2013 02-17E IDIAN~-- MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING
I D A H O COMMISSION MEETING
AGENDA
City Council Chambers
33 E. Broadway Avenue, Meridian, Idaho
Thursday, February 21, 2013 at 7:00 p.m.
1. Roll-call Attendance
_X Macy Miller X_ Michael Rohm
X Scott Freeman _X_ Joe Marshall
X Steven Yearsley -Chairman
2. Adoption of the Agenda Approved
3. Consent Agenda
A. Approve Minutes of February 7, 2013 Planning and Zoning
Commission Meeting Approved
4. Action Items
A. Continued Public Hearing from February 7, 2013: PP 12-019
Rushmore by Tealey's Land Surveying Located South of W.
Pine Avenue and West of W. Broadway Avenue Request:
Preliminary Plat Approval of Three (3) Buildable Lots and Two
(2) Common Lots on 2.17 Acres in an Existing R-15 Zone
Recommend Approval to City Council
B. Continued Public Hearing from February 7, 2013: CUP 12-014
Rushmore by Tealey's Land Surveying Located South of W.
Pine Avenue and West of W. Broadway Avenue Request:
Conditional Use Permit Approval for a Multi-Family
Development Consisting of Three (3) 8-Plez Structures (24
Dwelling Units) in a Proposed R-15 Zoning District
Recommend Approval to City Council
C. Public Hearing: RZ 13-001 Legacy Church by Legacy Church
Located South of W. Cherry Lane, Between East NW 1st Street
and N. Meridian Road and North of W. Maple Avenue Request:
Rezone of Approximately 3.95 Acres of Land from the R-4
(Medium-low Density Residential District) Zoning District to
the O-T (Old Town District) Zoning District Recommend
Approval to City Council
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Agenda -Thursday, February 21, 2013Page 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 888433 at least 48 hours prior to the public meeting.
D. Public Hearing: PP 12-018 Irvine by Northside Management
Located Southeast Corner of W. Chinden Boulevard and N.
Ten Mile Road Request: Preliminary Plat Approval Consisting
of 145 Residential Lots and 12 Common Lots on
Approximately 38.5 Acres in an Existing R-8 Zone
Recommend Approval to City Council
E. Public Hearing: RZ 13-002 Red Wing Subdivision by WH Moore
Company Located Southeast Corner of S. Meridian Road (SH
69) and E. Victory Road Request: Rezone of 32.87 Acres of
Land from the C-N and TN-C Zoning Districts to the R-4 (16.55
Acres) and R-15 (16.32 Acres) Zoning Districts Recommend
Approval to City Council
F. Public Hearing: PP 13-003 Red Wing Subdivision by WH Moore
Company Located Southeast Corner of S. Meridian Road (SH
69) and E. Victory Road Request: Preliminary Plat Approval
Consisting of 48 Single-Family Residential Building Lots; One
(1) Multi-Family Residential Lot; and Nine (9) Common /Open
Space Lots Recommend Approval to City Council
Meeting adjourned at 8:26 p.m.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Agenda -Thursday, February 21, 2013Page 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 February 21, 2013
Meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission of February 21, 2013, was
called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Chairman Steven Yearsley.
Present: Chairman Scott Freeman, Commissioner Steven Yearsley, Commissioner
Michael Rohm, Commissioner Macy Miller, and Commissioner Joe Marshall.
Others Present: Machelle Hill, Ted Baird, Caleb Hood, Bill Parsons, Sonya Wafters,
Bruce Freckleton and. Dean Willis.
Item 1: Roll-Call Attendance:
Roll-call
X Scott Freeman X Macy Miller
X Michael Rohm X Joe Marshall
X Steven Yearsley -Chairman
Yearsley: Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. At this time we would like to open the
regularly scheduled meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission for
February 21st, 2007 -- or 2013. Sorry. At first we'd like to start with roll call.
Yearsley: Thank you. Before we go into the adoption of the agenda I want to take a
minute to recognize one of our past commissioners that just got -- served his term.
Tom, would you mind coming up for a few minutes. I will come down. Make sure we
got to do this on the record, you know. Tom, this is a certificate of appreciation
presented to you, Tom O'Brien, and it says: In recognition of your service, dedication
and participation on the Planning and Zoning Commission for the City of Meridian, on
behalf of your fellow citizens, thank you for your years of service and commitment to
improving the quality of life in our community. And it's presented this day the 21st of
February 2013 and signed by the Mayor. I wanted to --
O'Brien: Well, thank you very much. It's a surprise. I really do appreciate that.
Yearsley: Thank you very much.
O'Brien: Because I have given all my speeches in the past six years, I don't have
anything prepared for tonight. Thank you, everybody.
Yearsley: Thank you, Tom.
Rohm: Chairman Yearsley? Before Commissioner O'Brien leaves the building I'd like
to say just a couple of things if I could.
Yearsley: Commissioner Rohm, please.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
February 21, 2013
Page 2 of 29
Rohm: We had this same opportunity at our last meeting, but we had a different
audience, so I'd like to restate some of the things that I said last time and they are
Commissioner O'Brien has been on the Commission for the last six years and one of
the things that has been great about his tenure is he has always been able to present a
perspective that was unique to Tom and I think that he's done a great job representing
the City of Meridian and it's been a pleasure to serve with you, sir. Thank you.
