2011 01-06E IDIAN~--- MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING
IDAHO COMMISSION MEETING
AGENDA
City Council Chambers
33 E. Broadway Avenue, Meridian, Idaho
Thursday, January 06, 2011 at 7:00 p.m.
1.
Roll-call Attendance
X Tom O'Brien
X Michael Rohm
X
Vacant
_X Joe Marshall
Scott Freeman -Chairman
2.
Adoption of the Agenda Approved
3.
Consent Agenda
A. Approve Minutes of December 16, 2010 Planning and Zoning
Meeting Approved
B. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of .Law for Approval: MCU
10-003 Fred Meyer Fuel Station Expansion by Fred Meyer
Stores, Inc. Located at 1850 E. Fairview Avenue Request:
Modify the Site Plan, Landscape Plan and Fuel Canopy
Approved for the Fred Meyer Fuel Station Conditional Use
Permit (File # CUP 01-005) Approved
4.
Action Items
A. Continued Public Hearing from December 16, 2010: CPAM ,10-
001 Waverly Place by Robert Mortensen, Mountain West
Entrust IRA/FBO Located at 2510 E. Magic View Drive:
Request: Amendment to the Comprehensive Plan Future Land
Use Map to Change the Land Use Designation on 4.9 Acres of
Land from Office to Medium Density Residential Continue
Public Hearing to January 20, 2011
B. Continued Public Hearing from December 16, 2010: RZ 10-004
Waverly Place by Robert Mortensen, Mountain West Entrust
IRA/FBO Located at 2150 E. Magic View Drive: Request:
Rezone of 5.17 Acres of Land from L-O (Limited Office) to R-8
(Medium Density Residential) Zone Continue Public Hearing
to January 20, 2011
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Agenda -Thursday, January 06, 2011 Page 1 of 2
All materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian.
Anyone desiring accommodation for disabilities related to documents and/or hearing,
please contact the City Clerk's Office at 888-4433 at least 48 hours prior to the public meeting.
C. Continued Public Hearing from December 16, 2010: PP 10-003
Waverly Place by Robert Mortensen, Mountain West Entrust
IRA/FBO Located at 2150 E. Magic View Drive: Request:
Preliminary Plat Approval of 24 Residential Building Lots and 4
Common Lots on 4.9 Acres of Land in a Proposed R-8 Zoning
District Continue Public Hearing to January 20, 2011
D. Public Hearing: CUP 10-014 Silver Oaks Apartments by Silver
Oaks Apartments, LLC Located Approximately 1/4 Mile West of
Ten Mile Road, North of W. Franklin Road Request: Conditional
Use Permit for aMulti-Family Development Consisting of 369
Units on 24.61 Acres in an R-15 Zoning District Recommend
Approval to City Council
E. Public Hearing: CUP 10-013 Dutch Bros. by Sun-Stone
Meridian, LLC Located at 1351 E. Fairview Avenue Request:
Conditional Use Permit Approval for a Drive-Thru
Establishment Within 300 Feet of a Residential District and
Existing Residence as Required by UDC 11-4-3-11A Approved
- Prepare Findings for Approval
F. Public Hearing: AZ 10-004 Pecchenino Annexation by City of
Meridian Public Works Department Located 1955 N. Ten Mile
Road Request: Annexation and Zoning of One (1) Acre of Land
from RUT (Ada County) to R-4 (Medium Low-Density
Residential) Zoning District Recommend Approval to City
Council
G. Public Hearing: AZ 10-005 Ada County Highway District
(ACRD) Ten Mile Annexation by City of Meridian Public Works
Department Located Southwest Corner of W. Ustick Road and
N. Ten Mile Road Request: Annexation and Zoning of 1.50
Acres of Land From R1 (Ada County) to R-4 (Medium Low-
Density Residential) Zoning District Recommend Approval to
City Council
Meeting Adjourned at 8:15 p.m.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Agenda -Thursday, January 06, 2011 Page 2 of 2
All materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian.
Anyone desiring accommodation for disabilities related to documents and/or hearing,
please contact the City Clerk's Office at 888-4433 at least 48 hours prior to the public meeting.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting January 6, 2011
Meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission of January 6, 2011, was
called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Chairman Michael Rohm.
Members Present: Chairman Michael Rohm, Commissioner Scott Freeman,
Commissioner Wendy Newton-Huckabay, and Commissioner Tom O'Brien.
Members Absent: Commissioner Joe Marshall.
Others Present: Machelle Hill, Ted Baird, Pete Friedman, Bill Parsons, Sonya Watters,
Scott Steckline and Dean Willis.
Item 1: Roll-Call Attendance:
Roll-call
X X Tom O'Brien
X Michael Rohm i~ Joe Marshall
X Scott Freeman -Chairman
Freeman: Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. At this time I'd like to call to order the
regularly scheduled meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission on
January 6, 2011, and let's begin with roll call.
Item 2: Adoption of the Agenda.
Freeman: Okay. The first item on the agenda is the adoption of the agenda and we do
have a change. Items 4-A, B and C regarding Waverly Place, the applicant has
requested a continuance to January 20th, 2011. So, what we will do when we get to
that item is we will open it only for the sole purpose of continuing it and, then, we will
close that. Could I get a motion to adopt the agenda?
O'Brien: So moved.
Marshall: Second.
Freeman: We have a motion and a second. All in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion
carried.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Item 3: Consent Agenda.
A. Approve Minutes of December 16, 2010 Planning and Zoning
Meeting
Meridian Planning & Zoning
January 6, 2011
Page 2 of 27
B. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: MCU
10-003 Fred Meyer Fuel Station Expansion by Fred Meyer
Stores, Inc. Located at 1850 E. Fairview Avenue Request:
Modify the Site Plan, Landscape Plan and Fuel Canopy
Approved for the Fred Meyer Fuel Station Conditional Use
Permit (File # CUP 01-005)
Freeman: Next item on the agenda is the Consent Agenda and we have -- how many
items left. Four items left on the Consent Agenda. CUP 10-014, Silver Oaks
Apartments, CUP 10 dash
Hill: That's not the Consent Agenda.
Freeman: Oh. I'm sorry. Oh. Consent Agenda. Thank you. I knew this would be
interesting. Okay. The items on the Consent Agenda, item A is the approval of the
minutes of December 16th, 2010, Planning and Zoning meeting, and Item B is the
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for approval of MCU 10-003, the Fred Meyer
fuel station expansion by. Fred Meyer stores. Could I get a motion?
Marshall: Mr. Chair, I move that we approve the Consent Agenda.
O'Brien: Second.
Freeman: Okay. We have a motion and a second. All those in favor? Opposed?
Okay. It's been moved and seconded. Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Item 4: Action Items
A. Continued Public Hearing from December 16, 2010: CPAM 10-
001 Waverly Place by Robert Mortensen, Mountain West
Entrust IRA/FBO Located at 2510 E. Magic View Drive:
Request: Amendment to the Comprehensive Plan Future Land
Use Map to Change the Land Use Designation on 4.9 Acres of
Land from Office to Medium Density Residential
B. Continued Public Hearing from December 16, 2010: RZ 10-004
Waverly Place by Robert Mortensen, Mountain West Entrust
IRA/FBO Located at 2150 E. Magic View Drive: Request:
Rezone of 5.17 Acres of Land from L-O (Limited Office) to R-8
(Medium Density Residential) Zone
C. Continued Public Hearing from December 16, 2010: PP 10-OOE
Waverly Place by Robert Mortensen, Mountain West Entrus
IRA/FBO Located at 2150 E. Magic View Drive: Request.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
January 6, 2011
Page 3 of 27
Preliminary Plat Approval of 24 Residential Building Lots and 4
Common Lots on 4.9 Acres of Land in a Proposed R-8 Zoning
District
Freeman: Now, before we get into our -- we need to do the -- help me stay on track
here. Do we need to do the continued item first? We do. Okay. So, at this time I'd like
to open the public hearing for Items 4-A, B and C, which are CPAM 10-001, RZ 10-004
and PP 10-003 regarding Waverly Place for the sole purpose of continuing these items
to the regularly scheduled meeting of January 20th. Could I get a motion?
Marshall: So moved.
Rohm: Second.
