2012 02-02E IDIAN~--- MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING
I I) A H O COMMISSION MEETING
AGENDA
City Council Chambers
33 E. Broadway Avenue, Meridian, Idaho
Thursday, February 02, 2012 at 7:00 p.m.
1. Roll-call Attendance
O Tom O'Brien _X Steven Yearsley
X Michael Rohm _X Joe Marshall
O Scott Freeman -Chairman
2. Adoption of the Agenda Approved
3. Consent Agenda
A. Approve Minutes of January 19, 2012 Planning and Zoning
Regular Meeting Approved
4. Action Items
A. Public Hearing: RZ 11-007 Accolade Apartments by Gramercy,
LLC Located South of E. Overland Road and West of S. Bonito
Way, Between E. Blue Horizon Drive and the Ridenbaugh
Canal Request: Rezone of 12.29 Acres of Land from an R-15
(Medium High-Density Residential), a TN-C (Traditional
Neighborhood Commercial) and a C-G (General Retail and
Service Commercial) Zone to an R-40 (High-Density
Residential) Zone Recommend Approval to City Council
B. Public Hearing: PP 11-014 Accolade Apartments by Gramercy,
LLC Located South of E. Overland Road and West of S. Bonito
Way, Between E. Blue Horizon Drive and the Ridenbaugh
Canal Request: Preliminary Plat Approval of Two (2)
Residential Lots and Two (2) Common Lots on 17.12 Acres in
an Existing R-15 and Proposed R-40 Zoning Districts
Recommend Approval to City Council
C. Public Hearing: CUP 11-010 Accolade Apartments by
Gramercy, LLC Located South of E. Overland Road and West
of S. Bonito Way, Between E. Blue Horizon Drive and the
Ridenbaugh Canal Request: Conditional Use Permit for 264
Multi-Family Dwelling Units on Approximately 11.53 Acres in a
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Agenda -Thursday, February 02, 2012Page 1 of 2
All materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian.
Anyone desiring accommodation for disabilities related to documents and/or hearing,
please contact the City Clerk's Office at 888-4433 at least 48 hours prior to the public meeting.
Proposed R-40 Zoning District Recommend Approval to City
Council
Meeting Adjourned at 8:15 p.m.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Agenda -Thursday, February 02, 2012Page 2 of 2
All materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian.
Anyone desiring accommodation for disabilities related to documents and/or hearing,
please contact the City Clerk's Office at 888-4433 at least 48 hours prior to the public meeting.
Meridian Plannina and Zonina Meeting February 2, 2012
Meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission of February 2, 2012, was
called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Vice-Chairman Steven Yearsley.
Members Present: Commissioner Michael Rohm, Commissioner Joe Marshall,
Commissioner Steven Yearsley
Members Absent: Chairman Scott Freeman and Commissioner Tom O'Brien.
Others Present: Machelle Hill, Ted Baird, Pete Friedman, Bill Parsons, Scott Steckline
and Dean Willis.
Item 1: Roll-Call Attendance:
Roll-call
X Steven Yearsley Tom O'Brien
X Michael Rohm X Joe Marshall
Scott Freeman -Chairman
Yearsley: 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, dated
Thursday, February 2nd, 2012. Let's begin with roll call.
Item 2: Adoption of the Agenda.
Yearsley: First on the agenda is the adoption of the agenda. At this time we don't have
any changes. Can I get a motion to approve?
Marshall: Mr. Chair, I move that we adopt the agenda as written.
Rohm: Second.
Yearsley: We have a first and a second to adopt the agenda. All in favor say aye.
Opposed? Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIES: THREE AYES. TWO ABSENT.
Item 3: Consent Agenda
A. Approve Minutes of January 19, 2012, Planning and Zoning
Regular Meeting
Yearsley: Next on the agenda is the Consent Agenda and we have the approved
minutes of January 19, 2012, Planning and Zoning regular meeting. Any changes or
corrections?
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
February 2, 2012
Page 2 of 21
Marshall: No, sir.
Yearsley: So, at this time I would move for a motion.
Marshall: Mr. Chair, I move that we approve the Consent Agenda without any
modifications.
Rohm: Second.
Yearsley: We have a motion and asecond -- moved and second. All in favor say aye.
Opposed? Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. TWO ABSENT.
Yearsley: All right. We go into our Action Items. Action 4. We are going to open the
public hearings for public hearing RZ 11-007; public hearing for PP 11-014; and public
hearing CUP 11-010. The Accolade Apartments Gramercy located on south -- located
south of East Overland Road and west of South Benoit Way, between East Blue
Horizon Drive and the Ridenbaugh Canal. At this time I'd like to explain the public
hearing process. First we will have an opening from the staff report to present the
findings from the -- and how the -- how the item adheres to our Comprehensive Plan
and Uniform Development Code with staff recommendations. Next we will hear from
the applicant, who will come forward to present their case for the approval of their
application and to respond to any staff comments. The applicant will be given up to 15
minutes to do so. At that point we will follow with public testimony. There is a sign-up
sheet in the back as you entered, if anyone wishes to testify -- any person testifying will
come forward, be allowed three minutes. If they are speaking for a larger group, like an
HOA, there is a show of hands to represent the group. They will be given up to ten
minutes. After the testimony has been heard, the applicant will have the opportunity to
respond if they desire for up to ten minutes and, then, we will close the public hearing,
the Commission will have the opportunity to decide and discuss and, hopefully, be able
to come up with recommendations to the City Council.
Item 4: Action Items
A. Public Hearing: RZ 11.007 Accolade Apartments by Gramercy,
LLC Located South of E. Overland Road and West of S. Bonito
Way, Between E. Blue Horizon Drive and the Ridenbaugh
Canal Request: Rezone of 12.29 Acres of Land from an R-15
(Medium High-Density Residential), a TN-C (Traditional
Neighborhood Commercial) and a C-G (General Retail and
Service Commercial) Zone to an R•40 (High-Density
Residential) Zone
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
February 2, 2012
Page 3 of 21
B. Public Hearing: PP 11-014 Accolade Apartments by Gramercy,
LLC Located South of E. Overland Road and West of S. Bonito
Way, Between E. Blue Horizon Drive and the Ridenbaugh
Canal Request: Preliminary Plat Approval of Two (2)
Residential Lots and Two (2) Common Lots on 17.12 Acres in
an Existing R-15 and Proposed R-40 Zoning Districts
C. Public Hearing: CUP 11.010 Accolade Apartments by
Gramercy, LLC located South of E. Overland Road and West of
S. Bonito Way, Between E. Blue Horizon Drive and the
Ridenbaugh Canal Request: Conditional Use Permit for 264
Multi-Family Dwelling Units on approximately 11.53 acres in a
Proposed R-40 Zoning District.
Yearsley: So, at this time we'd like to open it for public comment -- or for the staff
report.