Item 2: Adoption of the Agenda.
Yearsley: Thank you. So, with that we will move into the business meeting portion of
our meeting. At this time the first item on the agenda is the adoption of the agenda. We
don't have any changes. So at this time could I get a motion to adopt the agenda .
Marshall: So moved.
Rohm: Second.
Yearsley: I have a motion to adopt the agenda as presented. All in favor say aye.
Opposed? Motion carried.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Item 3: Consent Agenda
A. Approve Minutes of February 7, 2013 Planning and Zoning
Commission Meeting
Yearsley: The second item on the agenda is the Consent Agenda and that is the
approval of the minutes from the February 7th, 2013, Planning and Zoning Commission
meeting. Is there any changes, modifications to that? With that can I get a motion to
adopt the -- approve the Consent Agenda?
Marshall: So moved.
Freeman: Second.
Yearsley: It has been moved and seconded. All in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion
carries.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Yearsley: At this point we would like to open the public -- the public hearing process.
I'd like to explain this a little bit before we move forward. We are going to open each
item one by one. First we are going to have the staff report -- present their findings
regarding how the item adheres to the Comprehensive Plan and the Uniform
Meridian Planning & Zoning
February 21, 2013
Page 3 of 29
Development Code with staff recommendations. Next the applicant will come forward to
present their case for the approval of the application and respond to any staff
comments. The applicant will have up to 15 minutes to do so. Then we will open it to
the public testimony. We will -- there is a sign-up sheet in the back, as you come in the
-- anyone wishing to testify, please, sign up. Any person testifying will come forward
and be allowed three minutes. If they are speaking for a larger group, like an HOA and
there is a show of hands representing the group, they will be given up to ten minutes.
After the public testimony the applicant will then be allowed to come forward to answer
any questions if they desire and will be given up to ten minutes. At that point we will
close the public hearing and the Commission will have the opportunity to discuss any --
discuss and, hopefully, be able to make recommendations to the City Council.
Item 4: Action Items
A. Continued Public Hearing from February 7, 2013: PP 12-019
Rushmore by Tealey's Land Surveying Located South of W.
Pine Avenue and West of W. Broadway Avenue Request:
Preliminary Plat Approval of Three (3) Buildable Lots and Two
(2) Common Lots on 2.17 Acres in an Existing R-15 Zone
B. Continued Public Hearing from February 7, 2013: CUP 12-014
Rushmore by Tealey's Land Surveying Located South of W.
Pine Avenue and West of W. Broadway Avenue Request:
Conditional Use Permit Approval for a Multi-Family
Development Consisting of Three (3) 8-Plez Structures (24
Dwelling Units) in a Proposed R-15 Zoning District
Yearsley: So, with that I would like to open the public hearing for the continued public
hearing from February 7th, 2013, of PP 12-019 and CUP 12-014, Rushmore by Tealey
Land Surveying. We would like to start with the staff report.
Parsons: Thanks, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. The first item on the
agenda tonight is the Rushmore Subdivision. It's approximately 5.54 acres, consists of
L-O zoned property, which is 3.14 acres and, then, an R-15 portion along -- which is cut
in half. It is currently zoned R-15 and that's 2.4 acres. The site is located on the south
side of Pine just west of North Idaho Avenue -- or, excuse me, West Idaho Avenue and
West Broadway Avenue. To the north of this property is R-4 single family homes zoned
R-4. To the east we have single family homes zoned R-4 and R-8. To the south is the
railroad tracks and industrial property zoned I-L. And to the west we have multi-family
development as well and, then, a nursing care facility. This project was before you in
2008. It was also known as the Rushmore Subdivision. At that time it included the
church lot and four -- or, excuse me, six multi-family lots and two common lots. The
church lot was -- is already developed with an existing church and, then, that portion
south of the Nine Mile Creek, which the R-15 portion, was to develop with six four-plex
buildings, for a total of 24 units. Since that time the previous developer and owner of
the property did not follow through with the CUP or the final platting of the property.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
February 21, 2013
Page 4 of 29
Therefore, both those applications have expired. Now, we have new owners that wish
to come before you this evening and reestablish that CUP and reestablish the plat as
well. Before I get into the plat dimensional standards and all that, I do want to mention
to Commission that upon staffs request we did work with the applicant and we have
asked them to go back to the church and have them be part of the plat as well. If you
recall in the staff report staff made some -- some analysis in there that this property was
illegally split by the previous developer and since the subdivision process has not been
completed we do not recognize these two parcels, we only see the parcel as one five
acre parcel. So, in essence, the church has to be part of the plat in order for them to
move forward and expand development on their site as well and getting a building
permit moving forward. The plat before you this evening does not represent the church
lot. It is conditioned in the staff report that prior to City Council they submit a revised
plat that includes the church as a lot and block in the subdivision. Staff has received an
affidavit of legal interest from the church. They are amenable to being part of the plat
and they want to be part of the plat. The applicant is aware of it and they are in process
of making those changes as well. Moving forward, just for the plat this evening I will just
be discussing the multi-family portion, of course. As I mentioned to you, the L-O portion
of the plat is already developed with an existing church at this time. No development is
proposed and none is being required at this time as well. So, moving forward, we are
looking at three multi-family lots, with two common lots. One of the lots will provide
cross-access for all the multi-family buildings as well. I would mention to you that all the
R-15 zoned properties do comport with the dimensional standards in the zoning district.
