2011 09-15Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting September 15, 2011
Meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission of September 15, 2011, was
called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Chairman Scott Freeman.
Members Present: Chairman Scott Freeman, Commissioner Joe Marshall,
Commissioner Steven Yearsley and Commissioner Tom O'Brien.
Member Absent: Commissioner Michael Rohm.
Others Present: Machelle Hill, Ted Baird, Pete Friedman, Sonya Wafters, Bill Parson,
Scott Steckline and Dean Willis.
Item 1: Roll-Call Attendance:
Roll-call
X Steven Yearsley X Tom O'Brien
Michael Rohm X 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 for the
date of September 15th, 2011. And, Machelle, could we begin with roll call.
Item 2: Adoption of the Agenda
Freeman: Thank you. Okay. The first item we need to take care of is the adoption of
the agenda. I do have some changes to the agenda. Items F and G on the agenda that
have to do with RZ 11-004 and PP 11-007, Chesterfield, they have asked for a
continuance on that, so that will not be heard until October 6th. So, if anybody in the
audience is here to speak to that application, we are only going to open it tonight for the
sole purpose of continuing it, there won't be a public hearing until they are ready on the
6th. Okay. So, with that could I get a motion to adopt the agenda as amended?
O'Brien: So moved.
Yearsley: Second.
Freeman: Okay. It's been moved and seconded to adopt the agenda as amended. All
those in favor say aye. Opposed? Okay. Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Item 3: Consent Agenda
A. Approve Minutes of September 1, 2011 Planning and
Meridian Planning & Zoning
September 15, 2011
Page 2 of 40
Zoning Commission Meeting
B. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval:
CUP 11-002 Walmart -Overland/Stoddard by Walmart Real
Estate Business Trust Located Southeast Corner of W.
Overland Road and S. Stoddard Road Request:
Conditional Use Permit for aDrive- Thru Establishment
Within 300 Feet of Another Drive Thru Facility, a
Residential District and Existing Residences
C. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval:
CUP 11-003 Life Church by Life Church Located at 3225 E.
Commercial Court Request: Conditional Use Permit to
Operate a Church from an Existing Building in an I-L
Zoning District
Freeman: Okay. On the Consent Agenda tonight, which is our next item, we have
three items, the approval of the minutes on September 11th, 2001, of the Planning and
Zoning Commission meeting, the Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law for approval
of CUP 11-002 and the Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law for approval of CUP
11-003. Are there any changes that need to be made?
Marshall: Mr. Chair, I'd like to change that to the minutes of September 1.
Freeman: Did I say something else?
Marshall: I believe it was the 11th.
Freeman: Noted, then. September 1. I had my son's birthday, actually, in mind,
guess. Okay. I do actually have one correction. In the meeting minutes where we
started off page two, it was actually Commissioner Freeman at the top of the page, not
Commissioner Rohm. That's the only item I have to change. So, could I get a motion to
accept the Consent Agenda as noted?
Yearsley: So moved.
Marshall: Second.
Freeman: Okay. It's been motioned and seconded to accept the Consent Agenda. All
those in favor say aye. Opposed? All right. Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Freeman: Okay. Before we get onto our main items for today on the agenda, just want
to kind of go over the process for everybody in the audience so you understand how this
is going to work if you haven't been here before. We are going to open each item one
by one and we will begin with a staff report. At that time Commissioners might have
Meridian Planning & Zoning
September 15, 2011
Page 3 of 40
some questions of staff and, then, after that the applicant will have 15 minutes to come
forward and present the application to us. After the applicant speaks, then, we will take
public testimony and there is a sign-up sheet in the back if you are planning on testifying
today. It will be helpful to sign up on that sheet. It's not absolutely necessary, though.
Once I go through all the names on the sheet, then, I will ask if there is anybody else in
the audience that wants to speak. After we hear public testimony, then, the applicant
will have an opportunity to come up for another ten minutes and respond to anything
heard in the public testimony. At that time we will close the public hearing and the
Commissioners will deliberate here and, hopefully, we will be able to make a decision
and offer up a recommendation on that item and, then, we will move onto the next item.
Item 4: Action Items
A. Public Hearing: RZ 11-003 Kingsbridge by BHH
Kingsbridge, LLC Generally Located East Side of S.
Eagle Road; Midway Between E. Victory Road and E.
Amity Road Request: Rezone of 38.31 Acres of Land
from the R-2 Zoning District to the R-4 Zoning District
Freeman: So, with that I'd like to open the public hearing on Item RZ 11-003,
Kingsbridge by BHH Kingsbridge, starting with the staff report.
Parsons: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. The application
before you this evening is for a rezone of a previous project that you approved in late
2010 known as Kingsbridge Subdivision. This is phase two and phase three. Anew
preliminary plat was approved by Council in 2011 as well and, then, also the applicant
has commenced with construction on phase two. The subject property is located east
of South Eagle Road, midway between Amity Road and Victory Road here. I would
point out to the Commission that phase one has been recorded and also has homes
constructed as well. So, the reason why we are here tonight is really to discuss the
rezone of this property. It's currently zoned R-2. The property is zoned low density
residential in the comprehensive map and anticipates dwelling units between --
anticipates dwelling units between -- anticipates three dwelling units or less to the acre.
If you recall when you acted on this preliminary plat back in 2010, the density proposed
at that time was 1.88 units to the acre. So, if you look at the exhibit on the left-hand
side here you will see that this is pretty much similar, the same identical plat that you --
you acted on and Council acted on, so it does reference the 72 buildable lots. It does
reference those lot sizes and the applicant has also gone one step further and also
provided to you, basically, had a detailed sheet that kind outlines both zoning districts
as well for a comparison. I would let you know that there is a development agreement
modification concurrent with this application, but City Council will be the final decision-
making body on that application. So, just for information purposes only, I have attached
this as an exhibit, just to kind of explain to you what -- what's going to transpire here.
would point out, again, that lot count -- it is 72 lots. The applicant is not proposing to
deviate from that, nor the density. So, what you see on the left-hand side here, there is
some green asterisks on some of the lots, those are highlighted for single story homes,
which is consistent with the past approvals. And, then, also the applicant is proposing
Meridian Planning & Zoning
September 15, 2011
Page 4 of 40
to minimize or proposing to limit the size of homes on the property. So, for example, if
you look at the exhibit on the right, the minimum for single story houses will be 2,000
square feet and the minimum house size for two story homes would be 2,400 square
feet. Also in 2011, if I can just digress one bit, the applicant tried to proceed with a
variance on the property, against staffs recommendation and they got before Council
and we determined -- Council did, that avariance -- a blanket variance wasn't the
appropriate mechanism to seek relief from the setback standards in the R-2 zone and
so during that hearing it was discussed that the applicant should probably proceed with
the rezone and that's why we are here before you this evening. So, again, with the
exhibit on the right, you can see the R-4 zone and the R-2 zone -- in the UDC the
density -- the maximum density requirement in the R-4 zone is four units to the acre and
in the R-2 zone it's two units to the acre. Again, this plat was approved with 1.88 and
that is -- they are not deviating from that. And, then, the applicant's kind of broke out
your front yard, side yard, and rear yard setbacks. The major difference between the
setbacks in the two zones is really the side yard setback. In the R-2 zone you're
required to provide 15 foot setbacks for a two story home and in the R-4 zone it's just a
flat five foot minimum and that's, basically, the reason for the rezone as well, it's just so
that they can have at least a little bit more flexibility in the home designs that they are
proposing to construct in there. If I go to the next slide here, these are the elevations
that staff recommended for approval and Council acted on and these are going to be
tied to the DA as well. So, you can see they are planning quite a variety of different
style homes in there and they just want that flexibility in there. I would point out to you
as well that we did get verbal confirmation from the applicant and they are in agreement
with the conditions in the staff report and also he sent me an a-mail from one of the --
the homeowners association -- or not the homeowners association, but the advisory
committee for Kingsbridge Subdivision No. 1. In that a-mail it looks like they support the
rezone, provided the applicant complies with that exhibit we just saw on the previous
slide. To my knowledge there are no other outstanding issues before you this evening
and with that I would be happy to answer any questions you may have.
Freeman: Thank you. Any questions?
O'Brien: I have a question, Mr. Chair.
Freeman: Commissioner O'Brien.
O'Brien: Bill, I don't know if you would have this -- this information available, but on the
west side of Eagle Road -- I assuming it's just across the road from where this is
proposed -- I think those are Corey Barton Homes as well. Are these Corey Barton?
No? Okay. So, the similar density -- I think they are proposing a very similar -- but I'm
not sure if you're familiar with that particular area, but you're looking about the same
kind of density is across Eagle Road or more?
Parsons: Mr. Chair, Commissioner O'Brien, this is far less than probably what you see
across the road. I mean we are talking 1.8 units to the acre. That's -- we are consistent
with the Comprehensive Plan. The Corey Barton sub that you were referencing is
Meridian Planning & Zoning
September 15, 2011
Page 5 of 40
located on the southwest corner, I believe, of Victory and Eagle and they're R-8 up
there, so I would imagine they are probably closer to -- with that Comprehensive Plan
designation, that -- they can range anywhere from three to eight units to the acre. So,
this is well below what --
O'Brien: I just wanted to make a comparison. I wasn't sure what they had, so thank
you, appreciate it.
Freeman: Any other questions of staff? Okay. Well, at this time if the applicant would
like to come forward. Please state your name and address into the microphone and
speak clearly into it.
Schultz: Good evening. Commissioners. My name is Matt Schultz, with the Schultz
company, at 5463 Acheron in Boise, representing the applicant BHH Kingsbridge, LLC,
which is a company of Boise Hunter Homes, who owns the property of 38.3 acres, just
east of Kingsbridge phase one, Kingsbridge phase one was built five or six years ago.
Boise Hunter Homes bought this back end last year and, then, as Bill -- Bill went
through, replatted it, didn't change the density, didn't change the lot sizes, it's pretty rare
that I'm up representing an R-2 subdivision. I have done a lot of subdivisions over the
years and, excuse me, these are large lots, these are 12,000 square foot minimum,
16,000 square foot average. Used to doing an R-4 at the biggest, but this is an R-2
sub --
Marshall: Mr. Chair?
Freeman: Just a moment.
Marshall: Could we turn up the volume? Is there any way to turn up the volume?
Friedman: The volume is up as high as it can go, so if Mr. Schultz can lean in closer to
the microphone --
Schultz: Get in closer? Is that better? Okay. I'll lean closer. Maybe that will make it --
Freeman: Thank you.