Parsons: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. The applications
before you this evening is a preliminary plat, Conditional Use Permit, and rezone
application to develop a 264 unit multi-family development. The subject property is
currently located east of -- excuse me -- south of East Overland Road, west of South
Bonito Way, between East Blue Horizon Drive and the Ridenbaugh Canal. The subject
property is currently zoned with three zoning designations. Three lots are zoned
commercially at C-G, one portion of the property is zoned TN-R, and the remainder is
zoned R-15. Surrounding uses in the area and around this proposed development --
what Ihave done on this exhibit is try to portray to you which portion will house the
multi-family development and how it relates to the adjacent uses in the vicinity. To the
west you can see there is quite a bit of commercial development. To the north is vacant
commercial lots and to the west there is also townhome lots and an existing 48 unit
multi-family development and, then, along the southwest corner there you can see
some single family homes that were platted with Gramercy No. 1. If you recall back in
2008 this project came before you and it was known as Kenai at the time and it's since
morphed to Gramercy. But with that concept plan the applicant did come forward with a
mix of uses that included commercial uses along Overland and transition to some office
uses and eventually going into a townhome multi-family and single family mixed use
along the southern half. And here is the concept plan that is currently tied to the
development of the site. If you look in these four quadrants you can see there are some
dark gray lots and, then, central to the development you can see that darker gray as
well. All that area was proposed for multi-family development. I'd also let you know that
at the time that this plat came forward before you and this project came before you,
density was quite -- was unclear at that time, as we did not have a definite number on
the amount of townhome lots or the number of multi-family units that would be placed in
there. Now, the applicant is wishing to come before you tonight, proposing a new
concept plan, a new site plan, for the 264 unit multi-family development. On this exhibit
here is the preliminary plat that they are proposing. Along the north boundary you can
see my cursor here; these are three lots -- commercially zoned lots that were platted
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
February 2, 2012
Page 4 of 21
with Gramercy No. 1. The applicant is proposing to rezone that and replat that as this
one large 11.18 acre parcel, which will house the multi-family development. As I
mentioned to you earlier, these three lots here are zoned C-G. This dashed portion
here is zoned TN-R and this remaining portion is all R-15. And, then, the second
proposed lot with the subdivision will remain R-15. So, no changes for this southern.
This five acre lot. The rezone only affects an 11 acre parcel. Here is the concept plan
the applicant is proposing. I would mention to you that this -- the Comp Plan designates
this property as mixed use regional. With that land use designation that vision -- the
Comp Plan vision is a mix of uses. Right now we encourage three -- a mix of three
types of uses, so we are looking for either a commercial office and a residential
component and that's what was portrayed to you back in 2006. So, looking at this staff
finds that this type of use is consistent with that land use designation. I would also point
out to Commission that densities for the residential portion of the mixed use regional
designation range from six units to the acre all the way up to 40 units to the acre. The
proposed project before you this evening, the density is at 23.6 units to the acre. What
staff has also proposed for you in the staff report is we have looked at the adjacent
development, residential development in that -- in Gramercy No. 1. We have taken into
account and combined that with the density that they are proposing before you this
evening and the overall density with this development and what's currently existing
there would be 18 units to the acre. So, quite a bit lower than what the 23 units are with
this project. I would also let you know that the southern lot that's proposed with the plat
is vacant and will remain vacant. The applicant has plans to do amulti-family -- or,
excuse me, an assisted living facility in the future. The plans are not coming forward at
this point. Also, the UDC requires an additional -- requires them to obtain a CUP
approval to get that use established on the property. So, if I could go back to the CUP
site plan and let you know that access will be provided off of East Blue Horizon Drive.
The main purpose for that was so that the apartment traffic would not interrupt the
single family residences in the area. So, what the applicant is doing -- right there are
two existing curb cuts to that street. The applicant has coordinated with ACRD for the
new curb. So, what you will have is one full access point and, then, the eastern most
access point will be a right-in, right-out only, due to the fact that there is existing center
medians there that restrict that access. Also on the site plan it was noted that this was
to be an emergency access and fire department has commented and they would prefer
that to remain open and given the close proximity of these two access points, the fire
department is recommending that the applicant provide a third emergency access point,
if you will. So, it will either be located here or staff has conditioned the site plan that
they stub a -- the applicant to stub a private street along the southern boundary here. If
this applicant is willing to work with the fire department that certainly can serve as a
temporary emergency access until that portion of the property develops. This site plan
currently consists of 12 buildings, ten eight-plexes, and two four-plexes. If you look at
this site plan, they will have a range of units. There will be one bedroom, two
bedrooms, and three bedrooms and that includes -- basically there will be 60 one
bedroom units, 132 two bedroom units and 72 three bedroom units. I believe in my staff
report I said there was going to 163 bedroom units. So, I -- my numbers were off, so I'm
just wanting to go on record and state that on the record, that there will actually be more
two bedroom units than three bedroom units. Amenities planned for the subdivision
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
February 2, 2012
Page 5 of 21
include tot lot, two play areas, a swimming pool, a clubhouse. That clubhouse structure
will house the rental office and recreational facilities. The applicant's also proposing
four garage structures with nine units each, for a total of 36 garage spaces. In the
development agreement staff has put a provision in there that the applicant use those
spaces for vehicle parking only, not for storage, not for boat storage or toy storage, it's
meant for vehicle parking and so that's what we have done. Also staff has looked at this
project in relation to the design review standards design manual. Staff finds it's
generally compliant with those requirements. We have already approved the design
review. Briefly I'm going to go through the landscape plan. UDC requires some
buffering around this development. The applicant does comply with that. I would like to
draw your attention to -- the Commission's eye to the southern boundary here and, then,
also, basically, the southwest corner here. This seems to be the most critical with the
neighbors and, of course, with this development. On the submitted landscape plan the
applicant is proposing fairly large -- or substantial landscaping here to buffer against the
residences along here. The applicant met with the neighbors, that's what they have
agreed to do, but I did want to point out, too, the benefits to the audience here and, of
course, the applicant that -- you can see this rectangular box here and that's currently
an ACRD underground seepage bed for drainage for the roadway and typically ACHD
won't allow trees within that easement and possibly the fencing that's shown in this. So,
I have made the applicant aware of that. But I did want the members in the audience to
know -- the community to know that, you know, there may be some challenges to get
some landscaping in there and some fencing as they have requested. There is also
some landscaping required along the foundations of the structures. Staff has reviewed
that for compliance and the applicant's landscapes, essentially, complied with that as
well. Moving onto the building elevations, this is definitely a unique style for Meridian.
think this is a more modern, contemporary architecture building -- building material for
these will be corrugated metal, stucco siding, and, then, hardy board siding, cement
board siding. On the right-hand side you can see what the proposed garages are to
look like. Again, that will have the same mix of materials. The only difference is along
the back side or the east side of those structures they will be, basically, CMU block. It's
for fire separation adjacent to the property boundary. Fire codes have some
requirements for block walls and that fire separation, so staff is supportive of these
elevations. Also, the applicant is proposing substantial amount of carports to meet the
covered parking requirement. Those will be your typical galvanized flat roof carports.