With the platting of this property we will be requiring a cul-de-sac at the terminus of the
roadway, which is West Broadway Avenue that you see here and that will be dedicated
right of way. The applicant is proposing, again, a conditional use permit to develop 24
multi-family units. Based on the acreage of this site that will get roughly 15 dwelling
units to the acre, which is consistent with the underlying zoning district of R-15. So,
that's the maximum allowed in that zoning district. Again, they are looking at three
eight-plex buildings, a mixture of two bedroom units and three bedroom units, which one
of the units will also be used as a property management office and on site manager if
you will. Amenities planned for this site include some open space over here, a tot lot, a
plaza area, some barbecue pits and a covered picnic area. Those amenities do comply
with the UDC standards as well. They laid out here the parking lot. They meet the
required parking requirements of the ordinance as well. Staff did have some concerns
along this portion of the site, merely because there will be an easement -- sewer
easement along this portion of it and so structures and landscaping, meaning trees,
should not be within that easement area, so it does not disrupt the functionality of that
sewer line. The applicant is aware of that and he has been conditioned to comply with
that as well. Here is the proposed landscape plan. Nothing to really add to it. It does
comply with the requirements of the UDC as far as tree counts and pretty similar to what
was proposed back in 2006. I would mention to the Commission that there are some
minor tweaks to the site plan and landscape plan that we required, but nothing that can't
be handled at the CZC level. The applicant has submitted alternative compliance. Here
are the elevations that they are proposing. The elevations have a mixture of vinyl siding
and, then, a stucco wainscoting along the front facade and, then, wraps around the side
as well. The only reason why they are requesting alternative compliance is because the
Meridian Planning & Zoning
February 21, 2013
Page 5 of 29
UDC prohibits vinyl siding or restricts vinyl siding to an accent material only. Over the
past couple of years we amended the design manual to allow vinyl siding if they can do
it with a mix of patterns and provide some architectural detailing on the building. If you
look at the elevations before you this evening you can clearly see that they have a
mixture of siding materials, a mixture of colors and, of course, another element as well
with the stucco. So, based on what we see and what's presented to you this evening,
staff has approved that alternative compliance to allow them to move forward with the
vinyl siding as the primary building material. I would also mention to you that in the staff
report we have conditioned that they provide another color scheme in addition to the
one that's before you. So, we are looking at two color schemes, two trim colors -- or two
body colors and a trim color as well moving forward. If you look at the bottom of the
elevation you can see the design of the carports. Again, those are colored to match the
-- the apartment complex as well. Staff has not received any comments on the
application. It does conform -- comport to the Comprehensive Plan. To staffs
knowledge there aren't any outstanding issues before you this evening and at this time
I'd stand for any questions you have.
Yearsley: Thank you very much. Is there any questions at this time?
Marshall: Mr. Chair, just a quick clarification, Bill. As you know in our packet the plat's
a little bit on the small side, a little hard to read, so just a clarification. That upper clear
area, the green space up there, appears to be to swale for drainage; is that correct?
Parsons: Commissioner -- Chairman, Commissioners, that is correct. A portion of the
drainage for the site will be located in that play area. As long as it's landscaped that's
acceptable under the UDC.
Marshall: Thank you.
Yearsley: Thank you. Anybody -- any other questions? At this time we'd like the
applicant to come forward. Please state your name and address for the record, please.
Tealey: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, my name is Pat Tealey, with
Tealey's Land Surveying, representing the applicant Angel's Holding, LLC. There is
also a representative from the architect's office here if you have any architectural
questions. We have been in quite a few discussions with staff over this thing and how
to revive this project. It was originally about 80 percent built -- the infrastructure anyway
-- back in 2007 and 2008. There is -- for instance, there is water and sewer and the
drainage was built and the sub base for the ACHD improvements were built also and it
fell into disrepair and the current owner bought it through the foreclose action and he
wants to revive it and do, basically, exactly what the original applicant was. He
switched from -- was it six four-plexes to three eight-plexes, maintaining the number.
He just liked the economy of the building with the eight-plex, as opposed to the six
buildings, so -- as stated we have worked with staff quite a bit to get this thing going
again and there were a few stumbles, but we are here for the approval now and here to
answer questions if you have any.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
February 21, 2013
Page 6 of 29
Yearsley: Is there any questions for the applicant?
Rohm: I guess my only question is you're in concurrence with the staff report then?
Tealey: Yes, we are.
Rohm: Okay.
Yearsley: Okay.
Marshall: I do have a question, Mr. Chair.
Yearsley: Commissioner Marshall.
Marshall: Looking at this, you know, I -- you're pretty tight on land. I don't know if you
could really change much, especially with all the infrastructure there. Right now the
only concern I have is putting a tot lot next to a drainage facility. I know that's open
space and it's not going to be filled very often, but just -- and I'm looking hard to see
where else I could go and I'm just not seeing that much.
Tealey: And as you stated, the site is pretty constrained.
Marshall: Uh-huh.
Tealey: These -- the slopes on this drainage facility we -- I think they are five to one or
six to one slope, so we have really smoothed it out. It would only be a depression that's
about a foot deep maximum and, as you said, when it's raining that hard they probably
shouldn't be out there playing.