Freeman: It's been moved and seconded. All those in favor say aye. Opposed?
Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Freeman: Okay. Before I open the public hearing on our first item I need to explain a
little bit about how this process works. We will open each item individually and we will
first listen to the staff report and they will tell us how the application compares with the
Comprehensive Plan and the Uniform Development Code. When that's done the
applicant will have an opportunity to come and present their case for the application.
You have 15 minutes to do so and when that is finished, then, we will take any public
testimony. I believe there is a sign-up sheet in the back still for those that want to testify
on an application. You will be allowed three minutes each, unless you're speaking for a
group and if you're speaking for a group let me know that and when you get up here I'll
explain that process and, then, after all the public testimony has been heard, the
applicant will have an opportunity to come up and respond to anything that's been
heard, any comments, questions and, then, we will close the public hearing and the
Commission will, then, deliberate on the item and, hopefully, be able to give us a
recommendation on what to do with each item.
D. Public Hearing: CUP 10-014 Silver Oaks Apartments by Silver
Oaks Apartments, LLC Located Approximately 1/4 Mile West of
Ten Mile Road, North of W. Franklin Road Request: Conditional
Use Permit for aMulti-Family Development Consisting of 369
Units on 24.61 Acres in an R-15 Zoning District
Freeman: So, with that let's open the public hearing on Item CUP 10-014, the Silver
Oaks Apartments by -- by Silver Oaks Apartments and begin with the staff report.
Wafters: Thank you, Chairman Freeman, Members of the Commission. The first
application before you is a Continual Use Permit fora multi-family development
consisting of 369 dwelling units in an R-15 zoning district. There is also a development
Meridian Planning & Zoning
January 6, 2011
Page 4 of 27
agreement modification application going on with this application to nullify the existing
development agreement and approve a new development agreement based on the new
development. City Council is the decision making body on the development agreement
modification application. Because Council is the highest decision-making body, the
Conditional Use Permit will go on to City Council for their final decision. The
Commission is only a recommending body on this application. The site consists of
24.61 acres currently zoned R-15 and located on the -- located to the north of West
Franklin Road approximately a quarter mile west of Ten Mile Road. To the north is
Union Pacific Railroad, zoned R-15, and vacant land zoned R-8. To the south is vacant
land zoned L-O. It's also a part of this development for future. To the east is the Ten
Mile Christian Church and vacant land, zoned C-N and C-G. To the west is rural
residential agricultural property zoned RUT in Ada County. A little history on this
property. It was annexed in 2005 with a development agreement and platted with one
large multi-family lot, which is the subject property, and one commercial office building
lot to the south. A Conditional Use Permit planned development was approved for a
multi-family development consisting of four-plex structures with 280 dwelling units. A
time extension was later approved that included a new design concept with row houses
and condominium. A subsequent Conditional Use Permit modification changed the
development plan back to four-plex structures with the addition of 12-plex and 16-plex
structures. Infrastructure consisting of sewer, water, utilities, a storm drainage, gravel
road base, and some concrete work exists on the site. The applicant has submitted a
site plan for this property. It depicts amulti-family development consisting of 25 two and
three story structures with 92 one bedroom units, 185 two bedroom units and 92 three
bedroom units, for a total of 369 units on 24.61 acres of land at a density of 14.99
dwelling units per acre. A Comprehensive Plan designation is medium high density
residential, which is 18 -- excuse me -- eight to 15 dwelling units per acre. So, the
proposed development is in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan. A total of 5.62
acres or 22 percent of the site is proposed for open space, along with the following
amenities: A 2,931 square foot clubhouse, a 1,404 square foot fitness center, pool, spa,
tennis court, picnic area, playground, community garden and pathways throughout the
development. Surface parking, covered and uncovered and eight parking garages are
proposed in accord with UDC standards. And this is a copy of the landscape plan here.
There is a six foot tall chain link fence proposed along the west boundary of the site
adjacent to the Kennedy lateral and this is just the parking plan submitted by the
applicant. Building elevations for the proposed development consists of two different
elevations for each building type with variations in architecture, roof design, color and
construction materials for variety. Construction materials consist of a variety of siding
materials, including board and batten, lap cement board and shake siding with stone
veneer accents and composition asphalt shingles. Each elevation incorporates three
different types of materials for variety. A total of three different color combinations are
proposed for the structures. Site design review approval has been granted by staff for
the proposed structures and the site design. So, I'll just go over these with you real
quick. This is building type one, two story 12-plex elevations, two different designs here
as we can see. These are the elevations side -- again rear and side. This is building
type two, which consists of a three story structure with 18 dwelling units in it. Again, two
different variations. And building type three is a two story structure with 16-plex, two
Meridian Planning & Zoning
January 6, 2011
Page 5 of 27
variations. Building type four is a three story 24-plex with two variations in design. And
building type five and six are duplexes with garages underneath. And this is the
proposed clubhouse. You can see a floor plan here in the upper right corner. Right
side elevation, left side, and rear elevations. Consists of the same materials as the
units do. Structures. This is the proposed fitness center. And I will go back to the site
plan here. The site plan depicts a stub street, West Perida Street, by the Kennedy
lateral, down here, if you can see my cursor, at the west property boundary for future
expansion, in compliance with the Ten Mile interchange specific area plan, which
designates a collector street through this site to the west boundary. A road trust exists
with the Ada County Highway District for half the cost of construction of a bridge across
the Kennedy lateral as required by the development agreement. The proposed
application is in compliance with the Unified Development Code. Written testimony has
been received from Steve Moore with the Ten Mile Christian Church. He was
concerned that the applicant be required to construct the other -- the western half of the
Umbria Hills Street right here and the applicant is proposing to do that with the first
phase of development, so his concerns are addressed. Becky McKay, the applicant's
representative, has submitted a response to the staff report generally in agreement.
She has asked that development agreement provision 1.1 B be stricken as a waiver to
the the of the Kennedy lateral as previously approved with the final plat for Umbria
Subdivision and that is correct, staff is recommending that that provision be stricken.
Staff is recommending approval of the application with conditions and development
agreement provisions in the staff report. Staff will stand for any questions the
Commission may have at this time.
Freeman: Thank you, Sonya. Does the Commission have any questions for staff?
O'Brien: I have one question, Mr. Chair.
Freeman: Commissioner O'Brien.
O'Brien: Sonya, could you go to the elevation -- I don't know if it's the first or second
slide. The three story. Yes. So, is there some balconies that are in the front on some
of the units -- or all the units? I can't tell. It looks like there is balconies on several
units. No. In the bottom part there is -- is that a sliding door or is that like a stair well?
can't tell if it's a sliding door going into the units or if its a stair well that goes up.
Wafters: Commissioner O'Brien, Commissioners, that is a stair well. However, there
are -- there are balconies, porch areas, for each of the units. Our multi-family standards
require a minimum of 80 square feet for each unit and they do comply with those
standards.
O'Brien: So, it would be on the back side of the elevation to the right those are sliding
doors there?
Wafters: That is correct. Yes.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
January 6, 2011
Page 6 of 27
O'Brien: Do they have little patios or is that --
Wafters: Yes.
O'Brien: Okay. That's all I have. Thank you.
Marshall: Mr. Chair?
Freeman: Mr. Marshall.
Marshall: I do. 7.1.4, the requirement for a gravel shoulder and drainage along Umbria.
Could we look back at the site plan? Now, Ibelieve --Ibelieve some of the curb and
gutter is in on Umbria; is that correct?
Wafters: Ibelieve it is.
Marshall: Okay. All right. And so the only thing that needs to be construction is that
curb and gutter and sidewalk on the south end; is that correct? As was per the -- how
do you pronounce that?
Wafters: On the south end of Umbria Hills?
Marshall: Yes.
Wafters: Ibelieve it's constructed. The applicant can address that, though.
Marshall: But we were -- staff is requesting a gravel shoulder and drainage swale.
Wafters: That's an Ada County Highway District condition.
Marshall: Okay. Ada County Highway District's requiring that. Now, where is that
being required?
Wafters: Again, that's an Ada County Highway District condition. 7.1.4, is that what
you're looking at?
Marshall: Yes.