Staff typically isn't supportive of those types of carports, but given the design nature of
this facility it makes sense to have some of that contemporary carports to match the flat
roofs of the structures that they are proposing to construct. Also, I have also looked at
the Gramercy Apartments that are currently constructed. The scale and bulk of these
buildings are similar to those -- to that size out there and so we find that's pretty
consistent to what's in the general vicinity. I'd also point out to you that these structures
will be 30 feet in height, even though they are proposing three story structures. The R-
40 zone that they are proposing before you this evening has a maximum height limit of
60 feet. So, the applicant is proposing quite a bit lower structure than what's allowed in
that zoning district and also the maximum density would be 40 units to the acre in that
zone. The applicant's proposing 23.6. So, both the height and the density is
substantially less than what's required in that zone. And, again, staff is recommending
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
February 2, 2012
Page 6 of 21
DA provisions, restricting them to a maximum height of 35 feet and holding them to their
64 -- 264 units that they are proposing before you this evening. Staff has received
written testimony from the applicant. One was from the applicant, in agreement with the
conditions of the staff report, so there is nothing that they really need you to act on
tonight, other than the application itself. And, then, included in your packet this evening
you should have quite a bit of testimony from the adjacent property owners. Their major
concerns were due to increased traffic, the number of units and density proposed,
increased crime, lighting, and, of course, increased foot traffic and primarily the
applicants, when they were buying their single family homes, they were sold on the
original concept for Gramercy, where you had the multi-family in the corners, buffered
by single family homes and, then, the larger multi-family development in the middle. I'd
also point out to Commission, if I could just digress for one moment, that -- like
mentioned to you, the middle portion of Gramercy always envisioned having four to five
story structures on it, so back in the day when we were meeting with the applicant on
that, I know the fire department had some concerns with that and I'm not sure what
happened, why that went away, but I did want the -- at least the neighbors to know that
this project was going to be a lot more dense than what's proposed on that concept
plan. So, in closing, staff finds that the project does substantially comply with the
Comprehensive Plan and the UDC standards, other than the neighbors' concerns that I
expressed to you, staff is recommending approval of the application and there are no
other outstanding issues before you and with that I would be happy to answer any
questions you may have.
Yearsley: Thank you. At this time are there any questions?
Marshall: Mr. Chair, I do have --
Yearsley: Commissioner Marshall.
Marshall: -- a couple real quick clarifications. Bill, quickly, on -- you're looking at the DA
on 1.5.2. You say something -- the applicant shall submit alternative compliance
application concurrent with the certificate of zoning compliance to mitigate for the eight
additional trees. Period. Could you explain what you're talking about there?
Parsons: Sure, Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Marshall. Let me get back to my slide
here. That was that area I was referencing here -- is basically if you -- if you take the
measurement of that boundary it's 340 linear feet. What we do is we divide -- to get an
accurate tree count we divide that 340 feet by 35 feet and that gives us a tree count of
approximately ten trees. Well, given the fact that trees can't go in there, we just can't
say don't provide the trees. You have to come up with something equal to or superior.
So, what we did on the adjacent -- and the adjacent property had the same issue and so
what they did is they received alternative compliance with their project and they put a
pretty large amount of ornamental grasses and shrubs in there to offset that and given
that the required trees -- the site had above the required trees by ordinance, we could
count some of those trees and I'd have to say that this site plan here that is before you
probably has in excess of what's required by our code in the amount of trees that they
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
February 2, 2012
Page 7 of 21
are proposing. So, that's what I mean by they need to put something in there like
shrubs and grasses and make sure that those eight trees are someplace else on the
site.
Marshall: Got you. Thank you. All right. So, secondly, another part is you're asking for
an ingress-egress increase to the south -- to the southern boundary, in which we -- that
the city typically requires for EMS and fire and the like. So, are you going to require an
ingress-egress easement across the property, since these propose to be private drives?
Parson: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, with the final plat the applicant
has been conditioned to provide a private street application. What happens is with this
amount of units it's -- fire department has regularly required private streets, so they
could adequately address the number of units that are in the complex. One way they do
that is by providing private streets and so they have been conditioned to submit that
private street application. So, with the final plat application they will have to depict an
easement on the plat showing where that private street or that ingress easement --
ingress-egress easement will be shown on the plat. So, it would have to be on there
with the final plat.
Marshall: All right. Thank you.
Yearsley: Any other questions?
Rohm: I have none.
Yearsley: At this time we'd ask the applicant to come up and, please, state your name
and address for the record, please.
Thornton: Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission, my name is Rob Thornton, I'm an
architect with Carver Thornton Young Architects in Boise, Idaho. Our address is 220
North 10th Street in Boise. This has been an amazing process and I think I'd like to talk
more about the process than the project. I feel that Bill has done a really good job of
describing what our intent is. It's been really collaborative, that we have had an
opportunity to work with staff, met on several occasions. They have actually come up
with some really good ideas that we incorporated into our design. We worked back and
forth with them, we worked also with the fire department and -- to make sure that
everything was going to copasetic, that it did make sense, and I'm working for -- my
client has been amazingly responsive to what staff was concerned with, as well as what
the community at large was concerned with. You know, we are required to have a
neighborhood meeting and at the first neighborhood meeting what isn't shown is, you
know, the 2-B, vacant parcel to the south is really where this development initially
started. We were on the southern boundary of Gramercy and he was the same size of
development, it was a good 250 -- actually, it was more like 400 feet further to the
south. I don't know if I can touch this screen, but, essentially, about where the midpoint
of the development is shown now would have been our northern edge. So, we had a
neighborhood meeting. The neighbors were very concerned. They were concerned
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
February 2, 2012
Page 8 of 21
about us being directly adjacent to single family residences. We talked about what we
might be able to do to mitigate that. Nice wrought iron fencing, dense landscaping,
integrating as much -- as many conifers as possible and evergreens as possible into the
southern and the western edge of the property and they were -- really I think had a valid
concern. This wasn't quite in the right place in this district. So, in response to that
went back to my client and described the nature of the neighbors' concerns. My client
paid us to redesign this project and move it 400 feet to the north from where it current is.