Marshall: Well, yeah, I know my kids are out no matter what. Yeah. I just -- and tots
pretty well go to a tot lot pretty quick. I just -- about a 500 year storm, that's meant to fill;
right? And --
Tealey: Yes.
Marshall: -- you have -- is it full detention or is there retention on it? It dumps to
somewhere?
Tealey: No. It's detention.
Marshall: Okay. All right. Thank you.
Tealey: Uh-huh.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
February 21, 2013
Page 7 of 29
Yearsley: Thank you very much. At this point I have nobody signed up to testify for
public. Is there anybody that would like to come up and testify? All right. I guess with
that we don't need the applicant to come back and refute his own comments, so at this
point I'd like to entertain a motion to close the public hearing.
Marshall: So moved.
Rohm: Second.
Yearsley: I have a motion and a second. All in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion
carries.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Yearsley: Who would like to start?
Marshall: Mr. Chair?
Yearsley: Commissioner Marshall.
Marshall: Again, I'd like to see it move forward. It just seems appropriate. I would like
to address the letter that was received from -- I can't pronounce the last name. Minitar
-- Leroy Minarti? I'm terrible with name here. But he was simply voicing concern and
opposition regarding the building of additional multi-family units in the City of Meridian
and my comment to this letter was that it's really not our job to determine what
businesses and limit businesses and things like that and, obviously, people wanting to
build additional apartments they feel that they can make money at that and I felt that the
comments really didn't really apply to anything that we are making decisions on here.
Our decisions are based on whether it is appropriate in the location and for the city and,
unfortunately, yes, that would cause him some more -- cause rents to -- increased
difficulties for -- and problems for existing owners as he said. Well, yes, that's,
unfortunately, part of business I guess, so -- that was my comment there. The only
other issue I had with this is the location of the tot lot right next to a drainage facility.
Again, with a five or six to one slope and a single foot deep, I really don't see another
location with existing facilities and the infrastructure already in I don't see a lot locations
where you could move that to. I wouldn't mind it if we moved it back a little bit, but,
then, again, you want it out in the open so everybody in all the buildings can use it. So,
if there is any way to slope it away from that tot lot so that the deepest part is as far
away from that tot lot as possible, I think that would probably be best, but that's just my
thoughts
Freeman: Mr. Chair?
Yearsley: Commissioner Freeman.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
February 21, 2013
Page 8 of 29
Freeman: I like the project. I'm glad it's finally moving forward. Given the constraints
on the site I think that the architect and engineer have done a good job on this layout,
the elevations look fine. I'm glad to see that there is going to be some material change
and some colors coming along with the final approval. So, I would -- I would tend to
favor and vote for the approval of this project.
Yearsley: Thank you.
Rohm: My only comments are associated with the plat itself and the fact of the matter is
that we are going to have a legal plat once this is moved forward and I think that's
always in good keeping.
Miller: You know, I don't have any new comments. I -- the elevations look good to me.
There is different textures and -- on the front side of the buildings and I have no
comments.
Yearsley: Okay. Thank you very much. At this point --
Marshall: Mr. Chair?
Yearsley: Commissioner Marshall.
Marshall: After considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony -- of which there
wasn't -- I move to recommend approval to the City Council of file numbers PP 12-019
and CPU 12-014. Do we need to make comment on the alternate compliance? I
assume we will recommend approval on the alternate compliance as well. It's 12-008.
As presented in the staff report for the hearing date of February 21st, 2013, with no
modifications.
Rohm: Second.
Yearsley: We have a motion to approve -- and a second to approve PP 12-019 and
CUP 12-014 and ALT 12-008 as presented in the staff report. All in favor say aye.
Opposed? Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
C. Public Hearing: RZ 13-001 Legacy Church by Legacy Church
Located South of W. Cherry Lane, Between East NW 1st Street
and N. Meridian Road and North of W. Maple Avenue Request:
Rezone of Approximately 3.95 Acres of Land from the R-4
(Medium-low Density Residential District) Zoning District to
the O-T (Old Town District) Zoning District
Yearsley: Thank you very much. At this point we would like to open the public hearing
for RZ 13-001, Legacy Church by Legacy Church and start with the staff report.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
February 21, 2013
Page 9 of 29
Parsons: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. The next item on
the agenda is Legacy Church rezone. The site consists of 11 parcels totaling 3.95
acres. It's currently zoned R-4. It is located south of Cherry Lane on the west side of
North Meridian Road. The applicant is here this even to rezone from the R-4 zoning
designation to the Old Town zone, which is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
Currently that plan does designate this portion of the property within an Old Town land
use designation. If you recall there is some heavy construction going on in the area that
has -- necessitated the church to move forward and rezone this property. The main
reason for it is currently the church use on the site is a nonconforming use under the
definition of the Unified Development Code. In order to process or expand the site that
requires a conditional use permit. With this rezone application it would give the
applicant flexibility to move forward and improve the site and rehab the site as they see
fit under the current ordinance and also allow them to do so at the staff level, not having
to go back before you for the CUP mod or CUP to expand the use on the site. I'd also
mention to you they did submit a concept plan that shows kind of what they have
envisioned. First development phase does include them adding a portion of parking
here. Due to the split corridor phase project they are losing a majority of their parking in
front of the building here, which necessitates the need for them to add additional
parking. Again, in order to do that under the R-4 zone it would require a conditional use
permit to expand the nonconforming use. Subsequent phases probably will happen
with addition to the existing church use in the future. Again, that would be done through
the CZC and design review level once and if the rezone goes through. So, you can see
here what they have planned. Typically with a rezone application staff does
recommend a development agreement in this case with this rezone application given
the amount of detail that the applicant has provided with the application staff feels
comfortable that they can move forward without a development agreement, just given
the fact that the rezone or going to an Old Town zone would allow the church to be a
principally permitted use and also that existing single family homes would still be a
principally permitted use in that proposed zoning district. You can see here they are
closing off access points into Meridian Road as well, which is a plus in compliance with
the ordinance as well and, of course, the parking lot will take access from the alley as
well. So, given the fact that we have things in place, design review and an ordinance
that can probably handle the revitalization of this site, even if it were sold or changed in
the future, staff feels comfortable recommending no development agreement with a
rezone. Staff did not receive any written testimony on this from the applicant. I assume
they are in agreement with staff's recommendation of approval and to staffs knowledge
there aren't any outstanding issues with this application and at this time I'd stand for any
questions you have.