Schultz: It's a large lot subdivision, but with a little quirk, if you will, in the -- in the
dimensional standards of the zoning, which allows an 80 foot minimum lot in an R-4 an
80 by 145 is a 12,000 square foot lot, which we have several of. The two story homes
with a 15 and 15, you're allowed a 55 foot wide house, which is a fine home, don't get
me wrong, but it really doesn't do any justice to the overall Kingsbridge Subdivision, it
doesn't allow for flexibility to do side entry garage, you know, an RV bay, really
deemphasizes the garage and that front design, really create homes with a nice upper
end street presence, if you will. And so the reason we are here is only for the side yard
setbacks and, I agree, the zoning is the appropriate venue to -- to work with the
setbacks. It's not a variance. Only in specific situations are variances allowed and
Meridian Planning & Zoning
September 15, 2011
Page 6 of 40
those are very rare. So, it's definitely a zoning and the next zoning up is R-4. It is a low
density designation like R-2. We have R-2 frontage limits built into our DA modification.
So, really, a DA modification really goes hand in glove with this, is that, yes, we are
asking for a rezone. However, we are going to limit phase three, which we are not
under construction on right now, to be 80 foot wide minimum, 12,000 square foot
minimum, 72 lots overall, and really tie everything in that you need to as a neighborhood
and as a city to make sure that with phase three anew --anew plat doesn't come
forward with 8,000 square foot lots. And so that -- even though you guys don't act on
that, it is important for you to know that that is a companion item with it going to Council,
that in addition we have highlighted on that exhibit -- you see in front of you those three
in the northwest, you have aunique -- it's not a unique. We had a situation where you
have a rear yard abutting a side yard for existing homes and we felt it was important --
that was -- we talked to some of the neighbors and they were concerned, we felt it was
important to limit -- put an extra wide setback there that regardless of two story or single
story, that will be 15 foot wide, which is the same as a rear -- a rear minimum and I think
it's important to point out that we are not asking to go build right to the minimums on all
these lots, these lots are so wide -- a lot of them -- some of them are 125, 97, you know,
the architecture is going to be what it is and it's probably going to have ten and tens or --
but there are going to be some, especially those in the middle, that are 85 by 145 that
some of those may be 75 foot wide houses and that would be okay. I think we have a
lot of R-4, nice homes in the city approved over the years, considered large lot
subdivisions with upper end homes, that have some five and five's and that's okay and
we did run it by the fire department and they were okay with that as well. So, you know,
with that I'm here to answer any questions and ask for your approval.
Freeman: Thank you. Any questions? Thank you very much. Do we have sign-up
sheets, Machelle? We will get the sign-up sheets in just a moment and I will just go
down those in order if anybody has signed up to testify. When you do come forward
please state your name and address for the record and speak into the mike closely, so
that everybody can hear. I did skip over the fact that when you do come forward to
testify you're given three minutes to speak, unless you're speaking for a group that's
represented here. If that's the case let me know and I will take a show of hands, so that
we know who you are speaking for, and in that case you will be given ten minutes.
Okay. So, the first person on the list -- Matt, we already heard from you -- is Scott
Flemming. Again, just state your name and address for the record when you approach
the mike. Thank you.
Flemming: My name is Scott Flemming. I reside at 3910 South Tavistock on -- right on
the border with the new phase that's going in. I don't really have much of an issue with
the zoning that's going on, other than I would like to see the developer honor the original
setbacks for lots like mine that butt up against the new phase, just for -- you know, when
bought the lot it was part of why I bought it, I thought, you know, that it would restrict
maybe my view of the mountains and -- or that a house being built would not, I should
say, obstruct the view that I have of the mountains and I'm afraid that with the changes
in the setback, just for those lots specifically, that -- that it could block those views, one
of them being mine, and I would like the Council to, you know, consider that when
Meridian Planning & Zoning
September 15, 2011
Page 7 of 40
thinking of approving. Like I said, it's just a handful of lots there that I believe, you
know, we would like to see them honor those.
Freeman: Mr. Flemming, I have a question for you.
Flemming: Uh-huh.
Freeman: Are you referring to the same handful of lots where the applicant stated he
intends to maintain that 15 foot setback even though it's a side yard?
Flemming: I didn't -- I didn't understand what he was -- what he was saying.
Freeman: Okay. There are -- there are three lots he's identified on here that have side
yards abutting adjacent existing properties, but the development agreement as stated
will maintain 15 feet of side yard, which is the same as the rear yard for those. So, I
was just curious if you're aware of any other areas where it was an issue or if we are
speaking to the same thing.
Flemming: We could be speaking of the same --
Freeman: Okay. When the applicant comes back up, maybe he can clarify for us, but
think he has addressed that.
Flemming: Okay. Good.
Freeman: Okay. Great. Thank you. Next in line is Laurie Allen. Please state your
name and address for the record.
Allen: My name is Laurie Allen and I live north of the property on a small acreage on
Terri Drive, 3550 Terri Drive, and we -- we originally had winding streets back there and
large lots and we have, as a group, fought very hard, the surrounding properties, to get
that for several years and, then, all of a sudden it's turned into these little square lots
and now they want them even to be closer, five feet apart from the property line, and I
object to the plan all the way around, but specifically that these people with the yellow
highlight, they got what they wanted was the 15 -- 15 foot side setback, but not along
the north perimeter and we did go and talk to him and he kind of said that he would take
care of that. So, I am afraid that if it gets zoned R-4, that two years from now, three
years from now, what would keep them from coming in and saying, well, you know, now
that we are zoned R-4, we would like to change the density and change the lot -- the
plot -- excuse me -- the lot lines for the -- the lots, like they did on phase two and what
would keep that from happening that's what I'm questioning.
Freeman: Commissioner Marshall, would you like to speak to that?
Marshall: First, I'd like to ask a quick question. Were you here back last year when --
Meridian Planning & Zoning
September 15, 2011
Page 8 of 40
Allen: I'm not hearing you.
Freeman: Were you here last year when this plat was approved?
Allen: I missed this -- this change. No.
Marshall: Okay. That was a noticed approval and this plat's already approved.
Allen: I realize that.
Marshall: Okay. Now --
Allen: But what I'm saying is it got changed, so what would keep it from getting
changed again to match the R-4 if it gets rezoned?
Marshall: Well, that would be the development agreement, of which I believe staff could
help you with.
Friedman: Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, there is nothing to say that they couldn't
request it. There is no assurance it would be granted. But, again, to change any
provisions of either the development agreement or come back and resubdivide it, have
to go back through this whole process again, has to be considered by the -- by the
Commission and, then, ultimately by the City Council.
Allen: I understand that. That's why I'm objecting to changing the zoning to R-4,
because that just makes it that much easier for them to come and make smaller lots the
next time and every year less people come, they get use to it, and they stop fighting. It
doesn't affect them directly, so they give up. That's my say on it.
Freeman: Okay. Thank you. Phillip Allen. Please state your name and address for the
record.
P.Allen: My name is Phillip Allen. Laurie is my wife. I live in the same place. I just
have to say what she said, but further to say that it doesn't seem quite right that when
we have an agreement that everybody's made and over time they can chip away at it
and chip away at it and in a few years the river is running in a whole new direction and
so what we have done to -- we have done for nothing. Everything's changed. You
people change. They change. You know. But the money is going into their pockets to
get what they want and sometimes that comes back to the city to get what the city
wants, but that doesn't help us, that doesn't help what we originally got here. So, I say
no. Enough is enough, you know. What are they going to include and help us out do --
or do? Nothing. So, it just doesn't seem right that we go to all that trouble, we fight it,
and they keep chipping and now there is three of us here instead of 30 of us, because
people are losing interest and a lot of people believe in this system, which I know better.
It's going to change and as long as you allow it to change, it's going to keep right on
going until it's a new ball game. So, that's why I object to it. Thank you.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
September 15, 2011
Page 9 of 40
Freeman: Thank you, Mr. Allen. Is there anybody else that came to testify on this item?
No. Okay. Any other questions? Commissioner Marshall, you were about to speak?
Marshall: I was just going to ask the applicant back up to rebut.
Freeman: Thank you. Okay. If the applicant would like to come forward. You have
another ten minutes to respond to anything that you heard.
Schultz: Thank you. I don't know if I will need the whole ten, but I do appreciate it. I did
talk to Mr. Flemming after he came and sat down. He -- he lives abutting that -- just
south of our main entrance there, that big number one lot -- try this thing out. Oops.
Did I do something wrong? How do I point on here?
Parsons: Choose your color at the top, Matt.
Schultz: Right there. He lives abutting right there. Abutting that lot and I pointed out
fortunately he backs up to a 220 foot deep lot, which in my opinion is extremely large
and deep and it does maintain the same setbacks as were originally approved on the
first plat if I remember correctly, those lots that were originally approved in the first plat
might have been 130 feet deep or 140. So, it's definitely an improvement on those and
those lots abutting phase one are very large -- we have some 20,000 square foot lots
abutting up to phase one. As far as the Allens, I do appreciate their comments. They
did come to the neighborhood meeting and chatted with them there and they live in the
northeast corner of our site next to those three stars that designate single homes that
will be built up there adjacent to their property, as well as -- I believe the lot depths are
150, plus a 30 foot buffer there to the north. So, there are ample setbacks, ample
depths, ample provisions to our five acre lot neighbors on the north and the east, which
we -- and the south and that's why -- those were all negotiated through the original
approval process done five years ago and included as part of a settlement agreement
with the original developer, who is no longer out there. We are incorporating those. We
are bringing all those items forward, like the minimum square footage of 2,000 for single
story and minimum square footage for 2,400 on two story and bringing all those items
forward and locking them into a development agreement, which runs with the land,
regardless of ownership. So, if it sells there is a development agreement that records
with the land. The only way to change that development agreement is to come back in
front of the City Council and go through a public hearing process, which would be very
-- very difficult. So, with that -- that's why we do a development agreement, to assure
neighbors, to assure Councils, to assure staff, that, yes, what we are going to build is
what you see and, in fact, we are building phase two as we speak, kind of locks in what
we can do on phrase three where we have these stub streets and there is not much you
can do to redo phrase three right now, even if we wanted to and even if that was
something we thought we could get done easily. So, with that I hope you can move us
on to City Council, so we can know what size homes we can build and we are excited to
say we will be paving probably by Halloween on phase two, which is a good thing in this
Meridian Planning & Zoning
September 15, 2011
Page 10 of 40
economy and I'm happy to be construction managing that and moving things forward, so
I'd ask for your approval. Thanks.