So, it's essentially, about a city block north of here it started out. Some opportunities
arose when we were allowed to do that. We were, then, allowed to make our primary
and until now, really, our only access is to Blue Horizon, which is much more
commercial in nature. The closest neighbors are 200 feet away, so you, essentially,
have to go across the street and across a park and across another street and that's
about where the first single family home is. I also feel really good about where we have
moved it to in terms of the district and this is in a subdivision, it's not just single family
homes, but if it's an overriding concept to create in a smaller sense a walkable
community that you can live, you can work, you can play within this community and it
does create its own little neighborhood center, much as Meridian and Eagle were back
in the day decades ago. Hopefully, we will have hundreds, if not maybe a thousand
people that will be working in this district over time and we need to have enough people
that also live in this district and conceptually to have the single family residents sort of
outlaying -- just much the way Meridian is today and, then, denser and denser
development, including denser multi-family type development and condominiums and
apartments toward the middle of the district. In the initial concept there were four and
five story mixed use buildings that were at the heart of the district, that includes
condominiums -- residential condominiums. So, it's a much bigger scale than what we
are presenting to you today. But the plan is to get as many people living in the district --
you know, the right kind of people that can work there and also could play there and we
have about half of the retail commercial use in the front's already developed. As we get
more and more people working and living there, they will be able to flush this out, we
will have more amenities, goods and services will have more offices, medical offices.
With luck we will have that YMCA that will be there someday. So, becomes, truly, a
smaller community within the large community of Meridian. I think that's really what I
want to talk to more than anything. Bill, could you move to the next slide, please. This
slide -- actually, it's our landscape plan, so you can see that we made it as green as
possible and if you look at the center of the site we have made that as green as
possible with our density. We created a -- basically a street boulevard -- smaller scale
boulevard, very similar to the main entrance into Gramercy with trees lining both sides
of it, detached sidewalks, very green. You really don't see any parking spaces on that
main private street as you're moving south to the southern end of the property, until you
get to just the very end of it. We also thought that was very important to do something
like that. It provides the kind of amenity for the people within our apartment community
and it also makes it a very nice way to get to whatever does end up just south of our
property. Could you move to the next slide, Bill? This is what it will look like.
Contemporary architecture can be beautiful, can be wonderful, but if you do the old
architectural elevations it doesn't really show the character of it, as well as something
more along the lines of this -- the perspective that we have shown. We have got three
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
February 2, 2012
Page 9 of 21
different kinds of materials. It's all broken up in a sense that you have broken it into
smaller massings and forms, so it doesn't really take on that sort of large mass single
sort of volume like a shoe box that everybody would be terrified of when you go into
these larger buildings. Another advantage that we do have over our neighbors, the
apartments that are already there, is you see those buildings and you actually see about
a third of what you look at is roof. You're looking at asphalt shingles. And that does
take on a more monolithic character, even if you have lots of dormers on it, than if you
do something where it's a very low slopped roof like we have got shown, but it's more
articulate, so it's broken up and you don't really perceive it as this really big thing. It
breaks it down into a more human scale. And I believe that's about all I would have to
say about the district, except I'm -- I'm really proud of this. I'm deeply grateful to my
client for what they have done. They went way above and beyond what any of my
developer clients have ever done before. They moved the project a city block. They
paid us twice to do the design. They allowed us to collaborate with the neighbors and,
actually, initiated meeting with the neighbors -- we had the two neighborhood meetings
and several meetings with designated representatives from the neighbors all around us
to make sure that we were trying to do the right thing. We wished that we could have
denser tree type development at that southwest corner. Our hands are somewhat tied
by ACHD's requirement for that drainage bed. In our preliminary discussions we are
allowed to have that nice wrought iron fence going all the way around that edge of the
property and we feel that we can get a dense planting with sizeable shrubs and you
have seen some of the grasses even outside the courthouse, how big some of these
grasses can be. So, we feel that with a combination of those we can really screen that
view, get up to six or seven feet of height on that, so at least it's pedestrian and the
vehicular view, you're looking at landscaping, not really looking at our parking on the
other side of it. So, thank you very much.
Yearsley: Thank you. Any questions?
Marshall: I don't at this time.
Rohm: I have a few questions here. The northern portion of this project, will it all be
phased at the same time -- all constructed at the same time or will it be phased in over a
period of years?
Thornton: My understanding is that it would be phased all at one time. I do have Taylor
Merrill, a member of my development -- so, all of the north will be at the same time?
Two. So, the northern phase and the southern phase -- right. And the northern phase
we will be building it all at once. Okay. Yes, we will be building the northern phase all
at once.
Rohm: Okay. So, along with that, then, all of the amenities that have been included in
the project will be developed at the same time that the northern portion is built out then?
Thornton: Yes.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
February 2, 2012
Page 10 of 21
Rohm: That's where I was going with this. That's all I had. Thank you.
Yearsley: Thank you very much.
Thornton: Thank you.
Yearsley: At this time we'd open it up to the applicant. We have a list of names here
we will go off in order. The first one I have is Christina Denning.
Baird: Mr. Chair?
Yearsley: Yes.
Baird: Your attorney over here.
Yearsley: Sorry.
Baird: A suggestion, recommendation. You might mention for those who are about to
testify that you have received a number of letters and those are already part of the
record, so just --
Yearsley: Okay. Thank you very much. Please state your name and address for the
record, please.
Denning: My name is Christina Denning. That's D, as in David, e-n-n-i-n-g. My
address is 2702 East Green Canyon Drive. I am right south of the big empty lot back
there on the other side of the canal. I have two -- two main points I'd like to cover
tonight. I'm sure everyone else -- the neighbors will cover additional points that are
significant as well. My first point I'm kind of concerned about, just zoning in general.
What's the point of zoning something if it's constantly being changed. That's a concern
of mine. I have seen that happen way too much in this area. Number two, I'm
concerned about the Mountain View High School students. Recently there was
something in the news I'm sure you're familiar with that, that the -- they were redoing the
boundaries. They were proposing to redo the boundaries for the Meridian School
District, because the density in Mountain View was too -- too much. So, my concern is
these additional apartment dwellers, who are more transient -- more of a transient
population, they come in here in a couple years and the people that invested in homes
in south Meridian, they recently fought this battle against the boundary issue. Yes,
having their children move to a school -- high school they didn't buy into. So, in a
couple years, as soon as they have all this dense population of these apartment
dwellers and you have all these homeowners that invested in the area to send their kids
to Mountain View, there they are eventually going to be pushed out, because these
apartment dwellers, they are just going to walk right to school. There is no point in
moving them, they are closer to Mountain View than the -- than the homeowners. Did I
make my point?
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
February 2, 2012
Page 11 of 21
Yearsley: Yeah. Yes.
Denning: Mr. Marshall?
Marshall: You made your point. I understood what you said.
Denning: Okay. Good. All right. I don't have anything else. Thank you.
Yearsley: Thank you. B.J. Meyers.
Meyers: Excuse me. My name is B.J. Meyers. I live at 2540 East Copper Point Street.
