2016 06-23Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting June 23, 2016
Meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission of June 23, 2016, was
called to order at 6:00 p.m. by Chairman Steven Yearsley.
Members Present: Chairman Steven Yearsley, Commissioner Rhonda
McCarvel, and Commissioner Patrick Oliver.
Members Absent: Commissioner Gregory Wilson and Commissioner Ryan
Fitzgerald.
Others Present: Machelle Hill, Andrea Pogue, Bill Parson, Sonya Watters, Josh
Beach and Dean Willis.
Item 1: Roll-Call Attendance:
Roll-call
______ Gregory Wilson __X__ Patrick Oliver
__X__ Rhonda McCarvel _____ Ryan Fitzgerald
__X__ Steven Yearsley - Chairman
Yearsley: At this time I would like to call to order the regularly scheduled meeting
for the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission for the hearing date of June
23rd, 2016, and let's begin with the roll call.
Item 2: Adoption of the Agenda.
Yearsley: Thank you. At this time we have adoption of the agenda. There are a
couple of changes I would like to make. On Action Item D, I would like to put it
up as Action Item B and, then, move B to C and D. So, we move those -- that
one up. With those changes can I get a motion to adopt the agenda as
presented?
McCarvel: So moved.
Oliver: Second.
Yearsley: I have a motion and a second to adopt the agenda. All in favor say
aye. Opposed? Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIES: THREE AYES. TWO ABSENT.
Item 3: Consent Agenda
A. Approve Minutes of June 2, 2016 Planning and Zoning
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
June 23, 2016
Page 2 of 62
Commission Meeting
B. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval:
Starbucks Meridian Road (H-2016-0051) by Verdad Real
Estate Located 1870 S. Meridian Road Request:
Conditional Use Permit for a Drive-Thru Establishment
Within 300 Feet of a Residential Use and Another Drive-
Thru on 0.80 of an Acre in a C-G Zoning District
Yearsley: Next item on the agenda is the Consent Agenda and on that is to
approve the minutes of the June 2nd Planning and Zoning Commission meeting
and the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for the approval of Starbucks at
Meridian Road, File No. H-2016-0051. If there are no changes or modifications I
would entertain a motion to approve the Consent Agenda.
Oliver: Mr. Chairman?
Yearsley: Commissioner Oliver.
Oliver: I move to approve the Consent Agenda.
McCarvel: Second.
Yearsley: I have a motion and a second to approve the Consent Agenda. All in
favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIES: THREE AYES. TWO ABSENT.
Item 4: Update on Communities in Motion 2040 Development
Checklist Prepared by COMPASS by Carl Miller
Yearsley: Can you guys hear me back there? Okay. I didn't -- it doesn't sound
like it's that loud, so I wanted to make sure you guys can hear me. Next item on
the agenda is to -- Item No. 4, the update of Communities In Motion 2040,
development checklist and let's begin with Bill.
Parsons: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. I'd like to
introduce to you Carl Miller. He's from COMPASS. If you recall or -- about two
years ago COMPASS started weighing in and giving a development review
checklist as part of their application review and so Carl is here this evening to
really talk to you about whether there is any specific changes you would request
of COMPASS to that checklist. Is there enough information on that checklist for
you to make informed decisions on these planning applications that become --
that come before you? So, with that I will introduce Carl. He has a quick
presentation, maybe a ten minute presentation, to go through to share how that
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
June 23, 2016
Page 3 of 62
checklist came about and what -- what it's meant to do and how you can use it as
a tool in your land use decisions. So, Carl.
Miller: Thank you, Bill.
Yearsley: Thank you.
Miller: Thank you, Commission. Thank you, Bill. Appreciate you having me on
the agenda. My name is Carl Miller. I'm with COMPASS which I will tell you
about in just a minute. I do work and reside in Meridian and work for COMPASS,
which is a regional planning agency. So, first of all, I just want to tell you how
excited I am that so many people came out to hear about the COMPASS
development checklist. That's very exciting for me. If I can get this thing to work
right. I'm going to go through this fairly quickly, because it looks like you have
some more pressing matters on your hands for tonight and, to t ell you the truth,
I'm going to actually hope to listen more than I talk. I'd really like to get some
feedback. Hopefully you have seen this checklist a few times over the last year
or so and really want to make sure that we are fine tuning this thing so it's really a
helpful tool for you. So, just really quickly about COMPASS. We are a regional
transportation planning agency. We work in Ada and Canyon county. Most of
the cities, highway districts and counties are members. You're represented on
the COMPASS board by Mayor de Weerd. We do get regional -- we do get
federal planning money for transportation projects, whether that's roads, bike
lanes, sidewalks, buses, so forth. And one of the products that we come out with
every few years is the regional long range transportation plan and we realize that
-- that the federal money just isn't going to be enough for us to satisfy all the
needs that we have as far as transportation in the valley and so we really made
this a comprehensive and inclusive plan and really worked with all the -- all the
stakeholders in the area to develop a plan that looks at the full transportation
needs, as well as the future vision for our valley. But this valley -- this vision
won't come to pass unless we really work together on this. Land use is,
obviously, a key component of that, as well as the other eight elements that you
see at the bottom, economic development, farmland, open space, community
infrastructure, economic develop and housing and, really, all these things rela te
to transportation or are impacted by transportation. So, we really wanted to
make sure that all these different needs were addressed in the plan. But, like I
said, we really can't do it all with federal money and, really, this area is growing
so much we won't be able to keep up. We really need to make sure that we
bridge local and regional planning through the decisions that we make at the
local level and so we developed this development checklist, which really provides
all the -- the key goals and objectives of the long range plan and in a simple two
page document and you get that on occasions for your -- for your public
hearings, which indicates how well a particular proposal is meeting the objectives
of the long range plan. I will go through it a little bit. It is very fact based. It's not
subjective, it's not my opinion, it's not anybody's opinion, it's really how well does
-- does different things meet the plan. It maintains authority with local agencies.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
June 23, 2016
Page 4 of 62
We are not trying to tell you how to make your decisions, we are just trying to
provide you the best information that we can and, then, it represents each of
those eight CIM, Communities In Motion, elements, so that way we have a well -
rounded plan that speaks to many of the different quality o f life things that we all
really agree that are essential in this valley and, then, we did do a focus group
about a year and a half ago. Commissioner Yearsley you were invited. I believe
you had a conflict that day, so we went ahead, we developed this checklist and
really we are at this point where we are saying is the thing working, is it giving
you the information that you need. So, you have given us somewhat in
frequently, although I think Meridian has had 28 developmen t checklists sent to
you by COMPASS over the last year and a half. We send these out on influential
developments and we don't know which ones are going to be controversial or
not, but we send these out whenever there is a subdivision that's has residential
homes or an equivalent amount of commercial or industrial space or we will also
send these out when a development accesses an arterial or an expressway.
Even if it's not a huge development, if it's, you know, all along Eagle Road, you
know, we can die a death of a thousand cuts if we get a lot of different
developments that come in and want access or generating trips on a particular
important key corridor. The third time we will send these checklists to you is if
you ask. If your staff says, you know what, this would be really helpful -- this
information would -- would help to satisfy some of the questions that you have,
we would be happy to development this checklist for any particular proposal. So,
I would like you to -- really now I want to hear back from you about -- hopefully
you have seen this checklist, what's working, what's not, if you can just take 30
seconds, think of the last few controversial items you have had, think of some
regional transportation -- you know, controversial items, you know, maybe a side
yard setback, it maybe doesn’t apply here, but, you know, a large development or
one that's accessing a key corridor, something like that. Think of the few that you
have had in the last few months and did this checklist provide you the typ e of
information that you needed to address the controversial issues. Was the
information useful? Was the information not useful and what is on the -- not on
the checklist that should be. And now I know there is a lot of people here, so I
won't take too much of your time, but I really would like some feedback from you
at this point about what part of the checklist is working and what part is not. Do
you have any questions at this point?
Yearsley: Are there any questions? Did you have a chance to review those
checklists or --
McCarvel: I have no questions.
Yearsley: And I -- you know, I -- to be honest with you, I'm not sure if I have seen
those before. Have we -- are they in the staff report, the checklist?
Watters: Chairman, they are not in the staff report. Sometimes we include a little
blurb about it, but the report is in the public record for the project.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
June 23, 2016
Page 5 of 62
Yearsley: Okay. Okay. So, I can't really state a whole lot, because I haven't
looked at them a whole -- a whole lot, to be honest with you, so --
Miller: That's -- that's good feedback, too.
Watters: Mr. Chairman, it is our intent -- staff has been discussing this and it is
our intent to start including more of their analysis in our reports also, so, you will
be seeing more of that in the future.
Yearsley: Okay. No. I think as we -- we start to grow regionally, I mean
developments from one place will affect other areas and having a checklist and
having -- providing that information I think is good for decision-making processes
and understanding traffic and how the traffic affects and what other modes of
transportation are available in those areas I think is very important. So, I think
that checklist will be very helpful.
Oliver: Mr. Chairman?
Yearsley: Commissioner Oliver.
Oliver: I agree as well. I think that -- as Sonya pointed out, it would be helpful for
us when we are going through and are looking at our packets and deciding
what's going to be taking place at our meeting, to have a little bit more
information that we can look at saying, oh, my gosh, what's the amount of traffic
think that's going to bring and is it going to be able to handle that, you know,
those kind of things. So, I think to have that there more often wou ld help us
make a good decision, so appreciate it.
Miller: Great.
Yearsley: Oh. Thank you. Anything else you had?
Miller: No. I just -- I would point out that we are -- so, we are going out to each
of the planning and zoning commissions trying to get feedback from them. I
spoke with Boise last week and got some really good feedback about how we
can make this more useful and make it easier to integrate into staff reports. So, I
will also be working with staff in the near future. I don't want to take up too much
of your time, but I will say that I will leave the long range transportation plan. If
you don't have a copy I will leave that will staff, so that you can look through that
on your own time and if you have any questions about COMPASS or what we do
or if you come across a checklist and have any questions, please, feel free to
contact staff or myself and we would be happy to address those. So, thanks for
your time tonight.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
June 23, 2016
Page 6 of 62
Yearsley: Thank you. So, before we go any further, I kind of want to explain how
this process is going to go on the following items. We are going to open each
application one at a time. We will start off with the staff report. The staff will
present their findings on how the application adheres to the Comprehensive Plan
and the Uniform Development Code and provide any staff recommendations. At
that time the applicant will have an opportunity to come and present their case for
approval to -- on the application and if there is any changes to the -- the staff --
staff report or the conditions they can present it at that time. The applicant will
have up to 15 minutes to do so. After the applicant has had an opportunity to
testify we will open it up to the public. In the back is a sign-up sheet for those
wishing to testify. Those wishing to testify will be given up to three minutes to do
so. If they are speaking for a larger group, if there is a show of hands and they
are speaking for those people, they will be given up to ten minutes. However,
those people who they are speaking for will not have an opportunity to speak.
So, given the large amount of group we want to just make sure that that is clear.
If they are speaking for an HOA or some organization they will be given up to ten
minutes as well. After the applicant -- or the public testimony has had a chance -
- everyone has had a chance to testify, we will have the applicant come back up
and respond to the public testimony and to make comments on those. After the
applicant -- and he will be given up to ten minutes to do so afterwards. After the
applicant has had a chance we will close the public hearing and at that time the
Planning and Zoning will make a -- or the Commission will make a -- will
deliberate and decide and make -- hopefully make a recommendation to City
Council.
Item 5: Action Items
A. Public Hearing Continued from May 19, 2016 for Gibson
Amity Property (H-2016-0036) by CLG, Inc. Located 357
E. Amity Road
1. Request: Annexation and Zoning of
Approximately 5.864 Acres of Land with an I-L
Zoning District
Yearsley: So, with that I would like to open file number H-2016-0036, Gibson
Amity Property and let's begin with the staff report.
Beach: Good evening, Chair, Commissioners. This is an application for
annexation. The site consists of 5.864 acres of land, zoned RUT in Ada County
and it's located at 357 East Amity Road. To the north of East Amity Road is a
property zoned RUT in Ada County. To the east is vacant property zoned RUT
also in Ada County. To the south is vacant land zoned R-4 and to the west is a
proposed storage facility that is currently zoned light industrial. A little history on
this property. Gravel mining operations were approved through Ada County.
The Comprehensive Plan future land use map designation for the property is
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
June 23, 2016
Page 7 of 62
mixed use, nonresidential. The applicant requests annexation and zoning, as I
said, of 5.864 acres of land with a proposed I-L or light industrial zoning district,
which is consistent with the mixed use nonresidential land use designation. The
concept plan that was submitted dep icts two industrial buildings, one
approximately 16,500 square feet and the other 15,000 square feet and with
associated site and landscape improvements. The three buildings that are
currently located on the site that will remain and are proposed to operate as a
contractor's yard. Cross-access is required to the property -- from the property to
the east and to the west. Cross-access is only required to the property to the
west if that property develops as something other than what is currently proposed
as a storage facility. We did receive some comments from the highway district
that I'd like to go over that I think are pertinent to the discussion, if I could -- staff
recommends the applicant should be required to dedicate 48 feet of right of way
from center line of Amity Road abutting the site. Amity Road is planned as a five
lane arterial roadway in the Capital Improvement Plan and is impact fee eligible.
As I said, these aren't -- these aren't planning staff comments, these are from the
highway district, these three, so the second comment is the applicant should be
required to widen Amity Road to 17 feet of pavement from center line with three
feet -- three foot wide gravel shoulder abutting the site and the applicant should
be required to construct a five foot wide concrete sidewalk a minimum of 41 feet
from center line of Amity Road abutting the site. If sidewalk is placed in an
easement the permanent right of way easement shall encompass the entire area
between the right of way line and two foot behind the back edge of the sidewalk.
So, having gone through those, staff's requirements, and -- which is in our
pathways master plan, is that originally if you look at that -- the aerial photograph
here, the pathway master plan intended that the pathway go along the Williams
Lateral -- gas pipeline that goes approximately in this -- in this area here and the
master plan was that that pathway run alongside that. With the development of
that storage facility that pathway was pushed -- the multi-use pathway was
pushed along the south side of Amity or the north side of the storage facilities
and that's staff's proposal for this property as well, to get the multi-use pathway
constructed along the south side of Amity along th e north side of their property
within that required landscape buffer that they will be required to put in upon
development. So, the -- both of the uses that they are proposing there, the
outdoor storage and the contractor's yard are -- require a specific use and there
are specific requirements of both of those and the applicant would be required to
meet all of those and one of those would be that the facility would be required to
use a screened fencing material to screen the contractor's yard from the adja cent
properties. So, staff recommends a minimum 20 foot wide driveway with a
minimum five foot wide pathway slash sidewalk be provided from the proposed
site to the property to the east and this will enhance interconnectivity between the
site and future development of the adjacent property to the east. As I said, that is
currently a gravel pit or a gravel mine, but upon development staff would like to
see some interconnectivity between the parcels. A 25 foot landscape buffer is
required along East Amity Road. The landscape buffer is required to be
landscaped in accordance with the UDC and the unimproved right of way
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
June 23, 2016
Page 8 of 62
adjacent to Amity Road must be landscaped. All parking lot landscaping must
also comply with the UDC. As I mentioned, the multi-use pathway would go
along the south side of Amity or the north side of this parcel. One of the main
concerns from the applicant, at least as far as I understand, is that this -- with
annexation staff is requiring that this -- these structures are currently on the site
and meet our current architectural standards. Because this is annexation we --
we can and are requiring that they meet the current standards. They are steel
structures right now and so they would not meet our current standards and so
upon annexation and the certificate of zoning compliance they would be required
to make some improvements to those structures. The Watkins Drain lies within
the boundaries of the proposed annexation and there is a 50 foot easement from
center line of the drain in both directions as you see here on the -- on the
photograph approximately in this location. So, there is a very wide easement
there, but, as I mentioned, the Williams Pipeline goes through this prop erty, so
they don't allow much construction over that, so staff is not opposed to the
contractor's yard, but there needs to be some improvements made to the -- to the
structure and there will be some improvements required to make that use
something that we could allow. The applicant did provide written comments on
the staff report with certain concerns that I'm sure she will address those. With
that staff is recommending approval of the staff -- of the annexation with those
conditions and I will stand for any questions you have.
Yearsley: Thank you. Are there any questions? No? Would the applicant like to
come forward.
Thompson: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, my name is Tamara
Thompson. I'm with The Land Group at 462 East Shore Drive in Eagle. We
have read the staff report and we do have a couple concerns. Most of them deal
with timing. The -- I will just go through the conditions in order. Condition 1.1.1C
is the property to the east, a cross-access to that property. It currently is a gravel
pit. It operates under a conditional use permit in Ada County and we would just
like to modify that condition, so it is a reciprocal cross-access agreement and it
will be granted when the property is annexed to City of Meridian and is
developed as a compatible use. Currently if the trucking operation just decided
they wanted to use our access and we were giving that cross-access, they could
just start trucking on through the site with that cross-access and I think it's
appropriate that it is something that it's compatible, not a -- not a gravel trucking
operation. So, just to restate that, reciprocal cross-access to the west will be
granted when the property is annexed to the City of Meridian and is developed as
a compatible use. The second one is the cross-access to the west. Currently
the conditions of approval for the Citadel is that they don't provide cross-access
unless it is developed as something other than a mini storage or a storage facility
and we are asking for that same language that -- so, we are asking for the
change to state reciprocal cross-access to the west will be granted if the property
is not developed as a storage facility. Then 1.1.1D and E, due to the offsite utility
infrastructure improvements, we are asking that the landscape buffer and the ten
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
June 23, 2016
Page 9 of 62
foot pathway, that those be provided within six months of those being completed.