Freeman: Mr. Allen, before you go I just want to make sure I'm clear on a couple of
things. I'm looking at the chart that I believe you supplied, the comparison of the R-4
zone and R-2 zone.
Schultz: Schultz.
Freeman: I'm sorry. Mr. Schultz. I knew that. It's right at the top of my paper here.
Schultz: I did supply that.
Freeman: Okay. And it doesn't appear to me that you are proposing any change on the
rear setbacks between -- on these lots. The zoning is the same, it's the 15 feet, and I'm
looking at the northern lots, because that's where the Allens live and their concerns are
specifically regarding that. I'm correct there, right?
Schultz: Correct. And that's --
Freeman: The setbacks are going to be the same?
Schultz: -- that's one of the reasons why I -- for my own education, because I haven't
done an R-2 sub -- I went through and just compared what are we really asking for here,
what is different, and there is no difference between the rear in an R-2 to R-4. None.
The front, the only difference is if it's a nongarage you can go to 15, instead of 20.
Freeman: And it occurs to me with that being the case, if you had say a 50 or 80 foot
deep house, that could actually cause the house to be pushed further away from the
north property line, because you can move further south.
Schultz: Absolutely.
Freeman: So, nothing is lost necessarily, but there might be some --
Schultz: I really feel very comfortable representing this as a good thing for the
neighborhood and the community. I mean I have done a lot more difficult applications in
terms of the contention, in terms of high density, you know, really pushing them in there
and this -- this is not that, this is selling really high end up scale. We want to do
something bigger and better, we are just kind of limited by that side yard to do so.
Freeman: Okay. Thank you. Any other Commissioners have questions? Go ahead,
Commissioner O'Brien.
O'Brien: Mr. Chair. So, was there a town meeting held for this particular issue that --
the setbacks with people --
Meridian Planning & Zoning
September 15, 2011
Page 11 of 40
Freeman.: Yes, sir. We -- as required before we submit our application we have to have
a neighborhood meeting. We had it here at -- across the hallway there in the
conference room approximately -- probably 45 days ago.
O'Brien: Okay. So it was recent.
Schultz: It was recent. It was right before we submitted our application.
O'Brien: How many showed up, if I may ask?
Schultz: The Allens showed up and I believe two other people. There was some others
that couldn't attend that I went and spoke with separately that lived in Kingsbridge to get
some of their feedback, too, as well, just to make sure I didn't have any surprises.
O'Brien: All right.
Schultz: More so than what normally happens.
O'Brien: Okay.
Freeman: Any other questions?
O'Brien: That's all I have. Thanks.
Yearsley: I have one.
Freeman: Commissioner Yearsley.
Yearsley: Just for clarification -- I know it's already been approved, but this was asked
for a different change of plat just recently; is that correct?
Schultz: I believe it was the end of 2010.
Yearsley: Was there increased lots with that change or has -- the lots have stayed the
same?
Freeman: It was a new configuration, same -- same density, same lot count, same
everything, just they reconfigured it.
Yearsley: Okay. That's what I want to know. Thanks.
Freeman: Okay. Thank you.
Schultz: Thanks.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
September 15, 2011
Page 12 of 40
Freeman: Well, could I get a motion at this time to close the public hearing for RZ 11-
003 and MDA 11-006.
Yearsley: So moved.
O'Brien: Second.
Freeman: It's been moved and seconded to close the public hearing for RZ 11-003 and
MDA 11-006. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Freeman: Discussion?
Marshall: Mr. Chair?
Freeman: Commissioner Marshall.
Marshall: If you don't mind bearing with me just a minute. I'd like to give a little of my
perspective on some history here with this. If I recall right -- properly, there was an
original development here, a plat that was -- it took, actually, a considerable amount of
effort and work with all the neighbors, a lot of effort went into developing it until
everybody was happy with it. Unfortunately, I believe the developer went bankrupt or
sold -- sold the -- sold the property over time. Part of the problem was that the zoning
ordinances changed in the meantime and the previous plat did not fit any of our zones,
it wasn't going to fit the specifics of that. So, they felt that it was imperative to redesign
the plat. Personally, I -- my personal opinion -- I think I expressed this last time -- was
much preferred the last layout, but it would have required variances and the like. There
would have been some changes, because the zoning law had changed and based on
that I believe we got some acceptance of this with -- with the developer giving some
concessions in the development agreement to some of the homeowners and the like
and this did come back in late 2010 and was passed. We knew at that time, though,
there was probably going to be some variance issues with some of the lighter houses
and the variance was not approved and Council said that this should probably go back
and be rezoned and simply because of this -- the side yard setbacks and it appears
that's all we are referring to now. So, they get to build -- if -- if we don't approve those
side yard setbacks, then, the houses are going to sit much deeper in the lots and will go
closer to the other houses, rather than closer to houses that they are building and,
personally, mostly based on the development agreement and the agreements in that
development agreement I believe improves on what's there and offers a better quality
offering. I am disappointed that we weren't able to continue with what had been agreed
with over a long period of time, but, again, that was due to changes not only in
ownership of the land, but changes in the law and the zoning ordinance. Excuse me.
And that kind of forced people's hands and -- well, I -- I believe I'm going to vote for this,
mostly because of not changing R-4, because I don't think an R-4 is appropriate here,
and that kind of density with this development, it's, essentially, an R-2 development, but
Meridian Planning & Zoning
September 15, 2011
Page 13 of 40
by changing this we allow the setbacks to change and still maintained an R-2 density,
which I think is in everybody's best interest. That's all I have.
Freeman: Thank you. Anyone else?.
Yearsley: Mr. Chairman?
Freeman: Commissioner Yearsley.
Yearsley: I guess to staff, is there a way to help protect the Allens? I understand their
concern of coming back in a couple years and maybe adding a couple of lots. Is there
any way that we can put a condition on that or -- or recommendation that it not be
changed in the future or something to that effect to hold some of that? I don't know. I'm
just asking.
Friedman: Sure. Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, Commissioner Yearsley -- pardon me.
certainly understand the Allens' concern. In order to have any lots to this in the future
they would have to come back for a whole new subdivision and a whole new preliminary
plat. So, can we condition against that? Probably not. Everybody has a right to apply
for something. That doesn't necessarily guarantee them an assurance that it's going to
be approved.
Yearsley: Right.
Friedman: But there is a process, practically speaking, that doesn't make a lot of sense
to come back and replat an existing subdivision to add one or two or three lots, I mean
what they would have to do -- it would have to be a significant revision and because of
the way that the development agreement will be modified it is going to tie them down to
the current density, If you will, so it's not that they could come back and say, well, gee,
now we are zoned R-4 and we are going to resubdivide this to the R-4 standard,
because they are going to be limited by the development agreement. So, they would
have to change that also.
Yearsley: Okay.
Friedman: Does that answer your question?
Yearsley: That does and I was just trying to maybe put a recommendation that it not be
approved for an additional preliminary plat, but where it's already tied in the
development agreement I'm -- I'm comfortable with that.
Freeman: Thank you.
O'Brien: Mr. Chair?
Freeman: Commissioner O'Brien.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
September 15, 2011
Page 14 of 40
O'Brien: That was my concern as well and I'm glad you clarified that. It was just like
certifiable grandfather clause, if you will. I think that's -- that's a good idea that we are
able to put that in there and make sure it -- it would have to come before us again if we
want to make a change and that was good. That's all I have. Thanks.
Freeman: Okay. Thank you. In that case could I get a motion?
Yearsley: After considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move to
recommend approval of the City Council file number RZ 11-003 and MDA 11-006 as
presented in the staff report for the hearing date of September 15th, 2011.
O'Brien: I second.
Freeman: Okay. It's been motioned and seconded to approve RZ 11-003 and MDA 11-
006. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries. Thank you.
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT.
B. Public Hearing:CPAM 11-002 Millennium Retail Center by
Jeffrey Hall Located Generally at the Southwest Corner of W.
Overland Road and S. Millennium Way at 2045 E. Overland
Road: Request to Amend the Comprehensive Plan Future
land Use Map Designation on 2.54 Acres of land from
High Density Residential (HDR) to Commercial
Freeman: Okay. The next item on the agenda -- once I find it -- is public hearing for
CPAM 11-002, Millennium Retail Center by Jeffrey Hall, starting with the staff report.
Wafters: Thank you, Chairman Freeman, Members of the Commission. The next
application before you is a request for an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan future
land use map to change the land use designation on two parcels of land for high density
residential to commercial. The subject property consists of 2.54 acres of land, is
currently zoned L-O and is located at 1977 and 2045 East Overland Road on the
southwest corner of East Overland and South Millennium Way. Adjacent land use and
zoning, to the north is commercial property consisting of a movie theater, retail, and
restaurants, zoned C-G. To the south is multi-family residential apartments and offices
along the west side of South Millennium Way, zoned L-O and offices to the east, zoned
L-O, and vacant land to the west, approved to develop with office uses, zoned L-O. A
little history on this property. In 2000 the property was rezoned to L-O and platted. A
Conditional Use Permit, planned development was approved that allows for retail uses
to develop on the lot on the corner of Overland and Millennium. A conceptual
development plan was approved with the planned development that depicts a 22,237
square foot retail building on the corner lot and a 15,960 square foot office building on
the lot to the west as you- can see here on screen. An office for Corey Barton Homes
was constructed on the western lot, but the corner lot remains vacant. The applicant
requests a subject map amendment in order develop the property on the corner with a
Meridian Planning & Zoning
September 15, 2011
Page 15 of 40
drive-thru restaurant and small retail strip behind, consists of with the proposed
commercial land use designation. The office that exits on the western property will
remain. A development plan was not submitted with this application. If the site
develops as proposed a modification to the development plan approved with the
planned development is required, along with the rezone and Conditional Use Permit for
a drive-thru establishment. Because the property on the corner is already approved
through the planned development to develop with retail uses, which are not typically
allowed in the L-O district, the map change to commercial, along with a subsequent
rezone of the site to a commercial district, will remedy the nonconformance of the
zoning in relation to the approved use. If the applicant proposes to rezone the property
in the future to accommodate a restaurant use, staff recommends a less intense
commercial zoning designation, such as C-N, which would also allow for retail uses.
This designation would restrict the hours of operation of businesses from 6:00 a.m. to
10:00 p.m. and be more compatible with adjacent residential uses. However, no rezone
is requested at this time, this is just staffs recommendation on a future zoning. Written
testimony was received on this application from the applicant Jim Jewett. He is in
agreement with the staff report, except for staffs recommended future zoning of C-N for
the property. Staff will stand for any questions the Commission may have.
