2012 11-01E IDIAN~- MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING
IDAHO COMMISSION MEETING
AGENDA
City Council Chambers
33 E. Broadway Avenue, Meridian, Idaho
Thursday, November 01, 2012 at 7:00 p.m.
1.
Roll-call Attendance
_X Tom O'Brien _O Steven Yearsley
X Michael Rohm X Joe Marshall
X Scott Freeman -Chairman
2.
3
4.
Adoption of the Agenda Approved as Amended
Consent Agenda
A. Approve Minutes of October 18, 2012 Planning and Zoning
Commission Meeting Approved
B. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: CUP
12-011 Backstage Dance Center by Backstage Dance Center
Located 1535 E. Commercial Drive Request: Conditional Use
Permit to Operate an Indoor Recreation Facility (Dance Studio)
from an Existing Building in an I-L Zoning District Approved
Action Items
A. Continued Public Hearing from October 18, 2012: Request for
a Street Name Change from N. Englewood Way to A new Name
to be Decided Upon by Affected Residents OR the Spelling
Changed to Inglewood by The City of Meridian Community
Development Department Continued Public Hearing to
November 15, 2012
B. Continued Public Hearing from October 18, 2012: Request for
a Street Name Change from N. Englewood Place to a New
Name to be Decided Upon by Affected Residents OR the
Spelling Changed to Inglewood by the City of Meridian
Community Development Department Continued Public
Hearing to November 15, 2012
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Agenda -Thursday, November 01, 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.
C. Continued Public Hearing from October 18, 2012: AZ 12-008
Isola Creek Subdivision by Coleman Homes, LLC Located East
Side of N. Ten Mile Road, North of W. Ustick Road Request:
Annexation and Zoning of 74.6 Acres of Land from RUT in Ada
County to the R-4 (Medium Low-Density Residential) Zone
Recommend Approval to City Council
D. Continued Public Hearing from October 18, 2012: PP 12-004
Isola Creek Subdivision by Coleman Homes, LLC Located East
Side of N. Ten Mile Road, North of W. Ustick Road Request:
Preliminary Plat Approval of 168 Residential Lots and 18
Common Lots on 74.6 Acres in a Proposed R-4 Zone
Recommend Approval to City Council
E. Public Hearing: PP 12-013 Bienville Square East by Alliance
Management Consultants Located West of N. Eagle Road and
South of E. Ustick Road Request: Preliminary Plat Approval for
28 Residential Lots and 5 Common /Other Lots on 7.89 Acres
of Land in an R-15 Zoning District Recommend Approval to
City Council
F. Public Hearing: CUP 12-012 Stor-It Addition by Avest Limited
Partnership Located 355 N. Ten Mile Road Request:
Conditional Use Permit Approval for aSelf-Service Storage
Facility in a C-G Zoning District Approved -Prepare Findings
of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval
G. Public Hearing: PP 12-012 Scentsy Commons Subdivision by
HOT1, LLP Located 3001 E. Commercial and 2701 E. Pine
Avenue Request: Preliminary Plat Approval Consisting of
Seven (7) Building Lots on 60.727 Acres of Land in the I-L, L-O
and C-G Zoning Districts Recommend Approval to City
Council
Meeting adjourned at 8:46 p.m.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Agenda -Thursday, November 01, 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 Planning and Zoning Commission November 1, 2012
Meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission of November 1, 2012, was
called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Chairman Scott Freeman.
Present: Chairman Scott Freeman, Commissioner Michael Rohm, Commissioner Tom
O'Brien, and Commissioner Joe Marshall.
Members Absent: Commissioner Steven Yearsley.
Others Present: Machelle Hill, Ted Baird, Bruce Chatterton, Bill Parsons, Sonya
Wafters, and Dean Willis.
Item 1: Roll-Call Attendance:
Roll-call
Steven Yearsley X Tom O'Brien
X 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 Planning and Zoning Commission for this date of
November 1st, 2012. Could we begin with roll call, please.
Item 2: Adoption of the Agenda.
Freeman: Thank you. The first order of business is the adoption of the agenda. We do
have some changes to the agenda that's before you. Items 4-A and 4-B, regarding the
street name change from North Inglewood way to a new name will be continued again
to the November 15th hearing date. So, we will be opening that item only for the
purpose of continuing it, so if anybody was here to hear that item or offer testimony, you
can come back, then, when we actually put it on the table. With that could I get a
motion to adopt the agenda as amended.
O'Brien: So moved.
Marshall: Second.
Freeman: I have a motion and a second to adopt the agenda as amended. All those in
favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries. Thank you.
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Item 3. Consent Agenda
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
November 1, 2012
Page 2 of 35
A. Approve Minutes of October 18, 2012 Planning and Zoning
Commission Meeting
B. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: CUP
12-011 Backstage Dance Center by Backstage Dance Center
Located 1535 E. Commercial Drive Request: Conditional Use
Permit to Operate an Indoor Recreation Facility (Dance Studio)
from an Existing Building in an I-L Zoning District
Freeman: Next item on the agenda is the Consent Agenda. We have two items on the
Consent Agenda this evening, the approval of the minutes of the October 18th, 2012,
Planning and Zoning Commission hearing and the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of
Law for approval of CUP 12-011, Backstage Dance Center. Could I get a motion to
accept the -- or approve or the Consent Agenda.
Rohm: So moved.
Marshall: Second.
Freeman: I have a motion and a second to approve the Consent Agenda. All those in
favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries,
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Item 4: Action Items
A. Continued Public Hearing from October 18, 2012: Request for
a Street Name Change from N. Englewood Way to A new Name
to be Decided Upon by Affected Residents OR the Spelling
Changed to Inglewood by The City of Meridian Community
Development Department Continued Public Hearing to
November 15, 2012
B. Continued Public Hearing from October 18, 2012: Request for
a Street Name Change from N. Englewood Place to a New
Name to be Decided Upon by Affected Residents OR the
Spelling Changed to Inglewood by the City of Meridian
Community Development Department
Freeman: Okay. I'm going to go ahead and open the public hearing on Items 4-A and
4-B, the request for a street name change from North Englewood Way to a new name,
for the sole purpose of continuing it to the next regularly scheduled meeting on
November 14th. Could I get a motion?
Rohm: So moved.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
November 1, 2012
Page 3 of 35
Marshall: Second.
Freeman: I have a motion and a second to continue the public hearing for the request
of street name change from North Englewood Way to a new street name to the
November 15th hearing date. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Freeman: Okay. Before I open our first public hearing tonight we are actually going to
hear something. I'd like to explain the process a little bit for those of you who might be
new or want to offer testimony this evening. We are going to order -- or we are going to
open each item in order and we are going to hear the staff report on each item first.
After the staff report the applicant will be given 15 minutes to come forward and present
their application, after which time if you wish to offer public testimony there will be an
opportunity for you to come forward and state your opinion, your case on the matter.
You will be given three minutes each to do so if you want to. There are sign-up sheets
in the back for each of the items on the agenda, so if you are here with the purpose of
testifying on anything, it would be helpful if you signed up on the sign-up sheet, that way
I'm sure not to miss you when we go through the public hearing and the public
testimony. If you're not on the sign-up sheet 1 still will give you an opportunity to come
up .and speak.. I will take a show of hands on each item before we close the public
hearing. After we take public testimony the applicant will have ten minutes to come up
again and respond to anything that has been discussed or heard, after which time we
will close the public hearing, the Commissioners will deliberate and, hopefully, we can
come up with a recommendation to City Council on each item.
C. Continued Public Hearing from October 18, 2012: AZ 12-008
Isola Creek Subdivision by Coleman Homes, LLC Located East
Side of N. Ten Mile Road, North of W. Ustick Road Request:
Annexation and Zoning of 74.6 Acres of Land from RUT in Ada
County to the R-4 (Medium Low-Density Residential) Zone
D. Continued Public Hearing from October 18, 2012: PP 12-004
Isola Creek Subdivision by Coleman Homes, LLC Located East
Side of N. Ten Mile Road, North of W. Ustick Road Request:
Preliminary Plat Approval of 168 Residential Lots and 18
Common Lots on 74.6 Acres in a Proposed R-4 Zone
Freeman: So, with that I would like to at this time open the public hearing for AZ 12-
008, Isola Creek Subdivision. These are Items C and D. That will include PP 12-004.
And let's begin with the staff report.
Parsons: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. The first application
before you this evening is the Isola Creek Subdivision. This project has been continued
several times. It's been continued since the October 4th hearing, basically in order to
get some issues resolved with the dedication of the park site that's planned with the
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
November 1, 2012
Page 4 of 35
subdivision. The property is currently 74.6 acres of land, zoned RUT in county. The
applicant is requesting an R-4 zoning designation with the annexation. I would mention
to you that along the northeast and south boundary are residential subdivisions in the
city, zoned R-4 and R-8. To the west is the city's industrial -- or sewer wastewater
treatment plant and, then, some county residences zoned RUT in the county as well.
As you can see here it is the last remnant parcel here along Ten Mile between McMillan
and Ustick Road. The applicant is proposing a subdivision before you as well. The plat
includes 168 residential lots and 18 common lots. As I mentioned earlier, one of those
lots will be a city park lot dedicated to the city. That's located here along the southern
boundary. The applicant is also providing street connectivity with the subdivision. So,
one access point, which is designated a collector street will come off of Ten Mile and
terminate in this location and the remainder of the streets will be internal local streets.
Stub streets have been provided through the subdivision along the north boundary and
also the east boundary here. I would like to mention at some point there was a stub
street along here, but due to that intersection project along Ustick Road and Ten Mile,
ACHD has purchased that property now that has become, basically, a detention site for
that intersection and that roadway, so just -- just wanted to make note of that, that there
is a stub street will go nowhere in the future, but this parcel is not part of the application,
just in case you had any questions moving forward. The applicant is proposing
approximately 13.6 acres of open space with the subdivision. You can see here a
majority of it will be street buffers and, then, also eight. foot parkways and tree-lined
streets. Again, this park site is along the south boundary that includes multi-use
pathways along the south boundary running east, going through the common lot and,
then, ultimately connecting to the Bridgetower Subdivision. Amenities -- private
amenities for this subdivision include a pool, a pool facility, a tot lot, and a covered
picnic shelter there. The applicant is proposing to develop this in several phases on the
submitted plan they indicate five phases in total. The first phase would begin in this
portion here. Because this is an annexation before you this evening staff is
recommending a DA with the annexation of the property. One of those recommended
DA provisions does include these amenities and development of this common lot and
those amenities with the first phase of development. Moving on. Lots range in size
between 8,900 square feet and 12,000 -- I believe 22,000 square feet. Average lot size
is approximately 13,000 square feet. The Comp Plan does designate this property as
medium density residential. This project comes in just slightly under that target of 2.3 to
eight units to the acre. The density is at 2.25. But it is -- if you look at how Bridgetower
-- Bridgetower has developed around this, it is really consistent with what's happening
there. So, staff is -- finds that it is consistent with the Comp Plan. The applicant has
also provided multiple garages of elevations for you to look at. A mixture of single
family -- or single story and two story homes as well, that include also a mix of
materials. Here is a close-up of some of the new product that they planned for this. It is
my understanding that some of the home sizes will be anywhere from 16 or 18 hundred
square feet up to 5,000 square feet, to give you the size that's planned for this
subdivision. As I mentioned to you earlier, this has been continued for over a month
now and I did want to read into the record some of the changes that staff is proposing to
you this evening. There should be a memo in front of you. Staff and the Parks
Department has been working with this applicant to come to some agreement and a lot
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
November 1, 2012
Page 5 of 35
of the changes have to do with the development agreement provisions, but there are a
few changes to the conditions of approval as well. And other than what I'm going to
read into the record, I did receive written testimony from the applicant and they are in
general agreement with all the conditions, including the ones that I'm about to read into
the record for you this evening.