We would hate to go out and do those improvements now and, then, have the --
the water and sewer line go through and -- I believe the water line should be in
this summer, but the sewer line is still out there and I'm not -- I'm not sure it's a
hundred percent certain where that's going to locate. So, it's just a timing issue.
We will do it, we would just like some -- some leeway on that timing. 1.1.1H and
2.1.2 deals with the connection to the sewer and water and we -- we will make
those connections and we request that utility stubs be provided to the property as
those are going in, so we don't have to cut into the road secondary. 1.1.1K. This
is the one that Josh mentioned about the CZC. Currently the property is sitting
vacant. The conditional use permit was for the gravel operation and this used to
be part of that, but the property was split and so this would require a CU with the
county in order to occupy it and with the utilities going in made sense to annex to
the city at this point and to get on city services. We would like some leeway from
bringing the current buildings up to -- the existing buildings up to current
standards. Right now the buildings are over 130 feet from Amity in the I-L zone.
A building setback is 35 feet, so we are three and a half to four times further back
than -- than what's required. So, we are asking for some leeway on that, that the
buildings -- the buildings are set back. We will do the landscape buffer and the
pathway along the fronts and we can add some extra trees to buffer those in the
short term, so that those buildings can be occupied and, then, as redevelopment
occurs, then, they -- any new construction would have to go through and meet
the design review standards. And I'm almost done. Let's see. The other deal
with the ACHD approval, the 7.1.2, the widening improvements to Amity, that
those will occur after the utility construction is complete. So, again, just the
timing. And there was a staff -- city -- the city is recommending a ten foot multi-
use pathway -- multi-use pathway and ACHD has a five foot concrete sidewalk
and I just wanted to confirm with staff that that -- that the city's ten foot would
supersede that, that both of those wouldn't be required, that just the ten foot
multi-use pathway. And with that I will stand for questions and we respectfully
request your approval tonight with our modification.
Yearsley: Thank you. Are there any questions?
McCarvel: Mr. Chairman?
Yearsley: Commissioner McCarvel.
McCarvel: What would you have to do to those buildings to bring them up to
code?
Thompson: Commissioner McCarvel, I -- I believe quite a bit would have to
happen to those. The one is a metal building and I brought some pictures if you
would like to see what those look like.
McCarvel: Okay. So, you have to redo the entire exterior?
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
June 23, 2016
Page 10 of 62
Beach: Tamara, I can pull up a Google Earth shot if that would be --
Thompson: Do you have this one?
Beach: I don't have that photograph, no.
Thompson: Josh, if you would bring up just the site plan, the aerial, I can kind of
show that.
Beach: Yes.
Thompson: So, the building that is diagonal on the east side of the property, that
is a pre-manufactured home that is -- that is used for an office building. That one
would be the first to go, but we would like to use it in the short term and, then, the
larger warehouse on the west side of the property -- that one. There we go.
That one is fairly nice. It's a newer building, but it still doesn't meet code -- or
meet the design review standards. So, some what I would call ginger bread
would need to be added to that. But, again, they are not right up on the street
and I think we could do some alternative compliance with some landscaping in
that -- in our landscape buffer that we will be installing first off. We are not asking
for any relief from that condition, just the timing to do it after the utilities are
installed.
McCarvel: Just the landscape is all you're asking for relief on -- you're asking for
total relief on the exterior of this building; right?
Thompson: In the short term, yes. Those will be demolished.
McCarvel: Timing on that one.
Thompson: Timing -- well, once it's redeveloped those will eventually get
demolished and a new building with the concept plan that we submitted would go
there and the new building would be to design review standards.
Yearsley: Do you have an idea when that would happen? The redevelopment.
Thompson: Right. So, I don't -- I don't know that we know that offhand.
Yearsley: I just -- are we looking five, ten, 15, 30 years? I mean -- because if we
are looking 30 years out for redevelopment, I don't want something like this to sit
like that for that long.
Thompson: Sorry. My client tells me probably more in the two to five year range.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
June 23, 2016
Page 11 of 62
Yearsley: Okay. Any other questions? Sorry. I have -- on your item 1.1. -- or
1.1.1C, I have a concern with compatible use. To what are we assuming is a
compatible use? Because that could be broad range and trying to figure --
because that word is pretty vague and so I want to make sure we have
something nailed down. Does that make sense?
Thompson: It does make sense. Compatible use is vague and it's subjective.
Yearsley: Yeah.
Thompson: So, I guess we could say that not a trucking operation, something
that's -- that's more in the light industrial.
Yearsley: Okay.
Thompson: But definitely not a trucking operation.
Yearsley: Not a gravel pit operation.
Thompson: Yes.
Yearsley: Okay.
Parsons: Mr. Chairman, if I could elaborate on that condition a little bit? The
idea behind this is that we don't want to lose our opportunity in the future when
these properties redevelop. The applicant isn't required to build a driveway or
anything to that effect at this time, merely just saying, hey, there is an easement
in place, so that way when these adjacent properties redevelop -- meaning the
gravel mine to the east redevelops, we can say we have had an easement here,
now you're coming in with annexation and redevelopment, we want you to
reciprocate that and both these parties work together and construct that driveway
so that we can restrict access to Amity, which is an arterial roadway. That's the
idea behind this condition. I don't see where that -- that hurts this project to at
least grant an easement. It doesn't mean they have to build it, just saying we
have that in place for future connectivity and that's really what we are trying to
achieve here, because we don't have a timeline for that area. As you know,
water is coming down there sometime this summer. Sewer may or may not
happen. That's exactly what we talked about when Citadel came through. The
city's trying to negotiate some easements to get the trunk line run through the
property to the north and, then, they are working with the Citadel self storage
facility to get an easement across their property, so they can be extended for
properties to the south. So, we know where that trunk line is going to fall. We
just have to get all the parties to the table to agree to that and as part of that
larger annexation of that 14 -- 1,300 plus acres we did a year or so ago, that was
a condition in the DA that annexation is contingent upon utilities coming to this
property -- to these properties. If they don't -- it's in their DA that says the city will
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
June 23, 2016
Page 12 of 62
make every attempt to get utilities there, but there is no guarantee and so that's --
that's something that we talked about with the applicant at great length at our
preapplication meetings, that this is kind of in limbo land right now and so it's
hard for staff to track these conditions and protect the interest of the city without
knowing -- having all those public pieces in place, so these DA provisions that
are up on the screen are staff's best stabs at protecting that area for future
development.
Yearsley: Thank you.
McCarvel: Mr. Chairman?
Yearsley: Yes.
McCarvel: One question. Bill -- so, in going forward in our discussions later, is
what's in the staff recommendation -- I mean everything is predicated -- this --
nothing gets annexed until technically the utilities are there anyway; right? I
mean --
Parsons: That's not necessarily true.
McCarvel: Okay. So --
Parsons: Right now the properties that -- the Citadel property and all the other
1,300 acres is currently annexed --
McCarvel: Okay.
Parsons: -- into the city. There is no guarantee on sewer being there. Yet.
That's spelled out in those agreements. And so this is one of those gray areas
where people are hoping that it happens. I'm sure the city will do everything in its
power to make it happen, but, again, it's -- there is no guarantee here.
McCarvel: Okay.
Yearsley: I do agree that if you grant an easement they have an opportunity to
use that. The wording here is not an unreasonable request that, you know, they
can grant the easement when it's redeveloped. If you wouldn't mind staying, I
have one other question for you. On that 1.1.1K, I am concerned about that one.
This is the time that we would like to bring those buildings up to code. However,
I understand -- I don't know if the other staff is, but -- and I don't know -- I want to
ask staff about that, too, is could we put a condition on there that they have to
bring them up to code within two years? Or redevelop within -- because I don't
want to -- like I said, I don't want that to sit there for two years -- you know, for a
lot of time, so --
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
June 23, 2016
Page 13 of 62
Thompson: Thirty years.
Yearsley: Yeah. Or even five to six years, because that area is going to growth
pretty fast once we get utilities -- assuming utilities get there. And, you know, I
would like to have that done sooner -- either brought up to code or redeveloped
sooner, rather than later, and so I would -- you know, my thought would be at
least give a two to three year reprieve or something to that effect, but at that point
in time they either have to bring it up to code or redevelop is what my -- my
feeling is. And I had a question for staff. Is that reasonable, because that puts
the burden on you to track that time and I would like maybe you to weigh in on
what your thoughts are.
Parsons: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, we sat down with the
applicant prior to their requesting their continuance and we asked for a phasing
plan, basically. Give us a plan and tell us how you're going to phase these
improvements and that didn't occur. To me that makes me feel more
comfortable. At least we have something attached to the development
agreement in phase one, we are going to get sidewalk or we are going to get
landscape improvements. Phase two we are going to get building lots or
whatever. The design use standards in phase two. Phase three it's got to
redevelop. I don't know how it could be structured, but that's the direction that
we provided to the applicant before they even brought this to you during the
application tonight. To me that's certainly th e cleaner way for us to do it and
certainly I think we could structure something like that in the DA if that's
something you want to do. That's within your purview. Keep in mind we don't
condition annexations. Our bite at the apple is this development agreement.
This is the time that we ask for things that we think should happen on this site
and that's why we did require this. We did -- you can see from the aerial that the
site has been vacant for a while, underdeveloped. Services aren't available. So,
at least we were trying -- if you're going to come into the city to take advantage of
what the city has to offer, then, we certainly want you to meet our code. Again,
you could structure it that way. If you want it all done within two years, we could
have that added to the DA. T wo years of annexation. They do that. Or you can
tie it to whenever sewer is available or something like that and that we know
when they come in to connect to the sewer and water we are going to say, whoa,
time out, what about CZC and design review application for the rest of this work.
So, I think we can structure around that one, too. There is flexibility here for you.
Yearsley: Okay. I appreciate that, so -- and I guess are you okay with
something to that effect?
Thompson: Yeah. Chairman Yearsley, I -- I think that's -- that's appropriate. I
understand your concerns on that, that you can't just have it open-ended. I think
Bill's comment about tying it to utilities is appropriate. Not knowing exactly when
those utilities are going to be completed --
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
June 23, 2016
Page 14 of 62
Yearsley: Uh-huh.
Thompson: -- that, you know, two years after utilities are installed these
buildings have to come up to code, but in the -- in the meantime, in the short
term, we do have well and septic that we could get somebody in there and
operating --
Yearsley: Okay.
Thompson: -- and make those frontage improvements.
Yearsley: Okay.
Oliver: Mr. Chairman?
Yearsley: Commissioner Oliver.
Oliver: If you could go back, Josh, to the aerial map of the site one more time,
just so I can clarification. So, looking at -- on my left is the office and your plan is
to just take that out?
Thompson: Commission Oliver, the -- the plan is that the -- the larger building,
the one to the west, that's a fairly new and nice warehouse storage facility. It's
got some really nice equipment in there with some hoists and stuff. So, the -- the
plan would be that that could be brought up to design review code and those
other buildings that are on the east side, those are -- those would be demolished
and new buildings put in their place.
Oliver: And that demolish -- when would that be after you take ownership of --
Thompson: Well, that is what -- what we were talking about on the timing, is that
if we could state in the -- and modify the condition that it's either those be brought
up to design review standards or demolished and a new building go in their place
within two years after sewer is available.
Oliver: Okay. Thank you.
Yearsley: One other quick question. It looks like there was a telephone -- or a
communication tower there. Is that planning to go away? I wondered if that's
what it was, but -- okay. Any other questions? Just -- let's get them out now,
because I don't think we are going to have any public testimony, so -- thank you.
I do not have anybody signed up to testify. Is there anybody wanting to testify on
this application? So, with that I don't think we need to ask the applicant to come
forward again. So, I would entertain a motion to close public hearing on file
number H-2016-0036.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
June 23, 2016
Page 15 of 62
Oliver: Mr. Chairman?
Yearsley: Commissioner Oliver.
Oliver: I move to close the public hearing on 2016-0036.
McCarvel: Second.
Yearsley: I have a motion and a second to close the public hearing. All in favor
say aye. Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIES: THREE AYES. TWO ABSENT.
Yearsley: This is kind of a challenging site, trying to figure out what future needs
are going to be there, what future is going to happen, and how this is all going to
work out. I understand staff wanting these things done. I do think it does make
some sense to hold off on some of the improvements until after water and sewer
are in place. I -- to be honest with you, I am really concerned about the building
and the timing of those to be done. I'm kind of curious to see what your thoughts
are on the -- on this -- this project.
McCarvel: Mr. Chairman?
Yearsley: Commissioner McCarvel.
McCarvel: I will just go down the list here. I think the first one was the reciprocal
access. I think that makes sense, if there is -- I mean there is going to be no
access to the storage unit, so that has the legal verbiage it needs. If that
becomes something else, then, they need to reciprocate. And as well as the
cross-access to the truck -- until that becomes something else, then, they do
need to have that in the plan that they will have to make cross-access as soon as
that develops. Let's see. The landscape buffer pathway, 1.1.1D and E, I think,
you know, that makes sense to do, you know, just shortly after the sewer and
water are completed and I think -- they had a question and that's supposed to be
a ten foot, not a five foot concrete path; right?
Yearsley: I think -- I think what it is is that a ten foot multi-use pathway will -- on
the 7.13 -- or 7.1.3, is that the one you're talking about?
McCarvel: Yes.
Yearsley: Yeah. I think the ten foot pathway will satisfy ACHD's five foot
concrete --
McCarvel: Right. But I think she was asking that they don't have to do both.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
June 23, 2016
Page 16 of 62
Yearsley: Yeah.
McCarvel: But I think at the time of the sewer and water is fine. Obviously, it
can't connect to sewer and water before it's available.
Yearsley: Right.
McCarvel: And I agree, those buildings -- I think they need to come up to code
just real quick when --
Yearsley: Okay.
McCarvel: -- after sewer and water is there. If you have any suggestions on how
quick that needs to be, but, I agree, I think that whole area is going to just boom
the minute those -- that infrastructure is there.
Yearsley: Okay. And I'm -- you know, the applicant had recommended two
years. You know, they are talking two years for sewer. I'm -- I'm okay with six
months after sewer --
McCarvel: Yeah.
Yearsley: -- is available. That gives them, essentially, two and a half years to
plan and budget. I agree. I would like to have the condition on that 1.1K is that
the tower gets removed immediately after annexation, just because I think that's
-- that's a bigger eye sore than the other items.
McCarvel: Yeah. I agree, Mr. Chairman. If nobody is using that take it down.
Yearsley: Yeah. And I think the other conditions are -- yeah, I think are -- are
appropriate as well.
McCarvel: Uh-huh.
Yearsley: Okay. So, are we all kind of in agreement with that? I guess with that
I would entertain a motion.
McCarvel: Okay. I do have one question. So, in the staff report did those --
reading it word for word, were they applicable in the staff report for a motion or
do I need to go off of the revised --
Yearsley: You will need to basically --
McCarvel: Include this e-mail --
Yearsley: -- with these modifications.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
June 23, 2016
Page 17 of 62
McCarvel: Yeah.
Yearsley: Yeah.
McCarvel: Okay.
Yearsley: And I guess the question on one -- 7.1.3 -- do you have that one?
Just -- I guess --
Beach: Would you like to see that text?
Yearsley: Yeah. I guess the way I understand the clarification -- okay. So, we
probably need to make sure that -- and I guess you're assuming the thinking that
I'm assuming, that the ten foot pathway would oversee the five foot concrete, so
you don't have to do both, you can do the ten foot pathway. Is that correct?
Beach: That's correct. The highway district requires that five foot pathway, but
because we have a -- we have kind of altered our multi-use pathway plan to have
that go along there, it doesn't make sense to have both of those and there is no
reason to require that. So, yes, potentially multi-use pathway would be in place
of.
Yearsley: Okay. So, we will need to modify that one as well.
McCarvel: Okay.
Yearsley: Okay. Good luck.
McCarvel: Mr. Chairman?
Yearsley: Commissioner McCarvel.
McCarvel: After considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move to
recommend approval of file number H-2016-0036 as presented in the staff report
for the hearing date of May 5, 2016, with the following modifications: Accept the
wording on e-mail of May 12th as presented in the public report for 1.1.1C. That
reciprocal access be granted if the property to the west and east change. 1.1.1D
and E, that the timing of that pathway be within six months after the sewer and
water completion. 1.1.1H and 2.1.2, connect the water and sewer when it's
available. And 1.1.1K, that these buildings come up to code with design review
within six months of sewer and water and that the tower be removed upon
annexation and 7.1.13, confirm that the ten foot multi-use path is the only one
required.
Beach: Commissioner McCarvel?
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
June 23, 2016
Page 18 of 62
McCarvel: Yes.
Beach: Real quick. I will say that that's not a staff requirement, so --
McCarvel: Okay.