Wafters: On the west side of Umbria Hills Avenue it looks like -- they are talking about
the street section. I think the curb and gutter is already constructed, but, like I said, the
applicant can confirm that.
Marshall: I understand. My question is is it confused a little bit with requiring a flow
through and a drainage area for a low point in the road or are we going to get ponding
without a flow through?
Meridian Planning & Zoning
January 6, 2011
Page 7 of 27
Wafters: I don't know. That's something ACHD is going to have to address with the
applicant.
Marshall: Understand that. That was one of our conditions and that's one of the issues
that the applicant in their response was questioning that curb and gutter is already in,
but I'm not sure where all it's in and where Ada County is actually requesting this and
where we have got a low point in the road.
Wafters: Yeah. I'm not sure either. We can't change ACHD's comments. They are
included in the staff report for information, but we can't change them.
Marshall: I appreciate that.
Friedman: Commissioner Marshall, Members of the Commission, again, I think the
applicant has done the engineering on this and would probably be able to address that
question specifically, because they have looked at the entire site and the road
alignment. Secondly, this isn't going to be able to move much forward to be excepted
until ACHD gets out there on the site and does an inspection of post-construction to
make sure that specifically that the concerns like you have are addressed. I assume
the applicant will address that and, then, we do have kind of belt and suspenders in that
the highway district will inspect it just to make sure that everything does function as
designed.
Marshall: So, even though that is going to be -- if approved as it stands -- and that's a
part of the development agreement, if Ada County Highway District determined that it's
not necessary, then, we would not hold them to that; is that correct?
Wafters: That's correct.
Marshall: Thank you.
Freeman: Any further questions? Okay. If the applicant would like to come forward.
Please state your name and address for the record.
McKay: Becky McKay, Engineering Solutions, 1029 North Rosario, Meridian. I'm
representing the applicant on this particular application before you this evening. As
Sonya indicated, this came before this body back in 2009. We spent the last 14, 15
months doing a redesign on this. My client's spend a substantial amount of time and
money with multi-family experts from even out of state getting input from them and what
they indicated to us was that the minimum viable density of amulti-family project is 15
dwelling units per acre and with the original density that was proposed with the 280
units as you recall, that was afour-plex project. We did come back to you in '09, get a
modification of that conditional use allowing some apartment type buildings, but still
retaining some of the four-plexes. The four-plexes are not -- there is no market for four-
plexes. They were primarily an investment-type property, people 1031'd into them and
what I'm told is there were so many of them coming on the market through foreclosure
Meridian Planning & Zoning
January 6, 2011
Page 8 of 27
or just people trying to dump them that there is no -- there is no market for it and they
don't anticipate a market for it for a considerable amount of time. So, that left us with
the dilemma that we had to come up with something that made sense in the valley and
that would fit this particular area. We worked closely with Sonya and Pete. I'd like to
thank them for all their cooperation and coordination. The plan we came up with has a
mixture of multi-family units, mixtures of two, three story, two different elevations per
style. We have got the duplexes with the under side garages and so we are more
consistent with the Ten Mile specific plan. I think one of the problems that the staff
always had with this project was that the four-plexes really didn't fit into the whole
scheme of the Ten Mile specific plan, starting this for real multi-family, not the lower
density multi-family. And so when we offered up this type of a plan the staff said, yes,
we think that this is a good idea. And so we have been working diligently for the past
few months putting this all together. I went to Ada County Highway District; they did not
require a new traffic study of us, even though we were increasing the number of units.
The reason for that is the Franklin and Ten Mile intersection is being rebuilt, Ten Mile is
being rebuilt, and the interchange is going to be operational sometime this summer. So,
they said as far as the increase in units it was negligible on the transportation system.
We did evaluate -- as you recall they did a million dollars worth of infrastructure out on
the site. We did have our civil engineer and worked closely with Public Works to come
up with some ideas on how to abandon some of the services and how we could provide
fire protection and so fourth to these buildings and make it work, since we were kind of
changing, you know, into a larger structure with a lot more units. We have worked
closely with the fire department also as far as the placement of these buildings. We
have increased the width of the drive aisle from 25 to 26 to accommodate the city's new
ladder truck. I guess when it sticks its -- puts its arms out in order to fight a fire, an
emergency in a three story structure, they need the 26 feet. So, we have tweaked
some things. There is some concrete that we will have to dismantle out there, but that
will be minimal. But as far as the other improvements, sewer and water, we will just do
some modification as -- and submit a new plan to Public Works that will demonstrate
what we are doing. So, we have got this new conditional use, the DA mod -- the DA
mod I think staff was happy to get rid of the old DA, because it does not reflect the UDC.
It was under the old ordinance. So, now they can draft a new development agreement
that, obviously, matches what the requirements are. As far as the amenities in the
project, we retained the same amenities. We added a few more. Originally it did have a
clubhouse, the fitness center, had a swimming pool. It did not have a spa, which we did
add. We had the tennis court and, then, we have a second tennis court. We will
replace that with a picnic gazebo area. We kind of relocated the play area and, then,
we were going to have a community garden and they sent me some pictures of some of
the community gardens that these multi-family experts have had placed in other
apartment complexes and they look great and they are very successful. I was pretty
impressed, because I had never seen a picture of one before. We think we have got a
good mix. We have got 25 percent one bedroom, 50 percent two bedroom, and 25
percent three bedroom. There was an article I think in the Idaho Construction magazine
talking about the occupancy of apartments right now are in the 90 percent, some of
them are pushing 98 percent, and they see a real need in this valley for more multi-
family and location of this particular project is perfect. You know, these people will be
Meridian Planning & Zoning
January 6, 2011
Page 9 of 27
able to jump on the interstate, we are within just about a mile of it, and go anywhere in,
the valley that they need to go. We are confident that we have a plan that can be built
and we have, obviously, used other sources available to us in developing this and we
think that this is going to be viable. As far as open space, we have got 22.83 percent of
qualified open space. The total open space on the site I think is a little over 13 acres I
think is what it is, but on the viable I think we are at 5.62. I did talk with the Ten Mile
Christian Church. I have consulted with them. They indicated to me that they were
excited about this project. They, obviously, wanted that roadway finished, because
there is half plus 12 out there, but they offered day care, they have Ithink Kthrough --
I'm not sure how far it goes. They have a little private school. They have all kinds of
youth services and they said, you know, amulti-family project this size, we are glad
you're increasing the density, because we have services that we think we can offer
these people and if there is anything we can do to help out we would be glad to. I did
consult the developers to the north. Ithink it's the Chesterfield project, something along
that line. They came in, I went through my plan with them at the neighborhood meeting.
They indicated they were in full support. They said, you know, activity in this area will
breed activity. Obviously, we hope that translates into single family lot sales for them.
So, we think we have got a great project. Ithink Mark Sanders has done an excellent
job. Sonya showed you the color elevations. It looks pretty sharp and we are really
pleased and we would ask the Commission to support it. Lastly, in answer to your
question concerning the swale, you're correct, there is curb and gutter and sidewalk and
base that's already in there. I called Ada County Highway District and they said that
they had incorporated that condition in the event that we did not finish the roadway.
However, that didn't make any sense, because my client has a 160 some thousand
dollar letter of credit with the highway district that's current in order to assure them that
we finish it and I said so if we finish it it doesn't matter and they said, yeah, then, it's not
applicable. So, I said, okay, well, whatever. But we had already sent our response to
the city, so that's why my comment was retained in there. But, yes, we meet all ACHD
standards and those roads will be completed, all storm drainage accordingly. Thank
you.
Freeman: Thank you. Thank you for clarifying. Are there any questions of the
applicant?
Rohm: I have a question, Mrs. McKay. Could you speak to the phasing of this project?
Are you going to start with the three story structures first or are you going to start with
the club house or could you speak to phasing a little bit?
McKay: Yes. On the phasing -- if I point to it will it change? The first phase includes
this whole middle section right in here, except for that cul-de-sac. So, what we are
doing is all of the amenities will be built with the first phase and, then, we will create this
loop through here and an emergency vehicle access here and all the public street will
be finished. This -- and, then, we will have to, obviously, build up to this point to make
that connection. That would be just an interim secondary access until we complete --
oops. I touched it too many times. Until we complete the rest of the project. We
anticipate it to be in three phases and there is kind of a mix of the buildings, so we are
Meridian Planning & Zoning
January 6, 2011
Page 10 of 27
not just building only the three stories, we have got some three stories, some of the two
stories, the different -- the 16s, the 12s, the 24s, the 18s, so there is a mix. It wouldn't
just be the three story 24s, no. There is a good mix in there. And, then, parking
garages and our little pockets of parking I call them and that's how we have
accommodated the additional multi-family units.