This is directly southwest of the proposed development. I'd like to turn briefly to the
development matrix that's outlined in the City of Meridian design manual. Based on the
existing zoning of this area, which is R-15, TN-R, and C-G and the general suburban
setting of the area surrounding, including the neighborhoods and some of the residential
-- the more residential type commercial area, I would put this probably at a
3-C, squarely in the middle of suburban and sort of a medium density. With the rezone
to R-40, according to the matrix, that would put us firmly in a 3-B, which, as indicated in
the matrix organization, is more suitable for urban developments and is in a
development category that encourages transitions between urban and suburban
patterns. In observing .the surrounding area, both the residential areas and the
commercial areas, both to the west and -- or the east and southeast of the area, the
residential, of course, is more a suburban than urban and the commercial areas -- the
architecture and so forth, the layout, is consistent with the suburban style outlined in the
development manual. Therefore, I think that a motion such as moving to R-40, would
push this strongly into an urban category surrounded by suburban areas. If this is
intended to be a transition between urban and suburban patterns, I would question
where the urban area is that we are transitioning to. It appears to me more that the
landowners are intent on shoving as many people and as many residences into this
area as they can get away with, rather than looking at the way that the land zoning was
intended to encourage transition -- a smooth transition between urban and suburban
areas. The surrounding area is low density and the existing plan is substantially more
dense than anything that has been -- that was communicated to us by the signage and
the website and so forth. And so this change is even more substantial than what they
are pitching. They may have given us an inch, but they have taken a yard and their
compromises have been small when compared to the enormous change in land use
and zoning that they are requesting. Thank you.
Yearsley: Thank you. I'm going to play murder with this last -- this next one. Larry
Kovarik? Okay. John Medika. Okay. Michael Fraizure. Okay. Richard Larsen.
Larsen: My name is Richard Larsen. I live on 2537 East Griffin Street and that's just
southeast of the proposed apartments. A couple things I wanted to point out is in
regards to Eagle Road, I notice they were preparing -- or kind of pitching the concept of
kind of a more, you know, neighborhood with businesses and everything right there, but
I think the more practical things look what people will be doing is, you know, heading
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
February 2, 2012
Page 12 of 21
north onto Eagle Road and as you know around 5:00 or 6:00 in the afternoon, evening,
that is just crazy and I feel that adding these apartments in is only going to exacerbate
the conditions there and I just want to put forth just my, you know, agreement with
everything said -- the others have said as well and that's all I have. Thank you.
Yearsley: Thank you. Gloria Fern.
Fern: My address is 2660 East Green Canyon Drive and I would just like to --
Yearsley: Would you state your name, just so we have it on the record as well.
Fern: Oh. Okay. Gloria Fern. F-a-r-n. And I have questions about the landscaping on
the southern end of the project. I'd like to know exactly they propose on that southern
end. I live back behind there and I would like to know how many trees are going to go
in there, whether they are going to be conifers or deciduous trees. I'd like to know how
tall they are going to be. I heard that they were going to be six feet. I feel that that is
just too small to start off with. I would like to see eight feet or taller. I also would like to
know if they are going to -- if they are. going to do phase one I would like to know that
they are going to be putting in the landscaping on that southern end of phase one,
instead of waiting until phase two is done and, then, putting it in at the end, because
there could be a period of time where phase one is constructed and, then, time could
lapse and, then, we are just looking at these buildings. I'd like to -- for it to be timely.
When phase one goes in I would like that landscaping to go across and, then, phase
two goes in and I'd like that landscaping to go across the southern part of those phases
and I would like to see as much landscaping as possible, so that we are looking down
on greenery, as opposed to 264 units. Thank you.
Yearsley: Thank you. Rich Fern. Thank you. Stephanie Meyers.
Meyers: My name is Stephanie Meyers and I live at 2540 East Copperpoint Street,
which is in the CVH Gramercy Development. And as mentioned, we were sold on the
Gramercy layout that was provided on the website and on the board. Density was
never discussed with us and so to have these high density apartments was more that
we were prepared for and we were never aware of the five and six story apartments
going in. Along with the density there are some traffic issues. I know that we are
already -- in this community we already have traffic concerns and the commercial use,
which we are -- we were settled to when we moved in, but with the added high density
apartments, I think that may overtax the -- the traffic in our area and also as Rich
pointed out, the traffic on Eagle and Overland, especially during those high traffic times.
I also am an educator and I am concerned about the school boundaries. I know that
Mountain View High School will soon be overcrowded. I know that some of the
elementary schools are coming up to their limits and just as Christina said, I don't think
that's fair to the homeowners who lived here and maybe moved into those schools or
prepared to go to Mountain -- Mountain View and need to go somewhere else and I just
think it brings in too many people and the surrounding community is not set up to hold
that many in such a small area. Thank you.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
February 2, 2012
Page 13 of 21
Yearsley: Thank you. Is it Lyman Holyoak?
Holyoak: My name is Lyman Holyoak. I live at 2581 East Griffin Street. I am the
closest homeowner to this proposed project. First I want to thank the project
development team for all their hard work and their -- their willingness to listen to our
concerns. That means a lot to us. But in addition to everything else that has been said
-- you know -- and lagree -- and I'm not really sure where I stand in this, whether I'm for
or against and I guess that doesn't really matter right now. But I guess as the closest
homeowner during Mr. Parsons' presentation he mentioned something about a third,
possibly temporary -- if it's temporary access spot. I guess that's my comment tonight,
what's -- what's this third temporary access spot we already agreed to seal off pretty
much the southern boundary, so there would be no increased traffic. So, that's my
question. What -- what happens to -- or where did this access come from, if I could get
a little more explanation on that. Thank you.
Yearsley: Thank you. Allie Holyoak.
Holyoak: Hello. My name is Allie Holyoak. I live at 2581 East Crescent Street. I live in
-- I'm also the closest neighbor. I just want to address that starting September 1st, just
five months ago, the apartments that are currently under construction, they were -- they
are just brand new as well. So, I know there has been talk about those current
apartments that are there. This is new to us as well, the new apartments and I believe
they only have one occupant right now and there is 47 more to sell. 1 just don't think the
density of this area is suitable to 264 units. Even though they are a different set of
apartments, I just want to make that clear, that they are new to us as well and we
weren't expecting another set of multi-family housing this large. So, the density is not
right in this area. Thank you.
Yearsley: Thank you. Larry.