Beach: -- that's -- that's from the highway district, so we can't technically modify
that condition, but you can have the applicant work with Ada County Highway
District to insure that they are both not required.
McCarvel: Okay.
Beach: Which I think is a work around for that.
McCarvel: Okay. So, the proper wording of 7.1.3 is that the applicant work with
ACHD to make sure our ten foot pathway is acceptable for their five foot concrete
sidewalk.
Yearsley: Okay. And -- and I just ask for a clarification. On the reciprocal cross-
access easement to the east will be granted upon annexation to the city and is
developed as a -- she has got compatible use. Do we want to change that to a
nongravel pit operation?
McCarvel: Yes. I think the -- yeah.
Yearsley: Okay. Any comments?
Oliver: Mr. Chairman?
Yearsley: Commissioner Oliver.
Oliver: I second.
Yearsley: I have a motion and a second to approve file number H -2016-0036
with modifications. All in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries. Thank you.
MOTION CARRIES: THREE AYES. TWO ABSENT.
D. Public Hearing For Touchmark Cottage Units (H-2016-
0058) By Touchmark At Meadow Lake Village Located at
S. Of E Franklin Road and E of S Eagle Road on the N
Side of E Putter Lane and E of S Touchmark
1. Request: Modification to the Concept Plan
Approved with the Conditional Use Permit (CUP-
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
June 23, 2016
Page 19 of 62
99-039) to Remove the Alley Access for Seven (7)
of the Single-Family Residential Units
Yearsley: Next we are going to open up the public hearing for file number H-
2016-0058 for Touchmark Cottage Units and let's begin with the staff report.
Watters: Thank you, Chairman, Members of the Commission. The next
application before you -- excuse me. Did you say H-2016-0058?
Yearsley: Yes, I did.
Watters: Okay. Thank you. Sorry. That application is a request for a
conditional use permit modification. The site consists of 1.76 acres of land,
zoned L-O, located south of East Franklin Road and east of South Eagle Road,
on the north side of East Putter Lane and there is a vicinity map showing exactly
where the property is located. Adjacent land use and zoning. To the north is
vacant and undeveloped property, zoned L-O. To the east are single family
residential homes in the Touchmark Meadow Lake Village development, zoned
L-O. To the south is open space and recreational area for Meadow Lake Village,
zoned L-O and to the west is vacant, undeveloped property zoned L -O. This
property was annexed back in 2001 and included in the planned development for
the Touchmark Living Center's development, which included a mix of office,
retail, single family residential, and multi-family residential uses in the L-O district.
The applicant is proposing to modify the conditional use permit planned
development to remove the alley that was depicted on the conceptual
development plan for access to seven of the single family residential homes.
You can see here on the top left picture this is the alley right here that they are
requesting to remove. These homes would be accessed from the front via Putter
Lane. On-street parking, as well as a small parking lot across the street at the
recreation area can accommodate additional parking for guests if needed beyond
that provided on each lot. This is the proposed concept plan without the alley.
Shows their driveway accesses. A property boundary adjustment for this
property has been tentatively approved by staff. Final approval is required prior
to submittal of any building permits for the proposed stru ctures. Written
testimony was received from Tamara Thompson, the applicant's representative,
in agreement with the staff report. Staff is recommending approval. Stand for
any questions.
Yearsley: Thank you. Are there any questions? If not, would the applicant like
to come forward?
Thompson: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, my name is Tamara
Thompson. I'm with The land Group, 462 East Shore Drive in Eagle. First of all,
thank you for the change in the agenda. I appreciate getting back to back and I
will make this short and sweet. We have read the staff report. We agree with the
conditions and the findings and I will stand for questions.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
June 23, 2016
Page 20 of 62
Yearsley: Thank you. Are there any questions? No? Thank you.
Thompson: Thank you.
Yearsley: I have no one signed up for this application. Is there anyone wanting
to testify on this application? With that are there any other comments before we
close the public hearing? At that point I would entertain a motion to close the
public hearing for file number H-2016-0058.
Oliver: Mr. Chairman?
Yearsley: Commissioner Oliver.
Oliver: I move to close the public hearing on H-2016-0058.
McCarvel: Second.
Yearsley: I have a motion and a second to close the public hearing. All in favor
say aye. Opposed? Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIES: THREE AYES. TWO ABSENT.
Yearsley: Any comments?
McCarvel: Mr. Chairman?
Yearsley: Commissioner McCarvel.
McCarvel: I think it makes sense if they want to take that alley out. It would add
to the green space I'm sure and all the area out there, I think it would probably
make sense for them, as well as give them access to the additional parking
across the street for visitors.
Yearsley: I think you're right. Okay.
Oliver: Mr. Chairman?
Yearsley: Commissioner Oliver.
Oliver: I agree as well. I think that it will give a better look to the community out
there. I have driven through that, seen a lot of it, and I think it looks very nice to
have the -- to take that away I think would improve it as well, so I'm for it.
Yearsley: Thank you. So, with that I would entertain a motion.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
June 23, 2016
Page 21 of 62
McCarvel: Mr. Chairman?
Yearsley: Commissioner McCarvel.
McCarvel: After considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony I move to
approve file number H-2016-0058 as presented in the staff report for the hearing
date of June 23rd, 2016.
Oliver: Second.
Yearsley: I have a motion and a second to approve file number H-2016-0058.
All in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries. Thank you.
MOTION CARRIES: THREE AYES. TWO ABSENT.
B. Public Hearing for Pope's Garden (H-2016-0006
REVISED) by Iron Mountain Real Estate. Located at 2662
E Magic View Drive
1. Request: Amendment to the Comprehensive Plan
Future Land Use Map to Change the Land Use
Designation on 5.28 Acres of Land from Office to
Medium High Density Residential
2. Request: Annexation and Zoning of 5.28 Acres of
Land from the RUT to the R-15 Zoning District
3. Request: Preliminary Plat Approval consisting of
(Nineteen) 19 Building Lots, (Four) 4 Common
Lots and (One) 1 Other Lot on 5.28 Acres of Land
in the R-15 Zoning District.
4. Request: Conditional Use Permit Approval for a
MultiFamily Development Consisting of 76
Dwelling Units in the R-15 Zoning District
Yearsley: So, the one we are all waiting for. I will ask -- there is a lot of people
here and I promise anybody who wants to testify will have opportunity to testify. I
would appreciate keeping the noise down, clapping -- let's have this a
professional meeting. Let the applicant present his case. W e will let the people
talk and let's just be nice. And so with that I would enter -- sorry. I would like to
open file number H-2016-0006 for Pope's Garden and let's begin with the staff
report.
Watters: Thank you, Chairman Yearsley, Members of the Commission. The
applications before you with this application are a request for annexation and a
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
June 23, 2016
Page 22 of 62
Comprehensive Plan map amendment, a conditional use permit, and a
preliminary plat. This site consists of 5.28 acres of land. It's zoned RUT in Ada
County and is located 2662 East Magic View Drive. Adjacent land use and
zoning. To the north are rural residential homes in Greenhill Estates, zoned R -1
in Ada County. To the east is rural residential property with a home, also zoned
RUT in Ada County. It is designated office on the future land use map. To the
south is East Magic View Drive and two rural residential properties zoned RUT in
Ada County, designated as commercial on the future land use map. And to the
west are single family attached homes that are in the development process for
Waverly Place, zoned R-8. This property was previously platted as Lot 5 in the
amended Magic View Subdivis ion. The Commission reviewed a previous
development application for this property back in March that was recommended
for denial to City Council. Since that time the ACHD commission made a
decision to not require right of way to be dedicated for the extension of Hickory
Way on the west boundary of this site. Based on that decision the application
revised the plat to remove the street and I will just show here this is a -- excuse
me -- this is the Comprehensive Plan future land use map requested change.
The map on your left there is the previous preliminary plat that you reviewed.
Based on testimony at the Commission hearing the applicant revised the plat to
remove the street. Based on testimony on the Commission public hearing, the
applicant also removed the 11 units in three structures along the north boundary
of the site and converted this area to common area, with a structure housing a
property management office and a fitness facility to provide more of a transition
and buffer to rural residential properties to the north. Because the applicant, as
well as staff, felt these changes were significant, the applicant requested the
project be remanded back to the Commission for a review of the revised plans
and new recommendation to City Council. The Comprehensive Plan future land
use map designation for this site is currently office, as you can see there on the
top map. The applicant is proposing to amend the map contained in the
Comprehensive Plan to change the land use designation on 5.28 acres of land
from office to medium high density residential. Annexation and zoning of the
property is also requested with an R-15 zoning district consistent with the
proposed future land use map designation of medium high density residential. A
conditional use permit is requested for a multi-family development in a proposed
R-15 district. The revised plat on your right there depicts 19 four-plex structures
with a total of 76 dwelling units. This is three fewer units than the previous plat.
The proposed R-15 zoning district will accommodate the proposed multi -family
development with a gross density of 14.39 dwelling units per acre. The proposed
R-15 zoning provides a transition, zoning, and use from the west from Waverly
Place Subdivision with attached single family residential homes in R -8 zoning
and, further to the west from Woodbridge Subdivision was single family
residential detached homes in R-4 zoning and from the north from Greenhill
Estates Subdivision with single family detached homes in R -1 zoning in Ada
County, designated on the future land use map as low density residential. This is
a transition to future office and commercial uses to the east and south of Magic
View Drive. The revised preliminary plat consists of 19 building lots, four
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
June 23, 2016
Page 23 of 62
common area lots, and one other lot. There is an existing home and accessory
structures on this site that are required to be removed prior to city engineer's
signature on the final plat. The proposed plat depicts access for the
development via two access points on each Magic View Drive. Point those out
with my pointer here on the map. The section of Magic View west of South Wells
Street, which is this street that comes up here, is designated as a local street and
the section of Magic View East of Wells Street is designated as a collector street.
Access is required to be approved by Council on the collector street, as our UDC
does restrict access to collectors when local access is available. A minimum of
ten percent or .53 of an acre of qualified open space is required in accord with
UDC standards. A total of 21.5 percent or 1.13 acres is proposed. A minimum of
five qualified site amenities are required with this development. The applicant
proposes a tot lot with children's play equipment, a hardscaped plaza area with
seating. Three 50 foot by 100 foot open grassy areas and a fitness facility as
amenities in accord with UDC standards. The unopened right of way at the north
-- excuse me -- northwest boundary of this site for Hickory Way was previously
provided to be extended from the south from Autumn Way and that is this street
right here that you can see -- is now required to be improved by the developer
with a minimum 20 foot wide pedestrian, bicycle, and emergency access. One
concept building elevation was submitted for the proposed four-plex structures on
the site in four different color schemes. Building materials consist of horizontal
and vertical lap siding with stone veneer accents and architectural shingles.
These elevations are conceptual only and not approved with this application.
Compliance with the design standards contained in the architectural standards
manual is required, which require more variety between structures. And this is a
copy of the proposed landscape plan that has been revised with the revised plat.
As you can see there is a lot of landscaping throughout the site, but especially
along this north boundary. Staff also recommended as a condition of approval
that the applicant provide a more dense landscape buffer adjacent to this existing
rural residential property here that would allow trees to touch at maturity. So, the
application is in agreement with that. Written testimony has been received. A
petition with 53 signatures from neighbors requesting the Commission deny the
proposed development based on objections to the changes to the future land use
map from office to medium high density residential. They pref er the office
designation to remain over the medium high density. Reasons for objection are
the development doesn't provide adequate transition from the R -1 neighborhood
to the north. Increased traffic caused by medium high density residential
development and the impact to surrounding residential areas. Walter Faling also
submitted written testimony objecting to the development due to traffic concerns,
accessing Locust Grove through Woodbridge Subdivision, and supports the
future land use map designation remaining office. Staff is recommending
approval with the conditions in the staff report per the requirements in the
development agreement contained in the staff report. Staff will stand for any
questions.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
June 23, 2016
Page 24 of 62
Yearsley: Thank you. Are there any questions? With that would the applicant
like to come forward? Please state your name and address for the record.
Amar: Yes, sir. Good evening Commissioners. My name is Kevin Amar. My
address is 1548 West Cayuse Creek Drive in Meridian. I'm here tonight t o
represent Pope's Gardens. We were here before in March with an understanding
that ACHD was requiring an additional connection to Greenhill Estates.
Subsequent to that meeting, both from efforts from the neighbors, as well as our -
- Kent Brown, our planner, ACHD has removed that requirement from connecting
into Greenhill Estates, thus allowing us to redesign this project and creating --
creating a more compatible use. I'm going to go through some of those changes
initially and, then, we can talk about the project specifically. When this was
presented before we met the UDC standards -- and met all those standards.
However, now we are able to -- from that point we reduced the total number of
units that we were presenting before. We also reduced the number of buildings
that we were presenting. We increased the amenities that we were requesting
and we also increased the open space that we were able to do. So, essentially,
what we did is took where that road was going to be, we didn't add any more
units. In fact, we eliminated some units and, then, we added that entire area into
open space for the community. We also added a community leasing office, as
well as a fitness facility that is for use of the residents within this -- this
neighborhood. Just to create that feeling where people are going to live and
enjoy and have the amenities within the subdivision that they need. As we are
looking at the open space and looking at the area that we want people to gather,
also trying to be compatible with the neighbors, we did locate the fitness facility
on that boundary line, although that's going to be a single story fitness facility, so
it won't be intrusive to those neighbors, but we also located the area, the
playground structures, the sitting area, the plaza -- we located those further to
the south in that -- somehow I should be able to point with this. Well --
Yearsley: You need to pick a color.
Amar: Uh-huh. Thank you. So, we located the -- there is a tot -- I swear I picked
a color. I will try a different color. Anyway --
Watters: Kevin, we have been having problems with that. I'm sorry.
Amar: What's that?
Watters: We have been having problems with that board.
Amar: Well, we will just go through it. So, we -- we located the tot lot, as well as
the plaza and the active open spaces, the places where we anticipate people to
gather between the -- in the center of the entire project. We understand that this
is an area of transition between what is low density residential in Ada County, as
well as additional residential ground that is in the city of Meridian. However, we
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
June 23, 2016
Page 25 of 62
also know that this is an area that is going to transition into a much higher use
than what even we are proposing here and we will go through that thi s evening.
We have heard that some of the concerns for not wanting this project is
compatibility, as well as traffic, and with this new proposal we have increased
compatibility, meaning on the northern boundary of our project we -- we are from
-- no closer than 40 feet to the property line with our first building, up to 130 feet
from the property line to the first building. In addition to that, along our northern
boundary we will be placing a three foot berm and on top of that berm a six foot
fence. So, we have got a nine foot total barrier similar to what they have done on
the office buildings further to the east, but increasing the amount parking or as
close as we can get to the parking as shown in the slide later on. Sonya, how do
I flip through the PowerPoint? I can't do that either?
Watters: Which slide would you like?
Amar: You just start with the first one and I will tell you next. Do you have this
one?
Watters: Just a moment.
Amar: So -- sorry. We will just keep going through this. As we mentioned, the
area that we are in in the city's Comprehensive Plan that we are asking to
change, we are also asking for a CUP for this project, understanding that any --
any commercial -- or, I'm sorry, multi-family project requires a CUP in the City of
Meridian. So, in this area it is currently a very intense future land use map. It's
designated for light office, as well as commercial. Multi-family homes is a less
intense use than either one of those items on the spectrum of uses and so in an
effort to have that transition not only providing the buffer space between the
areas of Greenhill and our project, it also provides that transition from the
neighboring property to the west. We do have the support specifically of one of
the neighbors, the Eberts in the Greenhill Estates, because they view this now as
increased space that they don't have to worry about cars, office buildings, or any
other views that they might have within this project. Sonya, could you go to the
next slide. This was the previous map that did have buildings along the west, as
well as the basketball court and other things. The new map -- Sonya, go to the
next slide, please. The new map does have the leasing office, as well as the
business facility, but we have removed the basketball court altogether, because
that pounding of the basketball we understand could be disruptive and increase
the open space in the tot lot and the plaza and moved all those location s further
to the south away from those neighbors and really center it to the entire project.
We also understand and agree with the staff report that the intensity of trees
along the boundary that
-- our eastern boundary needs to be increased, so at the time of full grow out
that those canopies will -- the trees will touch in the canopies and we are in
agreement with that. Sonya, the next slide, please.
Maybe the next one.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
June 23, 2016
Page 26 of 62
Watters: I'm not sure what it's doing, Kevin. It doesn't --
Amar: Within the comprehensive land map we evaluated some of the other
businesses that are within this area. We choose this site as we discussed before
because of the employment centers that are within this area. There really is no
multi-family housing to -- to accommodate this area. We have got St. Luke's.
We have got all the medical offices. You have got hotels. You have got all of
Silverado and Golden -- El Dorado. Silverstone. As well as Scentsy and all
those campuses along that area that -- that need this type of product. The influx
of people in this area is massive during the day when people are driving to work.
With the thought of this project this will allow people to live near where they also
work and live in an area that really is harmonious with the surrounding areas and
provides the amenities that -- that people enjoy living next to. These are not low
income housing by any means. The rent s are going to be pretty significant. We
charge about a dollar a square foot, which is higher or as high as the average --
sorry. It's above average rents for the area , just because of what we are
providing. Are we --
Watters: We are going.