Yearsley: Thank you very much. Is there any questions? At this point we would like
the applicant to come forward. Please state your name and address for the record.
Crawford: Chairman, Commissioners, my name is David Crawford with B&A Engineers.
My address is 5505 West Franklin Road, Boise. I'm here representing the applicant and
most all of them are here tonight. So, we are glad they were able to attend. I concur
Meridian Planning & Zoning
February 21, 2013
Page 10 of 29
with the staff recommendations for approval. We appreciate all the work that they put in
assisting us with the development of the site and the rezone. It's been an arduous task
with the Meridian Road getting blown up. Hopefully that's a great improvement for the
citizens of Meridian. It should be noted that the church has dedicated the right of way
prior to receiving any rezone or approvals or anything like that, so they worked with the
highway district prior to any of these applications moving forward to allow those
improvements to take place. There was a dramatic impact with those improvements
and the loss of in excess of 20 parking stalls, which is really -- hasn't helped the church
any. So, of course, the church is looking forward to addressing some of those -- the
loss of those parking stalls with the addition. Of course, it would be applied for at a
future time, but what would need to precede that, of course, is the rezone to the Old
Town district. There is only two items I guess that the -- that the church would like to
just make part of the record and one of those items is the Old Town requirement does
require two story construction in most instances and the church isn't opposed to that,
however, it's difficult to maintain access -- accessibility. So, their concern was that they
would give the facade of any future construction that may occur, though there is not any
anticipated right now, but a facade for two story construction would occur at the
appropriate time, but they wouldn't necessarily build two stories given the use and, of
course, the church has been working with ACHD and the City of Meridian and has
requested a fee reimbursement request, but we just thought we would note that as part
of the record. So, for that I will stand for any questions you may have.
Yearsley: Thank you very much. Are there any questions? No? Oh, Commissioner
Rohm.
Rohm: No, I don't.
Yearsley: Oh. Sorry. So, thank you very much.
Crawford: Thank you.
Yearsley: I don't have anybody signed, but is there anybody in the audience that would
like to come up and testify? No? Well, with that can I get a motion to close the public
hearing.
Freeman: Mr. Chair, I move that we close the public hearing on RZ 13-001, Legacy
Church.
Miller: Second.
Yearsley: I have a motion and a second to close the public hearing for RZ 13-001,
Legacy Church. All in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Yearsley: Any comments, questions, concerns or deliberations?
Meridian Planning & Zoning
February 21, 2013
Page 11 of 29
Marshall: Mr. Chair?
Freeman: Go ahead.
Yearsley: Commissioner Freeman.
Marshall: My only question is how to handle the request on the two story facade. If two
stories are required in any new construction in Old Town is -- I'd like to ask staff if that's
accurate.
Parsons: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, that is correct. New construction
does require two stories. What we have communicated to the applicant in several
meetings we have had with them is we have -- even given the latitude to give the
appearance of two stories. So, there is -- there is ways to get that roof line and get the
height and give the appearance or the look of a two story construction without actually
physically being two story. And that's, really, what we are looking for.
Marshall: So, my question is would that condition -- is that in the application or do we
need to modify anything to include that or --
Parsons: Commissioner Marshall, this is a rezone only and we don't condition rezones.
So, there are no conditions in the staff report.
Marshall: Got you. So, you're saying that you would be willing to work with them when
those came forward and that's the only way we can handle it?
Parsons: Absolutely.
Marshall: Awesome. Thank you.
Yearsley: Thank you. Any other questions, comments?
Rohm: Just one more comment.
Yearsley: Okay.
Rohm: And that is if, in fact, we are not requiring a development agreement along with
this rezone, that makes it sound like the applicant and the city are pretty well in
agreement as to the direction this project is going, so that's always a good thing.
Yearsley: Thank you. So, with that I would stand for a motion.
Freeman: Mr. Chair?
Yearsley: Commissioner Freeman.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
February 21, 2013
Page 12 of 29
Freeman: After considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move to
recommend approval of file number RZ 13-001 as presented in the staff report for the
hearing date of February 21st, 2013, with no modifications.
Rohm: Second.
