither allowing the rezoning to allow
construction of a storage facility, nor allowing Oak Leaf development use of the Spurwing
Greens entrance is in the best interest of the community at large and it's devastating for
the Spurwing Greens property owners. We are counting on you to protect our property
rights and to insure a safe and secure environment for all families. Please, deny the
rezoning application submitted by Oak Leaf Development and require that the Jayker
Village Subdivision build its own entrance. Questions?
Yearsley: Any questions? Thank you. All right, Lynn.
Southam: Mr. Chairman, I'm informed that Mr. Glen Humphreys also was left off, but I
also think on your note that after I speak anyone else --
Yearsley: Oh, absolutely. After you speak anyone else can get up and speak.
Southam: I will deter to him and, then, I will --
Yearsley: Okay. Name and address for the record, please.
Humphries: Glen Humphries. 6880 North Pira Avenue. Thank you very much this
evening and for this meeting, for allowing me to talk. We moved to Meridian specifically
because of the city and because of the area. I spent 36 years in law enforcement in
California and came to Idaho to get away from California. To get away from crime and
that's what brought me here. Spurwing Greens attracted me because of the
neighborhood and because of the country club atmosphere. I worked a lot of years in
narcotics and I know what mini storages bring. They bring crime. They bring an element
to an area that we don't need in Spurwing Greens. I have not put in an alarm yet, hoping I
wouldn't have to put an alarm. But the element that will come store their things in a mini
storage will also start driving around Spurwing Greens to see what they can see and what
they can take. That's a simple fact of life and there is not much you can do about it. You
have a great police department here. But the city is growing rapidly and they can't be
everywhere at once. It is not appropriate to bring something that will attract that element
to a country club setting and I would request that you not approve this request. Thank you
very much.
Yearsley: Thank you.
Meridian Planning $ Zoning Commission
March 5, 2015
Page 37 of 47
Southam: Mr. Chairman, also Scott Lattimer. And I might tell you there are probably
others, so I will just defer until I -- okay.
Lattimer: Scott Lattimer. 6591 Lonicera Way. Actually, I live on the corner of Jayker and
Tree Farm, directly across the street from what Oak Leaf is proposing. So, I see the
school buses every morning. I see the traffic. It's not going to work. I'm of the over 55
group. Worked my whole life to afford to buy the American dream in the subdivision that
pronounced that they are the corner of exclusive and accessible. The lights from those
parking lots will shine in my master bedroom. The traffic goes right by my house. We do
not need more traffic on that road that's already out of control. I want to ask you one
thing. You have had one guy come in here wanting to do this development. You have
heard there is 220 some odd signatures of the people who live there saying no. My only
question to you is how can you not say no? How can you not turn down this development
when the neighborhood is against it, an 80 percent turn out. Don't make us go to Tammy
tomorrow. Do your correct job tonight, turn down Doug Carnahan and send him back to
the drawing board to bring something to Spurwing Greens that fits into exclusive and
accessible at our country club that we have worked our whole lives to be able to afford to
live in. Any questions?
Yearsley: Thank you.
Southam: Mr. Chairman, Commission, my name is Lynn Southam. I live at 6408 North
Salvia Way in Spurwing Greens. I'm grateful to be here. You have heard a reference to
81 percent of the people standing with us. The others have not yet been contacted and I
guarantee you it will probably be in excess of 99 percent when they are all contacted. No
one needs this project. No one wanted this project. There is no reason to do this. If I
may refer to your Comprehensive Plan for the City of Meridian, this application is a
change from zoning from C -N to C -C. That application in and of itself is an admission that
the proposed use of the land is not compatible with being in the neighborhood. They
know it. We know it. You know it. We are asking you to deny it and tell them not to do it.