Amar: We are working on it? Okay. Well, if we can go -- go to the next slide.
Watters: It will switch slides now if you press the arrow, Kevin.
Amar: All right. If we look at the area look, then, we look at some of the
compatibility next to other parts of Greenhill and we looked into Woodbridge and
that portion that is adjacent to Greenhill, those two story homes are built 20 feet
from the property line next to the one acre lots in Greenhill. If we look to the
office building further to the Mountain West Bank or ATM branch further to the
east, that parking is actually within five feet of the fence line of Greenhill. We
have open space a minimum of 40 feet away to thes e first buildings and the
majority of the size -- there is 130 feet until the first building and there are no
windows, front doors -- or there are some side windows on the buildings
themselves. But we have situated the buildings, so all of those active ar eas, the
entrances and the exits -- thank you -- will not be looking upon the neighbors,
they are looking internal to the project. So, if we looked in this -- in this project,
the lower right-hand illustration is the -- the Mountain West Bank and it shows
that that area that is adjacent to and there are pictures that are showing the
fence line that is adjacent to Greenhill and you can see parking is within five feet
of that. The building is actually within about 40 feet of that -- of that property line.
This will be an additional hundred feet away, really the first building. There are
two buildings that are closer. And, then, if you look in the bottom left-hand
corner, that is the -- the homes that are adjacent to Greenhill, many are two
story, they are within 20 feet of that property line. So, our transition is much
greater and provides a more compatible -- more compatible project. Next slide,
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
June 23, 2016
Page 27 of 62
Sonya, and we will talk about traffic. So, as we look at traffic studies and we had
this done by a traffic engineer, this wasn't done by us, this isn't -- the traffic study
was not required for this project, although in the interest of disclosing and finding
out what was really going to happen, we commissioned a traffic study. The traffic
on our multi-family project -- in order to incorporate and calculate those trips, is
just over five vehicle trips per day per unit. On a residential it's a little over nine
vehicle trips per day per unit. On office buildings it's 11 vehicle trips per day per
unit. And on medical dental office it's 36 vehicle trips per day per unit and those
are all people that are traveling in. So, the proposed use and the argument that
traffic will be increased more than an office building because of this project, is
just not true. There is much more traffic in an office setting, especially if we get
into medical office settings than any of the multi-family will ever have and our
intensity of traffic is much less during those peak hours. In the peak hours we
have very few people relative to office buildings coming and going. In the peak
hour in office buildings those people are coming to and going home from work.
So, our traffic with this project is much less than any other use that is being
contemplated. Sonya, could you go to the next slide? I'm sorry. The next one.
This is a project not far from here. It's in Windstone Place just off of Wells Street.
Currently -- this is a four acre site and about a third of it -- maybe two-thirds of,
sorry. Two-thirds of it built out and about third of it is still left to be constructed.
There are six dentists in this location. There is a real estate office. There is
some other cosmetic type offices in this area and currently this project, according
to ACHD calculations, at build out will be almost 900 vehicle trips per day. We
are under 400 vehicle trips per day. I need to make sure that's right. And so --
and that's with just a four acre site versus -- versus an over five acre site and our
vehicle trips are much, much less. Sonya, the next slide, please. As we went
and searched on Google maps on how to get to these various items from areas
in -- so, Chief Joseph Elementary, Meridian Greens Subdivision, Thousand
Springs Subdivision, we searched to an address in that Windstone office
complex. Google maps takes us right through Woodbridge Subdivision. So,
again, if people are traveling to the dentist, if they are traveling to the bank, if
they are traveling to the BSU campus, and they are living in that area, they are
driving through Woodbridge Subdivision with much more intense use of traffic
than will be this -- this apartment complex. We know that transition is hard for
people and change is hard for people. But we also know from the compatibility
spectrum residential is more compatible as residential than office and
commercial is compatible with residential and most areas that is the transition
that is provided, they want some low density, medium density to high density to
office to an intense use commercial. That's what we are proposing here. Other
projects that have recently been approved, s peaking specifically of Regency --
I'm sorry. There are three story and four story buildings -- and this was just
approved by the city on their last plat, right adjacent to Redfeather Subdivision.
We are so much more compatible to this and I know that th e neighbors here are
going to say, yeah, I don't care, because I don't live there. The reality is is our
compatibility is greater than office buildings. Our compatibility helps the
neighborhood. It provides something that the city did not have there tha t allows
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
June 23, 2016
Page 28 of 62
people to work -- live where they work and it also allows that transition that it is a
good neighbor as -- as illustrated by the Eberts who are now in support of this
project, whereas before they were not, because this provides a better transition .
We appreciate your time and we ask for your approval and I will answer any
questions.
Yearsley: Thank you. Are there any questions?
McCarvel: Mr. Chairman?
Yearsley: Commissioner McCarvel.
McCarvel: What's the number of parking spots now per unit and covered and
noncompacts and that kind of stuff?
Amar: So, compact we -- sorry, Commissioner Yearsley and Commissioner
McCarvel. We don't have any compact spaces currently contemplated. We have
one covered space per unit and we have 2.25 spaces per unit overall.
McCarvel: Okay. So, any visitor parking at all?
Amar: Yes, because that would be -- so, the requirement for parking is two
spaces per -- per unit, so, yeah, we have a number of spaces simply for visitors.
Excess parking if you will.
Yearsley: Any other questions? Thank you.
Amar: Thank you.
Yearsley: So, I have multiple sheets here. Trying to go through them all -- we do
have all this information. It goes in the record and so your names and stuff are in
there. However, I would just like to open it up to the public at this point. Is there
anyone who would like to go first? Please. And, please, state your name and
address for the record.
Overton: My name is John Overton. 1922 East Bowstring in Woodbridge
Subdivision. Good evening, Commissioners, city staff. Several weeks ago we
did this. We thought it was done. We are going to go back over some of the
high points, because even though the applicant has come to you tonight and told
you there is changes, those changes are worse now than they were before.
When we originally talked about this we talked about zoning. The application
was being explained to us as being a good transition. It was an R-15 and we
were looking directly at that R-8 next door. Somehow we forgot to look at the R-
1 and the R-4. Somehow we forgot to think that there was a reason the
comprehensive map said L-O and R-8. R-15 is the biggest reason we fear this
development is because no matter how nice they say it's going to be, with this
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
June 23, 2016
Page 29 of 62
narrow view of how transition is being used, we have no reason to believe that
you won't go one lot to the east and have application for an R-40 high density, if
all we are doing is looking at the single lot and saying that's a good transition.
Furthermore, if this is approved as an R-15 we have a real fear, because it is the
hot selling number right now, that we are going to have more R-15s spread
throughout this end of Woodbridge -- or next to Woodbridge and back up to
Greenhill Estates. And I should say for the record, I did grow up in Greenhill
Estates and I will talk a little bit about history. I used to park at Wells and Magic
View and it was a dead end drive. My best friend lived there. Those roads have
not changed in 35 years. They are still the same narrow roads. They have
asphalt on them -- they did change. They asphalted the dirt. It's still a very
narrow road that runs off to a runoff for snow and ice. But there have been no
changes to prepare this whole area for development. It's developed one five
acre parcel at a time. There has been no master plan. There has been no re-
engineering to make this safe from a traffic safety perspective at any point in
time. None. Let's talk about traffic. We a re talking about a square mile of
ground surrounded by roads with speed limits of 40 and 50 miles an hour with
I-84 running through it. There is only one road that goes all the way through that
square mile it happens to run through Woodbridge. It's the only road that goes
east to west. It cuts through Woodbridge, splits up, comes back out to Magic
View express way. Now, we get cut-through traffic every day. We have looked
at the different ways to deal with this. The police have been out, the y have put
radar trailers out. The only solution is a massive reconstruction and engineering
effort, a serious look at trying to fix this. Building issues like this, medium
density, you're not helping it and I will go on to why I don't believe for two
seconds most of that traffic study what was just giving to you. So, it's a big
question when you face reengineering for the future is by putting a medium
density residential project next to us, the moment we connect -- or the only
change that was made when we connected our phase two of Woodbridge to
Magic View was stop signs. Nothing else just now. There was no other change.
Any future development to the east of Woodbridge will have an increase effect on
our subdivision to further hamper the problems we h ave got that make this area
unique is the fact that when you go out -- let's say you go out to the east -- let's
say everybody went out to Eagle Road. Well, ACHD controls all the roads until
you get to Eagle. Now you're dealing with ITD. Now you have two different
entities that meet at St. Luke's Lane and ITD. Or, excuse me, Eagle Road. Let's
add a little bit more of the mix, because we don't have enough traffic issues right
now, so let's talk about one the highest average daily traffic counts in the V alley,
comes off Eagle Road, one of the highest in entire valley -- the highest daily
traffic count right now is just down the road in Fairview and Eagle. But the
highest numbers are the ones coming off of Eagle Road. So, let's couple it with
one more thing, because this is -- this isn't enough fun yet, let's have the fact that
we have got St. Luke's Hospital right there and it is the most reset signal in the
city due to all the ambulances that dispatch out of the hospital and come back in
transporting patients. I'm not going to complain for one minute about what their
job is, but every time they come through with their Optacon system running, they
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
June 23, 2016
Page 30 of 62
reset that signal, backing the traffic on St. Luke's Lane up further and further. It
is what it is and we deal with that currently today. So, let's talk about a little bit of
history and what we do now and one of the biggest differences between the
traffic study that says there is going to be fewer trips and reality. Many of us live
in Woodbridge now and possibly people that live in Greenhill. We take a walk in
the evenings and on weekends and several of us even nicknamed it the hotel
loop, because with it being light office and the R-8 development, in the evenings
there is very little traffic, but on the weekends there is, again, very little traffic.
So, it's a nice place. It's an amenity. But we can walk around that area. You put
a high or medium density residential project in there, two things happen. First is
we are going to have round the clock traff ic. They are going to be coming out --
they are going to be going to gymnastics, maybe the police department, the dog
park, the speedway, City Hall, Winco, Home Depot, Flying Pie Pizzaria. Did I
mention that every single one of those entities they are go ing to come through
Woodbridge to get to? They are going to be driving through our city -- or through
our subdivision more often than many of these doctors' trips that they are talking
about. We don't have an on ramp and off ramp at Locust Grove and the
interstate. A lot of people coming to these doctors' offices, both are destinations
and you have to remember that. We are talking a destination. Someone is going
for an appointment. This medium density residential development is a generator.
They generate traffic out of that. They are not a destination. That's where they
live. They go to work. They go to school. They go to the market. They go for
entertainment. They are driving out at all different times seven days a week.
One of the things we have always liked about the light office and the fact it was
R-8, is the fact that when most of that traffic comes through our kids are in school
Monday through Friday. We do have to face it in the summer, but in the
evenings and on the weekends those medical offices are closed and we are not
having to deal with all that traffic. Sure it happens during the day, but if there
was a preference, that's when we want it. We don't want it 24 hours a day
coming through there. Now, I have heard property rights mentioned. Not so
much tonight as it was last time we were in front of you and I know it's a very big
issue when it gets in front of the City Council. We want to mention it, because
we think it's important. We understand the rights of a property owner to develop
the property the way he wants to, but we want it on the record that this
development affects several hundred other property owners who have made the
single largest purchase of their lives in this community, in this city, and they are
the ones -- we are the ones left to pick up the pieces left behind by this and any
subsequent R-15 medium density development. Now, further on that, when we
talk about traffic and you talk about apartments, you guys are seeing apartments
come through this city like crazy. I see the developments coming in. They are all
over the place. Within a mile there is several approved medium and high density
residential apartments. They are the hot ticket right now. We get it. But none of
those push traffic back through a subdivision. They are usually designed so that
when the -- or when the apartment complex dumps traffic back on a road, it's
dumping it on a collector street feeding into an arterial. Magic View is a
collection. Eagle Road, the other roads, they are arterials. Every single road
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
June 23, 2016
Page 31 of 62
within the Woodbridge Subdivision -- and this is directly from ACHD from Justin
Lucas -- every single road is designated as a local residential street. By
approving this R-15 you would be pushing -- knowingly pushing more traffic from
this residential project back through another residential subdivision and
increasing that traffic flow. When we look at development -- and we have had
several meeting within our subdivision, just in W oodbridge -- we are not anti-
development. We believe in what the Mayor said. We believe in the medical
corridor. It's one of the things that drew us to this area. I have got my in -laws
living with me. They need those medical offices and take advantage of all the
other medical offices that get built. That was a huge advantage to us. They go
for walks within our subdivision. They have to deal with the increased traffic . We
are not against the development. What we are against is changing the zoning. It
was done for a reason. We should stick to what the comprehensive map says,
respect it, deny this application for a rezone, stick to the L -O, stick to the R-8,
with the Comprehensive Plan. It was a good move by the city. It's still a good
move. It's still the right decision and we think it should be respected. I stand for
any questions.
Yearsley: Any questions? Thank you. If we can, please. I understand the
emotions are high. If we can kind of keep the clapping down so we can get
through this quicker, we would appreciate it. Is there anybody else that would
like to testify?
Voorhees: My name is Jim Voorhees. I live at 208 South Ravenswood Drive in
Greenhill Estates. I'm the president of Greenhill Estates Homeowners
Association. I have turned into Sonya yesterday a petition saying -- a petition to
deny Pope's Garden's rezoning from Ada County to the R-15 in the City of
Meridian and visited with her for a few minutes and she was very helpful. She
explained to me about R-2, R-4, R-8, and now R-15 and we have a petition that
we sent to you and there is 64 signatures on it. All of us vehemently opposed to
this residential development with 74 units in it. If you multiply it times four people
you're talking 300. We have 74 homes in our 74 acre subdivision. Thank you for
not allowing the road to go through our subdivision. We really appreciate that.
We appreciate the three foot berm and the six foot fence and only having the little
fitness building backed up there. We do appreciate that. But we don't need to
change the whole -- the whole concept of where Woodbridge and Greenhill
Estates have acre and half acre lots and the zoning that is already in place, let's
leave it in place, please. We don't need to add that and to have all the traffic go
through Woodbridge, go out onto Eagle Road and we appreciate you considering
that.
Yearsley: Thank you.
Voorhees: Thank you.
Yearsley: Okay. You had your hand up first, so -- please.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
June 23, 2016
Page 32 of 62
Rockrohr: First of all, thank you for having us. We appreciate that and we will try
to keep it quick. My name is Mary Rockrohr. I live at 2715 East Autumn Way in
the Greenhill Estates. Most of my concerns have already been addressed. One
area -- obviously, R-1, which is what Greenhill is, abutting up to an R-15, which is
what Pope's Garden is going to be. I don't see that, despite their changes, which
were a little bit better, but still it's -- it's not right at all. The transition is not there
and I won't even speak of the Howell's, whose is the property just east of the
development, which it is five acres with one building, and they have suddenly all
these buildings right on their property line. There is no transition there
whatsoever. The other areas that we would be commenting about would be the
amenities that Pope's Garden talks about. They were saying that they do have
the tot area, which is good. They have some open grass area. That's good also.
They do have a very small building, less than 300 square feet, that's going to be
part leasing office and may contain workout equipment. But that's it. As far as
the high rent apartment complex, I don't see it. There is no pool. There is no
clubhouse. There is no real big open space. The open space they have will be
for the dog and I'm sure the dog will appreciate that area, as long as somebody
cleans up after those dogs. But these people that are going to be in this -- in this
project, will eventually seek out the pool at Woodbridge that Woodbridge
Homeowners are paying for and you can be guaranteed that any of the kids that
are visiting at Pope's Gardens or happen to reside there, aren't going to consider
that at all. Those are the ones who will take the opportunity to wait to get i nto
what they have, which is a very nice pool, but they aren't paying for it. The other
areas that need to be addressed definitely is when this project goes for sale.
Each one of these units are going to be sold separately. They are going to have
different owners -- landowners for each one of these. Right now they will
probably have one management company managing it. But as soon as you get
several owners in there that cannot agree on a management company or don't
particularly care about what a management company is doing -- or they will
amend the CC&Rs and possibly get several different management companies in.
Now suddenly you're going to have competition between management
companies and if within a couple years the rents get a little bit soft, you're going
to have a major competition with a lack of concern for the particular property that
we are talking about. The corridor of Eagle Road is so beautiful coming off the
freeway. The office complexes are great. They are concerned about their
appearance. If down the road where you have different management companies
coming in and possibly arguing with each other, they may not consider that at all.
They may let that laps. Just try and get the rents in there and appease their
landlord. The one other area would obviously be the noise as was addressed.
And I take it that's my notice to quit. Anyways, thank you very much for your
time.