Yearsley: I have got a motion to approve Item No. RZ 13-001, Legacy Church and a
second. All in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries. Thank you very much.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
D. Public Hearing: PP 12-018 Irvine by Northside Management
Located Southeast Corner of W. Chinden Boulevard and N.
Ten Mile Road Request: Preliminary Plat Approval Consisting
of 145 Residential Lots and 12 Common Lots on
Approximately 38.5 Acres in an Existing R-8 Zone
Yearsley: The next item on the agenda is the public hearing for PP 12-018, Irvine by
Northside Management. We'd like to start with the staff report.
Parsons: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. The next item is the
Irvine Subdivision. It's currently zoned R-8 in the city. It's located on the southeast
corner of North Ten Mile Road and Chinden Boulevard. To the north of this site is,
again, the State Highway 20-26 and Spurwing Country Club, zoned RUT. Along the
west -- or, excuse me, the east boundary we have Ada County property zoned RUT and
the Silver Leaf Subdivision zoned R-4. To the east we have Silver Leaf Subdivision and
Ada County outparcels zoned RUT and R-4 as well. And, then, to the west we have
Ada County property zoned RUT. The Comprehensive Plan does designate this site as
medium density residential. Some history on this property. It was in front of you in
2005 and it was also known as the Irvine Subdivision. At that time it gained annexation
and preliminary plat approval for 175 residential lots and 12 common lots on 38.5 acres
of land. In 2008 the previous developer -- or the developer was before Council
requesting a time extension. At that time Council did deny their time extension request,
because the plat did not conform to the ten percent open space requirements currently
required under today's ordinance. So, here is what the application -- or the applicant is
proposing this evening. We are looking at 145 residential lots and 12 common lots.
The plat does comport to the ten percent open space requirements of the UDC. Access
to this site is from Ten Mile as originally proposed back in 2006. We have
interconnective streets. To the south and to the east we have two stub streets that will
be constructed and extended into the site as well. The applicant is proposing to
develop this in five development phases, which I have highlighted here for you. So, the
first phase would start along the south and, then, just move towards Chinden Boulevard.
I would mention to you that the average lot sizes in here are roughly 6,700 square feet.
The density for the plat is at 3.77 dwelling units to the acre, which is consistent with the
medium density residential -- or land use designation, which anticipates densities
Meridian Planning & Zoning
February 21, 2013
Page 13 of 29
between three and eight units to the acre. So, slightly on the lower end, but still within
that density range anticipated by the Comprehensive Plan. Here is the landscape plan
that the applicant is proposing this evening. Along Ten Mile they are doing a 35 foot
landscape buffer in accordance with the UDC. Along Chinden Boulevard is a 45 foot
landscape buffer. The applicant is providing a greater buffer to fit the ten foot pathway
along that segment of road and also to meet the noise abatement requirements in the
UDC. Because they do abut Chinden, the ordinance requires a berm wall combination
along that facility to buffer the residential from the highway. They will have to comply
with that with a future landscape plan. I did want to mention to you that several blocks
to exceed the block length requirement in the UDC. At a previous meeting we did report
to you that we are looking at maybe amending the ordinance and instituting a new block
length standard going forward. We anticipate that this would probably comply with that
requirement moving forward, but I did want to mention the one block -- there is several
block lengths that do not comply, if I can go back here, would be this portion here along
-- up against the state facility. One we kind of have a code conflict here. That state
facility would want to limit access there, so the applicant has provided that micropath
connection, so we feel that's adequate block -- that adequately breaks up the block
there given the constraints with access they have along that roadway, but the majority
of the concern is this block here, which is located around the central open space. In the
staff report we have conditioned that they submit a final plat that comports with
whatever block length requirements we had in effect at the time of development. So,
based on what -- the way they are phasing this project it doesn't come into play until the
second phase is where I'm getting at now. So, again, moving on, here is the landscape
plan. Again, a majority of the open space will be platted with the second phase as well.
We are looking at that central one and a half acre park with a tot lot. Staff has
recommended an amenity that they also include a covered picnic shelter within that
and, then, you have this linear open space here that will be, basically, a covered ditch
and landscape and as I mentioned to you the plat does conform to the amenity
requirements and the open space requirements as well this evening. The applicant is
proposing a mix of residential housing types and sizes in the subdivision. I anticipate
similar home styles in here. You can see again the applicant is -- will be providing
homes that provide a mix of resident -- or a mix of sidings on here, a mix of stone and
stucco covered porches. Definitely gives the appearance of some variation in the
subdivision as well. Staff did receive comments from the applicant. He is in agreement
with all the conditions in the report, except for that one that I mentioned as far as the
block length requirement. Currently that would be Condition 1.1.3. The way it's written
in the staff report we wanted compliance with the block length requirements with the first
phase of the final plat. As I just showed you, it wouldn't really come into -- come into
factor until the second phase. So, staff is requesting that Commission basically modify
that condition to read that the applicant shall comply with the block length standards in
effect at the time of final plat submittal. That way it gives him the flexibility whatever
way they change their phasing on this they just have to make sure whatever phase
comes in that particular phase has to comport to the block length standards in effect.