Rohm: Okay. Thank you.
McKay: Thank you.
Freeman: Mrs. McKay, one more quick one. Is that the community garden I see in the
northwest corner up there?
McKay: Yes, sir. That's it.
Freeman: Couldn't read it, but it looked like it.
McKay: And I even brought a picture for you guys if you haven't seen one, because
was -- let me submit this for the record. This is what they look like. They are very
popular.
Freeman: Okay. Thank you.
McKay: Thank you.
Freeman: At this time I'd like to take public testimony and I have one individual signed
up on the sign-up sheet, that would be Graye Wolfe, I believe. And even though I have
done so, please state, your name and address for the record.
Wolfe: Thank you. My name is Graye Wolfe. Address is 9418 West Winterwood Lane
in Boise. I am the sole -- now the sole member owner of Ten Mile development which
owns the Silver Oaks project and I just wanted to say a couple things. This project
originally was approved for afour-plex site. We had sold the ground to the developer
and the developer ended up going bankrupt and we got the ground back via foreclosure
and it's been a long road, to say the least, and I want to thank all the city departments
what they have done to help us get to this point and Becky's fine planning. We are very
excited about what we have done here. We have spent a lot of time and a lot of money
making sure that the development really fits the Comprehensive Plan, to the Ten Mile
interchange, and we have got a lot of outside experts that have looked at this to make
sure it's a high class really well done development and I have learned a lot. I was a car
dealer before I ended up buying this property and I have learned a lot about apartment
complexes, but I have really grown to appreciate the fact that there is open space -- the
development's diverse, the buildings are different, and I think it's going to fit really, really
nicely to the clients that I have sold the property to, the Cherry Lane Christian Church.
Unfortunately, the reason they are so sensitive about that road being constructed is the
prior developer was paid to complete the road and didn't complete it. So, we will be
Meridian Planning & Zoning
January 6, 2011
Page 11 of 27
doing that for them as part of the development. So, I just want to thank the Commission
for spending the time on it -- on the whole plan, Sonya, your department, Scott, all you
guys have done to help us and we hope you guys will be happy with the development.
Thanks a lot.
Freeman: Okay. Thank you.
Rohm: Thank you.
Freeman: Is there anybody else that wanted to testify on this application? No? With
that could I get a motion to close the public hearing?
Rohm: Mr. Chairman?
Freeman: Commissioner Rohm.
Rohm: At this time I move to close the public hearing on CUP 10-014.
O'Brien: Second.
Freeman: It's been moved and seconded. All those in favor say aye. Opposed?
Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Freeman: Okay. Discussion?
O'Brien: Great job. They put a lot of work in this thing, I think, Mr. Chair, and 1 think it's
going to be a good project and a good start for that area, so I'm all for it. I don't have
any qualms at all.
Freeman: Thank you, Commissioner O'Brien. Anyone else?
Rohm: Yeah. I echo Commissioner O'Brien's comments and this is infinitely better than
the first time this project came before us and I think that it will be very well received,
along with that Ten Mile interchange, because I -- that's why that interchange is being
built is to accommodate this type of a development and I am happy that they have made
the changes and this should be a good project for us.
Freeman: Thank you, Commissioner Rohm. I -- my comments, I agree, I really like the
attention that you paid to changing the designs up a bit. We have some different looks
and different materials and different colors, all mixed nicely on the buildings. I think it's
going to be a good addition. Sometimes we see some things come through that are
pretty plain Jane and this is certainly not that. So, well done.
Marshall: Mr. Chair?
Meridian Planning & Zoning
January 6, 2011
Page 12 of 27
Freeman: Commissioner Marshall.
Marshall: I move that we recommend approval of CUP 10-014 -- excuse me. After
considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I recommend approval of file
number CUP 10-014 as stated in the staff report for the hearing date of January 16th,
2011, with the following modification, that 1.B -- 1.1.B be stricken from the development
agreement. That's it.
Rohm: I will second.
Freeman: It's been moved and seconded to approve item number CUP 10 -- I'm sorry.
Item No. CUP 10-014, the Silver Oaks Apartments with the modification of striking item
number 1.1.B from the staff recommendations. All those in favor say aye. Opposed?
Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
E. Public Hearing: CUP 10-013 Dutch Bros. by Sun-Stone
Meridian, LLC Located at 1351 E. Fairview Avenue Request:
Conditional Use Permit Approval for aDrive-Thru
Establishment Within 300 Feet of a Residential District and
Existing Residence as Required by UDC 11-4-3-11A
Freeman: Thank you. At this time I'd like to open the public hearing for Item No. CUP
10-013, Dutch Brothers, by Sunstone Meridian, LLC.
Wafters: Thank you, Chairman Freeman, Members of the Commission. The next
application is a Conditional Use Permit for adrive-thru establishment within 300 feet of
a residential district and existing residences. And the site is indicated here on the map.
The closest residences are here to the southwest of the property. The property is
located on the corner of North Stonehenge Way and East Fairview. The site consists of
.69 of an acre and it's currently zoned C-G, property address is 1351 East Fairview
Avenue. The property to the north are commercial businesses zoned C-G. To the
south is a restaurant and retail store, zoned C-G. To the east is a retail store and indoor
entertainment use, zoned C-G. And to the west is vacant land zoned C-G, and an office
building across Stonehenge zoned C-2 in Ada County. This is a copy of the site
landscape plan proposed by the applicant. This is currently one large lot you see here.
The applicant is only proposing to use the eastern portion of the lot as shown. The
applicant proposes to construct 366 square foot structure for Dutch Brothers Coffee,
with drive-thru windows on each side of the structure. A patio for outdoor seating is
proposed on the north and south ends of the building. Hours of operation are proposed
from 5:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m., Sunday through Thursday, and 5:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m.
Friday and Saturday. Off-site parking is provided on the property to the east through a
cross-access, cross-parking agreement. Access to the site is provided by an existing
access to -- from East Fairview Avenue as shown here in the site plan. Administrative
Meridian Planning & Zoning
January 6, 2011
Page 13 of 27
design review approval of the proposed structure and site was requested with the
Conditional Use Permit and has been approved by staff. This is the proposed building
elevations for the structure. This property is platted as Lot 2, Block 1, Intermountain
Outdoor Subdivision. The Comprehensive Plan designation for the site is commercial.
The proposed development is in compliance with the Comp Plan and the Unified
Development Code. Written testimony was received from Glen Walker, the applicant, in
response to the staff report. He is in agreement. Staff is recommending approval with
the conditions in the staff report. Staff will stand for any questions the Commission may
have.
Freeman: Thank you, Sonya. Any questions of Commission? No? Would the
applicant like to come forward and, please, state your name and address for the record.
Walker: Mr. Chairman, Planning and Zoning Committee Members, Glen Walker,
Architecture Designs Plus, 11505 Fairview Avenue. As Chairman Freeman said, I am
here to represent the owners of Dutch Brothers and the developers of that property. It's
pretty self-explanatory. Dutch Brothers is a very prominent business in the valley. It's a
400 square foot little coffee house. We pretty much laid it out. It's really a standard
building and there is not much to it, other than the site, which we added the landscaping
per Sonya's requirements and the Planning and Zoning and that's really about it. I don't
know if you need to ask any --answer your questions or --
Freeman: Are there any questions?
O'Brien: I don't have any.
Rohm: I don't have any.
Freeman: Okay. Thank you.
Walker: Thank you.
Freeman: Okay. At this time I'd like to take public .testimony and I do have a couple of
names on the list. Jeff Yarnell. You can come on up if you would like. Please state
your name and address for the record when you get there.