Freeman: Thank you, Sonya. Any questions?
O'Brien: Don't have any.
Freeman: Okay. Sonya, so if I understand it's currently zoned L-O, we are only
changing the future land use plan, so it's going to stay L-O for now, but that will open it
up to a different zoning in the future. There is no zoning -- no rezone associated with
this applicant -- okay.
Wafters: That is correct, Chairman Freeman.
Freeman: And the only item that the applicant objects to is just a recommendation, so
there is no -- there is no condition placed on this application as you have stated it.
Wafters: That's correct, Chairman Freeman. It's only a written recommendation -- or
just a recommendation.
Freeman: Recommendation. The way I see it.
Wafters: It's nothing in stone.
Freeman: All right. Thank you for clarifying. Okay. If there are no other questions of
staff, would the applicant like to come forward? We will give you 15 minutes and could
you, please, state your name and address for the record.
Hall: You bet. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Commissioners. My name is Jeffrey Hall
with DK Commercial. My address 1880 South Cobalt Point Way in Meridian. 83642.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
September 15, 2011
Page 16 of 40
And I definitely won't take 15 minutes. I will make this quick. Sonya's report was
exceptional, so you can't ever deny that, but, basically, I'm here on behalf of the
developer Edge, LLC, and, of course, we are here in support of the land use from HGR
to commercial on this property. As a developer and commercial broker, specializing in
retail and office uses, I can tell you that the -- the retail component on the south side of
the freeway under right now. The retail that is there is challenged by parking issues and
I'm talking across from Overland on Majestic east and west, if you know where Rudy's is
and, then, also where Harry's is, both those parking lots are challenged. We can't get
new tenants in those -- in those because a retail user has parking requirements and,
obviously, these -- the landlord brought in users that just had too much parking. I mean,
for example, you have -- right directly across the street you have an Army and Navy
office, they have 12 vehicles, government cars, alone. So, with their cars and
government, that's 12 parking spaces. So, it's been very restrictive. So, we have had a
lot of requests to do something out there as far as a retail development and this
property serves it well. As Sonya said, this property was approved for a retail building
of 22,000 some odd square feet back in 2000 and I can't say that we are going to go
that big, but, yeah, we will have, hopefully, a strip center plus adrive-thru on the hard
corner. I would have to say that, you know, at this intersection the -- we presently would
like to have a C-G or a C-C zone. I know that's going to come down the road, I'm just
letting you guys know this now, that, unfortunately, retailers don't like being restricted on
the hours of operation, it's not in the trend. The trend right now is to open earlier and
stay open later. That's what the trend is, especially on the south side of the freeway. If
you go on the south side of the freeway, you know, there is very little as far as staying
open past 11:00 o'clock or 12:00 o'clock, except for the bars that we know of. And other
retail users, like one of my clients, Subway, they are opening later and later. They are
staying open and it's something that -- it's just the trend. You can see other places like
Taco Bell, they area 24 hour operation. I don't see them going there. But I do see
some -- some great uses, like financial, a bank, possibly, insurance, and, of course,
food and beverage. So, that's about it. We, of course, are in support of everything
Sonya said, so --
Freeman: Okay. Any questions?
Marshall: Mr. Chair?
Freeman: Commissioner Marshall.
Marshall: If I could just really quick. So, do you still want it to go commercial if we were
adamantly -- let's say me, speaking for myself -- were adamantly opposed to any C-G or
C-C going in there, would you still be acceptable to a C-N in the future? My issue is --
agree with you, first, that the trend for things is to go later and later and we are seeing
more problems with that when we abut residences and this is abutting residential and,
then, I can pretty much assure you that I am pretty much against any C-G abutting
residential whatsoever. So, would you still be wanting this to go to a C-N and would
that still be useful to you?
Meridian Planning & Zoning
September 15, 2011
Page 17 of 40
Hall: Okay. Well, the answer to your question, first of all, I believe, yes, we would want
to move forward. You know, this needs to be commercial and, then, there are uses that
we could put in a C-N zone. They are not the preferred uses, they don't always make
the numbers work, and the one other thing that I would mention to you is, you know, just
like at Mountain View High School, you know, those games get out at after 10:00
o'clock. In this restrictive time we can only go until 10:00 p.m. and that doesn't -- I mean
that -- what are we going to put in there that can serve the food needs and everything of
those folks, so --
Marshall: Well, I would recommend to you that there are other pieces of property that
don't abut residential.
Hall: Sure. Any other questions?
Freeman: Okay. Thank you. All right. I do have a list of a few names of people
wishing to testify on this application today. Let's start with Melissa Rushing. Okay.
think it's Tara -- and I can't read the last name. Okay. Jared Heiner. Please state your
name and address for the record when you get to the microphone.
Heiner: Okay. My name is Jared Heiner. I live at 1333 East Doberman Street and can
I go back on this picture? And can I go one more back? So, I live near this intersection
here of Locust Grove and Overland. I live -- I live on Doberman Street here in
Sportsman Point. So, I live in the area. I also own this building right here, 38, in the
Sage Crest development and this building, 11, in the Sage Crest development. My
concerns are for the quality of life of the tenants that live there. A lot of them are shift
workers, they work night shift or day shift. It is high density, so they have a lot of
neighbors. This is a high traffic area right here on Overland. Putting a restaurant into --
this was described as undeveloped land here to the west. They are actually putting a
large convenience store, gas station, and possibly truck stop type area in there. So,
there is -- there is going to be a lot more traffic, noise, diesel odors for the -- for the
residents of Sage Crest. There are several concerns I have with putting a restaurant in
here. Some of them -- most of it's environmental concerns. Noise, a lot more traffic, a
lot of these fast food restaurants, like Taco Bell that was described -- before I even go
into these restaurants I can smell what restaurants they are. So, I can imagine being a
tenant in my building, living directly behind one, with the smells of the restaurant, with
cars idling in the drive-thru -- I don't know where everyone else lives, but there is so
much traffic along here and a lot of them are motorcycles of a particularly loud variety --
Mr. Hall talked about the parking problems, which they do have near Rudy's and Harry's
and the restaurant type of establishments that are serving food are the ones that are
attracting all this traffic. It's my understanding that the only access to this may be off
Millennium Road and if you look, the Sage Crest has two accesses, one's here, one's
here. So, when I go to work in the morning there is such a snarl of traffic in here from
the kids going to high school that it -- sometimes I will go up Locust Grove and go
through the Woodbridge neighborhood to get to where 1 work. I can't imagine the traffic
lessening by having a restaurant open at 6:00 a.m. with people going to the restaurant
and coming out here and trying to turn left when there is thousands of -- or hundred of
Meridian Planning & Zoning
September 15, 2011
Page 18 of 40
cars trying to come in from the north. So, for the quality of life of the tenants, for my
sake as an investor who owns a couple of these buildings that I bought out of
foreclosure from other investors who lost them because the value -- property values
went down -- to make the quality of life less for these tenants will do them no good, I'm
concerned about my investments, and also, you know, the other concerns. We have
got -- now we have got the Public House here, we have got the Curb bar down on
Meridian that is -- they are parking in the Jiffy Lube parking lot and the CPA parking lot
that's behind there, just because they are spilling over. So, those are my concerns.
think if I own that property -- if I owned this property I would want to do whatever I could
to maximize my profit potential, so I don't blame the developers at all. As it is, I own
these properties, I live in the neighborhood nearby, I know probably ten families --
don't personally know anyone that lives in my buildings, but I know families that live in
there, because of the church that's right here that I attend that a lot of these people
attend. So, I think it would be detrimental. That's why I oppose it.
Freeman: That was Jeffrey Hall. Did I call Jared Heiner's name? I don't know what I'm
doing, but when you came up I wrote down Jeffrey Hall, thinking that's what you said, so
I'm having a day. Bear with me. Thank you. Would Jeffrey Hall like to come up and --
thank you. Okay. See, I told you I'm having a hard time. David Meisner. You are
David.
Meisner: Yes.
Freeman: Please state your name and address for the record. That will give me three
repeats and I will remember.
Meisner: Okay. My name is David Meisner. I live at 2978 South Baystar Way,
Meridian, Idaho. 83642. I'm one of the owners in the Sage Crest development also and
here to kind of represent the Sage Crest property owners association. So, as part of the
association -- it's located adjacent to the rezoning, applicant's proposed property. We
are a residential community of approximately 200 plus residents. The association has
an obligation to protect the quality of life for the community, meaning homogenizing the
residential side and the business side of the area. Each owner, which there are
approximately 50 plus owners, purchased these properties with the understanding the
surrounding businesses of Sage Crest would become offices or similar businesses. To
the ones located on the east side of the complex these businesses are real estate
offices, day cares, doctor's offices, professional types of businesses. We are opposed
to the proposed rezoning of the subject property. We believe what is proposed, adrive-
in or a fast food establishment, would be detrimental to the area based on increased
traffic. Access would be off the side street and not Overland, therefore, increasing the
traffic loads of the side streets. The high school is located on the side street, along with
professional offices and apartments, creating traffic issues currently. The smell of the
fast food is not compatible with the area. If you have ever lived by a fast food restaurant
the smell starts early in the and remains all night. Not desirable living conditions. In
addition, the high school students would be walking on a street with no sidewalks,
thereby either cutting through apartments or walking on the streets or even treading
Meridian Planning & Zoning
September 15, 2011
Page 19 of 40
through pathways through the landscape of the professional businesses. There are
similar businesses proposed -- to the proposed on the north side of Overland. Wouldn't
this be a better place for such a development and thereby keeping similar types of
businesses together. The owners and residents of Sage Crest respectfully request the
zoning remain unchanged and keep the professional type of buildings or offices to be
located next to the residential community Sage Crest. That's all I have got.
Freeman: Thank you. Commissioner Marshall, did you have a --
Marshall: I was simply going to point out that this -- this application was not a rezone,
but a Comprehensive Plan map amendment, so the zoning is not in question tonight,
but it is -- and I appreciate what you're saying, too, so --
Freeman: Thank you. Okay. Was there anybody else that planned on testifying this
evening on this item? Okay. Would the applicant like to return to the podium and
address anything that you heard. You have ten minutes.
Hall: Okay. Definitely we understand neighbors -- you know, we have -- I have got a
retail development on the corner of Franklin and Linder, Hark's Corner. I built a 20 foot
sound barrier on that behind an Arctic Circle and everything. So, we definitely
understand neighbors and when the time comes and we figure out what the uses are
going to be, we are going to address that and we are going to make sure they are
happy and do the best we can, you know, and it's great to poll neighbors and find out
what kind of services they are looking for there and that's what we are going to do. So,
that's about all I have to say.