With that staff did have some comments from several adjacent owners. There is
nothing formally on the record, just phone conversations and front counter
conversations and that has to do with the -- basically these two RUT parcels. This
Meridian Planning & Zoning
February 21, 2013
Page 14 of 29
gentleman here would like to discuss with you the possibility of maybe limiting some of
the homes along his boundary to single story homes and requiring the applicant provide
vinyl fencing for the entire subdivision and, then, this gentleman here is asking the same
request that those lots that front on his western boundary are limited to single story as
well. Other than those conversations staff has not received any other written testimony.
Again, staff is recommending approval and at this time I'd stand for any questions you
have.
Yearsley: Thank you very much. Are there any questions? Okay. At this time we'd like
the applicant to come forward.
Noriyuki: Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, Scott Noriyuki, 6810 Fairhill Place, Boise,
Idaho. I want to thank staff. This has been a long time coming as far as projects, but
think we have come up with a superior layout than was previously presented. We are
pleased with it and we agree with the staff report and all of Bill's comments and with that
I'll stand for any questions.
Yearsley: Thank you very much. Are there any questions?
Marshall: Mr. Chair, I do. My first question is how tall is the berm up against Chinden?
Noriyuki: Excuse me?
Marshall: How tall is the berm up against Chinden Boulevard?
Noriyuki: It will be between six and eight feet tall with a four foot fence top of it.
Marshall: Okay. I guess that's it.
Yearsley: Okay. If there is no other questions, thank you very much.
Noriyuki: Thank you.
Yearsley: I have a few up here that's signed up. Mike Meyers. Please state your name
and address for the record, please.
Meyers: My name is Mike Meyers. I own the property at 2685 West Chinden, which is
just on the -- it would be the east side. My property basically runs about a thousand feet
deep from Chinden to the south. Sorry, I'm not very good at speaking like this. But
when we moved there originally there was no houses. There was maybe six neighbors
within a square mile and I know there is nothing I can do to stop the building, but the
biggest problem that I have is, excuse me, anytime I step outside now these two story
houses basically are looking down at you. So, basically, my privacy is gone and my
views are completely gone. So, what I would like to see is at least along my eastern
boundary just single level homes. Other than that that's. mainly my only concern.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
February 21, 2013
Page 15 of 29
Rohm: How far is your property from the property line? How far is your home from the
property line?
Meyers: From the westward property line?
Rohm: From the west property line.
Meyers: I don't know. A couple hundred feet.
Rohm: That's pretty good.
Meyers: It's a ways, but anytime you go outside -- and I don't spend a whole lot of time
in the house. So, anytime I'm doing anything outside -- you know, my property is like a
long sliver, so anytime I'm outside in the field farming, doing whatever, it's like all these
people are staring right down at you.
Rohm: Okay. Thank you.
Meyers: Thank you.
Yearsley: No other questions? Or did you --
Miller: Yeah. Staff mentioned that there -- you said something about a vinyl fence
along that side, too, but I didn't hear you mention that.
Meyers: Well, I would assume that they would be vinyl, because that's what they have
done on the other two sides of me. If they put a wood fence there I think that would look
horrible. But, actually, I believe it was the other gentleman that the vinyl fence was his
concern. I don't know if that's within the plan. Do you know? Is it wood or vinyl?
Rohm: The applicant will address that on rebuttal.
Meyers: Okay. Perfect. Thank you.
Yearsley: Thank you. The next one is Jerry -- is it Stevenson?
Stevenson: Jerry Stevenson at 1640 North Ten Mile Road. Commissioner and fellow
Planning and Zoning committee members, I -- you know, we -- growth is coming and,
you know, I'd like to keep it agricultural forever, but it's kind of sad to see it all go, but it's
going to happen, so with that I have lived here for 25 years now and back then I think
there was only like about four or five houses within that whole square mile and we still
actively have a little hobby farm going. We raise -- we have got 24 ewes that we Iamb
out. We did cut down -- a few years back we had up to 60 ewes that we were doing
there, too. So, we still continue the agriculture practice and we support the FFA and 4-
H kids with all their activities. In fact, my son even teaches FFA and we bring city kids
into our place and they keep them in our place as we recognize that we have to make
Meridian Planning & Zoning
February 21, 2013
Page 16 of 29
this transition together. But one of my concerns is -- is, you know, the previous
development Silver Leaf was all supposed to have been vinyl fences. The previous
developer took some shortcuts, put up a wood fence and, then, he snuck through a
variance to get it accepted and I did insist on making sure that I had a vinyl fence that
abutted my place, so I would like to continue that vinyl fencing surrounding my place at
least and, you know, continue on the integrity of the -- the residential area. The other
thing is to -- again, I'm going to lose all my views of the mountain and everything with
these houses. I'd like to, you know, try to at least retain some type of privacy, especially
when you have agricultural practices and people looking down at you, everything you do
being criticized and everything, I'd like to try to prevent, you know, those issues from
happening. So, just immediately along my -- the border of my place I'd like to try to
restrict that and I'd also like to have some -- you know, some trees up there to try to
protect some of that as well, too. I have, you know, started some landscaping on my
own to put trees in there, but, you know, it gets very expensive, but, then, they are the
ones that actually benefit from the shade of those trees and not me, you know, on the
west corner. So, anyway, that's -- that's my major concerns there, too, but I'd also like
to point out, too, that the -- this is kind of maybe a little bit besides the development
itself, but that corner there at Ten Mile and Chinden really needs to get a traffic light up
there. There is one half mile from each side of it -- I mean it's a bear and all these little
tiny projects keep trickling up and everybody says, well, this project isn't going to affect
it and there is only so many homes, but you take a look at that and now on Black Cat
they are developing all that over there, too. It's just -- you know, now Wal-Mart is
coming in, you know, we need to get a light up there. So, that's my biggest concerns
that I have. Thank you.