Kovarik: My name is Larry Kovarik. I live at 2686 East Green Canyon Drive. First and
foremost I have to make a comment with regard to the same comment one of the other
people made and that's how often do we plan on changing zoning and platting areas. I
understand the economy's changed. I understand that the owner-developer has reason
to come forth with this. However, how about if I came forward and asked to change the
zoning on my property? You know, it's -- everybody has -- everybody is going through
bad times now with the economy and I guess my point being sometimes you got to ride
out the storm. I got to ride out the storm on my property, maybe the owner-developer
here needs to ride out the storm. That's my first comment to the Planning and Zoning
Commission. My second thing here is -- and I think you have it in front of you, a -- some
agreements that were drawn up between the owner, developer, architect, and civil
engineer and not only the neighborhood associations, but also myself and Lyman
Holyoak who just spoke -- and I have some concerns on these agreements. I don't
know if we need to go through them. My biggest concern is -- is like Gloria Fern
brought up, is one of the things we asked for was that the fencing and the landscaping
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
February 2, 2012
Page 14 of 21
be put in on the most southerly and southwestern borders at the start of this project to --
to give them a chance to grab hold and to start to block things. We have asked that that
-- that that landscaping be thick, as thick as possible on the southerly border. We also
know that on the -- where the easement is whatever we need to do over there we are
asking that that -- that needs to be taken care of. Once, again, the concern being the
neighbors, the people that are living in that area right there. We talked about the
possibility of moving the garages to the southern corner. This was a suggestion by
myself and Mr. Holyoak as something to consider, both with Mr. Parsons and the group
here to block the noise and some lighting to the south. We talked about all lighting
being subdued, pointed downward, not only on the grounds, but also on those patios of
all the buildings and things. Another thing that's important is in the CCRs or some type
of document and -- whatever that maybe, we need some -- we need some protection
there as far as where people store items, keep -- keep their -- like I said, where they
store their things or whatever and trash bins, make sure that we keep them covered.
That's about some of the things that we talked about and like to have written in or
whatever. Thank you.
Yearsley: Thank you. That's all I had written down. Is there anybody else that would
like to speak? Okay.
Rohm: Mr. Chairman?
Yearsley: Yes.
Rohm: Before we ask the applicant to come back forward I'd like to just speak to one of
the concerns that the public has brought before us and that's the zoning changes on this
project. Well, not specific to this project, but specific to development in general, we
have a Comprehensive Plan and we have a Unified Development Code that all of us on
this side of the equation look at for every project that comes before us. There are
multiple zones that comply with the UDC and the Comprehensive Plan and when a
project -- this one or another other comes before us there is a proposal or a -- what's the
word for -- well, the concept. Well, when this project came before us a number of years
ago certain conditions existed that took the development in that direction. That does not
preclude them from updating and changing their ideas based upon what is -- conditions
exist in the community today and so that is specifically why we have the zoning change
process available to the development community to be able to put a proposal before us
that makes sense based upon the conditions that exist now and so it's not -- not just this
project, but every project, before they start moving dirt, they want to get it right and so
we -- I am in support of making changes to zoning prior to development than try and
development something that just doesn't fit. So, that's -- that's kind of a general -- my
general feeling on zoning, whether it's this project or any other. So, that's -- that's what
we try to do. We try to make good fits and so I hope that helps answer some of your
concerns about a constantly changed zoning on any given application. Thank you.
Yearsley: Thank you.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
February 2, 2012
Page 15 of 21
Marshall: Mr. Chair, to that end I have to agree with Commissioner Rohm that we have
seen a number of projects that -- let me say thank goodness they came back in and
changed zones, that our ordinance had changed, we had improved what we had
required and all of our guidelines had been improved and coming back in they had to
meet the new guidelines and things like that and if I'm not mistaken, that original
concept plan was never a preliminary plat. It was never agreed to as it was never an
approved plat or anything else. It was a concept. We think this is how it might develop
and that's all a concept plan is. Nothing has been approved by the city or no
development agreement has ever been set into. Essentially it was zoned based on a
concept that this is possibly what we could develop and -- well, that's very different than
what we have before us tonight, which is a preliminary plat, a rezone as well, but a
preliminary plat where we are agreeing on a development agreement that would hold
them to developing as this is presented tonight, and which is different than what came
forth before. It is very different than what you had before, which was a concept plan.
What we are seeing tonight is actually something that would go forth into a development
agreement and, then, would be required to be built substantially like that. If you look
closely at the -- at the wording of the agreement, it would have to be very, very close,
with only minor changes to that as things progressed. Maybe there were some changes
in utilities and things like that might have to be changed, but for the most part, it would
have to look just like what we are looking at tonight. Thanks, Mr. Chair.
Yearsley: Thank you. At this time we'd ask the applicant to come up and address -- if
he wants to address any of these comments.
Thornton: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, I have a copy of a letter from
Idaho Transportation Department, basically stating that the project trip generation -- that
what we are proposing to do tonight is very similar to the original intent of this
subdivision, so that there is no real additional traffic load beyond what was originally
conceived in 2006, I believe. May I come forward and give you a copy of that or -- to
the clerk.
Yearsley: Yeah.
Thornton: I appreciate -- I appreciate the neighbors' concerns in this and I'd like to
speak to some of their concerns. Probably the southern property concern is the easiest
one and maybe the first one to address, that Mr. Parsons also had a very similar idea --
a very similar concern about creating this boundary buffer on the edge of our
development, even though the southern edge is in the second phase, but that we
should probably dense it up and do it immediately, because, you know, everything
comes -- these trees aren't really that terribly large when you initially put them in, but
maybe in a few years they will be significantly larger, lots of sunshine and water and
good luck. So, you know, we agree with the neighbors and I'm not sure that they did
see that. That was part of staffs requirement to do that and we agree, I think that's a
really good idea. We also worked with staff on getting more than the typical amount of
conifers or percentage of conifers, evergreens allowed into that portion of landscape.
We sort of pushed the boundaries. You don't really want to have all evergreens there.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
February 2, 2012
Page 16 of 21
But we have a very high percentage of evergreens, so that there will be that sort of
density -- that kind of visual block year around. It is 400 feet away from the southern
neighbor, the closest southern residential neighborhood. We are also about 12 to 15
feet lower in elevation. There is a bit of a plateau on the other side of the creek and,
then, it drops down into our development. So, all of those things combined, we feel, you
know, it's -- it will be a very nice buffer to the south. This is a high quality rental
apartment development. If it were going to be a lower quality, lower rent, with a more
transient nature of inhabitants it would look different than what you're seeing. The kind
of articulation, the kind of materiality, the amount of money that I have spent, that my
developer clients in order to develop this project, it's been really significant. This has
not been a low rate, low rent kind of project, it's one of the better things that I have done
in the past 30 years, so we are not that kind of character. This isn't that kind of
character in development. I don't believe that we will see that kind of transient
population living in this kind of a neighborhood. So, the concerns that they have about
a transient nature and overloading of the high schools, I really appreciate that, but I
don't believe that that really is going to be the case with -- with this development -- this
type of development. This is a district, it's not a suburb, and so for our reason it's kind
of -- it's a newish concept. Maybe one of the older districts that we could look at would
be say Hyde Park in Boise, that you do have this sort of commercial development and,
then, the residential with it. It's a smaller kind of development than what we have, then,
but what we have found over time in Hyde Park is that the north end homes are very
desirable, even the ones that are right up adjacent to that commercial mixed district.