Freeman: Thank you.
Parsons: So, the first thing we are -- first item we want to address is modify DA
provision number two and Condition 1.23. Staff had made an error in the staff report.
We had stated that they should provide a clubhouse. That wasn't the intent of the
applicant. It's really meant to be a pool facility, changing rooms for those residents that
use that facility. So, staff is in agreement with that change. As far as DA provisions that
the Parks Department provided, the first one will read: Concurrent with recording the
final plat for phase of the development that includes any portion of Lots 13, 14 and 15 in
Block 5, as shown on the preliminary plat, the developer has agreed to donate and
convey Lot 12, Block 4, as shown on the preliminary plat, to the city for use as a
neighborhood park. A portion of the donated parcel has been used in the calculation of
the ten percent open space UDC requirements of the development. Bullet number two
shall read: Prior to conveyance of the neighborhood park lot, developer -- developer will
coordinate with Parks Department staff to develop a set of park design. and construction
plans. Developer and the city will be -- will each be responsible for 50 percent of the
cost of the plan preparation. Since the city is paying for the park improvements, the city
also has the final say in the amenities to be included in the park. I would make mention
that on this -- on the landscape plan you will see that there is some tot lots and some
basketball courts and a parking lot that's showing on there. Keep in mind that this is
really conceptual at this point. That park's planning will happen behind the scenes
sometime in the future. Next bullet point. The developer reserves the right to install
Ada County Highway District storm drainage facilities on or across the park lot. The
developer shall coordinate the storm drainage design with the Parks Department staff.
The design shall include subsurface facilities and not compromise the functionality or
esthetics of the park. Staff is also recommending Commission omit DA provisions five,
six, seven, eight, nine, 11 and 12. Number three. Condition 1.2.1. The applicant shall
construct the pathway along the Five Mile Creek per the city specifications and
coordinate with the Parks Department. Additionally, the applicant shall construct a ten
foot wide pathway along the east boundary of the future park and within Lot 11, Block 5,
to provide connectivity to the Bridgetower Subdivision. Number four. Condition 1.2.5.
We want to omit that condition as it's no longer relevant to the project. Number five.
Condition 1.3.10. Modify condition to read: Thirty foot wide landscape buffer along Ten
Mile Road, instead of 40, as conditioned now. And, then, modify Condition 2.6. One
thing that I did fail to mention to you is the applicant is seeking a waiver to leave a
portion of the Creason Lateral open along this linear parkway due to the size of the
facility that would be required to pipe would probably be -- include in excess of 48
inches in diameter. The UDC does allow that to be included as an amenity and left open
if it is part of a linear open space, in which this will be. Staff is recommending that
portion be left open. A portion of that Creason that is running along the eastern
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
November 1, 2012
Page 6 of 35
boundary, that will be tiled -- it will be tiled and piped and this portion and this common
lot has already been piped with an earlier project. So, all that the applicant is seeking at
this point is this portion -- this linear portion along the park here. Again, that will take
Council's waiver once we get there. So, with those recommended changes staff is
recommending approval of the project and at this time I'd stand for any questions you
have.
Freeman: Thank you, Bill. Are there any questions of staff at this time?
O'Brien: I have none.
Freeman: No questions? Would the applicant like to come forward? And you have
been through the drill as you -- please state your name and address for the record when
you reach the microphone.
McKay: Becky McKay. Engineering Solutions. 1029 North Rosario, Meridian.
Business address. I'm here representing Coleman Homes on this application. Bill's
covered a lot of the specifics. I do have a PowerPoint, if you want to put that up, Bill.
So, I will try not to be repetitive. This is Isola Creek Subdivision. It's out there located --
has Bridgetower -- Bridgetower is located along its north boundary, it's east boundary,
and the south boundary here. As Bill indicated, this is an ACRD owned. parcel on the
other side of Five Mile Creek. Five Mile Creek is a natural waterway. There is a
floodway associated with it. The floodway is reflected with the dark dashed lines that
you see. There is a flood plain and our lots have been set right at the edge of that one
hundred year flood plain, so none of our buildable lots encroach into that, even though
they are allowed to. To the west of the property here is Ten Mile mini storage that I did
a few years back when I worked on Bridgetower and, then, we have some estate
residential lots that run along the northwest section. When I did the Bridgetower design
the -- the primary goal was to create more intimate neighborhoods, what we called pod
areas, and have a continuous collector that ran through the project that bore the
majority of the traffic, created a nice greenway, parkway look and allowed the
subdivision to just feel a lot more open. When Mr. Coleman acquired this site here at
74 acres in size, it was his desire, he's built in Bridgetower and he said, you know,
would like this to mesh in. I would like it similar lot sizes, similar density, similar houses.
So, you know, I want it -- it's almost like it's just a continuation of Bridgetower. So, that
-- that was our objective when we were working on site planning. As you can see in this
particular section -- in this particular section here it's about 80 percent built out. It's
been building out now for about 12 years. So, this is one of the last larger parcels that
is vacant. The city limits don't completely surround it, but it's close to being an enclave.
There is another parcel owned by Mr. Berninger over here on Linder Road. When we
met with the staff they indicated that there was an asterisk in this particular section on
the Comp Plan designating a neighborhood park. Now, you can't -- you can't specify on
a particular piece of property where those parks will go. The asterisks were just placed
on the map indicating that somewhere in this section they wanted a neighborhood park.
Sadly, when I did Bridgetower we had a nice eight plus acre area right next to the future
multi-use pathway of Five Mile Creek and the parks director at that time indicated that
Meridian Planning 8~ Zoning Commission
November 1, 2012
Page 7 of 35
they did not want a neighborhood park there. So, it ended up being private open space.
So, when we came through with Isola Creek, the Parks Department indicated, well,
geez, you know, you're one of the last parcels to develop here and we sure need a park.
So, we did redesign our concept, because we did have a concept without that and we
came up with the preliminary plat that's before you this evening and incorporated that
neighborhood park. tt's about 8.95 acres and it is located right through here. We did
have -- sorry. We did have the landscape architect, like Bill said, do the conceptual
there. That is not approved by the Parks Department. So, the actual improvements
within the park as far as its amenities may deviate from what we show. There is a large
Meridian trunk sewer, it's called the White Drain Trunk that's in Ten Mile. We are
connected to that and that kind of drilled the location of collector entrance at Ten Mile.
We are also directly across an emergency access for Ten Mile Storage. We came in
with this noncontinuous collector, it's a collector up to this intersection here and so when
people would drive in they would see the park. So, it's open and it's -- it's, you know,
face -- we have agreed to nonsight obscuring wrought iron fencing along those lots,
which will -- backed up to that and, then, your Parks Department is working on a multi-
use pathway that will run along Five Mile Creek. We had two stub streets that we had
to connect to in Bridgetower, so we will be looping our water and so as far as fire flow
and central services, we don't have any problems with this development. When
worked on this design I tried to make sure that we didn't receive a lot of cut-through
traffic. from Bridgetower and so that's. why we kind of have this go like that .and I
minimized the number of lots that were placed on that street and as you can see our
private open space is located right there. Everything is kind of oriented to the park or to
the open space. We have included pedestrian pathways here. We have another one
located here. This one links up to not a pedestrian pathway, but a paved drive that
goes back to the assisted living. It was -- it was a joint drive for the office lots that I did
along Ten Mile, so they would not have direct lot access. It's a great thing to connect to,
because it will have to always remain open, because there are multiple lots and the
public can just continue up to the north, go up to the coffee shop, there is Gino's
Restaurant, there is other commercial. Walmart's going in on the northwest corner of
Ustick and Ten Mile. So, you know, we are seeing a lot of commercial services coming
into this area. One other nice facet that we have is the Creason Lateral we piped it in
Bridgetower here and, then, constructed a 14 foot gravel access road for Nampa-
Meridian to maintain that facility. It's since been piped along this boundary here and we
intend on making a connection to that gravel pathway and, then, creating a pathway,
since we have to provide access to Nampa-Meridian anyway, it will be like a joint
access and pathway. But that will give Bridgetower residents when they -- they can
come in and directly access right into the park and they don't necessarily have to go
down our streets, they have a nice pedestrian friendly corridor. As Bill indicated, the
Creason daylights at this point here. I guess I should use another color. Daylights right
here and, then, it's piped through here. It is our intent to pipe this section. Obviously to
maximize, you know, as far as the open space that's available for development of the
park in the future and, then, the Creason is a slow meandering waterway through here
and so we want to kind of leave that open. There is a nice green area. We also have
the Five Mile Creek there. We have got about -- I think at the most about 80 feet of
distance between the two, so we feel it's going to give a nice soft corridor. The multi-
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
November 1, 2012
Page 8 of 35
use pathway that goes west of Ten Mile is in McNeelis Subdivision, which I did a few
years back. So, eventually, they will have this nice multi-use pathway that will link all
the parks and so forth along those -- the Five Mile Creek corridor. Let me switch to this
one. This kind of gives you a better look. Here is our pool facility. We are going to also
have playground, picnic, be landscaped. There will be a parking lot, so not only are we
providing public open space, we are providing our own private open space that is
segregated from it, so there is no question on what is public and what is private. Our
density is pretty low at 2.25 dwelling units per acre. Our lot sizes -- like Bill said, they
are average lot sizes in excess of 12,000 square feet and we have tried to provide a
variety of lot sizes, depths and widths here, so that it would accommodate different
types of homes and, obviously, different incomes. This is a new product that Coleman
Homes has come up with. This is what -- a streetscape. This is what they call their
countryside selection. These homes I want to, you know, obviously, qualify that these
are some of the larger homes that will be built within this development and this gives
you -- hold on. There we go. There is some other styles -- you know, they use a
mixture of material, stone, stucco, you know, different vertical lines, horizontal lines, but
we feel that this will compliment this area and we have worked pretty hard with the staff,
both the Planning and Parks Department, to try to come up with something that works
for both. There has been a lot of homes, as I said, built out here, so a significant
number of park impact fees have been collected over the past 12 years. This park is
within the park CIP, so we feel .that, you know, we are doing our .contribution by
dedicating the park area for the Parks Department and the City of Meridian. Do you
have any questions?