Yarnell: Jeff Yarnell. I am the -- well, my address is 510 South Woodhaven Avenue,
Meridian, Idaho. I'm actually the franchise owner of the Dutch Brothers coffees here in
Meridian and really I just wanted to come and be a support person for this project,
answer any questions that may have arose and help out with the process. We are just
hoping it moves forward and we can look forward to spreading some more Dutch love.
Freeman: Any questions?
Yarnell: Thank you.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
January 6, 2011
Page 14 of 27
Freeman: No questions. And Glen Walker I believe you're the applicant, we have
already heard from you. Okay. Anybody else that came to testify on this application?
Okay. Could I get a motion to close the public hearing on application CUP 10-013.
Marshall: So moved.
Rohm: Second.
Freeman: It's been moved and seconded to close the public hearing. All those in favor
say aye. Opposed? Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Freeman: Discussion?
Marshall: I love Dutch Brothers coffee. I wish there was one close to my house. t
would to stop there personally.
O'Brien: I just have one question.
Freeman: Commissioner O'Brien.
O'Brien: We have already closed the public hearing?
Freeman: We have.
O'Brien: I don't know if I can ask this. Just curious if there was a town meeting, but I
don't think I can ask that.
Freeman: Well, actually, we can ask staff. I'm pretty sure there was, but, staff, do you
have a record of the neighborhood meeting on this?
Wafters: Chairman Freeman, Commissioner O'Brien, Commissioners, I know there was
a neighborhood meeting. I can find out the date if you would like.
O'Brien: I'm just curious if there were any issues with that, but I didn't hear of any, so
guess it's a mute point. Thank you.
Marshall: Another quick comment is it does look like a very appropriate location to me.
It's C-G all around it, even though it is within 120 feet of a residential zone, it is over 250
feet to the nearest residence and there are larger, more commercially -- other
commercial buildings closer to that residence than this, so I don't see a problem,
especially absent any other testimony from any of the residences, so --
Freeman: Okay. Thank you, Commissioner Marshall. Could I have a motion then?
Meridian Planning & Zoning
January 6, 2011
Page 15 of 27
Rohm: Yes. Mr. Chairman?
Freeman: Commissioner Rohm.
Rohm: After considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony I move to approve file
number CUP 10-013 as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of January 6,
2011, with no modifications. I further move to direct staff to prepare appropriate findings
documents to be considered at the next Planning and Zoning Commission hearing
meeting on January 20th, 2011. End of motion.
O'Brien: Second.
Freeman: Okay. It's been moved and seconded to approve Item No. CUP 10-013. All
those in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
F. Public Hearing: AZ 10-004 Pecchenino Annexation by City of
Meridian Public Works Department Located 1955 N. Ten Mile
Road Request: Annexation and Zoning of One (1) Acre of Land
from RUT (Ada County) to R-4 (Medium Low-Density
Residential) Zoning District
Freeman: All right. At this time I'd like to open the public hearing on Item No. AZ 10-
004, the Pecchenino Annexation by the City of Meridian. We will start with the staff
report.
Parsons: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. The subject
property is located at 1955 North Ten Mile Road. That's on the west side of North Ten
Mile Road in between Ustick and -- just south of Ustick Road here. Currently the site is
developed with a county residence. The property is currently zoned RUT in Ada County
at this point. The Comprehensive Plan designation for the property is currently medium
intensity residential and all property surrounding this property is also medium density
residential and zoned R-4. So, the proposed R-4 zone designation that's requested
before you this evening is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. I did want to point
out one issue to Council and it's not really an issue, but it's something that came up
when a site visit was conducted here. If you look at this area here you can see that
there are several trailers located on the property located on the north end of the
property there off of that cul-de-sac. First initially -- at first blush it looks like it might be
outdoor storage on the site. Staff did contact the applicant and -- excuse me -- the
property -- owner of the property and they did provide written testimony -- explanation to
Commission -- it should be mentioned in your packet this evening that -- an explanation
that it really is more storage for friends and family at this point. Based on the current
standards -- current requirements of the UDC the applicant is required to screen that
material. We have been working with them and they are in agreement with -- working
with the applicant, providing some additional fencing and screening of the storage. We
Meridian Planning & Zoning
January 6, 2011
Page 16 of 27
did want to point out that the annexation is so that the city can install some -- we call it
purple pipe on the property -- some reuse water lines on the property and what's
basically happened is in order for that pipe to the run in front of property there has to be
a separation between that pipe and the applicant's well. Under DEQ regulations they do
not meet those requirements and so the applicant, the Public Work Department is the
applicant in this situation, they have agreed to initiate the annexation with the property
owner's permission and the city will be entering -- typically in the annexed property we
would require a development agreement. In this case, because it really -- the property
is -- no development is proposed for the property, the legal department and Public
Works group will get with the owner and draft up a separate agreement that spells out
the requirements -- at least the city's commitments to hooking up the property to sewer
and water and also coordinate the installation of that fencing as required by the UDC we
have received written testimony again from the applicant or the property owner basically
outlining the nature of that storage on the property and, again, staff is recommending
approval. There are no outstanding issues before you this evening and with that I'd
happy to answer the questions you may have.
Freeman: Thank you. Any questions of staff?
O'Brien: No.
Parsons: Excuse me. I had one other thing to add.
Freeman: Go ahead.
Parsons: I'm sorry. We are going to -- staff is requesting that you do modify one
condition in the staff report and that would be condition 1.1.4. Currently it reads that
they need to remove the trailers and screen the property and that staff was asking that
Commission strike the first sentence of that condition and, then, modify the second
sentence of that condition to read that recreational vehicles on the property shall be
screened in accordance with UDC 3C-4A -- or point two. Excuse me. With that I'd be
happy to answer any questions you have.
Freeman: Thank you.
O'Brien: Could you repeat that UDC?
Parsons: The code section will be UDC 11-3C-4A.2.
O'Brien: Was that --
Parsons: UDC 11-3C-4A.2.
Freeman: Any other questions of staff?
Meridian Planning & Zoning
January 6, 2011
Page 17 of 27
Rohm: I just had one. So, is the occupant going to abandon the well and connect to
city water?
Friedman: Yeah. Commissioner Rohm, Members of the Commissioners, that is the
primary purpose for the annexation is in order to hook the property owner up to city
services.
Rohm: Will they still be able to use the well for irrigation or --
Friedman: Yes, they will.
Rohm: Okay. All right. That was my point. Thank you.
Freeman: Okay. Any other questions? Would the applicant like to come forward?
Please state your name and address for the record.
Stewart: Chairman, Members of the Commission, my name is Warren Stewart, my
business address is 33 East Broadway, Meridian, Idaho, and I am the city engineer for
the City of Meridian and, you know, obviously we have been working jointly with the
staff of the planning department to -- and the owner of the property to come to some
sort of an agreement resolution on this. We are in agreement with staffs
recommendations and just so that it's clear -- I think it is, but we are currently in the
process of putting reclaimed water lines down Ten Mile Road so that we may serve the
Ten Mile interchange area, as well as other potential developments along the Ten Mile
corridor with reclaimed water. In order to do that we are required to meet DEQ
requirements for separation with property owners that have existing wells and this
particular property has a well that's too close to that line, so the basis for this is we are,
essentially, annexing them and connecting them up to city services and they will no
longer receive their water for the house from the well, but will be able to use it for
irrigation purposes. And with that I will stand for any questions.
Freeman: Thank you. Are there any questions?
Rohm: I have none.
Freeman: Okay. I didn't have anybody signed up to offer public testimony. Anybody
want to do that? Okay. At this time could I get a motion to close the public hearing
then, on item number AZ 10-004, Pecchenino Annexation by City of Meridian Public
Works Department.
O'Brien: So moved.
Marshall: Second.
Freeman: It's been moved and seconded to close the public hearing. All those in favor
say aye. Opposed? Motion carries.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
January 6, 2011
Page 18 of 27
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Freeman: Any discussion? Commissioner O'Brien? No?
O'Brien: Mr. Chair, I -- I'd like to have you explain again the rules of the removal of the
trailer or the screening. I understand that they own a primary trailer to be screened and
the other ones fenced?