They have a very high property value. Their property values did not decline in the way
all of the rest of our property values did in the past few years, because it a real amenity
to be able to walk to the YMCA in the case of what our district will be, to walk to dinner,
to take your child to the dance studio, to be able to access the greenbelt and the parks
around us, those kinds of amenities. That's not really the kind of character that you're
going to see at a more entry level apartment complex. It would be wonderful if we had
say an R-25 zone that we could work with. We really have a huge jump between the
higher densities that are allowed and the lower densities that we are accustomed to
seeing. There may be space for something in between some day. I'm just putting it out
there. I'm just an architect. But it would be wonderful if we could have that kind of
district, because it would tie us in more closely to what we intend to do and whatever
you're intending in the valley now. When the people moved into Gramercy into the
single family homes, they were about the only thing going in terms that we could
actually see. This new district -- the core of the district, the most dense portions haven't
been built yet. These four and five story buildings with some commercial mix within
residential condos, the Brownstones to the south of that, none of that had occurred, just
some of the supporting in line retail -- really new urbanist design retail in the front is all
that we have so far. So, when you're the first one in it's a little hard to -- I would imagine
see this district grow and to be more dense than what we are all accustomed to. We
are all accustomed to single family residential development and this is a new idea and
it's, actually, a very old idea, but it's new to us. It's really more of a collector. I'm really
grateful -- deeply grateful that we were allowed to move this up to make that connection
to Blue Horizons, that we don't have the kind of rush hour vehicular impact on the
residential neighbors to the southwest and we have a way of getting vehicles up and
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
February 2, 2012
Page 17 of 21
away and out and they are more isolated -- it's a little bit quieter where they are. So,
this is -- this is a really -- I think a good thing and something to be taken into account.
That, you know, the people have a couple of ways of really getting out of our
development and none of those are going through this single family residential
development. We did actually do a significant look at placing the garages on the south
property line and without completely redesigning our development, there was no way of
quite fitting them in there. We could almost fit them in there, but we couldn't quite fit
them in there. So, we ended up with them along the western property and I put them
that way in that place initially as something of a buffer between our residential
development and the existing commercial development to the east of us. So, it's a
move from commercial to higher density residential to a lower density residential. Very
similarly to the way that the district intent is, that we have a very high dense or
reasonably high dense urban core with residential and commercial use and, then,
closely wrapped by higher density residential, Brownstone apartments, condominiums,
and single family development at the perimeter, the lower density at the perimeter of
that. So, with the move that we have been allowed to make with our project that's
before you tonight, we have been allowed to move it up and closer to that urban core,
so it begins to wrap the commercial development that's planned for some day, so -- and
that's the end of my comments. Thank you.
Yearsley: Thank you.
Rohm: Before you go, could you speak to that additional emergency egress just briefly?
Thornton: Oh, thank you. That's -- I meant to talk to about that, so appreciate it.
Rohm: Okay.
Thornton: We looked at potentially putting it with fill to the south along the main access
drive. The neighbors were really concerned about wanting to fence everything in,
getting as dense as possible, not making an even pedestrian sort of cross-access from
our property, possibly with a gate and a knox box, it would satisfy the need of the fire
department for that access, rather to try and create a fire department access over in the
sort of looping drive at the southern end of the new Loftus Drive at that corner. That
might be a better solution, because it is buffering between us and the single family with
this future development. That seems to me to make a lot of sense and if it does satisfy
the needs of the fire department we would like to have as low of an impact as possible
on our residential neighbor.
Rohm: That's what I was looking for. Thank you. That's what -- that's where I wanted
to go with that.
Thornton: Thank you. I appreciate that. I completely forgot to say anything about it.
Rohm: I don't have anything else.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
February 2, 2012
Page 18 of 21
Marshall: I'm good.
Thornton: Okay. Thank you.
Yearsley: Thank you.
Marshall: Mr. Chair?
Yearsley: Yes.
Marshall: At this time I would like to move that we close the public hearing on RZ 11-
007, PP 11-014, CUP 11-010.
Rohm: I'll second that motion.
Yearsley: Okay. We have a motion and a second. All in favor say aye. Opposed?
Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIES: THREE AYES. TWO ABSENT.
Yearsley: All right.
Marshall: Mr. Chair, I have a number of comments.
Yearsley: Okay.
Marshall: I read all the letters. A number of them were very similar. I appreciate what
everybody had to say and I do understand your concerns. I take a little offense in that I
spent a lot of my life in apartments. I like to have a very active lifestyle and mowing the
lawn and taking care of the sprinklers and, you know, hosing out the rain gutters and
things like that take a lot of time and I would rather be out riding my bike and walking
the dog. I'm a resident of Meridian, too, even as an apartment dweller and I have a
family and I raise families and I know a number of apartment people do, too, and I
wanted to live in a good clean apartment, I just didn't want to own a house at the time. I
do now. I own a house. And I understand some of the concerns. But much like
houses, I have found many house owners don't take care of things and there is crime. I
have lived in very nice neighborhoods up north and suddenly had a crack house down
the street. What you're going to get is going to have a lot to do with the developer and
the quality of the development and the manager and how they manage it. There are no
guarantees in life. I mean, like I said, I have lived in a very upper end neighborhood
and had a crack house just down the block. So, I'm a little frustrated with, my gosh,
apartments bring crime; my gosh, apartments are dirty. I -- that frustrates me a little,
because I have spent a big portion of my life as an apartment dweller. And, then, there
is the issue of density to and I can tell you with a background of land planning and
looking -- if you look closely at the future land use map and read the Comprehensive
Plan, the idea is to get higher densities of people closer to the main arterials and closer
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
February 2, 2012
Page 19 of 21
to multiple transit systems where we are trying as a city right now trying to get a bus
system up and running. We don't have any public transportation worth a darn in this
valley. It's starting to, but got a long, long way to go. We need mass transit and you
want to move high densities closer to the mass transit areas. You want to have
apartments next to large employment centers, so people don't have to drive across the
Valley and we have got some large commercial areas here and having a high density
there is a -- if you would read the Comprehensive Plan that's what we want. We want
higher densities next to anywhere we have got commercial development, jobs, things
like that, so people don't have to drive clear across the valley polluting our air to try to
get to work. They can walk to the store and back and as we move out away from that --
to be honest, I, again, lived in apartments and lived next to apartments owning a house
that were exceptional neighbors. Very good neighbors. My kids played with the kids
living in the apartment, the last one I lived next to. They were great neighbors. And,
again, there is no guarantee with any of this, but when I look at that, the traffic issue,
again -- I can't determine whether it's going to destroy traffic, you know, it's -- the roads
are going to be overloaded. I can make guesses. But I rely on the traffic engineers at
Ada County Highway District to tell me that the facilities we have are substantial enough
to be able to handle this. I would be very worried if this -- this was dumping out onto a
residential street and I'm very, very pleased that the developer moved this north and
has provided the access to the north and not through your neighborhood, because I
would not like to see that. I think that's too much traffic to have on a residential street
where kids are playing and the like, to dump that much on it would have been a problem
for me. And I'm very pleased that the development agreement, as stipulated that the
developer's agreed -- sat down with the city and the city wrote up the development
agreement stating in writing -- and they agreed with this -- they have to complete the
landscaping with phase one. Before phase two is started it has to be completed per
your request, as well as the down lighting was addressed in the development
agreement exactly how it's to be down lighted and shielded. The development
agreement also addresses -- well, just about every one of those issues you brought up,
Mr. Kovarik, with the landscaping, the fencing, the lighting and the developer was in
agreement to all of those and so the city put that in writing to try to protect you and say,
look, they agreed, you agreed, let's make sure this happens exactly as everybody said.