Freeman: Thank you. Any questions for the applicant?
O'Brien: Mr. Chair. Hi, Becky. First of all, I compliment you on a fine job. The layout
looks pretty functional. The question I have is the inclusion of 8.95 acres of park, but
you included the pathway area that goes to Ten Mile from -- it looks to me like the park
itself. So, it's not going to be usable for space for -- for a park per se; right? It's -- do
you understand what I'm saying?
McKay: Yeah. Mr. Chairman, Commission O'Brien, it was the Parks Department's
desire to, basically, control this whole corridor, since they are -- they do plan this is in
your multi-use pathway plan. So, they would control the whole corridor. One of the
things that we, obviously, worked on was creating an area that was large enough and
functional, just like you said, to construct your normal neighborhood park facilities. We
did demonstrate -- we had our landscape architect work on it and provide, you know,
kind of a park layout that see before you. As far as open space, we far exceed the ten
percent. I think we are at about 18 percent eligible open space and we only need to
provide ten percent. Now, I believe in the conditions of approval it states that the
donation -- the only credits that we get would be over and above the ten percent that is
required.
O'Brien: Okay. So, again, then, the -- acreage that -- of usable park space is probably
closer to seven, seven and a half? Just curious.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
November 1, 2012
Page 9 of 35
McKay: I believe we calculated this, sir -- and I think that was about just shy of six
acres.
O'Brien: Okay.
McKay: If we -- we did -- we did provide those calculations to the Parks Department,
what falls within the pathway and, then, what would be developable park areas that's
not just passive, but more usable.
O'Brien: Okay. Thank you. Appreciate that.
McKay: One thing, Mr. Chairman, I did forget to mention, I think, as Bill indicated, we
have come to an agreement on the conditions. I think in my responses -- Bill already
went through those, so 1 believe the only thing in question is staffs request for a
pedestrian pathway through this block here and Bill and I kind of talked about that and I
said, you know, I looked at that and determined that it didn't make a lot of sense where
everything is oriented to the center of the project and so we will see Bridgetower come
this way. Here is our central open space. We will see Bridgetower come this direction,
drop down this direction, and come this way and, then, we have got ped paths here and
here and everything as far as a destination will be coming either to the park, .the
pathway, or our amenities. So, you know, I didn't see that there was a lot of function
there when you could just drop down along the meandering path and landscaping along
the collector. It's, obviously, up to the -- the Commission and the Council to make that
determination. But the code does allow, if we can justify that a pathway doesn't make
sense, that -- that we can be waived from that 750 foot maximum block length and for
the record none of our block lengths exceed the 750. This one (think -- I guess it
depends on how you measure it, which is always fun on the odd blocks.
Freeman: Thank you.
McKay: Thank you, sir.
Freeman: Are there any other questions of the applicant?
Marshall: Mr. Chair?
Freeman: Yes. Commissioner Marshall.
Marshall: Becky, that's -- the pathway that staff is requesting is within the DA. Do you
have a provision number?
McKay: Pardon?
Marshall: Do you have a -- is that within the DA that that pathway is developed? It's
not?
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
November 1, 2012
Page 10 of 35
McKay: I think it is item -- I think it's just in the conditions of approval.
Marshall: Ah.
McKay: Bill, which number was that? Oh. 1.3.6.
Marshall: Okay. Now, I've got another question. Orient me now for the schools --
where the school is located. The closest elementary and middle school. Rocky
Mountain would be the high school I'm guessing.
McKay: Yes. Rocky Mountain would be the high school. The middle school is located
over on the northeast corner of Meridian Road and McMillan. Yes. And, then, when I
did Bridgetower -- this is Hunter Elementary up here on McMillan --
Marshall: Uh-huh.
McKay: -- and that was the intended elementary that would serve this section. There is
also another elementary that I did down here -- whoa. There is another elementary right
here in Dakota Ridge. So, these are the two elementaries. This one is, obviously,
within walking distance. and has access off of this. Bridgetower collector, so these
residents could go up through the northern stub and through Bridgetower and go up to
the -- up to the school right there without ever going onto the arterial. Or they could go
out to Ten Mile and go in the continuous collector at Bridgetower and come down to the
-- in this direction.
Marshall: And students would be attending Sawtooth Middle School.
McKay: I think that's what they call it. Yeah.
Marshall: I guess everybody is going to be bused.
McKay: The one that --
Marshall: Just trying to get an idea of traffic patterns. I bought into some of your traffic
patterns and walking within the paths, I was just trying to get that towards elementaries
as well
Freeman: McKay: Yeah. The other thing we did, Commissioner Marshall, is when we
-- when we designed Bridgetower we have a drop off and pick up turnout lane there with
parking, so parents come in from the south side versus all congregating off of McMillan
in their central parking area and conflicting with the buses and this was the first one we
did that. I was kind of proud of that.
Marshall: Now I have got another question.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
November 1, 2012
Page 11 of 35
McKay: Yes, sir.
Marshall: If we can go back to the site plan again. Looking at piping -- it's Five Mile
Creek we are piping in; right? That's already tiled along the eastern side coming in on
the south; right? And, then, it's open running south and, then, again, running to the
west it's piped -- you're going to pipe it here or it's piped for a short period?
McKay: Yes, sir. Mr. Chairman, it's piped through here. There is a box here and it
opens up and it starts dropping in elevation and, then, it is -- goes into a box here and,
then, it's piped to this point and here is where it flattens out, daylights, and, then, it
comes across and goes right by the sewer treatment facility.
Marshall: Okay.
McKay: Five Mile Creek is located here and it is all open.
Marshall: Okay.
McKay: So, this would be the open portion --
Marshall: All right.. Now --
McKay: -- from that point. I think it was 900 feet and that is a 48 inch reinforced
concrete pipe, which it is kind of cost prohibitive and the reason the pipe so large is
because the waterway is so flat and we did calculate that based on the slope and the
volume that we received from Nampa-Meridian it would take a 48 inch.
Marshall: Now, a couple questions. This whole area is to be developed -- this is only a
concept plan and that is to actually be developed by the city; is that correct?
McKay: Yes, sir.
Freeman: And so, again, it's up to the city to work with the Nampa-Meridian Irrigation
District to try to, then, open attractive greenscape through there; is that correct?
McKay: Mr. Chairman --
Marshall: Has that been worked out with Nampa-Meridian?
McKay: Yeah. I have met with the Nampa-Meridian director Greg Curtis on multiple
occasions and our planning involved him directly and we have discussed this with him
and he indicated that if we did leave that section open they would require, between the
pathway and the Creason, a wrought iron fence. So, it would be fenced from the
pathway. They don't require that you fence the drains, but they do require that you
fence any live facility.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
November 1, 2012
Page 12 of 35
Marshall: And then --
McKay: And we would work with -- with Nampa-Meridian, because we will be entering
into license agreements and urban irrigation contracts and so forth for the work that we
do.
Marshall: And I'm assuming they would also require their drive path to be inside that
fenced area?
McKay: We are trying to work with them just to have one through there. What -- what
they do -- in some instances they have us to -- on those wrought iron sections to have
panels that we can, basically, lift off and, then, get access to the facility. So, we have,
obviously, got to work out the details of that. One of the other things is sometimes
Nampa-Meridian will place projects on their list for the district to pipe and so I did talk to
them about that. You know, if -- if the Parks Department decided that they wanted it to
be piped would it be possible to get on that list. They take two projects September 1st
and that gives their employees projects through the winter, because they are paid
through the winter and so they typically work out a deal that materials are supplied, but
they provide all the labor and installation. So, that's another option. But I guess, you
know, I think the -- the Council has to grant us that waiver and it does allow, within the
ordinance, within linear open space, to utilize these waterways and it does have esthetic
value. This section.
Marshall: t absolutely agree with that.
McKay: Thank you.
Marshall: Thank you.
Freeman: Any other questions? All right. Thank you very much.
McKay: Thank you.
Freeman: Before I get public testimony I do have a question of staff. The one item that
was pointed out as being somewhat in question is 1.36. Could you clarify for us staffs
position on that and the 750 feet calculations?
Parsons: Sure. Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. A couple items -- a
couple items came into play when making that recommend. One, we, obviously, look at
the block length and under the UDC anything that exceeds 750 feet you would provide a
street connection or Council can allow the applicant to provide a pedestrian connection.
The other item that we looked at was the Comprehensive Plan and that encourages
linking subdivisions together and getting some of those mid-block connections. My
rationale behind it is, one, obviously, from this point to here -- I mean there are breaks
here. There is -- this is defined as an intersection by ACHD. I won't argue that point
with you. But if you look at this side of the road that certainly exceeds 750 feet. I mean
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
November 1, 2012
Page 13 of 35
these -- the other idea was -- so, in order to break that up in this block length here you
could potentially get that connection -- the rationale would be if I lived here and my
buddy lived over here, I would have to go all the way around -- almost go over a quarter
mile just to get to my friend's house when I could get a nice mid-block connection here,
cut through, and get to the neighborhood. I think Ms. McKay would agree with me that
Bridgetower is set up that way where there is quite a bit of mid-block connections and
those -- that pod design that she had back in the day did allow for a lot of those things to
happen as well and so it just makes sense here to get that connection there, one, to
help break up that block length and, two, just get kids to the other subdivision and their
friends where it's possible and, like I said, it is generally something that we are looking
through through the Comprehensive Plan as well.
Freeman: Okay. Thank you. Was there anyone who wished to offer testimony on this
item this evening? I didn't have anybody signed up. No one? Okay. So, with that
could I get a motion to close the public hearing then?
O'Brien: Mr. Chair, move to close the public hearing AZ 12-008 and PP 12-004
Marshall: Second.
Freeman: I have a motion and a second to close the public hearing on AZ 12-008 and
PP 12-004 regarding the Isola -- I'm sorry. Yes. The Isola Creek Subdivision. All those
in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Freeman: Discussion? Who would like to begin?
O'Brien: I --
Freeman: Commissioner O'Brien, go ahead.