Yearsley: Thank you. Okay. Gentleman in the --
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
June 23, 2016
Page 33 of 62
Barber: Commissioners and staff, thank you. My name is Kelly Barber. I'm at
2482 East Autumn Way in Greenwood. Appreciate the time. I think, basically, I
think Mr. Overton covered about everything most of us say. I think it was
fantastic. I just want to -- not give you any of the factual stuff, but kind of take -- I
think some of the big picture approach that concerns me a little bit about the
developer and the representatives in the meetings that we have had and, you
know, I think he mentioned emotions are kind of high. I have to say this has
been a pretty low emotion meeting for the most part, whether it has been a t the
neighborhood meetings or here, I have been really impressed with everyone's
professionalism really. Especially when we have folks that have lived there for a
long period of time, but I just think the sense that I get from the developer is this
notion that mistakes were made previously when -- when Woodbridge was
developed and maybe there were some mistakes about the way we should have
thought about traffic back then or maybe mistakes were made or -- you know, at
the time the Comprehensive Plan was put together and the future uses were
designated and so you have a couple bad choices and we think o urs is the least
bad of all those. So, we have got a bunch or problems, let's just do something
that's not quite a bad as it could be and I just feel like all the things that we stand
and this beautiful City Hall here and all the things that the Mayor has put out
there in the articles that we all read about what a great place to live Meridian is
and in my job every day I see people who are coming in that we are recruiting,
coming in from other places all over the country just to live in this community
because of this community and I think do we really have to be stuck with the
least bad choice when we have these kind of things in front of us and so in the
conversations I have had with people in our neighborhood over in Greenhill
Estates -- and, again, this is -- the traffic doesn't affect me directly, it affects the
Woodbridge folks and that's why I'm still here, I could just as easily be home
now, because it doesn't affect me anymore. It's not right in my backyard. I'm not
one of those properties that abuts up against it, but we all want that area to be
developed in a way that's good for the city, that's good for the community, and
that will ultimately be representative of what our community can be and I think
the good things that I have heard in the conve rsations with neighbors is, to echo
Mr. Overton's comments, people are saying, yeah, we should develop this. Let's
figure out a way to do it. We have a lot of open space in there now, some of it
can't be built on, so let's just -- maybe there is some things we can do with that.
Maybe we can turn it into a park, maybe we can turn it into some other uses, so I
don't think we are stuck in this conundrum where we just have to do something
right now and I think the wisdom I think from this Commission and the last time
around, I think kind of bore that out. So, I would just hope that we could have a
bigger perspective on this, not get caught in the moment. Someone at the ACHD
hearing brought this up and I thought it was a good example, without using
specific city names, like this person did, there have been other communities in
our area that have felt desperate and had to make decisions like this, because
they didn't feel like they had options. We have options. We are in a good place
and I think we should act like -- act like we have those options, not act like we are
in a situation where there is desperation. What we are seeing here is a lot of
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
June 23, 2016
Page 34 of 62
esthetic changes that I think are nice, but they haven't addressed the real core
problem of what we really want to do with this area and the traffic that is still a
huge issue and hasn't been resolved. So, thanks for your time.
Yearsley: Thank you. The gentleman in the green.
Sodine: Good evening. Thanks for inviting us over. My name is Ian Sodine and
I live at 2663 East Autumn Way, Greenhill Estates. I am one of the properties
that this development will back right up against. My first comment is on the
berms. So, if you go to the bank at 5:00 -- to the berm and the fence for the
parking lot -- there is another five feet on the other side of that berm before you
get to the main irrigation ditch path for the water district. And, then, the property
from the people and if you really took it into real measurements there is probably
20 feet or 25 feet. I like that they are going to put a berm in, but a berm means
that it's centered. Who is taking care of the back side of the fence that butts right
up against my property line and the irrigation district, running through there. So,
I'm concerned about the water and making sure that I don't have run off or flow
issues because they are changing the landscape and how that's going to
manage water that runs through that property, then, my second is on the traffic. I
appreciate that the road will not punch through, but Ada County decided that we
would still have a walking path and Woodbridge has a walking path. Well, they
have a sidewalk, but people still love to come into Greenhill Estates. It's a one
mile loop. It's just a really nice country setting. A lot of dogs. A lot of folks. In
the wintertime it becomes incredibly hazardous, because we have no sidewalks
and we have no lights, so the residents in Greenhill Estates all wear flashing
lights or reflective clothing. People out of Woodbridge maybe not so much. Now
that they have got an apartment complex showing up it just adds to my difficulty
driving of hours with my work schedule to come in and out and making sure that
I don't actually have somebody walking at 5:00 in the morning or 7:00 or 8:00 at
night and I'm not sure what it will bring, but I know you won't walk around that
apartment complex for a mile. So, I see them still coming into my subdivision
and, then, that's going to add to look at this or look at that. I'm not sure they are
all thieves. I have done a lot of renting when I was in the Navy, but apartments
always seem to bring some element and I'd like to minimize that if possible.
Thanks very much.
Yearsley: Thank you. The gentleman in the back. Either one.
Stefan: Mr. Chairman, Commissioners. John Stefan. 566 South Thornwood
Way and I'm in the Woodbridge Subdivision. I will try to be pretty succinct. I
think a lot of stuff has already been summed up here by Mr. Overton specifically,
kind of hit most of my bullet points anyway. But if I could just mention -- if I can
do this in like three -- three points really here. The first one is what I would call
predictability and what I mean by that is that there is a great number of residents
here, Woodbridge and Greenhill, who purchased our homes and we -- you know,
we saw the Meridian -- the city master plan and we took that in good faith that
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
June 23, 2016
Page 35 of 62
this is how this area was going to be developed and which is one of the things
that made the Woodbridge Subdivision specifically a very desirable place to live.
There is accessibility, because we do connect out to Locust Grove, we do
connect to Eagle Road, but in real life no one tends to really go on Eagle Road
unless -- if they can avoid it at any cost. So, Woodbridge is the cut through to get
to where they want to go for the most part, especially if they are moving east. In
any case, there is probably a lot of people here tonight that may not have
purchased their home had they known that there was going to be changes to this
plan or if the plan had shown high density or medium high density and otherwise.
So, I just kind of want to point that out first of all, it's about predictability and what
the city's plan has been and with everybody moving in I think predictabl y --
predictability going forward is still an incredibly important thing to have and so
that future residents can come in and they can understand what the long range
vision for the tenth fastest growing city in the United States, you know, is going to
do. So, the next one is the word just precedent and it's -- honestly, I think the
design and their revised design is a lot more obtrusive than the -- than the
original. It still I don't believe has a great transition from R-15 with an R-1 on the
subdivision right on the other side. However, approval of a zone change like this
sets a precedent that will culminate in two years, in five years. That precedent
means that we do one, then, it's going to be awfully hard to say -- to deny
another one if another R-15 wants to go next door or if it's something even higher
density wants to come in as far as residential and creates the final kind of
problem here, which you heard strongly or numerous times, so I won't hammer
on it, but it's the traffic flow and in all of this, looking at how this would set a
precedent and this area is going to be developed and it's going to grow, there
have been no solutions and the one thing I have not heard is a lot of -- there is a
lot of people talking about traffic, there is a lot of people -- but, honestly, there
has been no solutions presented. ACHD doesn't have them. The city doesn't
have them. No one -- the developer, no one is putting them forward and that,
obviously, as you're seeing, is one of the main concerns. Again, we have to stop
meeting like this, so I thank you guys for your time.
Yearsley: Thank you. Gentlemen over on this side. Try and mix it up a little bit.
Sharp: I'm Dale Sharp. 2170 East Springwood Drive, Greenhill Estates. I'm
opposed to any zone change. This has been zoned that way forever, ever since
I have been there. That's ten years and there is other people here it's been
longer. And to make this high density up against our established residents that
we have, family residents, one acre and half acres, both Woodbridge and
Greenhill Estates. As far as traffic concerns, I'm not affected like Woodbridge is,
but I see traffic safety concerns in my neighborhood all the time. Sometimes I
think the police department has their headquarters over at Foothill Estates, which
is right across Franklin from where I live. I live right on the corner of Wetherby
and Springwood and I see police going in that Foothills Estates all the time. So, I
think, well, maybe they moved their headquarters from over here to over there.
And another thing, there is few instances that I have -- I have been a victim of
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
June 23, 2016
Page 36 of 62
and I have seen other people be a victim of. People have traversed my east
property line, which is an acre, all the way across to Springwood coming from --
on the north side to the south side. And another time somebody took out the
neighbor's mailbox at Franklin to come around over by my property -- the ruts
were that deep and, then, they went around and hit the fence of my neighbor and
took it out and that's where he was when the police came and the police came
and knocked on my door and I said knock it off -- it was about 2:00 o'clock in the
morning and I didn't know who it was. But I know the policeman. So, anyway,
we were friends with his folks. He said, well, get your shoes on, I want to show
you something. So, I went out there and they were that deep where the guy had
gone through there and, then, went over and met the -- took out the neighbor's
fence. Another time a couple came around and went down west and before you
turn the corner they hit the house on the -- went over their lawn, hit the house on
the corner and damaged their house, their fireplace, they had to replace all that.
Another time I had --
De Weerd: If you can wrap it up quickly, please. Your time is up.
Sharp: Another time a young fellow -- it was wintertime, he was going a little
faster even than weather would permit and he zeroed in on our neighbor's and
my mailbox, which is across the street, and he threw a direct strike. Anyway, we
had to resurrect that -- he did pay for the -- for that. Then there is -- I'm aware of
two of our neighbors that had been broken into just recently and so, you know,
there is lots that goes on traffic safety and if you put it all -- a dwelling for what is
being proposed here, we are going to have issues that -- not only traffic, but
safety and as far as another -- any access, we don't need an emergency access -
- another one from Hickory over to -- from Greenhill Estates to Woodbridge. We
have got
a --
Yearsley: Sir.
Sharp: -- pedestrian path --
Yearsley: I'm sorry, but your time is up. We need to end it quickly, please.
Sharp: Okay. Just a second. We only have -- we only have one down -- and
just about straight across from where I live over on Autumn Way and -- and as far
as access, the police are going to Woodbridge or they are going to come around
Locust Grove, to Franklin, and come into Greenhill. And as far as the fire
department or ambulance, they are going to come down Franklin, turn on Locust
Grove, go down to Woodbridge, or they are going to come straight down and
come into -- to Greenhill Estates or they can come from the hospital over there.
So, I think all these arguments for this is nil. Thank you.
Yearsley: Thank you. The gentleman over here in the blue.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
June 23, 2016
Page 37 of 62
Peterson: Hi. My name is Ron Peterson. I live at 503 South Thornwood Way in
Meridian, Idaho, in Woodbridge Subdivision. You have heard a lot about the
traffic, a lot about property values. I believe that everybody has -- or should have
a right to develop as they see fit. I do not believe that this is harmonious with our
development and the other development around us. And particularly where I live
-- we are at the end of Woodbridge Street where it turns left. We have had three
cars hit my front yard. We have had tire tracks through our yard. We have had
our mailbox knocked down. So, traffic is really a big issue. I have an eight year
old daughter and in the evenings we will go and we walk and we walk to the pool
and increasing traffic in the evening hours is really a big concern of ours.
Property values being the second. So, hope you take them into consideration
and thank you for your time.
Yearsley: Thank you. The lady up front.
Smith: Hello. My name is Katie Smith. Thank you for your time. I live in the
Woodbridge Subdivision. My address is 496 South Thornwood Way, which is the
corner of Bowstring and Thornwood Way, which is the second -- there is two 90
degree turns from off Bowstring. The second 90 degree turn is my house. I
bought my house about eight months ago. It was my dream house for my family.
Our first house. We have a beautiful, large lot. I have three young children ages
eight, five and three. However, sadly, I feel as a mother that I can never let them
play outside. Even when I'm with them, which is always, I feel like I have to hold
their hands for their protection. There is constant traffic throughout the day,
especially at night during rush hour, but even during the day there is constant
traffic. I feel there has been times just backing out of my driveway where I have
almost been hit by people zooming around the corner. The visibility is very low
and the people treat it like a highway, they speed right through there. I just -- as
a mom I fear for the children in this neighborhood, especially with the
development the traffic will only get worse. Many of the driveways in our area
are slanted, balls can easily roll down them and children will chase them and I
would hate for my children or any children in our neighborhood to get seriously
injured or worse if safety issues are not resolved. Thank you.
Yearsley: Thank you. The lady in the back.
Somazzi: Hi. My name is Lorrie Somazzi. I live at 1896 East Bowstring Street.
Although the changes are better I think that before, we still have to take into
consideration where Magic View changes into Wells Drive. If you put two areas
to get out of the subdivision, if you have ever droven on Magic View where Wells
turns, the visibility is very poor. That stop sign, if you want to check with the city,
how many times they replace it every winter, because I swear if there is any
snow on the road that stop sign on the corner of Wells and Magic View gets
taken out on a regular basis. It's -- like John said -- John Overton said, it needs
to be redeveloped, that road, for the development. I also am speaking from a
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
June 23, 2016
Page 38 of 62
person who was in a city that is the fastest -- one of the fastest growing cities in
the U.S., but it's scary -- we have a hospital that we have built -- which St. Luke's
Boise is considering potentially moving stuff out to Meridian if they can't build and
we are going to run into the same problem in Meridian, that we are going to lose
our healthcare that we rezone hea lthcare stuff across the street, because they
have a Meridian campus where we need to. I also -- the fact that there is no
ability when you leave our subdivision on Locust Grove to put a light there,
because of how close we are to Watertower needs to be considered, because if
you're getting more and more traffic through that area and there is no ability -- I
challenge you to come there at 8:00 o'clock in the morning when there is rush
hour traffic or 5:00 o'clock in the evening and make a left -hand turn safely. It's
not -- it's easier, actually, to drive around than risk your life and for those reasons
I'm against it. Thank you.
Yearsley: Thank you. How about the lady standing up? She tried to come up
earlier, so --
Jones: I'm Kathryn Jones. 435 South Truss, Woodbridge, and I have looked at
the same traffic generators that our developer has looked at. Those are meant to
be guidelines. They are not meant for all situations. Woodbridge is in a very
special location. If you have driven through there you will know that we are a
beautiful, green oasis in the middle of a bustling area between Locust Grove and
Eagle Road. The problem is Woodbridge Drive and our street become a cut
through. The people that cut through do not care about the speed limits that we
have set, 25 miles an hour. My elderly mother, 89 years old, decided that she
could go to get her lab test by herself. Well, she went out on our streets and
should have been able to access St. Luke's Driveway and get over for her
medical test. While she was driving the speed limit she was cut off by someone
passing her on one of our streets. That was dangerous. The other thing. I
received a phone call today, as a matter of fact, asking if I would support St.
Luke's Boise accessing Jefferson Street. The medical -- the medical community
needs a way to grow and to grow sensibly. We need those areas to remain light
medical office. We do not need more traffic. The other thing is the traffic study
was looking at traffic going
-- I'm sorry, I'm mixing this up a little bit. But it did not look at the traffic that will
be going west, going to Winco, to Home Depot, to their dog park, to the -- to the
parks over there. You can tell I'm emotional and I'm older, I don't have children,
but I would hate to sacrifice one of our beautiful Woodbridge Children for a short -
sighted vision. Now, I know you are all intelligent people and I hope that you will
look at all the parameters and not just look at a developer that wants to make
money. We need -- we need to plan to remain as it is, the zoning to remain as it
is and I'm hoping that you will do that for us. Thank you.
Yearsley: Thank you. The gentleman in the front.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
June 23, 2016
Page 39 of 62
Vance: Hello, Members. May name is Ronald L. Vance. I live at 2621 East
Autumn Way in Greenhill Estates and as you can see by a map there I live right
across the fence, smack in the middle, between Ian and Bill. I have a few
concerns about this proposed change. The traffic, obviously, doesn't affect me,
because of the -- we stopped the Hickory Way item. But a berm -- a three foot
high berm on disturbed land with a fence on it, is going to be a windbreak maybe.
More like it's going to be blown over by some of the high wind s we have had,
unless they have got some really long posts that go down into undisturbed land.
The other concerns -- one is the fact that the commercial would be more than
likely a five day a week, Monday through Friday, daylight only. The apartments
are going to be 24/7 noise and in my nearly 70 years I have noticed one thing
about apartments and that is they deteriorate to the point where in many cases
they turn out to be eyesores, they turn out to be generators of vandals. The
criminal element moves in. The values drop in the neighborhood. The major
concern that I have is that I live in a nice country type of an atmosphere now and
even if the fence was to withstand the wind, it wouldn't withstand the -- the kids
jumping over the fence and vandalizing the property. The -- the other factor,
really, that I mentioned a minute ago was the 24/7 noise that's going to be
generated by the -- the neighborhood and the music being blared 24/7 and I
know there are ordinances against it, but that doesn't stop it. And I agree this
plan is better than the previous plan, but it's still a change from what we expected
when we moved into this property and I oppose the zoning change and the whole
option -- dentist office, medical office, they would be open during the d ay, we
wouldn't have any problems at night at all. Thank you.
Yearsley: Thank you. The lady in the back. You.
Fox: I'm Celeste Fox. 582 South Woodhaven, Meridian, in Woodbridge. Good
evening, Commissioners. I'm really impressed with the thought and care that
went into creating Meridian's Comprehensive Plan. This document seeks to
encourage health and well-being of community and to evaluate the impact of
growth in all land use decisions for existing, as well as future residents. We don't
understand why P&Z staff recommended approval for this project in their staff
report. The city's emphasis high density housing in this location is trying to fit a
square peg in a round hole. We understand the housing to accommodate
medical offices and businesses should be in areas that make sense and this
does not. In the Comprehensive Plan examples for apartments showed direct
road access, not one that requires driving through a single family subdivision.