Friedman: Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, Commissioner O'Brien, see if I can put this
in -- when we first started evaluating the project -- well, let me step back. When we first
met with Mr. and Mrs. Pecchenino we talked about what the implications are of
transferring their jurisdiction from Ada County to the City of Meridian and, essentially, I
said, yes, the zoning will change. It would be similarly zoned to the surrounding
neighbors. Really, nothing else will change other than you will be hooked up to city
water. Will you will be subject to the city zoning regulations, which do differ from Ada
County, but pretty much they -- and we knew that they had a personal recreational
vehicle. What we didn't know was that there was another one, plus two travel trailers on
the property and so as Bill was preparing his staff analysis he went out and looked at
the site and came back and said they are storing RVs out there. Well, we looked at it as
an RV storage, which it's not necessarily -- which is not allowed in the R-4 zone and,
therefore, we -- that was the genesis of the original condition that the travel trailers and
RVs not owned by the property be removed. It turns out that they are not charging it, it
is not a commercial RV storage, they are merely letting friends park their trailer and so
forth there. That is consistent with the code. There is not a zoning issue there. The
only issue that arose is that on any residential property in the city you can't park a boat
or an RV or anything in your front yard or your driveway. It may be parked in your rear
yard or it may be parked in your side and it has to be screened from public view by a
solid fence or by a house if you put it in the backyard. If you will notice this, they have
kind of a place where their trailers are visible from both Ten Mile Road and from Hatch
Court. And so all we -- we are requesting that you remove the requirement that we had
originally recommended about the removal of the trailer and simply say you will comply
with the UDC provisions for screening and we met with Mr. and Mrs. Pecchenino, we
have met with the Public Works Department, we come to an agreement on how we can
achieve code compliance with construction of fencing. So, in a long winded manner
does that answer your question?
O'Brien: Yes. That surely helps a lot, but -- so there is -- there in the county when it
was zoned county was that the same or -- I mean did they allow this? And are the
dimensions and do the dimensions differ of lot for this zone -- between the county and
city differ?
Friedman: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, Commissioner O'Brien,
certainly they are different in terms of the R-4 zone in the city allows smaller lots than
the county does, it's just that Mr. and Mrs. Pecchenino have a large lot, so I did try to
contact the county today on a fencing question and they haven't returned the call, but it
Meridian Planning & Zoning
January 6, 2011
Page 19 of 27
certainly complies with our zoning regulations and I can't address what the county
parking requirements are for recreational vehicles. There is, obviously, the potential
matter of sewer and water, but at some point in the future, should they choose to do so,
or another owner choose to do so, assuming this lot is subdivided into at least one or
two more lots. So, that would still be consistent with the R-4 zoning. But the current
owners don't have any plans to do that at this time.
O'Brien: So, there is no grandfather clause here.
Friedman: No. There is nothing to grandfather.
O'Brien: Okay. Between the county and city.
Friedman: No. Correct.
O'Brien: Thank you.
Staff1: If I might, yes. The location of some of the accessory structures probably do not
comply with our setback regulations, but they are, in effect, grandfathered, so I take
back what I just said, but in my discussions with Mr. Pecchenino I said before you alter
any single one of those come and talk to us, please.
O'Brien: Thank you. Appreciate it.
Freeman: Thank you, Pete. Are there any other questions? Can I get a motion?
Marshall: You want to carry it, Tom, or shall I just --
O'Brien: I'll give it a whack here.
Marshall: Okay.
O'Brien: Mr. Chair?
Freeman: Commissioner O'Brien.
O'Brien: After considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move to
recommend approval to the City Council of file number AZ 10-004 as presented during
the hearing of January 6, 2011, with the modifications stated by staff regarding the
1.1.4, the removal of trailers and reference to the said UDC Code 11.3C-4A.2. End of
motion.
Marshall: Second.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
January 6, 2011
Page 20 of 27
Freeman: It's been moved and seconded to approve AZ 10-004, Pecchenino
Annexation, with the aforementioned modifications. All those in favor say aye.
Opposed. Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
G. Public Hearing: AZ 10-005 Ada County Highway District
(ACRD) Ten Mile Annexation by City of Meridian Public Works
Department Located Southwest Corner of W. Ustick Road and
N. Ten Mile Road Request: Annexation and Zoning of 1.50
Acres of Land From R1 (Ada County) to R-4 (Medium Low-
Density Residential) Zoning District
Freeman: Thank you. At the time I would like to open the public hearing for Item No.
AZ 10-005, Ada County Highway District, Ten Mile annexation, by City of Meridian
Public Works Department, starting with the staff report.
Parsons: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. The subject
property is located on the southwest corner of Ustick Road and North Ten Mile Road.
The annexation request does include three separate parcels currently owned by Ada
County Highway District. Currently the property is zoned R-1 in Ada County and the
applicant, the Public Works Department, is requesting this property be zoned R-4
consistent with the Comp Plan medium density residential. Currently, again, similar to
the previous annexation that you just heard, this -- this property is in the same situation.
Public Works Department is, again, trying to facilitate their infrastructure on the front
side of this property with potential conflict with the well sites on the property and so they
have initiated that request on behalf of the Ada County Highway District, but in this case
the city engineer Mr. Stewart has waived the requirements for city sewer hook up at this
point. ACRD communicated to -- at some point future plans to sell the property. It is
their assumption that this may go commercial at some point, so they wanted to hold off
on sewer connection at this point until future development plans are in place for this
property. So, it's at this point they will hook up the water and we will go from there. I
did want to point out that there were nonconformities on this property, as well as were
on the previous property and in this particular case, because of the types of
nonconformity and the uses on the property, staff is recommending -- recommending a
development agreement with this annexation request and the primary nonconforming
property is the property that's situated right on the corner of Ustick and North Ten Mile
Road. So, if you can see my cursor I will outline the property going to the east, heading
south, going west and going back north here. You can see there is a primary residence
there and, then, you will also note in central to the property is an outbuilding and, then,
as you move to the west you will see another accessory building here on the property
and speaking with Ada County Highway District they have informed staff that there is
actually two separate tenants on this property. One tenant rents the home for a
residence and the other western portion is used for a construction business. Under the
-- once this property is annexed and zoned that type of business is not allowed, it's a
prohibited use in the R-4 zoning district and so that's why I felt it appropriate to have
Meridian Planning & Zoning
January 6, 2011
Page 21 of 27
that development agreement provision. Also, if you look at the western edge of the
property you will see a small sliver -- strip of property that is one of the properties that is
proposed for annexation. The lot does not conform to dimensional standards of the
UDC as far as minimum lot size and in the R-4 zoning district that lot size would be
8,000 square foot minimum and so what we tried to do in the development agreement is
set up some provisions in there so that the staff can track future development of this site
and try to limit the amount of nonconformities on the property and that's what we have
tried to do with these -- tried to do with this development agreement. So, basically, the
first provision has to do with access. Right now all three properties have -- one has
access to Ustick and the two homes along Ten Mile have access to Ten Mile. So, in all
sense if this property were to redeveloped at some point -- I mean we do need to have a
mechanism in order to review that. Also provision number two there you can see they
address the nonconforming use on the property, meaning the construction business,
and, basically, what that would do, if the property is either sold or redeveloped or the
use is abandoned that use will cease on the property and we want to try and make sure
we track that, so -- because sanitary sewer is not being extended to the site staff felt it
appropriate to make a provision in the DA that will -- when that site will develop it won't
be the city's responsibility to extend that sewer service, it would be the developer or new
property owners. And, of course, as far as the nonconforming structures and setback
issues on the site, we have stated that those could remain as long as they aren't
changed, similar to your last property we just discussed, but in the future all
development will comply with the UDC and, then, the final provision it, basically, talks
about a property boundary adjustment and if I can elaborate that more, basically, what
staff is recommending with that DA provision is that that small sliver with the PBA
process, that parcel will still become -- we will move that line -- especially where they
will have to along Ten Mile from the construction business. Now that won't clear up the
use issue, but what it will do at least create some of the non -- eliminate some of the
nonconformity with the lot size and dimensional standards that you have with the R-4
zone. As far as structures that are in the setback and those types of concerns, that
wouldn't happen unless the property redevelops or those structures are removed, but
this -- staffs opinion is that this is the best remedy at this time to be able to track this
property to have that in the DA. Staff has not received any written testimony on this
application and, again, we are recommending approval with the provisions of the
development agreement in Exhibit B and I would happy to answer any questions you
may have.