O'Brien: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I -- I don't have a lot to add, other than the question
I had and they were answered pretty well. But I don't think there is any great concern
that I see. The connection that you're talking about I think looks promising if that were
to happen. Outside of that I think it's been fairly well covered. So, I don't have any
objections.
Freeman: Okay. Commissioner Rohm, did you have any comments?
Rohm: I think it looks like a good project and Bridgetower has been real well received
within this community and this appears to be kind of a continuation of that same process
and so I have no problems with it.
Freeman: And Commissioner Marshall?
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
November 1, 2012
Page 14 of 35
Marshall: I really like the project and, in fact, I kind of like the idea of that open area, the
open waterway, especially of it's fairly shallow and had very shallow banks and the like
and I wish we could work a little better with some of the irrigation districts to have more
of that and not have to fence them off and everything. Sometimes it's a little difficult and
-- but I'm glad to see this progressing the way it is.
Freeman: Okay. Any comments on the one item in question regarding the pathway?
O'Brien: Mr. Chair, my only comment would be -- it seems to me like that section down
below that's -- would offer the same kind of situation I think of -- if you're going to add
one you may want to add another for the same reason. You have to go around to get to
the other side of the subdivision. So, the lower right portion where it's talking about the
southeast section versus the northeast. So, if you make a connection on one I would
think that you can almost put one on both ways to make it look --
Marshall: Mr. Chair, if I could. Commissioner O'Brien, I would argue that there is
already a couple connections, one in the southeast, one in the north -- southwest --
O'Brien: Yeah.
.Marshall: -- one in the northwest and, then, the. park, you have got several pathway
connections there as well.
O'Brien: I'm talking about coming from the north down to the south, but just -- anyway
just -- it was a thought of continuity.
Freeman: Okay. I tend to agree with staff's recommendation for that pathway. Having
used some pathways in Bridgetower before, they are very convenient and I know one
thing that goes on there is there are several pools within the subdivision and sometimes
you favor going to one pool or park or another one and that would be a long route. So,
would -- I would tend to leave the recommendations as they are. So, if there are no
further comments I guess I need a motion.
O'Brien: I will give it a try. Mr. Chairman, after considering all staff, applicant, and
public testimony, I move to recommend approval to the City Council of file AZ 12-008
and PP 12-004 as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of October 18th,
2012, including the memorandum dated November 1st, 2012, from Bill Parsons in
Planning regarding the modification for the DA. End of motion.
Freeman: Thank you. Do I have a second?
Rohm: Second.
Freeman: I have a motion and a second to recommend approval of AZ 12-008 and PP
12-004, Isola Creek Subdivision with the amendments noted. All those in favor say aye.
Opposed? Motion carries. Thank you.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
November 1, 2012
Page 15 of 35
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT.
E. Public Hearing: PP 12-013 Bienville Square East by Alliance
Management Consultants Located West of N. Eagle Road and
South of E. Ustick Road Request: Preliminary Plat Approval for
28 Residential Lots and 5 Common /Other Lots on 7.89 Acres
of Land in an R-15 Zoning District
Freeman: At this time I'd like to open the public hearing for Item PP 12-013 Bienville
Square East, beginning with the staff report.
Parsons: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. Next project is
Bienville East Subdivision. It is a preliminary plat before you this evening. The
applicant is proposing 29 residential lots, which include 28 single family lots and one
multi-family lot and five common lots. The project does have some history on it. In
2004 a portion of it was annexed into the city, zoned C-G. In 2005 that applicant at the
time came in and subdivided the property, rezoned a portion of it. The other conditional
use permit for a mixed use planned community development, which included that
commercial zoning along Eagle Road, amulti-family lot in the middle. This at the time it
was presented of townhomes and, then, some single .family lots are on the west
boundary. This project is surrounded by county and city residences along the west and
the south boundary and, then, along a lot of this area here, which is currently zoned R-
8, is transitioning fairly quickly and has numerous homes constructed in there. Along
here it's still vacant commercial property along the north and, then, if you have noticed
driving down Eagle Road you can see quite a bit of commercial activity happening along
Eagle Road along the corridor here. This exhibit on the left -- excuse me -- the right-
hand side shows how it's laid out. The existing street network does exist, except for a
portion here and I will discuss that a little bit later. But right now they did get a variance
approval for an access from Eagle Road here, which is, essentially, a private drive and,
then, this portion of the roads are private and, then, there is a public street connectivity
that comes from Ustick and, then, provides access to the single family homes along the
west boundary. Here is what the conceptual plan is before you this evening. At this
time, as I mentioned to you, there is one multi-family development lot proposed. There
are no plans for that at this time. The applicant will have to come back in the future and
go through the conditional use process in order to get that density and that unit mix on
that lot. For now the applicant is proposing single family attached homes on 28
residential lots here. Access will be provided by a private alley, which connects to two
private streets. Here is the preliminary plat that they are proposing. These are fairly
narrow lots. Their frontages are 27 feet wide. They do average approximately 3,200
square feet. There is, again, this block length does exceed what the code requires.
Keep in mind that this already exists out there. The applicant is providing that
pedestrian activity to help mitigate for that and it does, generally, lend itself to other
micropath lots that are constructed within the development. Here is the landscape plan
that the applicant is proposing. They are deficient of the ten percent required by
ordinance. The applicant is .proposing to construct two temporary common lots on the
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
November 1, 2012
Page 16 of 35
multi-family lot. Going forward here the applicant is -- needs to amend the development
agreement. As part of that development agreement modification staff is amenable to
allowing these common lots to be developed with phase one, but when -- if and when
Lot 1, Block 1, develops that same amount of -- amount of open space has to be
provided and be included as an amenity for the entire subdivision. So, it can't just be
isolated to the multi-family development, the intent is that it will have usable open space
for everyone in the development to use and enjoy. Here are the elevations that the
applicant is proposing this evening. Obviously, in the staff report I made mention that
we question the ability to develop single family homes on this subdivision. Given the
narrow lots the applicant has provided an exhibit depicting how these lots are to sit on
the lots and I will show you that in a minute, but I did want to point out that all of the
units will be single family attached, similar to the rendering that you see here in the left
-- upper left-hand corner. You can see it's a fairly contemporary design. It is different
than what is constructed out there, but it is definitely something new for the City of
Meridian. One of the recommended DA provisions include compliance with these
elevations. As I mentioned to you earlier, with staffs reservations, the applicant has
provided that exhibit. You can see that there will be five foot setbacks on either side of
that and, then, there will be a shared wall there, so you can see that the home product
can actually fit on the proposed lots. I would mention to Commission that because
these are attached units they do require design review and certificate of zoning
compliance approval as well, so we will be insuring that these are compatible and do fit
and match these elevations as well. I did receive written testimony from the applicant in
agreement with the conditions of the staff report. In regards to one condition he is not
amenable to and that's the requirement that he complete this -- the remaining portion of
the private street section. Back in 2005, as I mentioned to you, this private street was
approved with that final platting and that's -- a short segment of that street has not been
constructed. When the applicant submitted their plans they showed that with phase one
they would only, again, continue to construct a small portion of that segment. Staff felt it
appropriate that since this is the final road section that that needs to be completed
within the development. We had recommended that the entire street segment be
completed with phase one. The applicant's proposal before you this evening includes
them paving the roadway, but they want to hold off on curb, gutter and sidewalk until a
future phase. They are willing to do the landscaping, curb, gutter, on this side as well,
but they are asking for relief along this boundary and the commercial boundary as well.
Staffs recommendation is to stand as we have it written in the staff report, that all of it
be done with phase one. It's just something that should have happened in 2007. This
property went in foreclosure. It's something that didn't happen and now -- now that we
have development proposed we have a lot of residential to the west, we have more
residential possibly coming on line, we have some construction -- commercial
construction happening to the -- to the east. It's certainly important to finish that out and
give other people options to diverge and get to Eagle Road and get to the subdivision
and get out onto Ustick. Other than that there are no other outstanding issues before
you. Staff is recommending approval of the application and at this time I would stand
for any questions you have.
Freeman: Thank you, Bill. Any questions of staff?
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
November 1, 2012
Page 17 of 35
O'Brien: Mr. Chair, I just have one question.
Freeman: Commissioner O'Brien.
O'Brien: So, some of these things that need to be qualified through -- for the design of
-- design review, do any of these things have to happen before he goes to the City
Council?
Parsons: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, all the exhibits that I'm providing
before you this evening show that these homes can fit on there. If you feel comfortable
with the exhibit as presented to you, then, your recommendation can just move forward
without any changes, except for that private street change, but I think staff is confident
that this product can fit on these lots, at least the single family attached product. Single
family detached more than likely won't fit on there. I would also mention to you that just
because the applicant is proposing 28 lots or 29 lots, they could final plat less lots
moving forward and still be in substantial compliance with the preliminary plat. So, if
they want that ability to do that they could, you know, have larger lots and do something
else. But right now those elevations are tied to that and this is a concept plan that's
been before the Council -- or that we are recommending to you to move forward to
Council.
O'Brien: Okay. Thank you, Bill.
Marshall: Mr. Chair, if I could?
Freeman: Commissioner Marshall.
Marshall: Bill, the common areas, what's required of the common areas? I mean what
-- do you just fence it off? I mean -- I mean I see dog park area. Is there going to be
grass or any amenities or --
Parsons: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, I failed to mention that. Under
the subdivision amenity requirements a dog park is an acceptable amenity. It states --
and there are some provisions for that dog park that the applicant has to comply with.
One, they could either fence it or, two, it doesn't have to be fenced, but there are
options, either -- either provide acertain -- I don't know the provisions off the top of my
head, but short answer is it does not have to be fenced, unless they choose to.
Marshall: But do they have to do anything to it? I mean --
Parsons: They have to provide areas to provide for waste cleanup, essentially, is how it
reads in the ordinance.
Marshall: So, there would be no work to it, just here --
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
November 1, 2012
Page 18 of 35
Parsons: It will be lawn -- yeah.
Freeman: It will be turf.
Marshall: There has to be turf.
Parsons: There is trees as proposed and that's what they will provide, trees and lawn
for now.
Marshall: Okay. And that's also for the common area that they have, they are going to
provide both grass --
Parsons: And trees. That is correct.
Marshall: -- and trees to maintain --
Parsons: And those are the only two -- and that's why I mentioned to you that they are
deficient about five percent open space, because the only two qualifying open space
lots are those two temporary -- or two lots on Lot 1, Block 1. The street buffers don't
count as open space. Or qualifying open space.
Marshall: They reach -- they reach the required percentage with those lots though?
Parsons: They do not. They are still five percent deficient.
Marshall: Still five percent deficient.