And I appreciate their doing that and working with everyone. I really do. To that end, to
be honest, I'm for the project.
Yearsley: Commissioner Rohm?
Rohm: I think you pretty well said it. Are you ready to make a motion?
Yearsley: Can I -- I'd like to address a couple of the comments as well. First of all, I
want to commend the developer for listening to the residents and making adjustments
as necessary to try to meet your concerns. You know, it may not personally be what
you want in your neighborhood, but I think they have tried to mitigate as best as
possible to make it a better situation for you guys. With regards to the schools, there is
overcrowding in the schools. How to solve that is not by not allowing development, it's
by working with the school district to build more schools and working to rearrange
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
February 2, 2012
Page 20 of 21
boundaries to make sure that the schools are evenly distributed. There is more
development going to happen in this valley than just this project and more overcrowding
is going to happen. We are going to build new schools and I don't see denying this
project based on that as an issue. Traffic wise, if I'm not mistaken, I think that the
intersection on Overland is slated as traffic gets busier for a signal. So, as the traffic
increases, as that Gramercy develops, there will be a signal on Overland there, so you
can actually go out and access Overland to get out of your properties. I think they have
looked at a lot of those issues and we have -- they have tried to address a majority of
the issues. From my understanding the densities are very similar to what they had
proposed initially, they just moved it to a different location and so I think it's -- it's a good
compromise. So, with that we need to do the motions separately, so --
Marshall: All three have to be separate?
Yearsley: Yes, because one's predicated upon the other.
Marshall: Starting with the RZ, then, the PP, then, the CUP?
Yearsley: Yes.
Marshall: All right. Mr. Chair, after considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony,
I move to recommend approval to City Council of file number RZ 11-007 as presented in
the staff report for the hearing date of February 2nd, 2012, with no modifications.
Rohm: Second.
Yearsley: All right. We have got a first and a second. All those in favor say aye.
Opposed? Great.
MOTION CARRIES: THREE AYES. TWO ABSENT.
Marshall: Mr. Chair, after considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move
to recommend approval to City Council of file number PP 11-014 as presented in the
staff report for the hearing date of February 2nd, 2012, with no modifications.
Rohm: Second.
Yearsley: We have a motion and a second. All in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion
carries.
MOTION CARRIES: THREE AYES. TWO ABSENT.
Marshall: Mr. Chair, after considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move
to recommend approval to City Council of file number CUP 11-010 as presented in the
staff report for the hearing date of February 2nd, 2012, with no modifications.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
February 2, 2012
Page 21 of 21
Rohm: Second.
Yearsley: Okay. We have got a first and a second. All in favor say aye. Opposed?
Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIES: THREE AYES. TWO ABSENT.
Yearsley: Thank you very much. I guess with that we have one motion left to do.
Marshall: Mr. Chair, I move that we adjourn.
Rohm: Second.
Yearsley: We have got a motion and a second. All in favor say aye. Opposed?
MOTION CARRIES: THREE AYES. TWO ABSENT.
Yearsley: We are adjourned.
MEETING ADJOURNED AT 8:14 P.M.
(AUDIO RECORDING ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS.)
APPROVED
,;:
STEVEN YEARSL
err r Mw -(~.,
CHAIRMAN
~ ~'P ~ ~~
DATE APPROVED
ATTEST: I~
JAYCEE L. HOLMAN, CITY CL
~9~
r,/ Y {• ` IDAHO
•P SEAL ~
rsyr`` ~ ~ e l e t11-9~~~~!
Meridian Planning Zoning Commission Meeting
DATE: February 2, 2012 ITEM NUMBER: 3/~
PROJECT NUMBER:
ITEM TITLE:
Approve Minutes of January 19, 2012 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
MEETING NOTES
,9-~° pad ~/~.~c. ~-~
CLERKS OFFICE FINAL ACTION
DATE: E-MAILED TO
STAFF SENT TO
AGENCY SENT TO
APPLICANT NOTES INITIALS
Meridian Planning Zoning Commission Meeting
DATE: February 2, 2012 ITEM NUMBER: 4A
PROJECT NUMBER: RZ 11-007
ITEM TITLE: Accolade Apartments
Public Hearing -Rezone of 12.29 acres of land from an R-15 (Medium High-Density
Residential), a TN-C (Traditional Neighborhood Commercial) and a C-G (General Retail
and Service Commercial) zone to an R-40 (High Density Residential) zone by Gramercy,
LLC -south of E. Overland Rd; west of S. Bonito Way, between E. Blue Horizon Drive and
the Ridenbaugh Canal
MEETING NOTES
J h-~~ m.rL
3-t9
o~c.-f-{a` CIA= 3"~'/~,
CLERKS OFFICE FINAL ACTION
DATE: E-MAILED TO
STAFF SENT TO
AGENCY SENT TO
APPLICANT NOTES INITIALS
Meridian Planning Zoning Commission Meeting
DATE: February 2, 2012 ITEM NUMBER: 46
PROJECT NUMBER: PP 11-014
ITEM TITLE: Accolade Apartments
Public Hearing -Preliminary Plat approval of 2 residential lots and 2 common lots on 17.12
acres in an existing R-15 and proposed R-40 zoning districts -south of E. Overland Rd; west
of S. Bonito Way, between E. Blue Horizon Drive and the Ridenbaugh Canal
MEETING NOTES
J~-c..e. ,A-pt°vt~va..e ~o G~ C
~l ~~-
oZ(~ Tl7Y C~C
3 -~ -~ a-, 3-~
CLERKS OFFICE FINAL ACTION
DATE: E-MAILED TO
STAFF SENT TO
AGENCY SENT TO
APPLICANT NOTES INITIALS
Meridian Planning Zoning Commission Meeting
DATE: February 2, 2012 ITEM NUMBER: 4C
PROJECT NUMBER: CUP 11-010
ITEM TITLE: Accolade Apartments
Public Hearing -Conditional Use Permit approval for 264 multi-family dwelling units on
approximately 11.53 acres in a proposed R-40 zoning district by Gramercy, LLC -south of
E. Overland Rd; west of S. Bonito Way, between E. Blue Horizon Drive and the Ridenbaugh
Canal
MEETING NOTES
~c.~ ~y'G ravcc-2 `~ C-~ C
~1 wt ~ m -2
CLERKS OFFICE FINAL ACTION
DATE: E-MAILED TO
STAFF SENT TO
AGENCY SENT TO
APPLICANT NOTES INITIALS