Freeman: Okay. Thank you. Could I get a motion to close the public hearing?
O'Brien: So moved.
Marshall: Second.
Yearsley: Second.
Freeman: It's been moved and seconded to close the public hearing on CPAM 11-002,
Millennium Retail Center. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Freeman: Discussion?
O'Brien: Mr. Chair?
Freeman: Commissioner O'Brien.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
September 15, 2011
Page 20 of 40
O'Brien: Yeah. I have some concerns on -- long term concerns. I'm dead against
having a commercial designation there on the map. I just believe this opens for so
many issues downstream. I agree with the responses of the citizens that live and own
property near that particular zone and I -- I use that area quite a bit. I use a credit union
there, my grandkids have their doctor's offices there. I have a pulmonary doctor there.
like the -- that light office environment and it really fits well for that zone. For the high
school there is enough of the commercial on the corner with Fast Eddy's going in there
and that's enough for -- for that area already and that's going to generate some
unwanted I guess noise and activity. But add anymore to that I think it's just a -- not a
good idea. I still see changing that map to change -- change anything else that leave it
like it is.
Freeman: Thank you. Anyone else? Commissioner Yearsley.
Yearsley: I guess question of staff. This is kind of clearing a hurled for the next step; is
that not correct?
Watters: Chairman Freeman, Commissioner Yearsley, Commissioners, yes. More or
less. It will come back in for a rezone most likely.
Yearsley: Okay. But making it on the map -- it makes it a lot easier to come back for a
rezone where it's already stated in the map; is that not correct?
Watters: That's correct. The current adopted future land use map designation is high
density residential. They cannot get a commercial designation under -- zoning
designation under that land use designation.
Yearsley: Okay.
Watters: That's why they are requesting the change.
Yearsley: Okay. But Sonya --
Watters: But be clear, you know, the thing that's unique about this property is that the
previous planned development clear back in 2000 when we used to do planned
developments, approved retail uses on that corner parcel. Right now, you know, the
applicant could go in and develop the site with a 24 hour retail use.
Yearsley: Like a pharmacy store or something like that; is that correct?
Watters: Anything retail that is consistent with the concept plan. If they proposed
something that was not consistent with this concept plan, they would have to come back
and apply for a modification to that Conditional Use Permit planned development.
Yearsley: Okay.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
September 15, 2011
Page 21 of 40
Wafters: That's the thing that's unique about this site. That was a large part of staffs
recommendation on this.
Yearsley: So, I guess ultimately my decision on this is just kind of where I'm thinking is
don't necessarily disagree that it should be commercial, but I'd prefer it to come in with
the whole package at once, instead of let's do this hurdle and, then, go this route,
because if we clear this hurdle it makes it easier to do something different that we may
not want to happen. So, just kind of give my opinion on that.
Freeman: Commissioner Marshall.
Marshall: Mr. Chair, thank you. Sonya, quick question. Now isn't there already a light
office already built there, a Corey Barton Homes building, that's the one on the west
side; right?
Wafters: That is correct, Commissioner Marshall.
Marshall: It's already built.
Wafters: Yes. The property on the corner is vacant.
Marshall: Yet it's zoned high density residential?
Wafters: No. The zoning on the property is L-O.
Marshall: L-O.
Wafters: For both properties.
Marshall: Thank you. That's what I thought.
there and should -- would be appropriate in
Permits or anything; is that correct?
So, at this time light office could go in
that zone without any Conditional Use
Wafters: That is correct.
Marshall: Okay. Well, Commissioners, my opinion is that L-O is appropriate for this
location. I'm against a high intensity commercial project up against residential and you
will hear me say this every time it comes up. I think it all -- commercial C-G has its
place, we need it, and there needs to be a lot of it along this property, but not up against
residential. I don't believe in 20 foot concrete walls being a buffer, nor do I believe in a
berm with some trees on top being a buffer. It is my opinion that an appropriate buffer
between high intensity uses and residential is lower intensity uses. L-O, professional
offices, things like that, should be up against residential and should buffer those
residential uses to high intensity uses. I know there needs to be some C-G along there
and I understand it's underserved and I know this -- it would be great to put -- you know,
Meridian Planning & Zoning
September 15, 2011
Page 22 of 40
I'll bet a fast food restaurant would do wonders there. Would be wonderful, you know,
for the owner of that, but not for the rest of the people living next to it and, therefore,
am against changing the comprehensive map at this time, unless -- I would be -- I would
consider going to a C-N if there was some use that had to be in a C-N that couldn't be
an L-O, but was still a low intensity use to abut residences and only in that situation
would I considered it. So, Commissioner Yearsley, I'm in agreement with you that
without the full package Ican't -- I can't vote for a Comprehensive Plan amendment
change.
Freeman: Thank you, Commissioner Marshall. I -- to be honest, I think I'm just starting
to piece a few things together here on this and you supplied one of the missing pieces
that I'm sure I heard two or three times, but my understanding currently is we have got
an L-O zoning district. The odd thing about this, as you just said and I think I just heard
it -- is that there is already a CUP in place that allows a retail use. Okay. So, a retail --
without this passing a retail building could go on this site. However, I see in your report
that CUP does not allow for a restaurant use at this time and most of those people that
tried -- that came up and testified were concerned specifically about the possibility of a
restaurant use, which if this passes could conceivably happen. Again, this is not an
application for a rezone, but that is likely to follow this. I just wanted to state that, so
that I understood clearly and got nods from staff, because 1 think I have got that
together. Having said that, I -- I tend to agree. Having heard the public testimony today
I am concerned about opening this up for additional uses that don't seem appropriate for
that site. It seems to be kind of a different special case to me. Any other comments?
Marshall: I have a quick question for staff. That Conditional Use Permit for a retail
facility, would it have to operate under the L-O restrictions of time and things like that?
Wafters: Commissioner Marshall, there were no restrictions on that hours of operation
included with that Conditional Use Permit planned development, so I would have to say
no.
Friedman: We would have to look at that, but -- I don't like to disagree in public, but
there sometimes are hour restrictions in the L-O zone. L-O is the zoning. So, really,
even though the planned development did not include restrictions, it allowed a retail use
to be established in an L-O zone. In my mind, even though normally you wouldn't allow
retail in the L-O, the fact that we have retail allowed through the planned development
still leaves it subject to the hours of operation of the L-O. The difference being is that
they have more freedom of the types of uses that can go in there. So, my apologies to
my fellow staff member.
Wafters: Good point.
Marshall: Okay. I was hoping that was the case. Thank you.
Freeman: Any other discussion? Could I get a motion, then?
Meridian Planning & Zoning
September 15, 2011
Page 23 of 40
Marshall: Mr. Chair?
Freeman: Commissioner Marshall.
Marshall: After considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I recommend
denial of file number CPAM 11-002 as presented during the hearing on September 5th,
2011, for the following reasons: Because -- mainly because such a high intensity use
as projected would not be appropriate directly abutting residential uses.
O'Brien: Second.
Freeman: Okay. It's been moved and seconded to deny CPAM 11-002. All those in
favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT.
C. Public Hearing: PFP 11-002 VanAuken Subdivision by Mason
& Stanfield Inc. located at 34 E. Fairview Avenue Request:
Combined Preliminary/Final Plat Approval Consisting of Two
(2) Building lots on 5.20 Acres of land in a C-C Zoning District
Freeman: Okay. At this time I would like to open the public hearing on PFP 11-002, the
Van Auken Subdivision by Mason and Stanfield, Incorporated, beginning with the staff
report.
Wafters: Thank you, Chairman Freeman, Members of the Commission. The next
application before you is a combined preliminary/final plat consisting of two building lots
on 5.2 acres of land in a C-C zoning district. This site is located at 34 East Fairview
Avenue on the northeast corner of North Meridian Road and East Fairview Avenue.
This is where the existing or former Pioneer Federal Credit Union was located and the
other portion of the strip commercial area that's adjacent to the Albertson's store. The
adjacent land use and zoning is commercial property, zoned C-C and abuts this
property on the northeast and south. Rural residential property, zoned RUT in Ada
County, exists to the west across Meridian Road. A little history on this property. In
1996 the City Council approved a lot split through the reduction in platting process that
included the subject property. The proposed plat will subdivide one parcel into two
parcels on which each of the existing structures and associated parking will be located.
Staff recommends cross-access ingress-egress and cross-parking easements be
provided internally between the proposed lots and externally to the Albertson's property
and the property to the east as applicable. The existing parking lot and street buffer
landscaping does not meet current UDC requirements. However, it's considered a
nonconforming use it lawfully existed prior to the effective date of the Unified
Development Code. As such the nonconforming use may continue as long as the use
remains lawful and is not expanded or extended. If an addition is proposed in the future
to any of the existing structures, the guidelines for conformance to landscape standards
listed in UDC 11-3B-2D, and the requirements listed in UDC 11-1B-4 for the extension
of nonconforming uses are applicable. The Comprehensive Plan designation for this
Meridian Planning & Zoning
September 15, 2011
Page 24 of 40
property is commercial and the proposed plat is in compliance with that designation and
the Unified Development Code. Written testimony was received on this application from
Scott Stanfield, the applicant's representative, in agreement with the staff report. Staff
is recommending approval. And I'll stand for any questions the Council -- or, excuse
me, Commission may have.
Freeman: Any questions?
O'Brien: I have none.
Yearsley: I have one.
Freeman: Commissioner Yearsley.
Yearsley: Trying to get clarification on this. What they are wanting to do is split off the
lot on the corner from the strip mall section; is that not the case? And that's pretty much
it?
Wafters: If you look at this map right here, you can see the outline of the existing
building. The Albertson's exists on the western parcel here.
Yearsley: Okay.
Wafters: That is not a part of this plat and,
of the plat, they are just splitting off the old
the other building.
then, everything that's hatched here is part
Pioneer Federal Credit Union building from
Yearsley: Okay. Thank you.
Freeman: Any other questions? Okay. Would the applicant like to come forward?
Please state your name and address for the record.
Stanfield: Thank you, Chairman, Members of the Commission. Robert Scott Stanfield,
826 3rd Street South in Nampa, Idaho, representing Holly Plaza, LLC, in this application
before you this evening. Pretty much straight forward. Commissioner Yearsley hit it on
the head, we just want to break off the old credit union building. The owner is having
some difficulty finding tenants that want to lease that, people want to buy it, and the only
way to convey that legally is to plat it. There is no land use change before you this
evening, just simply want the right to sell it and convey it to somebody that wants to buy
it. And with that I'll leave it open for any questions.