Parsons: Yeah.
Marshall: Okay. Thank you.
Parsons: Yeah.
Freeman: Any other questions? Would the applicant like to come forward. And,
please, state your name and address for the record when you reach the microphone.
Unger: Good evening, Mr. Chairman, Commissioners. My name is Bob Unger with
ULC Management. My address is 6104 North Gary Lane, Boise, Idaho. 83714. And
represent Alliance Management Consultants, who is the developer on this project. First
of all, I want to say -- I mean I think Bill covered this history of this project very well with
the -- the original approval of the project and the single family development that was --
that was done with phase one and, like you said, in this area here -- I have never used
this. This area here was -- that's all single family detached development. This area was
designated for multi-family and, of course, we had the retail out in this area. As a part of
the original development -- I'm going to switch over to this aerial. Part of the original
development, substantial landscaping and the pathways were provided along the -- the
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
November 1, 2012
Page 19 of 35
South Slough here and also a wall and pathways along the western portion of the
project, including some open space area in this area, with some amenities. There is a
basketball court. There is horseshoe pits. Things like that. And, then, there was also
additional landscaping provided over here. Open space. And, Bill, if we can go to the
next one. Appreciate it. One of the -- what we are talking about here, like Bill said, we
are looking at 28 lots right in through here. Originally, the project was -- was going to
have a group of ten condos here, a group of eight condos here, another group of ten
condos in this area and since that time it's become quite apparent that condominiums
just are not a good product anymore. So, the thought was since the project was
approved and the development agreement allowed for the townhouses or condos to
come back in and actually plot -- plat these lots for the townhouses. So, these are
attached single family dwellings. So, that's kind of where we are with that portion of it.
The eastern lot here, that is open for future development, multi-family development.
What we are looking at in conjunction with this development, we do have some open
lots here, landscape lots here. We have running down through here is an easement for
the Almond Water Users Association and it runs right down through here. That's why
we have taken this lot and provided a pathway connection and the easement for the
irrigation runs -- actually runs over here, ties into another lot with another pathway that
connects all the way to the west. Okay. So, we are trying to follow through with that
same pathway and, actually, we will -- you know, when -- when this -- when Lot 1
develops the multi-family lot, that pathway will continue on up to Cajun Court.. Okay.
Bill, can we get the master up here? Thank you. Okay. In response to the question I
heard from you folks on the required open space, certainly we -- we will go ahead and
expand these to meet the requirements that we need. Bill and I have talked about that
and that's not a real issue. These two areas would -- when Lot 1 develops they would
be probably -- possibly relocated to be incorporated in the rest of the project, but still
would be given access to by all of the -- or all of the residents of the project. As far as
utilities, all of the utilities are in place for all these lots. When we originally developed
this project and we put in LeBlanc Street, which is this one right here, we anticipated
putting in the townhouses -- or the condominiums or townhouses, so we actually went
ahead and did all the sewer stubs, all the water stubs, including meters, all the power,
gas, everything is ready for all these lots, including pressurize irrigation. So, really, the
only other thing that we needed to do to make these viable lots was to come in with the
-- the alley, because these are all rear load buildings, so we just needed to come in with
the -- with the alley, which is all going to be paved. It will be all paved, curbed, all the
drainage will be handled on site and, actually, the minimum requirement on these is 25
feet and we are actually at 30 feet, because anybody that's got a decent size pickup
truck may have a little trouble getting in and out. The setbacks on the rear back here
are 20 feet, so we will have 20 foot driveways prior to going into the garage. As Bill
said, we are -- we were planning on building this portion of the road to provide access in
for emergency services and the residents and a proper turnaround here. Since that
time, of course, Bill has come back and said they -- they would like to see the entire
balance of that street constructed and we totally agree with the connectivity. Our only
concern is we can build the curb and gutter a long this side, including the landscape
strip that goes along with it. Our only concern is that when the future development of
Lot 1 happens, if we put in the curb, gutter, sidewalk along this -- this area here, we are
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
November 1, 2012
Page 20 of 35
not exactly sure what curb cuts are going to be needed to access lot number one. So,
our thought was that if we could get that -- that portion of it postponed, just the curb,
gutter, sidewalk, until lot number one develops, that that would save some cost down
the road, but we would install all the pavement to make the full connection, so that there
would be pavement all the way down through there, so there is connectivity. So, that's
really the only -- the only change in the condition of approval that we are even
requesting. As far as the rest of the conditions of approval, we are totally in favor of
them and support them one hundred percent. If we could -- Bill, could you -- let's go to
that -- the one that has the building -- the next one. Yeah. This one here. In this
particular plan we show -- we show the lot lines and they are kind of light and kind of
hard to see. We have got a lot line here, a lot line here, a lot line here. And, of course,
the building would share this lot -- this center lot line and, then, we have the five foot
setbacks right here and right here. And the buildings would fit and meet all the
requirements of the code. These -- these buildings -- the individual unit or buildings,
they are between 14 and 15 hundred square feet. They are three bedroom, two and a
half bath, two car garages and the architectural design on the exterior of these will be
modified from building to building to building, so that we get a good mix, a good
variation and also they can be flipped, so -- so we have -- could we back up one, Bill?
One more. Sorry. Okay. Maybe one more. There you go. As you -- you know,
because we -- our setback in the front -- actually, Bill, we can go down to ten feet. We
don't even want to go ten feet. But we -- but the thought is -- because we have
designed these to where we actually have a 20 foot setback and 20 foot in the rear. But
we can actually shift these back and forth to give it more of a breakup along the front of
these, so that we don't have a straight line of buildings when we look down the road. Of
course, the curved road certainly helps in that, but we can shift these buildings back and
forth to get more of a breakup, so that we have a much better streetscape down through
there. Okay. And, really, there is not a lot more to review on the project. I think staffs
done a great job reviewing it. We worked with staff on this. Had a couple of meetings
with them. As far as the development agreement, we really have no issues with that.
The only -- the only change that we were asking for was -- in the conditions of approval
was the 1.11, which is the one where we add new language in section five that requires
the complete construction of West Bourbon Lane and Cajun Court, which I have kind of
gone over with you and outlined with you. And other than that, we think it's a great
project. The townhomes really provide a great buffer between the detached single
family homes to the west and the future multi-family to the east and, of course, the
retail, which is further east. So, we are kind of looking at this as kind of a nice buffer, a
nice transition to the multi-family. So, with that I think we have covered everything and
we look forward to working with the city again. It's been a few years since we did any
work with the city and I thank you for your time this evening and request your approval
-- or recommendation of approval and I will stand for any questions.
Freeman: Thank you. Any questions of the applicant?
O'Brien: Mr. Chair?
Marshall: Mr. Chair?
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
November 1, 2012
Page 21 of 35
Freeman: Let's go with Commissioner O'Brien first.
O'Brien: Do you have -- Bill, do you have an elevation of the rear -- for the alley side of
the structures showing the garage area?
Parsons: Chairman, Members of the Commission, Commissioner O'Brien, we do not.
Only a street rendering at this time.
O'Brien: Okay. So, Mr. Unger, are the garages side by side or a common driveway?
Unger: Yeah. They would pretty much be a common driveway. They are side by side.
They are staggered.
O'Brien: Oh. Okay.
Unger: Okay. They are staggered. They are not -- so you won't have a straight row of
garages down through there either.
O'Brien: All right.
Unger: Because these buildings -- the way this is set up is that this -- you know, one
side -- let's say this side comes -- projects out further than the one on the left and as
such the garage for the one on the right is -- it sits in deeper than the one on the left.
O'Brien: Okay. Okay. Thank you. That's all I have.
Marshall: Mr. Chair?
Freeman: Commissioner Marshall.
Marshall: After -- a couple questions. Since you got -- you're planning mostly three
bedroom, two bath?
Unger: Yes, sir. Two and a half.
Marshall: And so you're looking at probably young families, families more than just a
couple -- probably some people with kids, too; right?
Unger: We are anticipating more of a younger -- you know, younger beginner family,
maybe one or two small children to that effect, but, really, what we are thinking, even
beyond that, is more of professionals -- you know, professional couples, maybe they
don't have any children yet, you know, but this is their beginner -- beginner home. And
we really anticipate more of that than people with, you know, two or three or four
children. That's our anticipation.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
November 1, 2012
Page 22 of 35
Marshall: Young families --
Unger: Basically because of what -- what is located in this area as far as employment,
et cetera.
Marshall: Right. Okay. Okay. So, if we can go back to the site plan, please. Yeah.
Okay. So, looking at this, you're saying you have got -- is there a two car garage?
Freeman: Yes, sir.
Marshall: So, that's 20 foot wide of concrete on that 27 foot lot, so you have got a
seven foot strip of grass. The front -- because they are rear loaded. So, you have got a
seven foot strip of grass in the back and the front -- not much of a yard. Which is nice,
you know, a lot of people like that, because there is not a lot of maintenance.
understand. But, you know, young professional family, you know, if you're just starting
out and you have a kid or two and want to move to a larger yard and stuff, you got to
have someplace for the kids and -- and I appreciate your -- your suggestion that you
could increase the common lot area to the ten percent, because, yeah, they are going to
have to. I mean they really don't have much for a yard and it's got kids and stuff, you
want to go have a picnic, have your friends over and have a picnic outside, you got to
have someplace to do this. But I sure wouldn't want to see it moved, because what's
going to happen is people are going to -- you're going to get people in here and they are
going to start using it and they are going to get some ownership over this and, then,
you're going to come in and build these multi-unit apartment complexes and suddenly
rip all of this out and they are going to feel like, well, they have thrown away ours and
given them something and they won't feel ownership of that. I -- I don't know. I -- isn't
there any way you could locate something permanently for them that would not move in
the future, so that once multi-family came in they would still feel ownership of that. It
would still be shared. Is there any way you could do that?
Unger: Mr. Chair, Mr. Marshall, as I showed on the other plan, we have the -- we have
got a buried pipe right there, a fairly large pipe that runs right through there, so when --
when lot number one develops, the basic common area is going to be around that,
because we can't build over it. We can't do anything over it. So, the location of this
particular -- particularly the lot that will be used to -- you know, for children's play, et
cetera, really isn't going to move much from that point and, in fact, ultimately there --
when this multi-family develops, this general location I just kind of circled here is going
-- probably going to be something that's going to have a clubhouse and a pool and
things like that and through the -- through the CC&Rs and everything it's anticipated that
the owners of these lots would be -- through some process would be allowed to have
use of those facilities in addition. But, really, we are looking at a corridor that sits right
in here that's going to be all open space. I mean, you know, picnic tables, barbecue
pits, playground equipment, et cetera.