They can still use the land. If they want to change the zoning, let them zone it to
residential and build homes like the rest of us have. Something that's complimentary to a
community that is recognized and appreciated. Let me, if I may, quote from the
Comprehensive Plan, paragraph 11-2C-2. And in that regard I will just say that storage
units are approved in C -C and in industrial zones. This provision provides for uses that
may fall into more than one category. The director shall determine the most appropriate
category based upon the more restrictive standards. The restrictive standards would,
obviously, place this in an industrial zone. I would refer you to the exhibits that I have
given to you. There are six of them. The first one, Exhibit A, has pictures of three
Republic Storage facilities. They all look alike. The structures. The colors. We are told
today that they are going to change the colors, they are going to do some other things
differently. But the reality is everyone of these looks the same. You have heard the
phrase: If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck you know what it is; right? The
reality is this will still be a storage facility. If you look at Exhibit B, this shows you the
signage that compares what Republic Storage does by way of signage compared to
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
March 5, 2015
Page 38 of 47
what's at the entryway to Spurwing Greens and that tells you right up front what they
intend to do. They are going to have signs on their buildings. If you look at them they are
high. They may have a three foot berm with a little brick wall above that, but that sign has
got to be in excess of three feet high. These buildings they are proposing to build at the
eaves will be nearly 20 feet and on the tall ones more than 20 feet. They are going to
stand way above anything. They are taller than most of the homes that will be in
Spurwing Greens. Exhibit C shows you what the houses and everything looks like across
the street from Republic Storage on Chinden in Garden City. Then, if you look on that
exhibit you will see the homes in our neighborhood and what they look like. I suggest that
you look at the other homes in the neighborhood. I would also suggest to you as you do
so -- we would be delighted to have any of you as our neighbors, but which one of you is
going to buy a home in our neighborhood with a storage unit next door? The reality is
clear. This is not for you, it's not for us, it's not for Meridian. I would suggest to you that
there are several things -- I was asked to speak for ten minutes for a large group of people
and I know I can't do that, but -- so they asked me to speak for them. Let me just
conclude by saying this: There are potential liabilities for the developers who maybe knew
about this and didn't tell anything when they bought their homes. The property values will
go down and we are going to end up paying for this project, because of the loss of our
property values and the City of Meridian is going to have a lower tax base for property
taxes with the local governments, because the values of the homes are going to go down
and this community will have less tax income. I have had a neighbor tell me he would not
have purchased last year if he had known about this development. We know of others
who have decided not to purchase. We know of some in our community who have now
put their homes on the market. I hope you understand that this is a critical issue. We
would invite you to come out and drive through. This is not a place for a storage facility.
They talk about what they are going to do to obscure the vision. Have you seen trees in
this area come winter? They lose their leafs.
Yearsley: Can you wrap it up quickly, please?
Southam: You bet. I will. What I'd like you to do is look at those exhibits. Some of those
trees look like outside of those other Republic facilities. This is not a place to build a
storage facility. We ask you to reject it and I would just ask by show of hands how many
of you agree. I rest my case. Thank you.
Yearsley: Thank you.
:�T I ii I ■ 1�l Icy if] I iPi
Yearsley: Yes.
Baird: If I could ask a procedural question. Do we have a further sign -in list of people
who have signed up to testify?
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
March 5, 2015
Page 39 of 47
Yearsley: We -- we have this list that's been signed up that we were not going to call off,
we were just going to -- at this point we were done with the list. We were going to ask if
anybody else would like to testify.
Baird: Okay.
Yearsley: So -- so, at this point this is done. Is there anybody else who would like to
come up? Please come forward.
Hubble: Good evening. My name is Janice Hubble. My address is 6748 North Moon
Drummer Way. As a resident of Spurwing Greens I would like to state that I am
vehemently opposed to the proposal by Oak Leaf Development for a changing of zoning.
Ours is not a typical subdivision. Our community is comprised of professional people who
have worked diligently and saved wisely to obtain their dreams of living in a country club
atmosphere. I have lived in several cities and traveled to many others and never have I
seen commercial development adjacent to a country club or the houses surrounding one.
This would not be wise zoning or planning and would create a bad reputation for the City
of Meridian and its leaders. I faithfully trust that as members of authority over our city that
you already are most certainly aware of what is -- what an imprudent decision it would be
to rezone said property. The proposed plan would not only be unsightly, dangerous, a
traffic problem and unjust, but also a cruel insult to the very people who innocently paid
good prices for their homes, placing money in trust in the Spurwing Greens community
without knowledge of said proposal. I also invite you to drive through our neighborhood.