Freeman: Questions?
O'Brien: I have none.
Yearsley: I have none.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
September 15, 2011
Page 25 of 40
Freeman: Thank you.
Stanfield: Thank you.
Freeman: I didn't have anybody else signed up testify on this item. Is there anyone in
the audience that would care to testify? No? Okay. Well, there is nothing to respond
to, so if I could get a motion to close the public hearing.
Marshall: Mr. Chair, I move that we close the public hearing on PFP 11-002.
Yearsley: I second that.
Freeman: It's been moved and seconded to close the public hearing on PFP 11-002.
All those in favor say aye. Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Freeman: Discussion?
Marshall: Pretty straight forward.
Freeman: I agree, Commissioner Marshall. It seems very straight forward.
Yearsley: I have none.
O'Brien: I agree.
Marshall: Mr. Chair?
Freeman: Could I get a motion.
Marshall: I move -- after considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move to
recommend file number PFP 11-002 as presented in the staff report for the hearing date
of September 5th, 2011, with no modifications.
Yearsley: Second.
Freeman: It's been motioned and seconded to recommend for approval of PFP 11-002.
All those in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries. Thank you.
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT.
D. Public Hearing: CPAM 11-001 South ridge Apartments by The
Farran Group, IIC located South Side of W. Overland' Road
Midway Between S. Ten Mile Road and S. Linder Road
Request: Amend the Comprehensive Plan Future land Use
Meridian Planning & Zoning
September 15, 2011
Page 26 of 40
Map Designation on 26.38 Acres of land from Medium Density
Residential (MDR) to Medium High Density Residential
(MHDR)
E. Public Hearing: RZ 11-002 South ridge Apartments by The
Farran Group, IIC Generally located South Side of W. Overland
Road Midway Between S. Ten Mile Road and S. Linder Road
Request: Rezone of 42.36 Acres of land from the TN-R and R-8
Zoning Districts to the R-15 Zoning Districts
Freeman: Okay. The next item on the agenda -- we are going to open D and E at the
same time, CPAM 11-001 and RZ 11-002. However, when it comes time to make a
motion we actually need to vote on the CPAM before we vote on the rezone. So, we
will have to deal with those separately when we get into that portion of the application.
Okay. With that could I have the staff report.
Wafters: Yes, Chairman Freeman, Members of the Commission. The first application
before you is a request for an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan future land use
map to change the land use designation on 26.38 acres of land from medium density
residential to medium high density residential. The second application is a request for a
rezone of 42.36 acres of land from the TN-R, R-4, and R-8 zoning districts to the R-15
zoning district, consistent with the proposed medium high density residential
designation. If you look on the screen here this is the subject property. The
Comprehensive Plan map amendment is shown here in the upper right and the rezone
area on the lower left -- or right. The adjacent land use and zoning. To the north is
rural residential, agricultural land, zoned RUT in Ada County. To the south is vacant
land, zoned R-2, R-4 and R-8. To the east is rural residential property, zoned RUT in
Ada County. And vacant land, zoned R-4, TN-C, and TN-R. And to the west is vacant
land, zoned L-O, TN-R, and R-8. The property is located on the south side of West
Overland Road, midway between South Linder Road and South Ten Mile Road. History
on this property. In 2007 it was annexed with a development agreement and included in
the preliminary plat for Southridge Subdivision. A property boundary adjustment was
approved in 2008 that created the subject parcels. The applicant has submitted a
conceptual development plan. You can see here. Actually, that's the future land use
map proposed changes. This is the conceptual development plan and sample building
elevation for phases one and two that shows how the site may develop with a multi-
family apartment complex, consisting of two and three story structures. This plan does
not include a development plan for the third phase of development shown down here.
The proposed R-15 zoning district allows a maximum gross density of up to 15 dwelling
units per acre. Because this property is located adjacent to land that is designated for
mixed employment uses on the north and northwest sides of Overland and a medium
density -- oh, I just lost my presentation here. Just one sec. And now I'm coloring.
Scott's creeping over on me here. Sorry about that. Because this property is located
adjacent to land that is designated for mixed employment uses on the north sides of
Overland, shown in gray there on the map and medium density residential uses to the
south and east, staff is of the opinion the proposed medium high density residential
designation in R-15 zoning will provide a good transition and be compatible with these
Meridian Planning & Zoning
September 15, 2011
Page 27 of 40
uses. Additionally, the adjacent mixed employment areas will provide jobs for residents
and be convenient and easily accessible. The Ridenbaugh Canal runs along the
southern boundary of the site, will also provide a buffer between the proposed multi-
family development and future lower density development to the south and east.
Because the property has changed ownership since the annexation and development
agreement was approved, staff recommends, as a provision of the rezone, that a new
development agreement be required that will separate this site from the larger
Southridge development. Future development will be required to substantially comply
with the conceptual development plan and design standards contained in the Unified
Development Code and the guidelines contained in the Meridian design manual. Prior
to development of the third phase the development agreement shall be modified to
update the conceptual site plan to include a development plan for this area. A
Conditional Use Permit is required for amulti-family development in R-15 districts.
Written testimony has been received from John Malletta, the applicant, in response to
the staff report. He requests -- he is in agreement with the staff report. However,
requests that DA provision number 1.1.2E be stricken and that the multi-use pathway be
required on the south side of the Ridenbaugh Canal as previously approved in the
development agreement for the Southridge. Staff is in agreement with the applicant's
request as the pedestrian interconnectivity plan referenced in the development
agreement shows the pathway along the south side of the canal and recommends DA
provision 1.1.2E be stricken as requested by the applicant. Staff is recommending
approval of the subject map amendment and rezone, with approval of the
aforementioned -- with the aforementioned change. Staff will stand for any questions
Commission may have.
Freeman: Thank you, Sonya. Any questions of staff?
Marshall: I do have a quick question.
Freeman: Commissioner Marshall.
Marshall: Sonya, looking at this -- the preliminary plat submittal 12/4/06 that the
applicant attached to his response letter, showing the -- the pathway on the south side
of the Ridenbaugh Canal, it appears there is a bridge there. Now, Iknow -- actually, it
appears that the applicant land is just barely touching the top of this drawing, the one
I'm talking about here, L1.04, the preliminary plat from Southridge on the south side
there, where it shows there is a bridge across the Ridenbaugh and a pathway going up
into that property and it appears there is some trees and whatnot there, a retaining wall,
a Nampa-Meridian Irrigation pump station and lot. Do you see where I'm referring to?
Wafters: I do not have that map in front of me, Commissioner Marshall. I did get his
letter. I didn't see the attachment.
Marshall: What I was wondering -- and I guess this question probably is best for the
applicant, then. If -- what that pathway is referring to. That was with the Southridge
Subdivision. It appears that pathway winds back up to the north there, tying the
Meridian Planning & Zoning
September 15, 2011
Page 28 of 40
pathway on the south to the north, but I believe somewhere in here in all -- somewhere
in this there was no bridge across the Ridenbaugh. There is a comment about there
was no crossing path across the Ridenbaugh and that, you know, I just happen to see
one here and I was wondering where it says pedestrian bridge on this preliminary plat,
dated 12/14/06 by The Land Group for Southridge Subdivision.
Wafters: I believe there is a pedestrian bridge -- actually, it's a vehicular bridge,
believe, planned further to the south. I'm sorry, I don't have that in front of me.
Marshall: I do see that vehicular bridge as well.
Wafters: Yeah. There is a bridge now --
Marshall: But this is at the point where the Ridenbaugh Canal drops -- it comes north,
drops south, and, then, back up north again. There is a little key there.
Freeman: Maybe we can ask for clarification from the applicant.
Waters: I would ask the applicant to address that question.
Marshall: I will ask that question of the applicant. Thank you.
Freeman: Okay. Any other questions of staff?
O'Brien: I have a question, Mr. Chair.
Freeman: Commissioner O'Brien.
O'Brien: This is for Scott. Okay. So, when we change these zonings from lower
density up to higher density, how does that affect the -- the drainage issues or -- do you
build out just to accommodate the maximum all the time or how do you address that?
Steckline: Mr. Chair, Commissioners, Commissioner O'Brien, that's a very good
question. I'm glad you asked that. That was one of the first things that crossed my
mind with seeing this application. What I did was take -- we take a look at our sewer
drainage master plan, you're correct, and the sizing of the sewer line that was installed
by the applicant, actually, for this site. We take a look at the residential component, the
commercial component, their sewer discharge rates, we take a look at the overall
velocity that goes through those pipes. I did that study. I worked with Roxanne Holland
at the engineering department and she has assured me that we have adequate capacity
for this rezone.
O'Brien: Okay. What about others in this case -- and I was just going to ask you before
the meeting, but I'm glad I didn't, let's get this on the record, but in other instances
where things may change -- when you build a main trunk, if you will, do you always
maximize that -- that utility, if you will, all the time?
Meridian Planning & Zoning
September 15, 2011
Page 29 of 40
Steckline: Mr. Chair, Commissioners, Commissioner O'Brien, we actually use an
outside consultant who designs our sewer drainage master plan for us and we work with
the Planning Department on what is currently zoned for that area and that's, basically,
the equation that we use for the sewer pipe for our sewer drainage master plan. I could
kind of go into the specifics and bore you to death with the engineering terms of it, if you
would like.
O'Brien: Yeah. I understand what you're saying.
Freeman: Probably pass.
O'Brien: I just think that this is an important aspect of when we -- when it's requested to
go from light office, for instance, to commercial and it's already planned out that, no, this
is not going to go commercial and so, yes, the applicant might request that. So, I
haven't heard in the past these issues come up about the capacity, had we planned for
that.
Steckline: That's one of the things behind the scenes that staff does in preparation for
this. We would definitely put that -- Public Works would not support that kind of a
rezone if we did not have adequate infrastructure. We also work with the applicant,
their design engineers, through the construction drawing process, that in the case that if
we do want to rezone to up the density and we can do that and we can process that in
our wastewater treatment plant, we take every effort to do that, to make sure that we
have adequate infrastructure, not only with water, but wastewater, drainage, and such.
So, that's a very good question. I appreciate you asking that.
O'Brien: Thank you. I appreciate your answer.
Freeman: Thank you. Are we ready for the applicant? All right. Will the applicant,
please, come forward and state your name and address for the record.
Malletta: Good evening. My name is John Malletta. 13095 North Andy's Gulch, Boise.
83714. I am here representing the landowners for this rezone and Comp Plan
amendment. I want to thank Sonya and the planning staff for recommending approval
and would be more than happy to answer the question with regard to the bridge.