Marshall: I understand. I'm just not found of the idea of ripping things out later and
moving things around. Because once these people, essentially, get ownership of that,
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
November 1, 2012
Page 23 of 35
they are going to feel pretty cheated, you know, like we screwed them over if you rip
that out. Well, you're talking about moving it later and -- I don't know. Well --
Freeman: Good for now? Any other questions?
Rohm: I have none.
Freeman: I have one. And normally I don't comment on the design of the actual
buildings, but because of the narrowness of the lots I think this is a relevant question
and I do like the design of your buildings. I think it's attractive. Contemporary. I think it
will be great for Meridian. My question is the way that these are oriented -- could you
go back to the floor plan with the elevations, Bill? I'm a little bit concerned about the ten
foot yards between the units. I'm curious what you plan on doing with those yards. It
looks like the patios won't really be staggered, they are going to be kind of toe to toe, so
people's semi-private outdoor space is going to be right upon somebody else's private
outdoor space and the other concern I have is because you're actually taking your walls
to five -- within five feet of the setback you're going to -- you're going to run into some
code issues in the future as far as fire protection on anything that projects beyond that
and you have roofs projecting into that five foot setback, so we are going to see things
probably change as a result to save costs. But could you address how you envision
these yards working between the. units and how the patios are going to work for the
residents?
Unger: Mr. Chairman, the -- within the five foot setback, those will be landscaped, they
are going to have grass and some landscaping, bushes, maybe you could put a small
tree in there as shown -- as depicted on the elevation shot there and it's really not any
different than what you see in the development -- or in the single family detached to the
west. All of those yards have five yard setbacks on the side, so it's kind of the same
situation, you're still five foot -- five foot. So, you have a ten foot separation between --
actually between buildings.
Freeman: Are they -- have you staggered those on your other lots, so that they are not
just right upon each other?
Unger: Well, Ithink -- I think we do have the ability to stagger those.
Freeman: You could.
Unger: Like I say, we are -- you know, we can move the building --
Freeman: And I'm not looking for you to solve it right now, I just wondered what you
had envisioned. I'm a little concerned about the use of those -- of those yards and how
private they are going to be for the residents, but that was really my -- my question of
how far you had thought that through. Is there any other questions? Okay. Thank you
very much.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
November 1, 2012
Page 24 of 35
Unger: Thank you.
Freeman: I don't have anybody else signed up to offer public testimony on this item.
Was there anybody that wished to? Okay. Please come forward and state your name
and address for the record when you reach the microphone.
McBrayer: My name is Pat McBrayer. I live at 2976 Centerpoint in Meridian. And my
concern about this, for one thing, we have a problem already with Jimmy Johns and his
traffic going down through the traffic circle that you see and, then, out and, then, onto
Ustick. We have got a problem there already. They are racing down through there and
so on, so I'd like somebody, maybe the city, maybe this builder, put in some speed
bumps to slow everything down. Number two. The rendering of his property or his
homes does not fit the design of the existing homes. This looks more ultra-modern
versus the design of our homes existing and I have kind of a problem with that, too. We
had people prior to -- and Bill knows this -- coming and trying to put in three story
apartments and everybody got together and we all signed petitions and played the
game and so on and ran him off and I'm a little also concerned about lot number one.
He says it's amulti-family situation, which says to me apartments. We ran them off
once, we will run them off again if necessary. Thank you, gentlemen.
Freeman: Thank you. Was there anybody else wishing to offer testimony? And,
please, state your name and address for the record.
McClare: My name is Brian McClare. I live at 2819 North LeBlanc Way and I'd just say
that I moved in this area because of the mixed use character of it, looking for a place in
Meridian that was a little more lively and engaged and, literally, I live across the street
from these modern apartments -- or modern houses and I think they are a great design.
You know, it's -- diversity is the spice of life and I look forward to that and also the
apartments in the future. So, that's it.
Freeman: Okay. Thank you very much. Is there anyone else? Okay. Would the
applicant like to come forward? We can give you another ten minutes to respond to any
of these statements or anything else you would like to clarify.
Unger: Mr. Chair, Bob Unger again with ULC Management. Just a couple of points of
clarification. You know, when we talk about room for, you know, children to play, okay,
you know, we don't want you to forget that -- that we have, you know, at least a 20 foot
front yard, you know, and I realize that that's along the street, but we still have a 20 foot
front yard along the front that families can use -- can utilize. And Ithink -- I think what
we can do here -- because Iknow -- I know that this particular area right here is going to
have to stay that way. You know, we need to add some more open space. I would
propose that we bring in some more open space right into the west -- to the east of that
to meet the requirements, but allow that to be kind of modified and maybe not removed,
but modified, maybe, in its width, et cetera, when -- when lot number one develops.
Because we are going to have afull-blown corridor all the way through here, including
the pathway that gets you out -- all the way out here.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
November 1, 2012
Page 25 of 35
Freeman: Okay.
Unger: Those are the only two real comments that we had there. You know, we had a
great neighborhood meeting at the site and everybody that showed up was -- seemed to
be very happy with our proposal and we also made a commitment to the folks that once
we had a builder on board and a building that we could really show them that we were
proposing that we would have an additional neighborhood meeting, which we plan on
having prior to going to City Council. So, you know, if there is any other issues with the
neighbors I think we can resolve the rest of them.
Freeman: Okay.
Unger: So, thank you very much.
Freeman: Thank you. It's time to close the public hearing. I need a motion for that.
Marshall: Mr. Chair, I move we close the public hearing on PP 12-013.
O'Brien: Second.
Freeman: I have a motion and a second to close the public hearing on Item PP 12-013,
Bienville Square East. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries.
Freeman: Discussion? Who would like to start?
Rohm: Mr. Chairman?
Freeman: Commissioner Rohm.
Rohm: You know, this project is one that it's kind of what you see is what you get and,
you know, we talk a little bit about the open space and places for children to play and all
the things that seem to be almost void, but the fact of the matter is is this is a
development for a unique group of people that will be buying into it and there is no
mysteries when they are looking at this for purchase and it's been well thought out and it
appears to me that they are trying to build a segment of our community that currently
doesn't have a lot of options, because most of the single family homes have larger
lawns or the alternative to that is an apartment complex and this is kind of a mix
between the two and so it doesn't appear to me to be a mystery when people are
looking to go this direction and it's something that I think will fit in our community and I
look forward to seeing it move forward.
Freeman: Thank you, Commissioner Rohm. Commissioner O'Brien?
O'Brien: Yes, Mr. Chair. I ditto Commissioner Rohm. I think he covered it all very
nicely. It is -- it is an area that I think we are lacking in, especially in a -- there is so
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
November 1, 2012
Page 26 of 35
much growth, business life around there, I think it's going to be very helpful to the
people who work around there -- want to live there and don't want to have a lot of
upkeep, I think it's a perfect setting for that and I don't have any problem with that's, so
would like to see it go forward.
Freeman: And Commissioner Marshall.
Marshall: I find a lot of Commissioner Rohm's points appropriate. I do like the fact that
this is something different than what we have been offering within community for a large
part. I like that. It is targeting an area that we do have some need at I believe.
Commenting on the what you see is what you get, is what I was a little concerned about
in the park area, because they are moving in and they see a park that will be moved on
them and relocated or hidden behind amulti-family house is what Iwas -- you know, the
apartment complex is something that -- is what I was concerned about and I'm pleased
to hear that we will be able to expand that to meet the requirements of open space and
that we can pretty much guarantee that it will occupy a similar position because of that
area, because of the uniqueness of that area and that they can't be built upon and that
once people come to rely upon it it will continue to exist and be where they expect it to
be. I think it is what see is what you get is very important here. I do have some
concern about the issue that chairman brought up about the yards and I understand that
the houses nearby .also have five foot setbacks, but .they are also front loaded product
and they have backyards -- they don't have backyards, but -- okay. I thought they were
front loaded. I guess they are back -- rear loaded. Okay. They are rear loaded. Okay.
So -- well, again, I have to admit -- again, like you say, what you see is what you get
when you walk into it, but it would be nice to have some staggering in the -- in your
private outside space, at least some type of isolation there. But other than that, I'm
pleased to see a product fit this space that seems to be a transition between multi-
family and single family detached. I do recognize there is a problem with the traffic from
Jimmy John's. There is -- and that's -- that's an issue that, unfortunately, this developer
didn't create, nor is -- it is a private drive and the problem is you cannot leave those
commercial facilities and go north on Eagle period. You leave those -- those
commercial facilities and your only way out is south, unless you come back through
these private roads and -- and there is a commercial road that needs to be completed
over to Ustick. When that property develops, unfortunately, that's not part of this and it
needs -- I pray it develops soon, so these people are not saddled with that traffic,
because that is a problem for them and I know there is considerable consternation with
the emergency vehicles with speed bumps and the like and I don't know what the
answer is there. Maybe it should go in front of the traffic safety committee or something
like that. Those are my thoughts there.
Freeman: Thank you, Commissioner Marshall. Commissioner O'Brien, did you want to
finish up?
O'Brien: Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Just a comment on what Commissioner Marshall
was saying. I think there is -- we are putting too much emphasis on this patio party
thing or barbecue thing. The people that buy into these particular residences already
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
November 1, 2012
Page 27 of 35
know and understand that they are -- it's not an entertainment center, if they wanted to
it's no big deal to go out there and throw a steak on a barbecue and that's it. If they are
going to throw a party they are going to go to the park or somewhere else, but the
purpose of the whole thing is ease of use and I don't think that's going to be an issue
with the people who buy these homes as far as the -- having to have a patio like that.
Thank you.
Freeman: Okay. Thank you. My comments -- I pretty much stated my -- my one
concern is the patios being face to face. It looks like there is flexibility to do something
to correct that with some staggering. I do -- again, I like the architecture. It's different
than what's out there, but it's not so different as to stick out like a sore thumb and be
incompatible with the surroundings. I think it's very attractive in its use of colors and
materials and form. And, again, that's really not what we are here to talk about, but
just wanted to compliment you on those designs. That's it for me. I don't need to
reiterate anything else I have already said, so could I get a motion on this item?
Rohm: Before we make a motion, I just have another question about that -- completion
of the roadway. The staff report says that it needs to be completed in its entirety and
the applicant has requested that we don't require that in its entirety.
Freeman: Yes. Thank you for reminding me.
Rohm: I don't think we have come to a consensus on that portion of the --
Freeman: Can I start that one, since you reminded me that I did intend to speak to it?
Rohm: Would you, please?
Freeman: Okay. My -- my perspective on that is that we should stick with the staff
recommendation to require a curb, gutter and sidewalk. I would advise the applicant in
that case to do your best to carefully plan where you may want the curb cut and work
with staff to get that positioned in there, but I do agree with staffs recommendation to go
ahead and put those in at this time to complete it as it should have been completed
before. That's my opinion. Commissioner Rohm, would you like to remark?