You will see well kept homes and lawns, driveways and streets basically free of parked
vehicles, children riding their skateboards and bicycles, families having picnics, fishing,
relaxing at the pond near our entrance and the most friendly, trustworthy, and upstanding
people one could ever hope to have as neighbors. Ultimately you will see the type of
pride one would expect in a country club community. What you will not see is trash,
reckless driving, displeasing signs, pollution being expelled by large vehicles, people who
are leery of strangers driving around the neighborhood, metal roofs, which went out in
1993. And, most importantly, commercial storage units with lean-tos. As a former school
nurse and teacher I can attest to the fact that it is crucial for all of us to place our highest
priority on the safety of the children in our community. A bus stop in an unsupervised
traffic stop with a storage facility entrance cross the street, are a lethal combination. It is
imperative that we do the ethical thing --
Yearsley: Could you wrap it up, please? Your time's up.
Hubble: Sure.
Yearsley: Thank you.
Hubble: I have only got four more words. It's imperative that we do the ethical things, not
just all agree in order to prevent injuries or even save the lives of our school children. I
have seen one killed. Thank you for your consideration.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
March 5, 2015
Page 40 of 47
Yearsley: Thank you. Anybody else? Please come forward. State your name and
address for the record, please.
Lee: My name is Sharon Lee. I live at 6832 North Topaz Jewel Place. I'm a proud owner
of a home in Spurwing Greens. However, I'm a user of Republic Storage. I work in both
construction and healthcare. I have employees who have run over everything on the way
to leave supplies in Republic Storage. I have left concrete clods all along parkways into
Republic Storage, which is in a commercial area. I also am in the healthcare industry. I
have Republic Storage for my facility. I get calls about every six months, because the
locks have been cut off our storage unit and I have to go and see what has been stolen.
I'm opposed to this and I hope you will think of this for someone who does Republic
Storage in commercial areas.
Yearsley: Thank you. Anybody else? Before we go any further I'd like to take a break
before we have the applicant come forward. With all the testimony and the stuff that we
received, I want to have my clerk go make copies, so we can have a chance to review it
before we listen to the rebuttal and, then, we will go from there. So, at this point we will
take a quick little break so we can make copies and have a chance to review the
information that was provided. About ten minutes or less.
Recess: (8:28 p.m. to 8:40 p.m.)
Yearsley: We would like to call this meeting back to order, please. We would like to call
this meeting back to order, please. Thank you for your patience. We have had a chance
to kind of go through everything and look at everything. I just want provide one last
opportunity. Is there any one last person that would like to testify? Thank you very much.
You guys have done a great job. I appreciate your -- your time. At this point we would
like to ask the applicant to come up. Again state your name and address for the record,
please.
Carnahan: Yeah. My name is Doug Carnahan. My address is 7270 North Tree Haven
Place. So, a lot of comments and I'm going to try to -- to kind of summarize them and
some of them I'm going to move through pretty quickly. Let me start with the -- some
simple ones. Cheap. Shoddy. Junk development. When we get comments like that I'm
not going to spend any time on those. I don't think it's fair or accurate. The -- a lot of
money invested in the planning and potential eventual construction for the landscaping
and all of the -- is included in the plan. Crime and bad elements. I don't have any data
that says there is going to be more crime in that community or more bad elements in that
community if it's a storage area. First of all, it's not habited by anybody -- inhabited by
anybody and it's the occasional person that goes in there. But, hopefully, a lot of them
that go in there will be from the subdivision. Lights on parking lots. There aren't going to
be any lights. There is prohibitions to that in the code. There aren't going to be lights
shining down and out. I think the point got made and covered. All storage will be
covered. There won't be any stand alone RVs or anything out there on the tarmac. I think
that got covered.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
March 5, 2015
Page 41 of 47
Baird: Mr. Chair?
Yearsley: Yes.
Baird: If I could take a moment.
Yearsley: Yeah.
Baird: Mr. Carnahan, sat back quietly through the testimony of the others. This is his
opportunity to rebut and respond and I'd ask that the audience continue to be as pleasant
and respectful as you have been so far tonight. Thank you.
Yearsley: Thank you.
Carnahan: Thank you. A number of people said not only was the storage part of the
issue, but being next to a commercial center I heard a handful of people that made that
point. This has been master planned as commercial for nine years. So, just to make that
point clear. But most of the comments were aimed at the storage. A couple issues on
height. The highest building would be 18 feet, which is different from what was quoted.