Freeman: Thank you, Bill. Any questions of staff?
Marshall: Yes.
Freeman: Commissioner Marshall.
Marshall: Thank you, Mr. Chair. Bill, I'm still confused. I tell you, I -- this thing is a
mess. But you know that. I'm looking at that. What I see on the screen right now is two
large lots and a little tiny sliver and when I look at the survey that was part of the
package I see the two large lots, the one little sliver that actually shortens the northern
Meridian Planning & Zoning
January 6, 2011
Page 22 of 27
lot and, then, there is the unplatted section that appears to cover just the business; is
that correct? That very small thin lot that runs north-south, it says unplatted here in the
packet.
Parsons: That's correct.
Marshall: But the second sliver here -- this second sliver right here -- so, when we are
talking about combining parcels, what parcel are we combining and, then, they are
going to run a second lot split here over here that splits this lot from the second half of
this lot, but, then, with this little sliver and, then, this little unplatted area, that's messy.
Parsons: I concur. Very messy. Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission,
Commissioner Marshall, I trust the pen here will probably help me elaborate a little bit
more.
Marshall: Thank you.
Parsons: There is several oddities happening on this property and you are correct. So,
if I may elaborate a little bit more -- and excuse my scribbles on here. But you are
correct, this property here -- if you look at that record of survey that was surveyed this
portion of the property is also owned by Ada County Highway District. That has already
been zoned R-4 in the city.
Marshall: Oh, it has.
Parsons: It has been. That's correct. So, anything west of that little sliver is already in
the city. So, what we will do -- and I'll change the color on here to try to explain this.
So, basically, what will happen is simply you have three parcels here owned by Ada
County. Four if you include the southern property, but what we will try to do is take
these three -- this property here and this property here and, this property here and
basically let the PBA create two parcels, this would be parcel A and this becomes parcel
B and these three parcels, the sliver and the property that's already zoned R-4, will also
be incorporated at the same time and we end up with two parcels.
Marshall: I appreciate that.
Parsons: If that helped. But that won't be a part of the property boundary adjustment,
only those northern properties will be involved in the PBA.
Marshall: That helps explain that significantly. Thank you.
Parsons: You're welcome.
Freeman: Thank you, Bill. Any other questions?
O'Brien: Mr. Chair?
Meridian Planning & Zoning
January 6, 2011
Page 23 of 27
Freeman: Commissioner O'Brien.
O'Brien: If you understand it, Bill, go for it. That's all I have.
Freeman: Any other questions? Okay. Thank you, Bill.
Marshall: I guess I do.
Freeman: Commissioner Marshall.
Marshall: Mr. Chair. How do we foresee Ustick and Ten Mile developing in the future?
Isn't that commercial to the north?
Parsons: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, Commissioner Marshall, you are
correct, the property to the north is the McNellis Subdivision. It was annexed and zoned
as a mixed use project, to have L-O zoned property and C-G zoned property to the
north that is currently vacant.
Marshall: C-G.
Parsons: Yes.
Marshall: Now we foresee Ten Mile widening out; correct?
Parsons: Correct.
Marshall: Some day in Ada County's work plan -- and some day in Ada County's work
plan Ustick is going to widen out. And it's a pretty significant intersection. Do you
foresee any -- especially the one right on the corner, seeing the residents taking access
to a major intersection in the future with -- I understand the need to bring this in,
because we are purple piping, we have got to get them in, we got to bring them into the
city and that means we got to give them utilities to get that well taken care of, so that we
can put in the purple pipeline. I understand. At the same time I'm not excited about R-4
on that corner.
Parsons: Chairman, Members of the Commission -- and you're correct. Speaking with
-- and, fortunately, we did not receive ACHD's comments on this annexation and we
may not. Typically I have contacted them and they said, basically, with an annexation
they are just comments until they actually get a development plan, but speaking with
them it's my understanding that they have actually moved up that Ustick Road widening
to 2014 and I could anticipate in order to facilitate that corner to go commercial, either
the new property owner or ACRD would have to process the Comprehensive Plan, a
map amendment in order to change that designation and get commercial.
Marshall: We are -- we do have it designated as residential right now --
Meridian Planning & Zoning
January 6, 2011
Page 24 of 27
Parsons: It's medium density residential right now, so the R-4 is --
Marshall: Didn't we just change that on the north to make it L-O and C-G? On the north
side here just a year or two ago?
Parsons: Commissioner Marshall, no, I believe that project came through in '05 or '06.
That's been out there quite awhile. We did the northwest corner of Ustick and Linder
and also did the southwest corner of Ustick and Linder.
Marshall: Something came through on Ten Mile. Okay. Thank you. I appreciate that.
Freeman: Anymore questions? Okay. Thank you, Bill. Would the applicant like to
come forward? I know we have heard it before, but, please, state your name and
address for the record.
Stewart: Warren Stewart. 33 East Broadway Avenue, Meridian, Idaho. Business
address. And, again, I'm the city engineer and we have been working with ACRD on
this project. Although there is some -- you know, some various .little tweaks and things
that we have had to do with this project, I think in general we are going to improve the
situation, because we are going to do a lot line adjustment survey that will help clean up
the property or the parcels on this property. We are also going to -- as part of this --
mean although it is being zoned as residential, ACRD -- one of the requirements that
they wanted was to have us put in six inch or -- I think actually, eight inch -- eight inch
water line stubs into this. So, this property we will putting off residential meters, but it
will be set so that if it does go commercial in the future that it can be done without going
back out into the street. So -- and, then, as far as the sewer is concerned, they had
septic systems for this home that are functioning, our sewer system is close enough we
felt that if they wanted to go commercial they are going to have to pay to put those lines
in. If their septic fails they are close enough that the health department is going to
require them to hook up to the city at their expense, so that's why we are -- you know,
decided that we would do that, because we were pretty assured that we were going to
get that taken care of in the future. So, with that I would be happy to answer any
questions that you might have.
Freeman: Any questions of the applicant? Okay. Thank you. I don't have anybody
signed up to offer public testimony on this application. I don't see anybody in the
audience that I believe wants to, unless I see a show of hands. So, could I get a motion
to close the public hearing on Item No. AZ 1'0-005?
Marshall: So moved.
O'Brien: Second.
Freeman: Okay. It's been moved and seconded. All those in favor say aye. Opposed?
Okay. Motion carries.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
January 6, 2011
Page 25 of 27
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Freeman: Further discussion on this?
Marshall: Mr. Chair?
Freeman: Commissioner Marshall.
Marshall: I do believe this cleans it up. It's a mess and the -- what the city is requesting
think is about the best we can do. To be honest, I'm not fond of the R-4 designation,
although it does fit what's there now and I think ACHD, obviously, agrees with me, it's
not going to remain that for a long period of time. Eventually that's going to change. It
appears somebody else has seen that, too. But right now this does make quite a mess
much cleaner and it does help us with the purple pipe issue and I think it's probably our
best move.
Freeman: Commissioner Marshall, I agree it's not ideal, but it seems like this whole
issue needs to be taken in baby steps and this seems to be the first baby step that
needs to be taken. Any other comments?
O'Brien: Mr. Chair, Ijust --
Freeman: Commissioner O'Brien.
O'Brien: -- want to comment that earlier today I -- when I was trying to make sense of
this whole thing, my comment was can this really be accomplished as I understood it
then. But I think the plan that -- what I heard from both staff and the city engineer, I
think it's a workable plan, I think that's a plan that they didn't have before, but now
think it's more or less -- it's in the cement stage, not concrete stage, and I think it's
workable, so I think we should go forward with that.
Freeman: Thank you. Commissioner Rohm, any comments?
Rohm: No comments.
Freeman: Okay. Could I get a motion?
Marshall: After considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move to
recommend approval to City Council of file number AZ 10-005 as presented during the
hearing on January 6, 2011, with no modifications.
Rohm: Second.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
January 6, 2011
Page 26 of 27
Freeman: It's been moved and seconded to approve Item No. AZ 10-005, Ada County
Highway District Ten Mile annexation by the City of Meridian Public Works Department.
all those in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Freeman: Before I take that last motion I wanted to hand the floor over to Pete
Friedman for a couple of announcements. Pete.