Marshall: Thank you.
Malletta: As -- my understanding of the bridge, that was a landscape plan that was
done in the original design with the original development agreement. The public
pathway is on the south side of the Ridenbaugh Canal and the Nampa-Meridian
Irrigation District maintenance corridor is on the north side of that canal. That is a
maintenance bridge as it exists today. It's my understanding that they will not allow the
public to access that bridge. The one thing that we have done with that to address
connectivity is certainly to have that interconnectivity through the apartment phase one
Meridian Planning & Zoning
September 15, 2011
Page 30 of 40
complex and phase two that we have designed, that would connect to Overland and,
then, they would cross on the southern tip of the Overland bridge or overpass.
Marshall: I appreciate that. Thank you.
Freeman: Are you just standing for questions or anything else you want us to --
Malletta: I'd be more than happy to answer any questions. I mean we agree with --
Freeman: Is there anything you wanted to present with your 15 minutes? Anything
further you wanted to say about your application?
Malletta: We are ready to work with the City Council on -- an approved rezone and
comp plan amendment. We have worked with our design. Be more than happy to
answer any questions that any of you may have.
Freeman: Okay. Are there any other questions of the applicant?
O'Brien: I don't have any.
Yearsley: I don't either.
Freeman: Okay. Thank you.
Malletta: Thank you.
Freeman: Okay. I do have some people on the list for offering public testimony today.
Let's begin with Scott Nichols. And, please, state your name and address for the record
when you get to the mike.
Nichols: Commissioner, Members of the Commission, Scott Nichols, 2730 West Val
Vista Court, just to the south of Southridge Subdivision is my -- my residence. I came
tonight just to find out what the rezone was all about and find out if I really wanted to
testify for or against or neutral on this -- on the rezone and I guess a few things have
gone through my mind tonight in regards to this. I guess the first question I have is
why? The staff here tonight don't see the numbers of people from Bear Creek, Aspen
Cove, Val Vista, to the west of the subdivision that when Southridge was originally
planned we spent slot -- I mean a lot of time meeting with neighbors in all directions to
come up with a plan for this piece of property and I don't think the applicant has shown
any need for that. They bought the property, they have a plan to develop it. This is fully
-- this rezone represents fully 25 percent of all of the acreage just by round numbers
south of Overland Road. Now, we already know that the planning intention was to have
a -- sort of a staged community where we could have low entry homeowner, moving to a
middle entry homeowner, moving to a high entry homeowner, all within walking,
commuting distance. And so I really don't see a need for us to go back and rehash this.
One of the issues we have and probably the biggest issue is that if we are going to
Meridian Planning & Zoning
September 15, 2011
Page 31 of 40
rezone this, then, let's just rezone every parcel, unless there is some, you know, critical
issue, like Commissioner Mr. Marshall brought up, which is very valid, I think, about one
of the previous issues about the adjacent -- adjacent land owners or adjacent
residences. I think we should stick with the plan that we made that really was
committed to by the entire community and it would be disingenuous of the Commission
to say, fine, if somebody just wants to change it we can change it. That said you're
going hear some other testimony, I'm sure, and have other things to consider, so if you
do decide to approve this I would ask that you put a condition on this -- on this rezone
that this is it, there are no more for Southridge, because my neighbors, myself, Aspen
Cove, Bear Creek, the community to the west, don't want to be back here every six
months or every year listening to a developer say now we want to change it again. We
-- we came to you, to the Commissioners, in good faith and we all agreed that this was
what it was going to be. Thank you.
Freeman: Thank you.
Nichols: Stand for questions.
Marshall: I think I would -- Mr. Chair, if I might.
Freeman: Commissioner Marshall.
Marshall: I would look to Mr. Baird here, our legal counsel, to quickly address the fact --
I don't think we can put a condition on the fact that somebody can come and ask to
change something. I mean they can just come ask to change anytime they want legally;
right?
Baird: Commissioners, Chairman, that's -- that's correct. The landowners would have
the right to come in and petition subject to proper notice. Until it gets built out that's just
the nature of the land entitlements is that the property owner would have the right to
request a change, but we would be going through this process each time. You would
be notified, we would have hearings, and the live questions would be asked. I'd ask
planning staff, who is probably familiar with that whole process, if they have anything to
add to that. But that's, you know, the nature of the beast.
Friedman: Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, you, actually, already asked the question
was going to ask, so it's back to Ted.
Nichols: I tell you what -- this is Scott Nichols with Val Vista again. I think part of the
reason there are not a plethora of residents here tonight is because there was no
notice. Nobody knew about this. You had to walk way out in the field to see any sort of
notice of the conditioning -- of the conditional use hearing or the rezone tonight. I had to
have my neighbor call it and he saw the white sign, walked back and saw it. I have yet
to see the sign. I don't want to argue legal issues, but unless somebody can show me a
section in Idaho Code or the city planning code that says you cannot condition, you
have the power to condition this approval however you want and I'd like to -- you know,
Meridian Planning & Zoning
September 15, 2011
Page 32 of 40
at least if you're not going to condition it, make note that that was a part of the
discussion and that it was recommended that no future zoning and I would say --
Freeman: It is. It is on the record.
Nichols: Thank you.
Freeman: And we have exceeded your time.
Nichols: Thank you.
Marshall: I just want to assure you very quickly that when -- when developments come
back again and again and again, it becomes quite an annoyance.
Nichols: I appreciate it. Thanks.
Freeman: Next on the list is Steven -- and I'm not going to say this right. Prisbos.
Wow. Please state your name and address for the record when you get to the mike.
Prisbos: Steve Prisbos. 2530 South Del Rey. My neighbor is Scott. He said just about
everything that I was going to say, except for one thing that we did fight long and hard
and originally -- it's a planned community with houses and we did not want apartments
to begin with, but a long fight, we finally came to an agreement for a certain amount and
now I disagree about putting anymore in. It just -- it kind of changes the whole thing we
fought for. Thank you.
Freeman: Thank you. And Susan Prisbos. Please state your name and address for
the record.
S.Prisbos: Susan Prisbos. 2530 South Del Rey Lane. We -- I do echo both of their
concerns, but also that when you put in properties that are large apartments, you lower
the quality of our homes, the value of our homes -- they fall into the ground, which we
already have done with the economy. But why would they want to depreciate our
property even further by having riffraff, loud cars, garbage -- I mean just having that land
vacant has been horrible and the gravel pit, which we temporarily approved, is a
nightmare. But if we allow all those apartments and the traffic on Overland Road is
already dangerous, the gravel trucks coming out create a problem with the bend --
don't see where they are going to enter and exit from this apartment building, it -- it is
not -- it's a danger to the people that live there already and a deficit to our property
value. Thank you.
Freeman: Thank you. Curtis Elton. Please state your name and address for the
record.
Elton: Curtis Elton. 2906 West Val Vista. 83642. 1 am totally against this. We just got
through developing a plan, coordinating it with the city and the developer and we went
Meridian Planning & Zoning
September 15, 2011
Page 33 of 40
through a whole year last year trying to get a plan set up, we finally agreed on one and
now it's totally changed to high density, which, again, affects the community that we are
living in. It's a low density community and that's why we bought land there and why we
live there and, then, to turn around and go to high density and throw out the plan that
we spent the whole year last year working on and developing and getting an agreement
to all parties and, then, turn around and change it completely, I'm totally -- totally against
it. Also I'm sure the majority of our neighbors are. I felt it was fairly poorly publicized
where most of them weren't aware of or weren't able to be here and it's a total switch as
far as the community to go from -- go to residential like it was planned, to go to high
density and I'm totally against it and I hope it does not pass. Thank you.
Freeman: Thank you. Naomi Elton.
N.Elton: Most of our neighbors did not know about this --
Freeman: I'm sorry. Please state your name and address for the record.
N.Elton: Naomi Elton. 2906 West Val Vista.
Freeman: Thank you.
N.Elton: Meridian. 8642. Most of our neighbors did not know anything about this.
There is a sign hidden in the woods back in the grass and one of my neighbors
happened to see it and noticed that it was there and told me about it, pointed it out, but
most of our neighbors don't know this and when we came last year there were probably
20 of us sitting back here testifying and most of our neighbors feel pretty strongly about
this, but they just did not know it was coming up and that's unfair. That's not right.
Thank you.
Freeman: Thank you. Was there anyone else that came wishing to testify on this item?
Please state your name and address for the record.
Jewett: Jim Jewett. 2040 South Eagle Road. I am the original developer of Southridge
and worked with all these neighbors for all these master plans and changes and we
constructed Overland Road as part of the project. Unfortunately, economic trends
forced us to, you know, divide some of the property away and which results in some of
these changes. We have done it with the Lutheran church, that's to -- directly to the
east of this parcel. We have done it across Overland Road with all our commercial. But
I think the main thing you got look at is the concept with the original plan was to be able
to change with economic trends and as long as we are still -- or they are still within
parameters of what that original development agreement -- had a minimum and a
maximum residential density and I believe that this -- this plan probably meets that and I
would simply suggest that maybe instead of trying to take this development agreement
and break it away from the original Southridge development agreement, is just modify
the original development agreement to give these neighbors some assurances that
there is not going to be further changes without their notification, because the only
Meridian Planning & Zoning
September 15, 2011
Page 34 of 40
reason they are not notified is because the original development agreement is not being
modified. If the original development agreement was being modified they would clearly
be notified, because they would be in the range. So, I haven't looked at this plan for
specifics. We sold it to these -- to this development group. They are going about it in
the proper fashion. But Ijust -- for the whole concept of the project I'll stand for any
questions for you so that you can understand what our thoughts were coming into it
originally and why we had to do what we did. And I'd stand for questions.
Freeman: Any questions?
Marshall: Mr. Chair?
Freeman: Commissioner Marshall.
Marshall: Mr. Jewett, I appreciate the fact that you seem to be concerned that they
should have been notified, that maybe this should have been all one development
agreement, even though I think maybe it ought to be split out. I don't know and I'm not
-- I'm not arguing that at all. But the requirements for notification by the city are a
minimum and I would applaud you if you were to notify them anytime something in this
area goes on and -- and they were to be notified because they are fairly close
neighbors. I would absolutely applaud you, sir. Just a comment.