These are going to be blocked all the way around. So, we are clear on that. Several
times the Comprehensive Plan compliance was questioned. It is compliant with the
Comprehensive Plan and that was stated by staff and so even though it was brought up
by some of the people, that was not accurate. So, if I go down my list it comes down to
really two things that I categorize as the issues. The first one it is -- safety was brought up
many times and safety mostly related to traffic and the children -- the concerns about
children's safety, the concern about cars driving. This is the lowest volume development
alternative with that storage facility there. The lowest volume. As a matter of fact, we
have got new data that suggests it's a lot lower than we even put down. Some of the
people from ACHD have said the numbers are too high for storage. It's much lower than
that. So, to the extent a lot of people brought that up, it's -- that is not a legitimate claim
and it is probably the safest environment. So, that brings me -- my list down to one. The
country club image. This is a mixed use master planned facility. It's not a country club.
And I appreciate -- I live in it. I live there. I appreciate that it's turned out to be a very nice
community. That's great. But it's a mixed use plan and we are just getting on with the rest
of the plan. So, if we don't -- so, let's just say that this doesn't pass and we go forward,
we are not going to turn that commercial piece into all residential. That's not going to
happen. So, it will come back and I don't know how many we have to come back. The
meeting time it ought to be a manufacturing -- let's turn it all into manufacturing. Get a
commercial zone with the acceptable risk. People just need to understand that it is zoned
mixed use. The master plan is mixed use. And we plan to develop it as mixed use. And
so it's just what goes in there. We think we have an attractive option and it's just the
image thing that we are in a country club community and if somebody put a storage facility
in our country club -- in our community we just aren't going to like the image. So, I don't --
I have property rights just like all of they have property rights. I have property that I own
that is zoned a certain way. I want to use it that way. The need is -- I have talked to. The
need is there. The data says a need. We have done the market research. So, I guess in
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
March 5, 2015
Page 42 of 47
conclusion I hope you would respect my rights. I would hope you would respect that
Comprehensive Plan. I would hope you would expect the use of that for a commercial
purpose that is designed in an attractive way so that -- not to fool anybody and say this is
a country club setting and we are going to just go forward into the future with it always
being a country club setting. That's just not it. It's a mixed use community. So, I don't
know whether Barry or Cornet have anything they would like to add, but now would be a
good time for them to come up if they do.
Semple: Thank you. Barry Semple. RiveRidge Engineering. 2447 South Vista Avenue
in Boise. I just very briefly wanted to elaborate on one point that Doug made. This
afternoon we received the staff report from Ada County Highway District and utilizing their
numbers for trip generation and applying it to the 11 acres that is proposed for this storage
unit, the daily trips generated using their numbers from the storage unit is 68 trips per day.
If that 11 acres were developed as single family residential it would generate 847 trips a
day. That's using Ada County Highway District's numbers. That's all.
Yearsley: Thank you. Did the architect want to come up and comment? Okay. Thank
you. Is there any other questions before we close the public hearing? At this time I would
entertain a motion to close the public hearing on RZ 15-003, PP 15-003, and CUP 15-003,
Jayker Village Subdivision.
McCarvel: So moved
Oliver: Second.
Yearsley: I have a motion and a second to close the public hearing. All in favor say aye.
Opposed? Motion carries. Thank you.
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Yearsley: I think I would like to go first, if you guys would allow me. First of all, I want to
say thank you for how well you have -- how do I want to say it? How well you presented
yourself today. It was very concise, very organized. It sounds like you guys are very
excited about this and opposed to it and I appreciate, you know, listening to comments
and not being so, you know, rowdy in that respect. So, with that I appreciate your
comments and everything. I believe this comes down to one item and realistically is is the
-- is the zoning change appropriate for the use and that's kind of the hinge pin of all of this.