This is about trust. When I bought my house in 2003 we trusted that offices
would be our neighbors. Office is defined as opportunities for low impact
business areas. P&Z staff report doesn't consider Woodbridge or Greenhill
Estates. It's like we don't exist. But we do exist and we need to be cared about.
Woodbridge is a wonderful combination of varying size and price of homes that
allows families to move up to larger homes or retirees to down size without
having to leave the community. We consider Woodbridge a model for what
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
June 23, 2016
Page 40 of 62
Meridian is looking for. I'm asking you to, please, see us, see our unique setting
and what the overall impact that rezoning would have to us. Thank you.
Yearsley: Thank you. The gentleman here in the front.
Ballard: Chairman Yearsley, Commissioner Oliver, Commissioner McCarvel, my
name is David Ballard. I reside at 2482 East Springwood. It's the corner of
Hickory and Springwood just off of Franklin. I'm in Greenhill Estates. The area
to the south is landlocked, the undeveloped lots. Through no fault of our own.
But they are landlocked. But there is tremendous pressure to develop this.
There is other places in the city with the same concerns. We are going to
develop these in-fills if you will. Let me suggest that an alternate route could be
developed to become like a frontage road along the freeway and at Bentley and
Locust Grove where there is a stoplight. There is a way to get into those lots,
albeit round about, but you need access to Locust Grove. I think that would
release some pressure off of Woodbridge. I have heard a lot of comments
tonight about please go back to the board to restructure some roads, restructure
how you get there, build the road, but give some thought about coming off of
Bentley on the stoplight and getting to these areas with new roads. Appreciate
your time.
Yearsley: Thank you. The lady in the back.
Stoffle: Didn't think this was every going to happen. Thank you. My name is
Andrea Stoffle and I live at 669 South Crosstimber Avenue in Woodbridge. We
moved into Woodbridge in 2004. We have also -- we have owned two homes in
Woodbridge. We moved up, like Celeste was saying, from a smaller home to a
larger home, because we loved the community, we love the close-knit, tight
community that it is. My concerns that I have with the development such as this
is -- my number one is the overcrowding of schools that we already have in this
area. My son's class had 34 students at one time for one teach er, which I feel is
extremely high. Adding a property such as this with high density housing is going
to create more overcrowding for schools that already exist with overcrowding.
Our main residential street that comes through on Woodbridge drive has a
sidewalk only on the north side of the road, which means anyone living on the
south side of Woodbridge Drive has to cross one of the main streets that people
are coming through in our subdivision, which includes all the children that have to
catch the bus, which is currently -- we have one stop in one part of the
subdivision and one stop in the other. At both of those stops we have
approximately 40 kids get on the bus each time getting on or off in the morning
and, then, afternoon. I don't let my kids go to the bus by themselves, because
we have to cross Woodbridge Drive and I have had times in the morning where I
can't even cross the street. The cars will not stop . Usually it's cars that I
recognize that live in there that will actually stop and waive me through, but
probably when my kids are in high school I will be walking them to the bus every
day just with the impact of how many cars come through during the peak. The
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
June 23, 2016
Page 41 of 62
other thing I wanted to mention in the map that you have on here, we have
several areas within a mile that are already zoned R-15 or R-40. To the north of
the Mormon church we have an extremely large apartment development getting
ready to be put in where they have leveled out the land and they are just waiting
for it to make sure before they can build on it. That's going to have over 300
apartments and all of those units are going to have immediate access onto a
main arterial road with no cutting through anybody's subdivision. Another parcel
just came up for sale in the last two weeks o n the southwest corner of Franklin
and Locust Grove that's also -- the seller is pushing for multi-use family housing.
And, again, that's another area that's given immediate access to Franklin or
Locust Grove when those developments get in. So, within a mile of us they are
not going to bother us. It's not going to influence are neighborhood at all. My
biggest concern overall is just the kids and the traffic, the type of traffic this is
going to -- this is going to create 24 hours a day, versus what othe rs have said,
8:00 to 5:00. On the weekend I feel safe letting my kids go out to the common
area to play and don't feel like I have to worry about them getting hit by a car.
But, like I said, during the day during business hours they are pretty much not
out, even though they are eight and ten. That's it. Thank you.
Yearsley: Thank you. Right here in the middle.
Ketlinski: Good evening. I'm Kelly Ketlinski. I live at 2586 East Autumn Way in
the Greenhill Estates and I just reiterate the comments that have already been
made and I will not go over them again. I will add to the last speaker's comments
that the transmittal from the school district, her point that the school -- this -- even
this development will have an impact on the local -- on the schools that are right
by there and that is in your -- in the staff report. Also I want to point out in the
traffic study that was commissioned by the developer -- I believe he said they pay
for the traffic study, that from Thompson was number 12/2015, he says in
summary, Daniel Thompson, that is the engineer, in summary the traffic from this
site will primarily travel east to Eagle Road and should not adversely impact the
neighborhood to the west and I don't know what that is based on. The last time
we were here we heard testimony from one of the residents of Woodbridge
saying that there was a loaded dump truck that came through the neighborhood,
rather than -- it was 200 feet from Eagle Road and it came through W oodbridge,
rather than go to Eagle Road to avoid that. My other -- I guess I just really just
wanted to reiterate that as has been brought up, other apartments in the area do
have more direct access to collectors and arterials. The transition that was
discussed -- or the buffer that was discussed, the development said that the
homes in Woodbridge are like 120 feet from the property and they are two
stories, but this one is going to be significantly farther in places, but if you look at
the density it's much different, it's R-4 in Woodbridge, which even going way
back to when it was developed, R-4, the overall density of Woodbridge is less
than R-4, because they have so many open spaces. That's kind of how they
developed that area. So, the density is a lot less than it will be in this -- even
though it's a bigger buffer, the density is just completely different. Parking is an
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
June 23, 2016
Page 42 of 62
issue. I lived in an apartment when I graduated from college. I had three
roommates, we all had cars, it was a two bedroom apartment, and to say that 2.5
parking spaces is going to be adequate in an apartment complex, they say that
they are at the maximum, that the City of Meridian had a maximum of parking
spaces in apartment complexes, because they want to encourage people to ride
their bikes and walk, which is a wonderful goal. Not real realistic. And I guess
the -- my -- going back to what Carl Miller said from COMPASS, death by a
thousand cuts, it kind of seems appropriate for this situation. This is one
development in this area that will, as has been discussed, leads to more
development. We need to figure out a remedy for this before those thousand
cuts start and I guess a few of them already have with some development that's
in there, but let's fix this before it becomes a real problem. Thank you.
Yearsley: Thank you. This gentleman right here in the front.
Elhe: Good evening. Hi. Kevin Elhe and I live at 738 South Tiburon in
Woodbridge. I want to quickly talk about a different complex called Heron
Village. I'm sure you're aware of Heron Village. It's on -- it's off of Meridian Road
off of Blue Heron. Blue Heron is a little dead end road and they built a large
apartment complex right there and it's next to Blue Heron Road and it is a
retirement condos, probably, I don't know, 30 units maybe. Well, my mother
happens to live there and ten years ago she bought that condo and she's very
happy and everybody in that area is basically elderly and so they have walking
paths up and down Blue Heron, because it's a dead end road. Well, Heron
Village moved in, they are a large complex. It's a nice looking complex, actually.
They have actual garages, they have carports, they have visitor parking. Well,
unfortunately, it's not enough. They are parking up and down the dead end road,
Blue Heron, on both sides of the road, all day, all night, all the time and there was
no access -- trying to come up from Meridian Road out of that is a joke , so -- now
they are piled up. It used to just be the retirees, now it's -- I'm not sure, probably
because other people live in there. Also in that -- also you're talking about the
area -- they are also seeing many kids going through there that have sketchy
characters who live there, having their junky cars down the dead end. They are
afraid to now walk up and down there -- that road and, then, my mom is like good
-- like trying to sell my condo. Nobody is going to buy this thing. It's a joke right
now. So, that's a little more extreme than what we are talking about over here,
but we will have people coming from the apartment complex into our Woodbridge
area, they will be jumping the fence in the pool. We all know that. It actually
happens today, even though we are pretty landlocked from other neighb orhoods.
I don't know who these people are, but I saw them at 9:30 at night, I saw two kids
in there and turns out their parents dropped them off so they could jump the
fence and swim in our pool and so it's shocking to me, but that was a -- that's a
true story. And so I'm a little nervous about the apartment dwellers. You have
nice families moving in, however, it's unpredictable. These are renters. They are
not -- not homeowners. It's a different element. We all know that. And, again,
based on my mom's story, who lives next to this brand new complex, right, they
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
June 23, 2016
Page 43 of 62
figured it's got to bring in some good quality people, unfortunately, there is pretty
scary people there and I don't want them going through the neighborhood and -- I
mean to be honest, the concern for me -- and also the property value, but the last
time I was here I mentioned if this gets okayed and they are going to build this
development, I will move the Eagle. I said that last time. Still goes. I think it's a -
- you know, building a small town outside the entrance to your -- your
neighborhood is, you know, two to three hundred people in Idaho is a town by the
way, so -- there is a lot --
De Weerd: If you could wrap it up, please, I would appreciate it.
Elhe: Yeah. I know. Thank you. That's all I had to talk about. You can't always
-- I'm not going to say you can't always trust them, you can't always believe or --
what these developers are telling you. This whole thing on parking and all and
their best case scenario -- it's not true. It just doesn't work out for the most part.
Thank you.
Yearsley: Thank you. The gentleman in the back.
Belliston: I'm Brent Belliston. I live at 25 Autumn Way in Greenhill. I would just
remind you of the -- the decisions we were going through last March and
everything that was presented there. What all the developers have presented
tonight really hasn't changed the basis of what each of you voted unanimously in
March. Some of the primary considerations of course as we talk about traffic for
Greenhill -- excuse me -- through Woodbridge. It wasn't a good transition. That
was one of your primary decisions and you felt very strongly that a manager of
one unit managing different owners apartments would not be feas ible, you said
that never would work. So, I just remind you of that wonderful decision you made
last March and hope you reflect on the decisions of why you made that same
basis. We don't feel anything that the developers have presented tonight really
changes the essence of the main reason why it was rejected last time. Thank
you.
Yearsley: Thank you. The gentleman in the yellow.
Tebow: Good evening. Hi. My name is Roger Tebow. I own the approximately
4.9 acres that's just south of the proposed development and I'm in a little different
position than most of the people that have spoken here tonight and they have
covered a lot of the points that I might make about the -- what I feel is an
inappropriate scar on what the city's original plan had been, medical or office
corridor adjoining the housing that's there now. Recently I had one of the -- a
major realtor from this area who stopped by with -- and introduced us to a client
that happened to be from Salt Lake and so we were -- they were talking about
looking for something to develop medical office on and when I mentioned -- or
they knew about the apartments, because I guess they have been checking into
properties there locally and so they were aware of it, but they were dismayed that
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
June 23, 2016
Page 44 of 62
a project like this would even be -- would be being considered when the city had
appropriated this area -- or designated I might say for usage of office space, light
office, medical office. I think commercial is mentioned, but I haven't really heard
about much commercial unless it was incidental to the office usage, so any
commercial that might go if you're a doctor's office and you're selling anything
from your office that might be considered commercial, but as far as any
commercial development per se I haven't heard of any and I just appreciate all
the comments that the good folks have made here, many of them whom I have
met recently in the last couple of years and I appreciate your time and the ability
to present my comments. Thank you very much.
Yearsley: Thank you. This lady in the back.
Nanney: Good evening. My name is Gloria Nanney and I live at 763 South
Thornwood Way. We have been here about ten years now and we came, like
many retired people, to be near our son and our grandchildren. We live -- I
would call it on the Eagle side of the canal and Bowstring and Thornwood Way
are the two major streets that take people from the medical area to Locust Grove
and I have been thinking lately about the safety of the children who live in this
neighborhood. W e have talked briefly about them. Where we live on the Eagle
side of the canal there are about 56 to 60 small children who live in that part of
Woodbridge. Most of them are in elementary school. Some are in middle school
and some are not yet in school and as I see them on their bicycles and scooters
scooting all around the neighborhood and see the traffic that we have now, it's
very concerning to me. But when I think of the increase of traffic that will come
through this development, not just on Monday through Friday, but seven days a
week and not from 8:00 in the morning until 5:00, but much later. It's very
dangerous and very and very concerning and I want you to think about that.
Think about the safety of these young children. Thank you.
Yearsley: Thank you. The gentleman in the back.
Andrews: Thank you. Excuse me. Larry Andrews. 2330 East Autumn Way, a
40 plus year resident of Greenhill Estates. I have been through several of these,
obviously, the concept of transition has always made sense and I admit R-1 to
R-15 is a transition, but I don't think that's what we bought into. My
understanding as a neighbor that the R-8 just to the west of this development is
single family patio homes. So, to me it kind of redefines what transitional means
to put that kind of density in the middle of a residential slash office area. That's
really all I wanted to say. Thank you.
Yearsley: Thank you. Anybody else? Thank you. Are -- are you going to speak
as the applicant or as a -- you can come forward.
Brown: For the record Ken Brown. 3161 East Springwood, Meridian, Idaho.
When we submitted this application we asked for the comp plan amendment and
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
June 23, 2016
Page 45 of 62
it's been discussed many times, but at the time that was put there the L-O zone
allowed for residential. The Waverly Place Subdivision is an example of that. L -
O -- and if I understand it correctly, wouldn't allow the R -8 that these people are
very happy with. It wouldn't allow that. That's a recent chan ge to your ordinance
where you have removed from the L-O the -- that use. It is the only zone that the
City of Meridian has that allows for and, in fact, in our pre -app meeting one of the
comments from staff was we could submit for a request to change the L-O or we
could do a comp plan amendment. Most of the zones -- most of the office zones
that we deal with the many cities throughout the valley, we are allowed to do
residential in those zones. The reason that you always ask for a concept, even
with that first hearing that you had tonight, was so that you understand why
you're annexing and what you're getting and so I think with -- if we had a different
site plan and we had units up tight against Greenhill Estates and weren't putting
in a berm and a buffer, your staff report -- there was a number of discussions
about the berm. They are asking for a retaining wall to be placed there and then
-- so, it's kind of a half of a berm and, then, a fence to be put on top. The other
part that I wanted to speak to is that across the street from us on Magic View,
those commercial zones do allow for residential and those -- those are
possibilities. You have a difficult decision. Difficult because of how Woodbridge
has developed. When I testified before the highway district -- and believe helped
make the connection go away, when Woodbridge went in it was at an end of a
dead end road being Locust Grove. When Jabil came in the city petitioned the
applicants to build that bridge or the overpass and that totally changed the
dynamics of what we are seeing in this areas. So, yes, people do want to go to
the east as it fluctuates on what Eagle Road is. I live one house off of Eagle
Road in the Greenhill Estates Subdivision. Many times instead of driving through
my own neighborhood to go to Winco or to Home Depot, I go out onto Eagle
Road, because there is less traffic. It's like water, you -- you flow -- you flow
according to what has the least resistance. You have many stop signs and turns.
Getting onto Locust Grove as they are discussing, those things come up. I know
I need to wrap up, but it actually is faster for me to go on the interstate -- not all
the time, but on certain times and specifically usually in the evening after the rush
traffic, if you will, and the day to day traffic is gone, I can go very easily to Winco
and to Home Depot and those areas on Meridian Road. That you.
Yearsley: Thank you. The gentleman in the back.
Fox: My name is Gene Fox. I live at 582 South Woodhaven. My wife and I have
lived there for 12 years now. I had very eloquent statements to present to you,
but I'm not going to. However, I would like to speak to what the last gentleman
spoke to. Waverly Place -- and I was part of the group that spoke in favor of
Waverly Place. They had to have approval. They had to have approval here at
P&Z to get a zoning change and they had to have approval of the City Council to
get a zoning change. They couldn't just go in there and build. Now, if this group
was doing an R-5 project, I would probably stand before you and speak in favor
of it also, but I cannot. So, thank you very much.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
June 23, 2016
Page 46 of 62
Yearsely: Thank you. Is there anybody else? Thank you. Would the applicant
like to come forward?
Amar: Good evening. Again for the record my name is Kevin Amar. Do I need
to restate my address?
Yearsley: Please. If you would.
Amar: My address is 1548 West Cayuse Creek Drive in Meridian. We have
heard lots of testimony and a few items I would like to address and talk about this
project specifically as it relates to a few things. Traffic. The change in what we
are presenting tonight versus what we presented back in March and why that
change makes this project better and what the impacts of this project will be
versus -- versus other uses within this. Let's talk about first this project versus
what was presented back in March and we have heard that there hasn't been
much change. Here is what we did change. We have eliminated an access point
onto Greenhill, so there will be no traffic going through Greenhill at this point.
There may be some foot traffic as a requirement from ACHD, but there will be no
vehicular traffic cutting through to Greenhill from this project. We have also
eliminated a number of units. We have fewer units in this project and this
proposal than we did back in March. We have completely eliminated any living
units along the northern boundary, that boundary that is adjacent to Greenhill.
We have also increased amenities and we have increased open space. The
open space on this project is 1.84 acres on a 5.2 acre project. So, it's over 30
percent of this project is actually open space. That is a large amount of open
space for any development, whether it's single family residential or multi-family
residential. We did that, because we want to create a nice project. We want to
create something that people that live in and stay in and have places to go and
create, understanding that people will come and go. Now, let's talk about traffic.