Rohm: No. I -- that's what I was looking for. I wanted --
Freeman: Thank you.
Rohm: -- something on the record of -- stating that we are either going with staff or we
want to do something else. So, with that being said I'm ready to make a motion.
Freeman: Commissioner Rohm.
Rohm: After considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move to recommend
approval to the City Council of file number PP 12-013 and MDA 12-008 as presented in
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
November 1, 2012
Page 28 of 35
the staff report for the hearing date of November 1st, 2012, with no modifications. End
of motion.
O'Brien: Second.
Freeman: I have a motion and a second to recommend approval of PP 12-013 and
MDA 12-008, Bienville Square East. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion
carries unanimously. Thank you.
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT.
F. Public Hearing: CUP 12-012 Stor-It Addition by Avest Limited
Partnership Located 355 N. Ten Mile Road Request:
Conditional Use Permit Approval for aSelf-Service Storage
Facility in a C-G Zoning District
Freeman: Next item on the agenda -- I would like to now open the public hearing for
CUP 12-012, Stor-It addition, beginning with the staff report.
Watters: Thank you, Chairman Freeman, Members of the Commission. The next
application before. you is a conditional use permit. This property consists of 15.6 acres
of land. It's currently zoned C-G and is located at 355 North Ten Mile Road. Adjacent
land use and zoning. To the north are the railroad tracks, zoned C-G and rural
residential properties zone RUT in Ada County. To the east is Ten Mile Road and
vacant land across Ten Mile zoned RUT in Ada County. To the west is vacant property
approved for apartments, zoned R-15 and the south is the Ten Mile Christian Church,
zoned C-N. A little history on this site. The existing storage facility was approved in
Ada County prior to annexation of the property into the city. In 2005 the property was
annexed with a C-G zoning district and a development agreement was required as a
provision of annexation. The applicant received approval of a previous conditional use
permit for expansion of the storage facility, but it has expired. So, they are reapplying at
this time. The applicant requests conditional use permit for an expansion of existing
self-service storage facility. The applicant proposes to develop the portion of this site
west of the Ten Mile Creek and here in the kind of gray area and east of the creek along
the southern boundary of the site with enclosed storage units. The site plan depicts ten
new structures consisting of a total of 184,942 square feet. A ten foot wide section of
the city's multi-use pathway is proposed along the southwest side of the Ten Mile
Creek, consistent with the master pathways plan. Elevations for the perimeter buildings
have been submitted that show split face block with metal roofing for the building
materials. The block wall of the structures will serve as a sound attenuation wall
adjacent to the residentially zoned property to the east. Additionally because the site
abuts a residential district the hours of operation of the facility are required to be limited
from 6:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m. All outdoor storage material is required to be screened
from public view. Written testimony was received from Craig Callaham, the applicant in
response in agreement with the staff report. Staff is recommending approval of the
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
November 1, 2012
Page 29 of 35
proposed conditional use permit with the conditions in the staff report. Staff will stand
for any questions.
Freeman: Thank you, Sonya. Questions of staff?
Rohm: My only question, Sonya, is how much of a change is this from the previously
approved conditional use permit that has now expired? There is not ostensibly much of
a change is there?
Watters: Commissioner Rohm, Commissioners, no, it's substantially the same.
Rohm: That's what I thought. I remember --
Watters: The applicant can address any -- any changes that I may be unaware of.
Rohm: Yeah. I think the big deal at the time that that went through last time was having
an assurance that it didn't have 24-hour-a-day access.
Watters: Right.
Rohm: That it had limited access as stated in -- in your staff report.
Watters: Right. Yeah. They did receive a couple extensions on it and, then, they just
finally let it die and they decided to come back again.
Rohm: All right. I just wanted to make sure I had it clear in my mind where we had
been before. Thank you.
Watters: Yeah.
Freeman: Thank you. Other questions? Would the applicant like to come forward?
And, please, state your name and address for the record.
Callaham: My name is Craig Callaham. I'm Quadrant Consulting, 1904 West Overland
in Boise, Idaho. 83705. I'm here tonight to represent the owners, Avest Limited
Partnership, to address the question that you just brought up about the change. The
basic change would go to the overall plan. The previous application did not have some
of these buildings in the eastern portion of it and so by reapplying they are adding in
those buildings the ability to go with those building at this time. That helps provide for
some extra screening along that side of the property to help screen a church from the
project, too, and give a -- sort of overall screening around the entire project.
Rohm: Wasn't there a bridge or something that had to be constructed to get to that
western portion?
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
November 1, 2012
Page 30 of 35
Callaham: Yeah. When this property was -- originally added on this back section back
here, one of the requirements of Ada County at that time was that the --abridge be put
across the Ten Mile Creek in order to get the fire trucks across there. So, probably five
or six years ago a concrete bridge was constructed at that time.
Rohm: Okay. So, it's done.
Callaham: It's done and in. The only thing that has to be done is some guardrails put
on it and it will be ready to go.
Rohm: Okay.
Callaham: And so there is an existing fence along the back side right here now. The
applicant is proposing another fence on this side. So, what they will have to do is --
they will have to have a double gate system to open up this side and this side, drive
across the bridge to get access to the back side of it. Other than that, they are planning
on building the ten foot pathway along the western side of Ten Mile Creek and
dedicating an easement to the city for public access along that and we have been
working extensively with the church next door to put in fire access -- joint fire access
easements, so that they have got separate ways of getting back into both sides, so they
don't have to just rely on crossing the bridge. Other than that, it's substantially what
was approved before by the Commission.
Rohm: Okay. Thank you.
Freeman: Any other questions of the applicant? Okay. Thank you very much.
Callaham: Thank you.
Freeman: I did have one person on the list, Chad Kinkela. I hope I'm not -- oh. Okay.
No problem. So, there is nobody out there, then, I assume, because the two of you
appear to be together on one project. We have heard from the public, then, or
theoretically so.
Marshall: Mr. Chair?
Freeman: Yes.
Marshall: I move that we close the public hearing on CUP 12-012.
O'Brien: Second.
Freeman: Thank you. That's what I was looking for. I have a motion and a second to
close the public hearing on CUP 12-012, Stor-It addition. All those in favor say aye.
Opposed? Motion carries.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
November 1, 2012
Page 31 of 35
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Freeman: Any discussion?
O'Brien: I don't have any questions at all. I think --
Freeman: I don't either. I think it's awfully straight forward.
Marshall: Mr. Chair?
Freeman: Yes, Commissioner Marshall.
Marshall: After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to approve
file number CUP 12-012 as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of
November 1st, 2012, with no modifications. I further direct staff to prepare an
appropriate findings document to be considered at the next Planning and Zoning
Commission hearing of November 15th, 2012.
Rohm: Second.
Freeman: I have a motion and a .second to recommend approval .for CUP 12-012,
Stor-It addition. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries again
unanimously.
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT.
G. Public Hearing: PP 12-012 Scentsy Commons Subdivision by
HOT1, LLP Located 3001 E. Commercial and 2701 E. Pine
Avenue Request: Preliminary Plat Approval Consisting of
Seven (7) Building Lots on 60.727 Acres of Land in the I-L, L-O
and C-G Zoning Districts
Freeman: For the next item, before I open the public hearing I have to recuse myself.
The next applicant is Scentsy, which I am indirectly involved with in an employment
situation, so I will leave and turn it over to Commissioner Marshall.
Marshall: Okay. Well, then, I'd like to open the public hearing for PP 12-012 and ask
for the staff report.
Wafters: Thank you, Commissioner Marshall, Commissioners. The next application
before you is a preliminary plat request. This site consists of 60,73 acres of land. It's
currently zoned I-L, L-O and C-G and is located at the southwest corner of North Eagle
Road and East Pine Avenue. Adjacent land use and zoning. To the north is Blue Cross
Corporate Center offices, zone I-L. To the east is Eagle Road and across Eagle is
Jackson's convenient store and fuel facility, zoned C-G and an equipment rental store
zoned I-L. To the south is industrial property and the railroad tracks, zoned I-L. And to
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
November 1, 2012
Page 32 of 35
the west is commercial and industrial property, zoned C-G and I-L. Here are some
aerial views of the property that the applicant just had taken. A little history. A portion
of this site was included in the preliminary plat for the Pinebridge development in 2007,
but was never final platted. When Scentsy purchased the property it separated from the
Pinebridge development in 2010 and acquired more of the adjacent property for
expansion. The Scentsy campus now consists of a warehouse, wax storage,
manufacturing office, and facilities maintenance buildings on the south side of
Commercial Street and distribution center and an office tower that is currently under
construction on the north side of Commercial Street. A gymnasium and auditorium is
proposed to be constructed east of the office tower. The proposed preliminary plat
consists of seven building lots on 60.73 acres of land. All of the existing structures meet
the setbacks of the applicable zoning district. The street buffers along Pine, Eagle and
Commercial have already been installed, except for the portion on Lot 7, Block 1, along
Pine right here. And that was property which was recently required by -- or acquired by
the applicant. This landscaping will be installed as a condition of this preliminary plat. A
ten foot multi-use pathway has been constructed within the street buffer along North
Eagle Road. Access to the site via Pine was approved through the Pinebridge
Subdivision plat. Access via Eagle Road was approved through two separate variance
applications. Commercial Street is a private street and does not currently connect to
North Machine Avenue at the west boundary of the site. Hickory Avenue that exists to
the north across Pine is not proposed to be extended as a public. street through the site
to Commercial, because Commercial is a private street. The fire department and police
department recommend emergency access be provided to Commercial Street, either
via a gated connection to Machine or a driveway connection in alignment with Hickory.
Any open ditches within the platted area required to be piped, unless improved as a
water amenity. Written testimony was received from Sam Johnson, the applicant, in
response -- in agreement with the staff report. Staff is recommending approval of the
proposed preliminary plat with the conditions in Exhibit B of the staff report. Staff will
stand for any questions.
Marshall: Commissioner, any questions of staff?
O'Brien: Yes.
Marshall: Commissioner O'Brien.
O'Brien: Yes. Thank you. Sonya -- so, are there any open ditches?
Wafters: There may be on that newly acquired property here on the west end. I'm not
positive.
O'Brien: So, they can't build on that, can they, or --
Wafters: They can. They would have to pipe those ditches.
O'Brien: Okay. All right. Thank you.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
November 1, 2012
Page 33 of 35
Wafters: Yeah.
Marshall: So, would the applicant like to come forward, please. And, please, state your
name and address for the record.