We live in a state of property rights. The property has -- the property owner has a right to
develop his property as long as it adheres to codes and ordinances set forth by the city
and so the question really is is -- there is R-15 zoning. There is already a commercial
zoning and, then, he wants to change it to a different commercial zoning. So, what we
need to weigh is is that zoning detrimental to the surrounding subdivision. And that's a
tough decision, because -- I will kind of give you an example. The subdivision I live in, the
City of Meridian wanted to put a water tank right next door. We had a lot of people in the
subdivision that were very against it and very opposed to it, thinking it would cause lower
property values, very similar to what you guys are experiencing right now. They put in the
tank, everything went well. One of the opponents who was adamantly against the project
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
March 5, 2015
Page 43 of 47
come back said, well, why didn't you tell me it would look so good. So, I'm not saying that
this is going to happen here, But as an alternative to what could happen, my opinion is it's
actually probably the least worst alternative, because, one, traffic volumes are going to be
the lowest. Visual impacts -- yeah, you might have a little bit and, then, you know, is -- is
a storage unit appropriate there? And that's the one that I -- I keep trying to decide and so
with that also I want to address -- the couple of other items was traffic. You know, people
are complaining about entrance -- only one entrance to the subdivision and -- and I think a
lot of that hinges upon where you live. You don't really have much access to the north,
because you have got the canal and the cliff on the one side. Spurwing was already
developed to the east and you have got future development to the west, which is where
the second entrance and more entrances are going to occur in the future. That being
said, whatever happens there you're going to see more traffic in your subdivision coming
out of there, because you're seeing growth. You're seeing new homes being built. You
have got future development to the west and more that way and right now the state has
already said that they are not going to widen Chinden, because they don't have the
money, unless they get more money, so that's kind of a separate issue. So, I guess I'm
going to leave it at that. I'm kind of undecided on which way I'm leaning to this and so --
but I'm trying to weigh out which one is the best for the property owner and the adjacent
subdivision, so -- and, again, thank you for your patience. Anybody else?
McCarvel: Mr. Chairman?
Yearsley: Commissioner McCarvel.
McCarvel: I have a question. I guess I should have asked it during the public -- what are
the business hours of this place? 24/7?
Parsons: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, let me address that, please. Right
now there is two standards that apply to this property. First of all, the storage facility,
because it abuts a residential district, is limited to its hours of operation between 6:00 a.m.
and 11:00 p.m. regardless. And it will be that in perpetuity. As part of this project the
applicant has submitted a development agreement modification in which the City Council
will act on as part of a recommended DA provision in that -- as part of the new DA staff is
also limiting hours of operation on the two commercial lots to the east to the hours of 6:00
a.m. and 11:00 p.m., so that they do not interrupt the neighborhood -- the residential
subdivision. To further that -- I didn't get in too much of the DA modification tonight,
because it's really more for City Council, but if you have had a chance to look at my staff
report, and which I know you have, we have also looked at the schedule of uses between
the C -N zoning district and the C -C zoning district to see where -- what the differences are
between the two commercial zones. The C -C is a little bit more intense than your C -N
zoning district. I want to be very frank with the community here. So, in my analysis of that
I looked through that, I saw what made sense and based on the comparison I have
restricted certain uses from occurring on Lot 2 and 3 and if you would indulge me just for
one moment, I will go through my staff report and let you know staff's best guess at saying
this is what we think shouldn't develop on the site moving forward.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
March 5, 2015
Page 44 of 47
Baird: Mr. Chair?
Yearsley: Yes.
Baird: While Bill is doing that I will just mention that because Bill is quoting from things
that are already in the record or in the code, we are not opening up -- or there is no
necessity to open up the public hearing at this time. There won't be any opportunity for
rebuttal if Mr. Parsons sticks to what's already in the record.
Yearsley: Thank you.
Parsons: So, the way the staff report is crafted in those DA provisions that we are taking
forward, we are limiting drinking establishments from occurring on the property. No bars.
No vehicle repair. No equipment sales or rentals. No cell towers on the property. No
drive-thru establishments on the property. So, you won't have that additional traffic going
through the community. No vehicle washing facilities there. No convenience stores or
fuel facilities in your neighborhood. No outdoor recreation facilities on that property and,
last, but not least, we are also prohibiting vehicle sales or rentals from occurring on there.
So, everything that we have tried to get towards on this piece of property has been
neighborhood commercial uses is the intent behind that in the staff report.
Yearsley: Okay.
Parsons: And along with those hours of operation
Yearsley: Okay. Thank you. Any other comments?
Baird: No.
Yearsley: I'm so sorry. Commissioner McCarvel, do you have anymore comments or
McCarvel: Yeah. I'm -- I'm just -- I'm questioning how -- some of the things that have
stuck out in my mind with having a -- the storage facility -- and I understand some of these
are going to just be covered, not enclosed. How having that in this community -- the
residents have to abide by certain rules and having vehicles and stuff parked and that's a
site issue, but yet these are going to be right there and I just don't understand -- I mean --
understand. I mean I'm just not sure if it's a good idea to up the industrial nature of the
zoning -- give it one more step up I guess and still using the main entrance to what is so
obviously a residential entrance. I guess if -- that's where I'm having a problem with how
you come into that community and, then, having something that looks -- and I don't -- I'm
not sure it matters how you dress it, it can be made a lot nicer than what the picture of
previous buildings have been, obviously, and they have worked with staff to do that, but
I'm just not sure -- I can see utilizing that one entrance. It is a very narrow street there. I
don't see how you're going to get -- I mean RVs and the boats, like I said, it -- into that
narrow little place of something that's already so widely used. That's where my struggle is
I guess.