We have heard that traffic will be more in the evening hours with this project than
others. That may be true. But 75 percent of his traffic, according to a traffic
study -- and that's all we have to go off of -- will go east to Eagle Road. Some
traffic will go west. Currently those residents in Woodbridge and other areas use
these public roads to go east or west, depending on the area that they need to
travel. We see through the traffic study that -- that people will travel -- 75 percent
of those a.m. and p.m. peak hour trips will go to -- they will go to the east to
Eagle Road. This slide illustrates that. There are daily a.m. trips 107 vehicle
trips in the a.m. hours. I'm sorry. Eight trips will go -- daily there is 107 trips that
will go to the west, 323 trips that will go to the east. In the a.m. it says there is
eight trips, in the p.m. it says there are -- I'm sorry. A.m. there is eight trips that
go to the west, 25 trips that go to the east. When we did a real world study of
Windstone we went and talked to those -- those people that are in there.
Currently the dentist see about 500 people a day. Between -- I'm sorry. Two
hundred and fifty people a day. Five hundred vehicle trips -- or six dentists.
They can all see about 50 people, although they are not always maximized. The
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
June 23, 2016
Page 47 of 62
office in there sees about 300 people a day. Office projects have greater intense
use of -- of people traveling than homes. Let's look at compatibility. If we can
look at our next slide here. So, we went out and took some photos -- this is
standing on the property -- on the subject property where we desire to build the --
the multi-family project and this is standing at about the nearest location within
the project looking back to the north, looking at the houses that abut us this is,
obviously, a high berm or a fence and this illustrates that vision that those people
are going to see without additional landscaping from the project. Jeremy, the
next slide. This is standing at the location of what was going to be a connecting
street to Greenhill and looking back to the south at the project and we -- you can
see the tops of those roofs and see what -- what that vision is going to look like
from that street in Greenhill. So, we talked about compatibility and we talked
what we tried to do. We are -- we are trying to be a good neighbor. We
understand that change is difficult for everybody. We understand that with
additional -- with additional development comes addition traffic, but also with
additional development comes the improvements necessary to make those roads
better. This project will require to improve both Magic View, as well as Wells on
the portion that our property fronts. We have located our access points -- if you
can go to the site plan. We have located our access points, understanding that
we need to get approval for the eastern access point, beca use we are accessing
a collector, but we use that as our main access point. That will be our visually
enhanced main access point with an island trying to bring people in there, trying
to bring people into the collector. We need a secondary access point, so there is
one on Magic View -- it's a smaller, more narrow access point trying to keep
people on the access to the collector. We have heard some of the neighbors say
people drive on the collector to an arterial. We agree with that. That's what we
are trying to do with this project. People will go to the collector, hopefully, and off
the arterial. I live in a subdivision that is right next to an apartment complex. It's
a much larger apartment complex than this. We had lots and lots of neighbors
that were up in arms that this was going to change the area and, really, it hasn't
affected us much at all. But what it's done is it's created a really nice project next
to our subdivision, next to our homes. I know many people that live there, they
come to my house, nobody has stolen anything from me. It's a really, really great
project. With this project we know it can be the same. We are creating the
amenities that are necessary to create that high value project. We really
appreciate your time tonight and with that I would stand for any questions.
Yearsley: Thank you. Are there any questions? I have one. And I don't know if
you know it or not, how was that 75-25 -- is that off of statistics? How was that
created? I mean to estimate the differences between the two -- which way they
are going to go? Did you have an idea of that?
Amar: Understanding I'm not a traffic engineer, but I will try to interpret what I
have learned over the years. Traffic studies are different, because they are a
projection of what's going to happen in the future. What they use -- history and
they use where traffic patterns and travel is going to go from the past and that's
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
June 23, 2016
Page 48 of 62
why we have statistics like 5.62 units. That also allows them to say where are
people going to travel from this project? Are people going to go to the freeway?
Are they going to go to shopping centers and how -- what's the easiest way to get
there. There is certain times of the day that certainly Eagle Road is really
congested. Eagle Road works phenomenally for what it is. It's a major collector
through our -- arterial, rather, through our city and you can get on and off it into
our city very quickly. So, that is simply generated from statistics and how things -
- how things work throughout the --
Yearsley: Okay. So, there were a couple of comments that I have from -- can
you address the property management company and if you have a berm with a
fence on it how will the berm on the back side be maintained. I think those were
the two questions that I don't know have been really addressed.
Amar: Yes. So, Commissioner Yearsley -- Chairman Yearsley, the property
management company -- we have done a number of these projects. We do write
in the CC&Rs that one property management company has to be used. Granted,
that can be changed, but it requires a super majority. We can go further and
require in a development agreement that a single property management
company has to be used. Our reason for that is projects are maintained better
when there is one property management company. As far as ownership, we
have sold projects like this to one ownership group and we have sold projects
like this to multiple ownerships. This project isn't for sale yet, because, quite
frankly, we don't have a project, so it's hard to sell anything. But we know
whether it's one ownership or multiple ownership or multiple ownerships, there is
things within the CC&Rs that will require maintenance, there is things within the
dues that require a fee to maintain some of the items within the subdivision. The
property management company has to be one property management company
only. Now, all the residents can get together and change from property
management company A -- or rather the owners from property management A to
B, but it still has to be maintained by one property management company.
Yearsley: Okay.
Amar: So, we have done that a couple of ways in the past. One of the most
successful ways was -- so, let me give you the two options. Either we give the
ground to those neighbors, if that's something that they want to take behind the
fence and it's deeded to them free and clear, or we maintain it as a common area
and it has to be maintained on a regular basis, just like any other common area
within the subdivision. We know it will be behind a fence. We will have to
provide access to that, but it's something that has to be maintained like -- like any
other common area. It will be grassed and it will have probably a fescue on it
versus a lower cut grass, but it's still something that's not going to be a weedy
area, simply because it needs to look nice for the -- for the project.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
June 23, 2016
Page 49 of 62
Yearsley: Okay. And, then, in looking at this property did you consider
commercial office space?
Amar: We did. And here is what we came up with on commercial office spaces.
Windstone, which is a project which we talked about, has sat since 2006, I
believe, and if you want to build an office space in there you can still go buy an
office lot within that project. This project -- this area is designed for future office,
medical and other things. There is so much land out here that it will be years and
years before all of this develops into office and medical. I know some of the
neighbors would love that. It would be really he lpful. But we know that there is a
definite requirement for housing in this area. We picked this area for housing
knowing that we are next to neighbors, knowing that we are next to Woodbridge,
knowing that we need to do something to address compatibility, but doing it
because there is a definite demand for this. They have mentioned other projects
in the area. There is a project off of Locust Grove next to the LDS church. It's 16
buildings. It's 60 units. That still will not meet the demand for this a rea. There is
people that work here currently that they have to drive here, they have to
commute. The influx of people from the p.m. hours who are in this area to the
a.m. hours is in the tens of thousands. Meaning people are driving through this
area to work. Well, if we can capture some of those people and get them to live
here, then, that's going to reduce traffic and that's one of the largest
considerations that we have in building an apartment -- or a project like this in
this area.
Yearsley: Okay. Thank you. Are there any other questions?
Oliver: Mr. Chairman?
Yearsley: Commissioner Oliver.
Oliver: Just a couple real quick. Just -- there is an application process that goes
on when someone comes in to rent one of these apartments. If each
independent owner would have his own application process that would be s
though you had like eight owners?
Amar: No, sir. So, the purpose of having a single property management
company is to uniformize that application process. So, if one owner, maybe he
owns the building outright, so he doesn't have to get full rent and another owner,
maybe he has a mortgage on his, so he has to get full rents, because he needs
to pay his mortgage, we don't want the battle between property -- or between
building owners to see who can lower the rent the most in order to get that
tenant. We also don't want the battle of one property owner requires one security
deposit versus a different property owner requiring a different security deposit.
All of that is uniform. Is for the entire project and that's part of what that property
manager will do and that's part of what we set up in the CC&Rs that you cannot
require one rent versus requiring a different rent. We go for a market rent and
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
June 23, 2016
Page 50 of 62
we -- all the building owners would have to vote on it and agree to it and that
market rent will rule the day on what is going to be asked for. The background
checks the same thing. The security deposits the same thing. All of those items
would be uniform throughout the project.
Oliver: And what did you foresee as the average cost per month per each
apartment?
Amar: So, we projected these will be about 950 dollars a month per apartment.
Oliver: That's for a one bedroom?
Amar: It's a two bedroom. But one unit. Yes.
Oliver: Okay. Thank you.
Yearsley: Thank you. Are there any other questions? Thanks.
Amar: Thank you.
Yearsley: At this time I would entertain a motion to close the public hearing on
CUP -- or on -- I'm sorry -- H-2016-0006.
Oliver: Mr. Chairman?
Yearsley: Commissioner Oliver.
Oliver: I'd like to move to close the agenda on H-2016-0006.
McCarvel: Second.
Yearsley: I have a motion and a second to close the public hearing. All in favor
say? Opposed? Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIES: THREE AYES. TWO ABSENT.
Yearsley: Well, I guess it's time for us to weigh all of our options and to come up
with a decision. Anybody want to go first on this?
Oliver: Mr. Chairman?
Yearsley: Commissioner Oliver.
Oliver: This is another really a tough one, especially since it seems it was just
not too long ago we talked about this. One comment I want to make is that when
my wife and I first got married we were renters. We had no place to go. And I
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
June 23, 2016
Page 51 of 62
notice that somebody made a remark about calling criminal element in
apartments, I felt like that's hopefully not me. I needed a place to start out and
that was a good place for us to start was in a rental. So, it gave us an
opportunity. I live in a community -- you know, a small subdivision where I have
renters up and down the block in homes. Renters are everywhere. They need a
place to live, just like the rest of us. We all can't afford an acre or a half an acre
lot, sometimes we are just in the movement to where we need to h ave to be
stationed here for a while and, then, to move on. But to think of it as all of those
people being criminal elements because they need an apartment I think is wrong
thinking, in my opinion. I took a little offense to that, because, like I say, I was a
renter. Fortunately I was able to buy a house and move on. But I look at this
and think that this is -- this is a much better presentation than we saw previously.
I do like the buffer by Greenhill. It's much nicer looking. I like the little pathway
going through. I like the green area in the center. I think it looks much nicer. My
-- my gut tells me that this can work and it will probably work, but I have to go
back to what I said in making my motion in March, that it's a big jump to go from
office to R-15. So, I'm still conflicted right now and I'd like to hear what
everybody else has to say about it.
McCarvel: Mr. Chairman?
Yearsley: Commissioner McCarvel.
McCarvel: I think in and of itself it is a better plan if it was somewhere else. I just
think -- I go back to the mindset of what we dealt with last time and how many of
those issues have been addressed and how many haven't and one of the biggest
things for me was abiding by the integrity of the current zone that this is just too
big of a jump in zones. It's still -- I used the term last time it's still just a
landlocked area with issues and I think a rezone like this at this time does not
relieve those issues. I think there might be a time maybe -- I mean if -- as the
rest of this gets developed and streets get fixed and things happen, I just don't
think it's -- I think you can make a traffic study -- it's just like marketing surveys,
you can make those numbers say what you want and be viewed from a lot of
different angles. I mean common sense says to me people will still avoid Eagle if
they have to go west of there. And I think the traffic, obviously, is -- can be dealt
with better from 8:00 to 5:00 than it can be all the time. I just -- I think a rezone is
appropriate when it adds to the area and not adds -- instead of adding to the
issues of the area. I think maybe at some point this could be done, but I think at
this time there is -- the other issues are still in play.
Yearsley: Thank you. You know, I do like the layout of this new configuration
and I think it looks much better and it does make it better. But adding 60 feet of
property the entire length makes a big difference. Like I said -- and I agree with
the other commissioners is -- is I don't think that the overall issues are being
addressed and I don't know if -- you know, I struggle with that, because I do
agree with Commissioner Oliver that -- I think that this could work, but, you know,
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
June 23, 2016
Page 52 of 62
that comment was -- is that, you know, it will be years before office -- you know,
commercial is developed out here, but they said the same thing with your -- your
roadway. Oh, it will never be -- be developed and now we are looking at the
situation that we are in as -- is we have got traffic issues, because someone
didn't have the forethought to -- to think about this in the future. Still like this as a
medical corridor area. I think it's appropriate and I think it's a -- a better way to --
place to put this and I think the apartments could be better placed elsewhere. I
understand the comments that they are looking for generators for apartments
and that, but I think this area is just too -- too constricted. And, then, after we
make a motion on this project I would like to talk with the three of you. Severa l of
the people have made comments to this and I have also thought of it, too, is
there is no -- there is nothing how to fix these problems and I think we should
make a request to the Mayor and Council to send a letter to ACHD requesting a
study of this area to figure out what -- what the issues are and how to address
the issues long term, instead of trying to just hodgepodge it right now and look at
it later and wish we would have done something different, so -- but I do agree, I
don't know if this is appropriate place or appropriate time for apartments in this
location. So, if there no other comments, I would entertain a motion. I think we
are all kind of on the -- the same page.
McCarvel: Mr. Chairman?
Yearsley: Commissioner McCarvel.
McCarvel: After considering staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to deny
file number H-2016-0006, as recommended by the Commission and presented
on the hearing date of May 17th, 2016, for the following reasons: Maintaining the
integrity of the current plan and addressing traffic issues in this area while we still
-- and before any -- any zoning changes happen.
Oliver: Mr. Chairman?
Yearsley: Mr. Oliver.
Oliver: Would that -- would that be May or would the June --
McCarvel: Oh. Sorry. June 23rd.
Yearsley: Oh, yeah. June 23rd.
Oliver: All right. Second.
Yearsley: I have a motion and a second to deny file number H -2016-0006. All in
favor say aye. Oppose? Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIES: THREE AYES. TWO ABSENT.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
June 23, 2016
Page 53 of 62
Yearsley: And I will ask legal really quickly to request the Mayor and Council to
send a letter. Do we have to do that by motion or can we just direct staff to write
that letter if we so choose?
Pogue: You can direct staff to do that.
Yearsley: Okay. Okay. So, I guess what were your thoughts on asking ACHD
to do a study of this area to address access and traffic?
McCarvel: Mr. Chairman?
Yearsley: Commissioner McCarvel.
McCarvel: I agree. I think -- I mean there is a lot of land here and there is a lot
of potential and --
Pogue: Excuse me. Could you keep your comments to yourselves or exit the
chambers. Thank you.
McCarvel: This is prime land right off the interstate, but it comes with some
inherent issues, just because of the need to flow traffic on Eagle and I think some
future plan needs to be made of roads and access over to Locust Grove, since
that has become such a major artery, I do think it's time, you know, for those
issues to be addressed so developers can move on.
Yearsley: Okay.
Oliver: I agree.
Yearsley: Thank you. So, I think it's in agreement then. So, if you wouldn't mind
requesting the Mayor and Council to send a letter to ACHD to look at this area for
traffic and access we would appreciate it. And at this time I think we will take a
break.
(Recess: 8:58 p.m. to 9:05 p.m.)
C. Public Hearing for Bancroft Square (H-2016-0055) by
Schultz Development Located 2750 S. Eagle Road
1. Request: Rezone of 6.54 Acres of Land from the
R-4 to the R-8 Zoning District
2. Request: Preliminary Plat Approval Consisting of
ThirtyThree (33) Building Lots and Five (5)
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
June 23, 2016
Page 54 of 62
Common Area Lots on 5. 41 Acres of Land in the
Proposed R-8 Zoning District
3. Request: Modification to the Conditional Use
Permit/Planned Development (CUP-02-005) to
Change the Approved Use from Office/Multi-
Family to Single Family Residential
Yearsley: So, we would like to get started and reconvene this meeting. Thanks
for your patience and determination to stick this out. I applaud you. At this time
we would like to open the public hearing for file number H-2016-0055 at Bancroft
Square and let's begin with the staff report.
Watters: Chairman, give me just a moment here.
Yearsley: Absolutely.
Watters: All right. The next applications before you are a request for a rezone,
preliminary plat, and conditional use permit modification. This site consists of
5.41 acres of land, zoned R-4. It's located at the southeast corner of South
Eagle Road and East Easy Jet Drive at 2750 South Eagle Road. Adjacent land
uses. To the north are offices, zoned L-O and single family attached patio
homes, zoned R-8. To the south is a rural resident home and property zoned
RUT in Ada County. To the east are single family residential in Sutherland
Farms Subdivision, zoned R-4. And to the west is South Eagle Road and single
family homes in Thousand Springs Subdivision, zoned R-4. The Comprehensive
Plan future land use map designation for this property is mixed use community.
This property was previously approve back in -- I believe it was 2002 as a
planned development. A conditional use permit for a planned development for a
mix of uses in this property consisting of commercial, office, multi-family and
single family residential uses. A preliminary plat was also approved at that time
and this property actually was planned to be the last two phases of development
of that planned development subdivision. The applicant is proposing to rezone
6.54 acres of land from the R-4 to the R-8 zoning district for the development of
33 single family residential homes, with a density of 6.1 dwelling units per acre.