Friedman: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission, just
wanted to let you know next Tuesday night at 6:00 o'clock the Mayor and City Council
are going to do a brief recognition of Wendy's service on the Commission. The
Planning Department has purchased a little plaque like thing and, anyway, so we have
that on the Council agenda, so I just wanted to let you know that if you wanted to make
yourselves available it will be 6:00 o'clock. Probably won't go very long. So, in fact,
need to remind Wendy also, because, as you know, she thought she might slink away,
but I was able to twist her arm and get her in. So, anyway, that's happening Tuesday
night. And, then, Thursday night we sent you an a-vite that we are having -- our
Planning Department invites you to some Commissioner training at 5:30 and, then, as
soon as that training is over with we will adjourn into a more social event and we will be
having dinner and that will be about 6:00 o'clock. I think we will have training at 5:30,
get to the end of that, take a quick little break, having dinner, get set up and at that point
just enjoy each other's company for the evening. We will be providing the dinner for
you. As I mentioned, if you want to bring a guest it will be a nominal fee for that. We
will be providing probably soda and ice tea. If you feel like you'd like something else,
please, feel free to bring it with you. And that will be at the ground floor, which is over
on Idaho Street about two doors east of Rick's Press Room, so we hope -- well, based
on all the responses we got it sounds like everybody will be there. So, it should be a fun
evening. I think there will be about 21 or 22 of us. So, we look forward to seeing you
join us.
Freeman: That's good. Thanks for those reminders, Pete. Now I'll take one more
motion.
Rohm: Mr. Chairman?
Freeman: Commissioner Rohm.
Rohm: I move we adjourn.
Marshall: Second.
Freeman: It's been moved and seconded to adjourn. All those in favor say aye.
Opposed? Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
January 6, 2011
Page 27 of 27
Freeman: Thank you.
MEETING ADJOURNED AT 8:14 P.M.
(AUDIO RECORDING ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS.)
~1 I Za
DATE APPROVED
ATTEST: V ~ . ~ ~~, ,,,,~~~~~~~,~~~~,,
JAYCE L. HOLMAN, CITY CLERK ; ' ~ af. ~d~ ~~'~%
~ ~GdR~ rF
o
~~.~Ia
.9O (isT 1ST , Q.2Q\`~
,y `O
,~
Meridian Planning Zoning Commission Meeting
DATE: January 6, 2011 ITEM NUMBER: 3A
PROJECT NUMBER:
ITEM TITLE:
Approve Minutes of December 16, 2011 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting:
MEETING NOTES
CLERKS OFFICE FINAL ACTION
DATE: E-MAILED TO
STAFF SENT TO
AGENCY SENT TO
APPLICANT NOTES INITIALS
Meridian Planning Zoning Commission Meeting
DATE: January 6, 2011 ITEM NUMBER: 36
PROJECT NUMBER: MCU 10-003
ITEM TITLE: Fred Meyer Fuel Facility Station Expansion
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval -Modify the site plan, landscape
plan and fuel canopy approved for the Fred Meyer Fuel Station (File #CUP 01-005) by
Fred Meyer Stores, Inc. - 1850 E. Fairview Avenue
MEETING NOTES
CLERKS OFFICE FINAL ACTION
DATE: E-MAILED TO
STAFF SENT TO
AGENCY SENT TO
APPLICANT NOTES INITIALS
~-M~- l l /
Meridian Planning Zoning Commission Meeting
DATE: January 6, 2011 ITEM NUMBER: 4A
PROJECT NUMBER: CPAM 10-001
ITEM TITLE: Waverly Place
Continued Public Hearing from 12/16/10 -Amendment to the Comp Plan Future Land
Use Map to change the land use designation on 4.9 acres of land use from Office to
Medium Density Residential by Robert Mortensen, Mountain West Entrust IRA / FBO -
2510 E. Magic View Drive
MEETING NOTES
-~/ ~~.
4-0
CLERKS OFFICE FINAL ACTION
DATE: E-MAILED TO
STAFF SENT TO
AGENCY SENT TO
APPLICANT NOTES INITIALS
Meridian Planning Zoning Commission Meeting
DATE: January 6, 2011 ITEM NUMBER: 46
PROJECT NUMBER: RZ 10-004
ITEM TITLE: Waverly Place
Continued Public Hearing from 12/16/10 -Rezone of 5.17 acres of land from L-O
(Limited Office) to R-8 (Medium Density Residential) zone by Robert Mortensen,
Mountain West Entrust IRA / FBO - 2510 E. Magic View Drive
MEETING NOTES
~°o/~in~ I°~(~- -fa 1-ltd-Il ~~m~
CLERKS OFFICE FINAL ACTION
DATE: E-MAILED TO
STAFF SENT TO
AGENCY SENT TO
APPLICANT NOTES INITIALS
Meridian Planning Zoning Commission Meeting
DATE: January 6, 2011 ITEM NUMBER: 4C
PROJECT NUMBER: PP 10-003
ITEM TITLE: Waverly Place
Continued Public Hearing from 12/16/10- Preliminary Plat approval of 24 residential
building lots and 4 common lots on 4.9 acres of land in a proposed R-8 zoning district by
Robert Mortensen, Mountain West Entrust IRA/FBO - 2510 E. Magic View Drive
MEETING NOTES
~~m~
y-v
CLERKS OFFICE FINAL ACTION
DATE: E-MAILED TO
STAFF SENT TO
AGENCY SENT TO
APPLICANT NOTES INITIALS
Meridian Planning Zoning Commission Meeting
DATE: January 6, 2011 ITEM NUMBER: 4~
PROJECT NUMBER: CUP 10-014
ITEM TITLE: Silver Oaks Apartments
Public Hearing -Conditional Use Permit for amulti-family development consisting of 369
units on 24.61 acres inan R-15 zoning district by Silver Oaks Apartments, LLC -
approximately 1 /4 mile west of Ten .Mile Road, north of W. Franklin Road
MEETING NOTES
~~m~
4~
CLERKS OFFICE FINAL ACTION
DATE: E-MAILED TO
STAFF SENT TO
AGENCY SENT TO
APPLICANT NOTES INITIALS
Meridian Planning Zoning Commission Meeting
DATE: January 6, 2011 ITEM NUMBER: 4E
PROJECT NUMBER: CUP 10-013
ITEM TITLE: Dutch Bros.
Public Hearing -Conditional Use Permit approval for a drive thru establishment within
300 feet of a residential district and existing residence as required by UDC 1 1-4-3-11A by
Sun-Stone Meridian, LLC - 1351 E. Fairview Avenue
MEETING NOTES
-,~ P p~ - rn,rz ~ -rD
t-t-D
CLERKS OFFICE F/NAL ACTION
DATE: E-MAILED TO
STAFF SENT TO
AGENCY SENT TO
APPLICANT NOTES INITIALS
Meridian Planning Zoning Commission Meeting
DATE: January 6, 2011 ITEM NUMBER: 4F
PROJECT NUMBER: AZ 10-004
ITEM TITLE: Pecchenino Annexation
Public Hearing -Annexation and Zoning of 1 acre of land from RUT (Ada County) to R-4
(Medium Low-density residential) zoning district by COM PW - 1955 N. Ten Mile Road
MEETING NOTES
~~~~
~f -o
CLERKS OFFICE FINAL ACTION
DATE: E-MAILED TO
STAFF SENT TO
AGENCY SENT TO
APPLICANT NOTES INITIALS
Meridian Planning Zoning Commission Meeting
DATE: January 6, 2011 ITEM NUMBER: 4G
PROJECT NUMBER: AZ 10-005
ITEM TITLE: ACHD Ten Mile Annexation
Public Hearing -Annexation and Zoning of 1.50 acres of land from R1 (Ada County) to R-
4 (Medium Low-Density Residential) zoning district by City of Meridian Public Works
Department - SWC of W. Ustick Road and N. Ten Mile Road
MEETING NOTES
~.Na~ ~pry~ ~ ale
~ -f~ ~~c
7~~~~
~-o
-r-~ ~
CLERKS OFFICE FINAL ACTION
DATE: E-MAILED TO
STAFF SENT TO
AGENCY SENT TO
APPLICANT NOTES INITIALS