Meridian Planning 8 Zoning Commission
March 5, 2015
Page 45 of 47
Yearsley: Okay. Thank you.
Oliver: Mr. Chairman?
Yearsley: Commissioner Oliver.
Oliver: I, too, have a lot of trouble -- when somebody came up to testify of the fact that
they are building a pool directly across from the entrance, if that's true and there are a lot
of children using that facility -- and I -- again, I'm not sure whether that's a Spurwing pool
or whether that's a different subdivision -- or maybe it's used for both of them. I doesn't
matter either way. But it's a fact that there will be several children using the pool or adults
as well and if it's directly across from that entrance I worry about that. Possibly somebody
could get hurt in that situation. The traffic -- the amount of traffic that was talked about
was, in itself, heavy for that entrance and, again, as Commissioner McCarvel said, is that
it's the main entrance for their subdivision and that's it and it seems hard to think that
commercial traffic will be going in and using that. And it just doesn't seem to me to be
compatible with the existing zoning that's there, so --
Wilson: I agree. You know, just to add -- I don't want to repeat, but I will add the
testimony by the firefighter about the dangers of a storage unit in proximity to a residential
area stuck in my mind, too, as a reason to oppose this. You know, I think in 2006, you
know, a C -N zoning district might have made sense, but considering what Spurwing
Greens has become, I just don't think that this -- this re -up in zoning makes any sense
and I'm troubled, too, by the fact that the developer, you know, and the community haven't
been working together and I, too, am -- have serious issues with this.
Yearsley: I just have one last comment and I'm going to play Devil's advocate here and --
so, don't -- commercial traffic will enter this subdivision no matter what. As you notice the
developer did say that it is zoned commercial and it will stay commercial. Depending on
what commercial he can get in there is up to be -- is to be determined. So, you know,
there will be commercial traffic in that -- in that subdivision, just because the way ITD has
required that no access besides the mile and half mile be completed, so -- so, there is
some of that. But I will -- I will leave it at that as well and if anyone is ready -- actually,
one last thing. A point of order. Instead of doing each of these together -- the three
applications together for approval or denial, we need to do each one of these individually.
So, the first one we will need to vote on would be the rezone, the RZ 15-003, and that will
determine what we do with the other two is how that one gets approved -- if that one gets
approved or denied. So, with that I would I would entertain a motion.
Oliver: Mr. Chairman?
Yearsley: Commissioner Oliver.
Oliver: I hope I do this right. Correctly. After considering all staff, applicant and public
testimony, I move to recommend denial of file number RZ 15-003.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
March 5, 2015
Page 46 of 47
McCarvel: Second.
Yearsley: If you would --
Oliver: Presented during the hearing on March 5th, 2015.
Yearsley: And your reasons?
Oliver: The reason for being it's just on in compliance -- or it does not -- be compatible
with the existing zoning that is there.
Yearsley: Okay.
Wilson: Second.
Yearsley: I have a motion and a second to deny file number RZ 15-003. All in favor say
aye. Opposed? Aye. Motion was approved.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE NAY. ONE ABSENT.
Yearsley: So, with that motion being the way it was, we will need to do the motion for the
public hearing and in doing so that one will need to be denied as well, because it does not
fall within the zoning compliance, because we denied the actual up zone and so the
preliminary plat showed a commercial use that would not be actually an approved use in
that zone, so -- if that's correct.
Baird: Mr. Chair, that is correct. But I would suggest that given the outcome of the vote
on the rezone you can take up the next two matters together, because they both fall --
Yearsley: Okay.
Baird: -- together.
Yearsley: Perfect. Thank you. So, with that I would entertain a motion.
Oliver: Mr. Chairman?
Yearsley: Commissioner Oliver.