A modification to the previously approved conditional permit planned
development is requested to change the use approval for this property from
multi-family residential and office to single family residential at a density desired
in mixed use community designation areas. Although this p roperty was zoned R-
4 back in the day when we used to do planned unit developments we used to
zone a property -- usually the whole development, but, then, we would allow use
exceptions in the zone up to 20 percent of that area. This is one of those
properties. It was zoned R-4, but it did designate this property developed with
multi-family and residential and office uses. So, that's -- that's why it's zoned the
way it is. A preliminary plat is proposed as shown, consisting of 33 building lots
and five common area lots. Access is proposed at the north boundary via East
Easy Jet Drive, which also stubs to the property to the south for future
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
June 23, 2016
Page 55 of 62
interconnectivity. Access is also proposed to the east via South Nephrite Way.
No access is proposed via Eagle Road and is prohibited. Landscape street
buffers are required along Eagle and Easy Jet in accord with UDC standards.
Landscaped parkways are proposed along internal streets with street trees, as
shown in the bottom diagram there. A minimum of ten percent qualified open
space is typically required to be provided, along with one site amenity for
developments of this size. Because this property was originally included in the
preliminary plat -- and, as I stated, for Sutherland Farm development and is
included in the planned development, the applicant request this property is
allowed to develop as originally intended as the last phase of the subdivision and
a qualified open space and site amenities for the overall development, excuse
me, be considered to cover this portion of the site as well. A total of 11.3 percent
or 13.24 acres of qualified open space has already been provided with the
Sutherland Farm development, along with site amenities consisting of a three-
quarter mile long regional pathway along the Ridenbaugh Canal, a 5.9 acre park ,
a 2.5 acre park, tot lots, a gazebo, swing set and horseshoe pits. The applicant
states that they have discussed incorporation the subject property into the
homeowners association with the homeowners, but an official agreement has not
yet been reached. Staff supports the applicant's request provided that the HOA
agrees to allow this development to be incorporated in their homeowners
association. If they do not staff recommends the plat is revised to provide the full
ten percent qualified open space. It is currently at 7.9 or .43 of an acre is what is
proposed. Conceptual building elevations for homes within this development
have been submitted as shown with a variety of building materials. One and two
story structures are proposed ranging in size from 1,200 square feet to 2,200
square feet, similar to the size of homes in Sutherland Downs Subdivision to the
north. Because homes on lots that back up to or face South Eagle Road and
East Easy Jet Drive are going to be highly visible, staff recommends the rear
and/or sides of homes on lots that face or back up to these roadways incorporate
articulation through changes in materials, color, modulation and architectural
elements, horizontal and vertical, to break up monotonous wall plains and roof
lines. Written testimony has been received on this application from Matt Schultz,
the applicant's representative, in response to the staff report. From Mike and
Annette Wheeler, Arnie and Kay Veers, Bill and Sally Riggs, James and Marsha
Harris, Joann St. Charles and Robert Nelson, Kent and Mary Ellen Wheeler,
Robert and Laurel Nielson, Tom Reynolds, Ken and Aileen Scalian -- all these
folks stated that they are in favor of the proposed development, provided that the
minimum open space and site amenity requirements are provided with this
development or, in the alternative, that the development is included in the
homeowners association for either Sutherland Farms or Sutherland Downs in
order to help bear the cost of maintenance of those private common areas and
also be subject to certain architectural design guidelines as determined
appropriate for this development. Staff is recommending approve of the
applicant's proposed rezone, preliminary plat, and conditional use permit
modification with the conditions in the staff report. The conditions as written do
match what is desired by the neighbors so far as either requiring the applicant to
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
June 23, 2016
Page 56 of 62
provide ten percent open space or in lieu of that the HOA allowing them to join
the homeowners association. So, I think we are all on the same page with that
and staff will stand for any questions the Commission may have.
Yearsley: Thank you. Are there any questions? No? Would the applicant like to
come forward.
Schultz: Thank you, Commissioners. Matt Schutz, 8421 South Ten Mile,
Meridian. Here on behalf of Schultz Development and also Berkel ey Building
Company, who Joe Atalla was not able to be here, family vacation just happened
to coincide with the hearing. But he is going to be the builder and buyer. I'm
helping him with the project management and entitlement and construction
management of the actual site itself. He will be the builder and those are his
products that are in the package. We are excited to be here. It's not typical for
me to do the last phase of a project that was started back in 2002, which this one
is by Trevor Roberts. I put together this overall exhibit you see on your screen
here and to be able to do all the measurements and you will kind of -- what
happens when this is all finished? You knew there was a plan that was initially
submitted in 2002 that -- that had predominately what you see here, except for
Sutherland Downs, which has a two and a half acre park in the middle and
originally, you know, half -- half what you see there and the other half was kind of
a mystery box of future office slash multi-family and what we are showing as
Bancroft Square had four light office lots and, I think the 5.4 C-C zone that's now
a storage unit was just a -- more office at the time and that's -- Trevor Roberts'
main goal was the three hundred and some residential lots, and the front was --
allowed him to provide some mixed use, get some flexibility in his lot design.
Sutherland Down actually has lots that would not meet your R-8 code today. It
has some 3,700 square foot lots in Sutherland Downs, that's just the mix that
they had at the time. There is some duplex -- I call them duplex lots, but
townhome lots with zero lot lines, those are the 3,700 and they are a zero lot line
attached product right directly north in those lots that look a little narrower than
ours, that's what those are and the rest of them are s ingle story -- I think they are
50 foot wide lots. They are all single stories in there. It's a nice little community.
Nice park. I think it turned out great. Since, then, the light office in the front was
not a part of the original Sutherland Farms, it got done as light office. So, it took
some of the demand away we think for light office on what we are proposing with
that 3.3 acres there, it's a mix of basically medical and eye, dental offices is what
it is in there. The storage unit has since went in. So, all we are left with is,
essentially, the last phase, if you will, of Sutherland Park and we are coming in
and trying to plug in nicely, get along with our neighbors. We had a
neighborhood meeting. A lot of people showed up and we were kind of taken
aback at first, like why don't you join our HOA, you're going to use the park
anyway and like, okay, if you guys are inviting us maybe we will try. I mean that
sounds like a good idea. Let's be one big happy family and pay dues. Let's get
along. Let's see where this goes. We have made great progress with the HOA --
the actual board members themselves, as well as they have been
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
June 23, 2016
Page 57 of 62
communicating with their members at large, the other three hundred and
something -- actually, there are two HOA's out here. There is Sutherland Downs,
which is 79 homes, that's a separate HOA from the Sutherland Farms, which is
254. We have actually been communicating with Sutherland Farms, the 254,
which is kind of different, because we are not the same size lots; right? We are
different. But we are getting along. You know, we are agreeing to their -- some
architectural review of them. They have agreed to our need for some reduced
home sizes, because their guidelines are a 2,000 square foot, two story, I
believe, and, then, I think it's a 1,600 square foot single. So, we need a little bit
of flexibility because of our lot -- our lots are just a different product. It wants to
be just a little bit smaller than that and they have agreed to that. They have
agreed to the smaller homes, which, wow, I mean that never happens, but we
have done it. We have approached them about, hey, instead of losing one lot,
because that's the difference on meeting the ten percent and doing a token little
amenity, why not treat us -- which I believe is totally fair, as -- as one phase of an
overall. There is massive portions of Sutherland Farms that have no open
space, you know, and we have -- we do have more than the ten, but they won't
let us count the buffer along Easy Jet, because it doesn't show up as a collector
on ACHD's map, so it's a little bit unfair. We have over ten, but the qualified
open space -- a little bit of a splitting hairs. So, we are slightly under, but to meet
the exact definition we would have to lose one lot and give up a token amenity.
We would rather contribute to the central amenities, work with our HOA and say,
hey, what do you guys want to do, let us -- let us add to and we have made a
pretty substantial offer in monetary to do that. It sounds like we are real close on
inking a deal that their attorney is drafting up for us to come into their HOA. We
would be dues paying members. We would be subject to their -- their ACC
guidelines and just get along. So, I think this fits from our standpoint. We met
code. The densities right there kind of splits the difference between the multi -
family that wants to go there from a density standpoint, but it's still single family,
so we kind of get along with the neighbors. It's just riding that line, you know,
and it just works. I think it works, because Berkeley has this product and it
works. It works because of the dimensions just barely work and for some reason
it works. We know people are concerned about the future, what's going to
happen south of us. We don't know. It's master planned. It's in the county now,
but it's master planned and I the future makes use of commercial. That's what
the comp plan says. What does that mean? That means multi-family, light
office, or commercial. We don't know what. There is five different owners of
those ten different parcels there. Are they all going to sell to one guy? Are they
going to try to develop it piecemeal. We don't know. We're not involved in that.
We just want to do this 5.4 acres and do our 33 lots. Berkeley Homes is actually
located -- their office is right over the canal on Eagle, so they have a vested
interest in doing a really good job right there by their office. Just -- it's worked out
really well and better than I expected on the coordination with the HOA. Been
really receptive. Of course, it's in negotiation. Yeah, there is still some give and
take and -- but it's been -- it's been an easy -- a relatively give and take in terms
of nobody has been really offended by the whole thing. Yeah, that sounds fair.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
June 23, 2016
Page 58 of 62
Okay. That sounds fair. And so we are kind of -- we are kind of meeting where it
needs to be met, so we think we have got a good -- a good site. We concur with
all staff's conditions of -- recommendations of approval, the conditions, which
happen to match what the homeowners are writing in, which is really nice, and
we got some tree lined streets, which Sutherland Farms doesn't have detached
sidewalks in front of their homes. We are. We thought that was important to kind
of open up that streetscape a little bit with -- with some -- with some trees
between the curb and the sidewalk. There is an eight foot park strip. That was
optional. It does count for some open space, but it is optional, although it does
decrease a little bit of the usable depth of your lot, b ut we feel that it's a good --
it's a good look, it's a good feel, it will not make it feel as tight. It's kind of a
design element that we intentionally put in there. There is a little pathway, the
northwest corner, that connects up to Eagle. We did not want to put an access
out there, even though ACHD would allow us to , which is amazing. It's far
enough away from the intersection, but it's like, no, we don't want to be that close
to that intersection. We would rather use the existing curb cut that we are calling
Titanium right now. ACHD does want it to go through to the south, not -- I don't
want to build it. ACHD requires a stub street to the south for future connectivity.
That's just kind of the standard condition. You guys have ran into that in the last
hearing it sounds like a little bit, but I don't think it's worthy of shipping out over.
That's just what they require. We don't know what's going to happen down there.
We really don't. But it is -- it is access to a -- a residential collector is how it was
designed in 2002. It's access to a collector, to an arterial. So, it's a pretty direct
route to not have to go through a bunch of residences to go out to Eagle. That's
a saving grace for it that -- in the future. There is not going to be a big need to go
back into that subdivision to get out to Eagle or back into this, so I think it works
out good for -- you know, just -- the stars aligned I think, things fit, and if there is
any other questions we will stand for them and hopefully you will vote for
approval. Thanks.
Yearsley: Thank you. Are there any questions? No? Thank you. So, I have a
lot of people signed up here, but I don't think half of them are here. So, instead
of going through the list I will just ask is there anybody wanting to testify on this
application? Please come forward.
Broussard: My name is Bonnie Broussard. I live at 2662 South Teddy Avenue in
Sutherland Farms Subdivision and I just wanted to thank the developer and the
builder, Sonya Watters, for working with the developers on this project and the
planning commission for being receptive to this and I think it's a great fit for the
community. You know what we went through with the last project that came
through and we just really appreciate your consideration on this project and we
look forward to working with the developers on this.
Yearsley: Thank you. Is there anybody else? Please, come forward.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
June 23, 2016
Page 59 of 62
Kuperus: My name is Fred Kuperus and I live at 3415 East Quin Drive in
Sutherland Downs. Basically I -- you know, is a much better plan than what we
were presented with the last time. The only question I have when -- there is a
green space and it sounds like it's still a little bit up in the air as far as the green
space. When you look at this block that's -- you know, the development that I
see here -- I think he said it was seven percent. I don't know. I think that's what
he said. And it has to be ten percent and there was a question of whether or not
Sutherland Farms or Sutherland Downs was goin g to -- we have a park in our
area. Is that going to be included in making up for the -- the shortage of green
space in this development?
Yearsley: I think in the conditions of the report -- or the findings is they need to
join the HOA and be part of the HOA or they need to provide the ten percent
open space.
Kuperus: Now, what's the process for developing --
Yearsley: Please speak into the mike.
Kuperus: For being part of the HOA. How does -- you know, if they want to join
Sutherland Farms, do they approach Sutherland Farms and say we want to be
part of your HOA?
Yearsley: Yes. And that's kind of what he was stating is -- that they have been
in negotiations with Sutherland Farm --
Kuperus: Sutherland Farms. Okay.
Yearsley: Yes.
Kuperus: It sounded like that it was also going to include Sutherland Downs and,
man, I haven't heard one iota of that.
Yearsley: No. And I think he's made -- they have decided to try to go with
Sutherland Farms --
Kuperus: Okay.
Yearsley: -- and to work with the HOA --
Kuperus: All right.
Yearsley: -- and not Sutherland Downs.
Kuperus: So, then, Sutherland Farms, if this is approved, is going to -- part of
that -- their park -- this development can use their park?
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
June 23, 2016
Page 60 of 62
Yearsley: Yes.
Kuperus: Okay.
Yearsley: Thank you. Anybody else? Please.
Nielson: My name is Robert Nielson. I live at 3508 East Quin Drive, Meridian.
I would ask two things. First I ask that the Planning and Zoning recommend
approval of the conditional use modification to change. As has been stated,
what's being proposed here is so much better than what was proposed before
and even though it is not what is in the City of Meridian's Comprehensive Plan
we think especially with the odd shape of this lot an d it being so close to the
existing signal -- intersection on Eagle Drive, that this housing development
makes a whole lot more sense than apartments and commercial uses. Second, I
ask that the development agreement for Bancroft Square include the ten per cent
open space with an existing amenity. The open space amenities it mentions on
the application letter are privately owned and maintained by the Sutherland Farm
HOA or by the Sutherland Downs HOA. Bancroft Square has -- had not in their
application formally applied to join Sutherland Farm HOA nor have they received
approval to do so. Also the nearest amenity to -- to Bancroft Square is a two and
a half acre park and gazebo owned and operated by the Sutherland Downs HOA,
which has not been approached. It seems inappropriate to include privately
owned and maintained open space and amenities in adjacent HOAs in meeting
the requirements of Bancroft Square. An amenity in Bancroft Square is important
to provide a gathering place for families in a subdivisio n and to help foster
relationships between neighbors. That said, the staff's recommendation that they
be allowed to go with the smaller amount of green space provided that they are
approved to join the Sutherland Farm HOA seems to me to be a reasonable
accommodation. Thank you.
Yearsley: Thank you. Anybody else who would like to testify? Thank you. Do
you need to come -- okay. The applicant has said he doesn't need to come up
and rebut three recommendations for approval, so -- so, at that point we won't
ask him to come forward. So, at this point I would e ntertain a motion to close the
public hearing on file number H-2016-0055.
Oliver: Mr. Chairman?
Yearsley: Commissioner Oliver.
Oliver: I move that we close the hearing on H-2016-0055.
McCarvel: Second.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
June 23, 2016
Page 61 of 62
Yearsley: I have a motion and a second to close the public hearing, all in favor
say aye. Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. TWO ABSENT.
Yearsley: Well, I have to tell you, it's a lot nicer to come to a Planning and
Zoning meeting where the residents are in favor of the subdivision and I
appreciate the applicant actually making the -- the steps trying to join the
association. I think that shows a good faith of what they are trying to build and to
be good neighbors. I still would have liked to have seen a little bit more office
space on this lot, but I -- but, you know, at that point I'm -- I'm okay with the way it
was. But, yeah, I still thought that the -- the east -- west should have been more
office, but -- but apparently that's not a market that's high demand right now, so --
but, no, I think it's a great project and I think it lends well to the neighborhood, so
I'm I favor.
Oliver: Mr. Chairman?
Yearsley: Commissioner Oliver.
Oliver: I would like to tell you when I heard the word Easy Jet I -- I just got this
shiver up and down my spine. Oh, just don't want to do this again. So, when I
saw that it was going to be homes and a buddy of mine that lives in Sutherland
Downs says, yeah, it's homes, I'm happy with it, I thought, oh, it's a great relief
and looking at the project I think it looks really, really good. The only problem I
had is before looking at it, reading about it, is that where are they going to put the
ten percent, you know, where is that going to go and seeing that you're going to
be possibly in consideration to join the HOA for Sutherland Farms, I think that's
perfect that -- and I think that makes everybody happy. Gives you a little bit of
open space in your development as well, so I think it -- all the way around it's a
good project.
McCarvel: Uh-huh. Mr. Chairman?
Yearsley: Commissioner McCarvel.
McCarvel: Yeah. I like the idea of single family residence there and especially I
think what adds to the feel of open space there, although it may not be an acre
park, it will be the tree lined sidewalks and stuff will give a feel of a little more
elbow room and, as I said, it's probably going to use the parks anyway, so they
might as well pay for them. I think that's great if they can work that out to be part
of that HOA.
Yearsley: Great. Well, I guess with that I would entertain a motion.
McCarvel: Mr. Chairman?