Jewett: As a principle for when we were doing our applications out there or any
modifications, we notified at a thousand foot radius, instead of 300 foot. So, we
adopted a policy. This is not my application. I'm only here to answer any questions
having to do with the original plan that might help you guys make a decision. I haven't
looked at this plan, I'm not prepared to comment on it. I feel that's you guys' job. But if
it is within the parameters of the original development agreement as far as a minimum-
maximum, at the end of the day there is going to be -- it is proposed to be a lot of
employment to the north and we have to be able to feed that with -- with homes of all
types, all the way from apartments to homes, and I hope no more changes happen to
this plan long term, but this was one of our troubled areas when we were doing the
planning. It's odd shaped, it's sloped, so, you know, I think they have probably looked
at that and done the best they could with it.
Freeman: Unless we have other questions, we have exceeded our time limit for your
testimony. Are there other questions? Okay. Thank you very much.
Jewett: Thank you.
Freeman: Would the applicant like to come back up. You have ten more minutes to
respond. I don't believe there was anybody else that raised their hand, first of all, to
testify on this. Am I correct? Okay. And your name and address again.
Malletta: Thank you. John Malletta. 13095 North Andy's Gulch, Boise, Idaho. 83714.
Originally when we did take on this -- this plat of land we did want to improve on the
Meridian Planning & Zoning
September 15, 2011
Page 35 of 40
existing design that was set for the apartment site. It was very thin. It was very
militaryesk. So, what we have done is we have expanded it, we have made it a little
deeper. We want to improve this site. Our intentions are to have proper design, quality
design. We are an apartment group and we do have experience in these areas and it
doesn't behoove us whatsoever to put up a poorly designed building without, you know,
interconnectivity, livability, walkability, accessibility to retail down the road and what
have you. Jim did mention the fact that there is the employment district across the road
that says -- as referenced in the -- in the staff report that it does -- it is a compatible use
with the comp plan and with that being said I would be more than happy to answer any
further questions.
Freeman: Thank you. Any further questions? Commissioner O'Brien.
O'Brien: Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Was there a town meeting notification or held with
these latest changes or requests from the people that live in or around that area?
Malletta: Yes, there was, sir.
O'Brien: How long ago was that?
Malletta: How long ago?
O'Brien: Yes.
Malletta: Well, Ican -- let me grab it here.
O'Brien: An approximate month.
Malletta: Oh, it was -- I believe it was done in August. I thought I had it with me.
apologize.
O'Brien: This last August?
Malletta: Yes. It was done within the time constraints required by the city.
O'Brien: So you were there, I assume?
Malletta: I was, sir.
O'Brien: And how many people showed up?
Malletta: Six to eight people showed up and I spoke with a number of people --
probably two or three people over the telephone. The notice that did go out had my
contact information.
O'Brien: Was the notice by mail?
Meridian Planning & Zoning
September 15, 2011
Page 36 of 40
Malletta: Yes. It was done by mail and I got that list from the city.
O'Brien: Okay. That's all I have. Thank you.
Freeman: Okay. Thank you very much.
Malletta: Thank you.
Freeman: At this time could I get a motion to close the public hearing?
O'Brien: Mr. Chair, I move to close public hearing CPAM 11-001 and RZ 11-002.
Yearsley: I'll second that.
Freeman: Okay. I have a motion and a second to close the public hearing for CPAM
11-001 and RZ 11-002 regarding the Southridge Apartments. All those in favor say aye.
Opposed? Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Freeman: Discussion? And, actually, I'd like to start the discussion, if that's okay. Just
a couple of items I wanted to respond to from what I heard. The fact is this project was
legally noticed and I'm sorry if it snuck by anybody, but anytime we get to this stage in
the process where we have the public hearing, it's required to be legally noticed in three
different ways. It's printed in the newspaper, it's posted on the site, and anybody within
300 feet is sent a letter notifying them. So, it was legally noticed. I'm sorry if anybody
did not see that that was within the 300 feet. Another thing that I just want to clarify
really quickly is, you know, we -- we do get tired of having to go through the same thing
over and over again often. But, frankly, this is the process. Things change. In this
case we have owner changes and when new owners come in, you know, they may
have entirely different ideas for a piece of property. This is the process and it's a good
process, it tries to balance owner's rights with the community needs and so I just want
to clarify that, you know, there is not a whole bunch we can do about that. We can't say
no more changes ever. That's not legally possible. But I do appreciate the fact that you
get weary of things sometimes, but it's the process, it's the way it is. With that I'll add
my comments on the project. I -- I really believe that the increase in density is not going
to cause a detriment in this area. It seems like the R-15 at this location, especially with
the uses to the west and the south, is giving us variety of residential uses, which we
want. We need both owners and renters of all kinds in our city and we have to plan for
those and this is one of those places where this seems to me a very appropriate
location for a higher density residential project. With that I'll open it up to any of the
other Commissioners that have comments for questions.
Marshall: Mr. Chair?
Meridian Planning & Zoning
September 15, 2011
Page 37 of 40
Freeman: Commissioner Marshall.
Marshall: You took the words out of my mouth. Well said, sir. You have echoed my
sentiments. Thank you.
Freeman: That was easy. Thank you. Anybody else?
Yearsley: I do have a couple. Trying to figure out where to start. I do think that this is
probably a good use for this piece of property. I know it's unfortunate that the neighbors
did not get notified for this -- for this project. I do believe that there is a fair enough
buffer strip between them and this property and, you know, if this was up against your
back yards, absolutely, I would not approve this. But the only thing I have is coming
from the Parks Department I know the specifics on the pathways. I don't know north
side, south side. I would like clarification from the Parks Department why they wanted it
on this side versus the other side prior to strike that off of the -- the Findings of Facts --
or for this motion. So, I would recommend keeping it until we get better clarification
from the Parks Department of why they want it on this side of the --
Freeman: Commissioner Yearsley, are you speaking to the pathway --
Yearsley: Yes.
Freeman: -- on the canal?
Yearsley: Yes.
Freeman: Staff, can you address that?
Watters: Excuse me. Commissioner Yearsley, the location of the pathway was
determined back in 2007 with the development agreement when this property was
annexed. I was confused when I reviewed this current request, I looked at the
pathways plan and the general location shown on that was on the north side. However,
the pathway had already been approved on the south side. So, I did meet with Jay
Gibbons in the Parks Department extensively on this to go over it and make sure that's
where it needed to be and that's where we determined that it -- it was previously
approved and required to be.
Yearsley: Okay. Then I'm okay with that, because -- that clears that up.
Freeman: Thank you, Sonya, for that.
O'Brien: Yes.
Freeman: Commissioner O'Brien.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
September 15, 2011
Page 38 of 40
O'Brien: I'd just like to make an observation and I have to agree with the developer that
times have changed, the economy has changed and it's forced people to do things -- to
go places and to change their lifestyle. With this I see the reason -- let's back up a little
bit. The reason that we have so many foreclosures and other things going on -- the
people and the growth of new home ownership is down is for one -- one reason and that
is people feel safer renting and so what -- what has happened is where in the past we
have got this mind set that people that rent are of a lower class people and that just isn't
true. Meridian won't allow it and I won't allow it, if I can help it, but you will find that
people that go into through high density rentals do not want the hassle of home
ownership and we find more and more blue collar workers are renting now and they are
bringing in high class people and they are not to be a concern that -- that there is going
to be riffraff accordingly. There is always going to be that -- some people that are going
to maybe have -- or be a problem, but overall I think it's a good idea and I think that we
are going to find that we are not going to have the kind of problems that people have
associated in the past with low income people, if you will, because they are all good
people. They all want to be successful and I don't think they are going to bring anything
negative to the city. Thank you.
Freeman: Thank you. With that could I get a motion?
Marshall: Mr. Chair?
Freeman: Oh. And let me remind you we do have to -- we have to present each of
these separately in our motion. So, our first motion will be whatever it is will be
regarding CPAM 11-001. After we get a result on that we will see where we go from
there. Go ahead, Commissioner Marshall.
Marshall: Now -- is 112E part of the -- That's got to be part of the rezone. Condition
112E; correct?
Freeman: I believe that is the case, yes. So, we will have to do a modification of that
one.
Marshall: Mr. Chair, after considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move
to recommend approval of file number CPA 11-001 as presented in the staff report for
the hearing date of September 15th, 2011, with no modifications.
Yearsley: I'll second that.
Freeman: Okay. I have a motion and a second to recommend approval of CPAM 11-
001, Southridge Apartments. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Freeman: Now could I get a motion regarding RZ 11-002.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
September 15, 2011
Page 39 of 40
Marshall: Mr. Chair?
Freeman: Commissioner Marshall.
Marshall: After considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move to
recommend approval of file number RZ 11-002 as presented in the staff report for the
hearing date of September 15th, 2011, with the following modification: That condition
1.1.2E be stricken.
Yearsley: I'll second that.
Freeman: Okay. I have a motion and a second to recommend approval of RZ 11-002,
as noted with the amendment. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries.
Thank you.
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT.
F. Public Hearing: RZ 11-004 Chesterfield by Liberty
Development, Inc. located South Side of W. Pine Avenue;
Midway Between N. Black Cat Road and N. Ten Mile Road
Request: Rezone of 1.48 Acres of land from the R-8
Zoning District to the R-15 Zoning District
G. Public Hearing: PP 11-007 Chesterfield by Liberty
Development, Inc. located South Side of W. Pine Avenue;
Midway Between N. Black Cat Road and N. Ten Mile Road
Request: Preliminary Plat Approval of 148 Residential
lots and Twelve (12) Common lots on 28.2 Acres in an
Existing R-8 Zone and a Proposed R-15 Zone
Freeman: Okay. We do have one more item that we need to open. This will be quick.
So, at this time I would like to open RZ 11-004 and PP 11-007. I'd like to open the public
hearings for both items for the sole purpose of continuing these items to .the regularly
scheduled meeting of October 6th, 2011. Could I get a motion?
O'Brien: So moved.
Marshall: Second.
Freeman: It's been moved and seconded to continue Items RZ 11-004 and PP 11-007
to the October 6th meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission. All those in favor
say aye. Opposed: Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Freeman: I think we just have one more motion.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
September 15, 2011
Page 40 of 40
Yearsley: Mr. Chairman, I move to adjourn.
Marshall: Second.
O'Brien: Second.
Freeman: We have a motion and a second to adjourn. All those in favor say aye.
Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Freeman: We are adjourned.
MEETING ADJOURNED AT 8:46 P.M.
(AUDIO R~fORDING ON F,bLE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS)
~f.
SCOTT FREE
ATTEST:
JAYCEE HOLI
CITY CLERK
,~s APPROVED
Tf
~~.o
c.~ey of
IDAHO
f'B Sr-~ ~ . ~~u
~~,A~~~I~ TII4A4Q~,~~y