Oliver: After careful consideration of all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move to
recommend denial of file number CUP 15-003 and PP 15-003, as presented during the
hearing of March 5th, 2015 --
Yearsley: Because -- it does not comply. It's not in compliance.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
March 5, 2015
Page 47 of 47
Oliver: Right.
McCarvel: Second.
Yearsley: All right. I have a motion and a second
Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
All in favor say aye. Opposed?
Yearsley: Thank you very much. I'm glad to see you guys had worked out. So, I hope
you and the developer can come up to an agreement on future arrangements and so --
Baird: Mr. Chair, if I -- before we close the hearing -- before we close the hearing I do
want to mention that --
Yearsley: Excuse me, guys. We are still in meeting.
Baird: This is potentially important information for -- for the community. These are
recommendations to the City Council. The matter will be noticed for another public
hearing in front of the City Council to consider the recommendations that were made
tonight. So, look for that noticing and that's the last -- the last stop along the way here at
the city.
Yearsley: Thank you. Now, we have one last motion. If you will give us a few minutes.
That we need.
Oliver: Mr. Chairman?
Yearsley: Commissioner Oliver.
Oliver: I move we adjourn.
Wilson: Second.
Yearsley: I have a motion and a second to adjourn. All in favor say aye. Motion carried.
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT.
MEETING ADJOURNED AT 9:06 P.M.
(AUDIO RECORDING ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS.)
APPROVED —
-
`AIRMAj�N �V/\ DATE IAPPROV D
`
:TTE:ST7�9�3C0VSORATROgb
be�XV/I l X �1 c �/'Geyor s{g
JAYCEE HOLMAN, CITY CLERKYt E IDjAN
s
pyo
uxev
Meridian Planning Zoning Commission Meeting
DATE: March 5, 2015
ITEM NUMBER:
PROJECT NUMBER: RZ 14-007
Item: Southridge Estates Subdivision
Public Hearing continued from 2/5/15: Rezone of 3.05 acres from R-15 to TN -R; 1.67 acres from R-4 to R-
8; and 0.83 of an acre from R-8 to R-4 by DBTV Southridge Farm, LLC - s/o W. Overland Road between S
Linder Road and S. Ten Mile Road
MEETING NOTES
CLERKS OFFICE FINAL ACTION
DATE:
E-MAILED TO
STAFF
SENT TO
AGENCY
SENT TO
APPLICANT
NOTES
INITIALS
Meridian Planning Zoning Commission Meeting
DATE: Mrach 5, 2015
Item: Southridge Subdivision
ITEM NUMBER: 4B
PROJECT NUMBER: PP 14-017
Public Hearing continued from 2/5/15: Preliminary Plat approval consisting of 193 single family
residential building lots and 19 common /other lots on 48.65 acres of land in the R-4, R-8 and TN -R zoning
districts by DBTV Southridge Farm, LLC - s/o W. Overland Road between S. Linder Road and S. Ten Mile
Road
IJil=1 =111 I I Z [Cm Z IQ 9 =61
r)r V `��.�j F-),- 6-- 7- /s
�a
CLERKS OFFICE FINAL ACTION -
DATE:
E-MAILED TO
STAFF
SENT TO
AGENCY
SENT TO
APPLICANT
NOTES
INITIALS
Meridian Planning Zoning Commission Meeting
DATE: March 5, 2015
Item: Paramount Southeast Subdivision
ITEM NUMBER:
PROJECT NUMBER: RZ 15-001
Public Hearing: Rezone of 19.27 acres of land from the C -G to the R-40 zoning district; and 16.86 acres of
land from the R-40 to the C -G zoning district by Brighton Investments, LLC - NWC of N. Meridian Road
and W. McMillan Road
MEETING NOTES
CLERKS OFFICE FINAL ACTION
0to//2F
5-D
DATE:
E-MAILED TO
STAFF
SENT TO
AGENCY
SENT TO
APPLICANT
NOTES
INITIALS
Meridian Planning Zoning Commission Meeting
DATE: March 5, 2015 ITEM NUMBER: 4D
PROJECT NUMBER: PP 15-002
Item: Paramount Southeast Subdivision
Public Hearing: Preliminary Plat approval consisting of 1 building lot in the R-40 zoning district; 22 building
lots in the C -G zoning district; and 5 common/other lots on 36.04 acres of land by Brighton Investments,
LLC - NWC of N. Meridian Road and W. McMillan Road
MEETING NOTES
IZCcovnwtmd I)Pp rTvk( C/C
s� 01C
CLERKS OFFICE FINAL ACTION
DATE:
E-MAILED TO
STAFF
SENT TO
AGENCY
SENT TO
APPLICANT
NOTES
INITIALS
Meridian Planning Zoning Commission Meeting
DATE: March 5, 2015 ITEM NUMBER: 4E
PROJECT NUMBER: CUP 15-002
Item: Paramount Southeast Subdivision
Public Hearing: Conditional Use Permit approval for a multi -family development consisting of 280
dwelling units in an R-40 zoning district by Brighton Investments, LLC - NWC of N. Meridian Road and W.