Johnson: Hello. My name is Sam Johnson. I represent Scentsy, as well as HOT1
LLLP. 2701 East Pine in Meridian. 83642. Scentsy is, obviously, a large employer
here in the City of Meridian. They are the -- they are not technically the owners.
Scentsy is not the owner of the property, HOT1 LLLP, is, which stands for Heidi Orville
Thompson. That's -- we always get that question of why HOT. But the -- they are
building -- they are building this campus. It's very visible. Everybody has seen it. We
have this open -- the open ditch question. There is just a slight corner of that, the west
12 acres, that is -- has a -- a sliver of -- of the Schneider Lateral that goes through it and
it is -- we are currently planning to cover it with approval from the current irrigation
district. But we are -- we appreciate the -- working with staff and there is really no other
changes to this plat. We -- the reason we are platting this is to subdivide it into -- each
lot has its own building and we want to separate ourselves even further from the
previous preliminary plat, which was Pinebridge and we went through a development
agreement modification a year or so ago, but it did not include all of this property,
because we had not acquired it at that time.. We are also wanting to eliminate the
condition -- an ACHD condition that requires Hickory to be a public road, but we at this
time would like it to be private. And with that I stand for questions.
Marshall: Commissioners?
O'Brien: So, just a question on the last part, the things you said. Is that in the staff
report -- your request, the one you just stated?
Johnson: Our proposal right now does not -- does not include a public street for
Hickory. We just have a designated private driveway in the placement of Hickory,
where it would connect from Pine down south to Commercial. So, our preliminary plat is
proposing no public street there. The previous preliminary plat with Pinebridge did have
it as a public street.
O'Brien: Okay. So, Sonya, is that any kind of an issue?
Wafters: Commissioner O'Brien, Commissioners, it's not an issue for the city. ACHD
would be the one that controls that or requires a public street connection and to my
knowledge they are not requiring one.
O'Brien: Okay. All right. Thanks.
Marshall: My question to you, Sonya, would, then, be this meets the requirements -- the
fire department's requesting as a -- as a circular connection for the fire department to
get back out to Pine, if that were completed as a private street?
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
November 1, 2012
Page 34 of 35
Wafters: Commissioner Marshall, Commissioners, the way the access currently exists
on the site meets the fire department's requirements. That's why they are only
recommending, rather requiring another access.
Marshall: Oh.
Wafters: The applicant has stated that once this preliminary plat is approved they will
move forward with constructing that driveway in alignment with Hickory down to
Commercial Street.
Marshall: So, they are not only meeting the code, but they are going beyond and
meeting the request.
Wafters: Yes.
Marshall: Commissioners, anything else?
O'Brien: I have nothing else.
Rohm: Sounds pretty thorough to me.
Marshall: Thank you very much, sir.
Johnson: Thank you.
Marshall: I would ask at this time if there is anyone else that would like to speak on this
issue? No. No one signed up. No one raising their hand. So, Commissioners, close
the public hearing maybe?
Rohm: Mr. Chairman, I move that we close the public hearing on PP 12-012.
O'Brien: Second.
Marshall: I have a motion and a second to close the public hearing on PP 12-012. All
those in favor say aye. All those opposed? No? Okay. So that we are closed.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. TWO ABSENT.
Marshall: Gentlemen, discussion?
O'Brien: I think it's pretty cut and dry myself. Just -- I think it's a fit. It's going to be a
boon for Meridian to have this company in there I think, so, yeah, I'm good to go with it
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
November 1, 2012
Page 35 of 35
Rohm: Yeah. I'm in concurrence. It's actually stuff that's already in the works. I mean
all they are doing is they are putting a plat to a development that's already well on its
way. So, it doesn't seem like there is any issues from this perspective.
Marshall: They cleaned it right up. So, can I get a motion?
Rohm: Mr. Chairman?
Marshall: Commissioner Rohm.
Rohm: After considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move to recommend
approval to City Council of file number PP 12-012 as presented in the staff report for the
hearing date of November 1st, 2012, with no modifications.
O'Brien: Second.
Marshall: I have a motion and a second. All those in favor say aye. Those opposed?
Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. TWO ABSENT.
Rohm: Mr. Chairman?
Marshall: Commissioner Rohm.
Rohm: I move we adjourn.
O'Brien: Aye.
Marshall: That would be a second? I have a motion and a second to adjourn. All those
In favor say aye.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. TWO ABSENT.
Marshall: Okay. We are adjourned.
MEETING ADJOURNED AT 8:46 P.
(AUDIO REC DING ON FILE O HESE PROCEEDINGS.)
APPROVE
SCO FREEMAN - H MAN v`~GO~D~"~°AUap9~~ ATE APPROVED
ATTEST: ~,~ ~+c~.~ ,~~
~-iVL ~ IDIAN
~ IDAMp
JAYCEE HOLMAN, CITY CLERK ~`° SEA `~
~~~~~~a~ rBFr,su~'~' ems,.
Meridian Planning Zoning Commission Meeting
DATE: November 1, 2012 ITEM NUMBER: 3A
PROJECT NUMBER:
ITEM TITLE:
Approve Minutes of October 18, 2012 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
MEETING NOTES
r~K..~~
CLERKS OFFICE FINAL ACTION
DATE: E-MAILED TO
STAFF SENT TO
AGENCY SENT TO
APPLICANT NOTES INITIALS
Meridian Planning Zoning Commission Meeting
DATE: November 1, 2012 ITEM NUMBER: 3B
PROJECT NUMBER: CUP 12-011
ITEM TITLE: Backstage Dance Center
Findings for Approval: Conditional use permit approval to operate an indoor recreation
facility (dance studio) from an existing building in an I-L zoning district by Backstage
Dance Center - 1535 E. Commercial Drive
MEETING NOTES
m~ ~ --~
CLERKS OFFICE FINAL ACTION
DATE: E-MAILED TO
STAFF SENT TO
AGENCY SENT TO
APPLICANT NOTES INITIALS
<< a ~ ~ ~~~
Meridian Planning Zoning Commission Meeting
DATE: November ~, 2012 ITEM NUMBER: 4A
PROJECT NUMBER:
ITEM TITLE: Street Name Change N. Englewwod Way
Continued Public Hearing from 10/18/12- Street Name Change from N. Englewood
Way to a new name to be decided upon by affected residents OR the spelling
changed to Inglewood by COM Community Development Department
MEETING NOTES
~a /~ u-o
CLERKS OFFICE FINAL ACTION
DATE: E-MAILED TO
STAFF SENT TO
AGENCY SENT TO
APPLICANT NOTES INITIALS
Meridian Planning Zoning Commission Meeting
DATE: November ~, 2012 ITEM NUMBER: 4B
PROJECT NUMBER:
ITEM TITLE: Street Name Change N. Englewwod Place
Continued Public Hearing from 10/18/12 -Street Name Change from N. Englewood
Place to a new name to be decided upon by affected residents OR the spelling
changed to Inglewood by COM Community Development Department
MEETING NOTES
~ ~ J~ 4-D
CLERKS OFFICE FINAL ACTION
DATE: E-MAILED TO
STAFF SENT TO
AGENCY SENT TO
APPLICANT NOTES INITIALS
Meridian Planning Zoning Commission Meeting
DATE: November ~, 2012 ITEM NUMBER: 4C
PROJECT NUMBER: AZ 12-008
ITEM TITLE: Isola Creek Subdivision
Continued Public Hearing from 10/18/12 -Annexation and Zoning of 74.6 acres of land
from RUT in Ada County to the R-4 (Medium low-density residential) zone by Coleman
Homes, LLC -east side of N. Ten Mile Road and north of W. Ustick Road
MEETING NOTES
y-o
S~,i-~a- c~C tZ~4 ~ iz
CLERKS OFFICE FINAL ACTION
DATE: E-MAILED TO
STAFF SENT TO
AGENCY SENT TO
APPLICANT NOTES INITIALS
Meridian Planning Zoning Commission Meeting
DATE: November 1, 2012 ITEM NUMBER: 4~
PROJECT NUMBER: PP 12-004
ITEM TITLE: Isola Creek Subdivision
Continued Public Hearing from 10/18/12: Prelijinary Plat approval of 168 residential lots
and 18 common lots on 74.6 acres in a proposed R-4 zone by Coleman Homes, LLC -east
side of N. Ten Mile Road, north of W. Ustick Road
MEETING NOTES
!k~p7'bt2~-Q ~L G ~ 7D~m2
l~
sc~- -~ c~ rL~~+ JiZ
CLERKS OFFICE FINAL ACTION
DATE: E-MAILED TO
STAFF SENT TO
AGENCY SENT TO
APPLICANT NOTES INITIALS
Meridian Planning Zoning Commission Meeting
DATE: November 1, 2012 ITEM NUMBER: 4E
PROJECT NUMBER: PP 12-013
ITEM TITLE: Bienville Square East
Public Hearing -Preliminary Plat approval for 28 residential lots and 5 common /other lots
on 7.89 acres of land in an R-15 zoning district by Alliance Management Consultants -
w/of N. Eagle Road and s/of E. Ustick Road
MEETING NOTES
~e.~ ~1ppi-vva-e -1D ~-~ c
h'll2/ TD
sCt--R~ r,~c ~ ~~ ~~Z
CLERKS OFFICE FINAL ACTION
DATE: E-MAILED TO
STAFF SENT TO
AGENCY SENT TO
APPLICANT NOTES INITIALS
Meridian Planning Zoning Commission Meeting
DATE: November 1, 2012 ITEM NUMBER: 4F
PROJECT NUMBER: CUP 12-012
ITEM TITLE: Stor-It Addition
Public Heaing: Conditional Use Permit approval for aself-service storage facility in a C-G
zoning district by Avest Limited Partnership - 355 N. Ten Mile Road
MEETING NOTES
CLERKS OFFICE FINAL ACTION
DATE: E-MAILED TO
STAFF SENT TO
AGENCY SENT TO
APPLICANT NOTES INITIALS
Meridian Planning Zoning Commission Meeting
DATE: November 1, 2012 ITEM NUMBER: 4G
PROJECT NUMBER: PP 12-012
ITEM TITLE: Scentsy Commons Sub
Public Hearing -Preliminary Plat consisting of 7 building lots on 60.727 acres of land in the I-
L, L-O and C-G zoning districts by HOTI, LLP - 3001 E. Commerical 8~ 2701 E. Pine Avenue
MEETING NOTES
~ce Po~p~~~ -f0 c~c
nn~ /-r~
S,et"~-ar C~C IZ~y ~ la
CLERKS OFFICE FINAL ACTION
DATE: E-MAILED TO
STAFF SENT TO
AGENCY SENT TO
APPLICANT NOTES INITIALS