McMillan Road
MEETING NOTES
CLERKS OFFICE FINAL ACTION
DATE:
E-MAILED TO
STAFF
SENT TO
AGENCY
SENT TO
APPLICANT
NOTES
INITIALS
Meridian Planning Zoning Commission Meeting
DATE: March 5, 2015
Item: Jayker Village Subdivision
ITEM NUMBER:
PROJECT NUMBER: RZ 15-003
Public Hearing: Rezone 26.09 acres from the C -N and the R-15 zoning districts to the R-15 (8.48 acres)
and C -C (17.61 acres) zoning districts by Oak Leaf Development, Inc. - n/side of Chinden Boulevard;
w/of N. Tree Farm Way and N. Tree Haven Way
MEETING NOTES
VC- CC V)'1 nICAn e� be VU a-, 4� C)C�
CLERKS OFFICE FINAL ACTION
DATE:
E-MAILED TO
STAFF
SENT TO
AGENCY
SENT TO
APPLICANT
NOTES
INITIALS
Meridian Planning Zoning Commission Meeting
TC. hAnrch 5 2n15
Item: Jayker Village Subdivision
ITEM NUMBER:
PROJECT NUMBER: PP 1
Public Hearing: Preliminary Plat approval consisting of 1 residential lot, 3 commercial lots and 3
common lots on approximately 23.59 acres in the proposed R-15 and C -C zoning districts by Oak Leaf
Development, Inc. - n/side of Chinden Boulevard; w/of N. Tree Farm Way and N. Tree Haven Way
MEETING NOTES
J� e o olw"6t - Q`A-( -/�) C -/C
iso / g4T t q -b
r.►_ERKS OFFICE FINAL ACTION
DATE:
E-MAILED TO
STAFF
SENT TO
AGENCY
SENT TO
APPLICANT
NOTES
INITIALS
Meridian Planning Zoning Commission Meeting
DATE: March 5, 2015 ITEM NUMBER: 4
PROJECT NUMBER: CUP 15-C
Item: Jayker Village Subdivision
Public Hearing: Conditional Use Permit for a self-service storage facility consisting of a care-taker's/office
building and 15 storage buildings on approximately 11. 18 acres of land in a proposed C -C zoning district
by Oak Leaf Development, Inc. - n/side of Chinden Boulevard; W/of N. Tree Farm Way and N. Tree
Haven Way
MEETING NOTES
I \-cC &ru
-4D C_
JO°l2" q
CLERKS OFFICE FINAL ACTION
DATE:
E-MAILED TO
STAFF
SENT TO
AGENCY
SENT TO
APPLICANT
NOTES
INITIALS
Meridian Planning Zoning Commission Meeting
,TE: March 5, 2015 ITEM NUMBER:
PROJECT NUMBER: CUP 1
ire„- Franklin Mini-Storaae
Public Hearing: Conditional Use Permit for a self-service facility in a C -G zoning district by Osborne
Enterprises - 1975 E. Franklin Road
MEETING NOTES
3,���, t�.,L +, 3 /S
)2Pi,?/ nF-
s,0
CLERKS OFFICE FINAL ACTION
DATE:
E-MAILED TO
STAFF
SENT TO
AGENCY
SENT TO
APPLICANT
NOTES
INITIALS
Meridian Planning Zoning Commission Meeting
DATE: March 5, 2015 ITEM NUMBER:
PROJECT NUMBER:
ITEM TITLE:
Approve Minutes of February 19, 2015 PZ Meeting
0
MEETING NOTES
rrlm,c 5-0
CLERKS OFFICE FINAL ACTION
DATE:
E-MAILED TO
STAFF
SENT TO
AGENCY
SENT TO
APPLICANT
NOTES
INITIALS