Marshall: Mr. Chair, if I could very quickly just mention that I know the city has been
aware of the light at Ten Mile and it is on a request list with Ada County Highway
District. Unfortunately, they have not yet deemed it worthy, but we definitely are
requesting it and asking for that.
Stevenson: Thank you.
Yearsley: Thank you. The next one is Scott -- oh. Okay. Is there anybody else that
would like to provide testimony for this application? At this time we'd ask the applicant
to come back and rebut any of the comments, answer questions from the applicant.
Noriyuki: Thank you. Would you like me to restate my name and address?
Yearsley: Yes, please.
Noriyuki: Scott Noriyuki. 6810 Fairhill Place, Boise, Idaho. Okay. So, I have taken a
couple of notes and we are going to try to chronologically address Mike and Jerry's
concerns or clarifications or questions. First of all, regarding Mike's property and the
request for two story -- or only single story along our shared property line. I have
concerns as far as setting a restriction on that. His property is also in the comp plan
that's going to allow and ultimately develop at that point and I would imagine once that
Meridian Planning & Zoning
February 21, 2013
Page 17 of 29
property develops it would feel fair to them at that point to have the one or two story
flexibility. Furthermore he has entered into a lease agreement with a cell tower that will
be located predominately in the -- that would be the northwestern portion of his
property, which is our shared property line. At that point there will forever be a buffer for
that portion and, then, we start to talk about the 200 feet -- 100, 150, 200 foot
separation between our homes and his home, I think that's a very reasonable dimension
that should allow us to stay consistent with the two story or one story as the market
demands. I believe I addressed all of his items. As far as Jerry's -- regarding the single
story versus two story, I feel the same way. I believe that we have got a comp plan in
place and we got zoning and I think that flexibility is reasonable, considering my lots are
a hundred foot deep at a minimum. I will average about a 35 foot backyard, plus the
separation to his side yard and -- and/or rear. I think we are looking somewhere
between a 50 and 60 foot separation between structures at the build out point that I feel
is -- once again is a reasonable separation. Regarding the fencing, I spoke to Jerry
about this prior to the hearing and I think the appropriate thing to do is for me to pay a
site visit -- excuse me -- pay a site visit and look at what all of the existing fencing is out
there between Silver Leaf and Mike's property, as well as Jerry's property and come up
with the best game plan for consistency overall. So, at this point I'm not adverse to
wood cedar or vinyl, but I want to make sure it's a consistent, good looking project when
it's all said and done. With that I will stand for any questions.
Yearsley: Does anybody have any questions?
Freeman: I don't.
Rohm: I just have a comment. Vinyl siding is --
Noriyuki: Vinyl fencing.
Rohm: Vinyl fencing is a very good product and I'd like to see that on your project.
Noriyuki: Understood.
Yearsley: All right. Thank you very much.
Noriyuki: Thank you.
Yearsley: At this time could I get a motion to close the public hearing.
Rohm: So moved.
Freeman: Second.
Yearsley: I have a motion and a second to close the public hearing for PP 12-018,
Irvine, by Northside Management. All in favor say aye.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
February 21, 2013
Page 18 of 29
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Yearsley: Would anyone like to go first?
Marshall: Mr. Chair?
Yearsley: Commissioner Marshall.
Marshall: A couple thoughts. First was addressing the comments made by the
neighbors. I was a little disappointed that we need the flexibility and we are not -- I feel
like we are just not coming forward to help out the neighbors when they are saying vinyl
fence, we want vinyl fence -- I heard it from both people here, but you want flexibility.
Now, I agree that a couple hundred feet to another house -- two story house is -- that
happens all the time and you're going to have some one story and some two story in
here. I understand. I also feel for the neighbors that, gosh, you have had views for so
long and suddenly this comes in. I feel for you. I really do. But at the same time as
mentioned that growth is going to happen. Now, that means that this is zoned R-8, they
are very small lots, in my opinion. And I think there is some good in that. I think we do
need some higher densities in areas and the like, but, to be honest, you know, what
works best for the city and I'm going to talk about what makes a good neighborhood for
just a minute and I hope you guys will bear with me for a minute. We have certain
standards in place within the city asking for variation in architecture, in paint, in
articulation of roofs, things like that and for good reason. It's because variety helps
create interest, makes it more fun. I mean it's -- to see the same thing over and over is
what we are trying to avoid and one of the things I'm not sure we do well enough to
address as a city right yet is layouts of subdivisions and my first comment is long,
straight streets with -- people argue that the old neo-traditional square, Romanesque
layout is the same thing you're going to see in some of the most desirable parts of town,
in the Old Town and the like, but I will argue that it's not the streets in that square layout
that makes that interesting, what makes it interesting is the variety and size that banker
back then built right next to the stable boy and everybody was trying to build within a
walking distance of city and you had big houses next to small houses, immense
difference in architecture, different builders and things like that and we as a society now
put one type of house here and it's quite a ways away before we see another type of
house and so as a city to address some of that we have started asking for more
articulation, more differences in houses. We don't want to see the same house all over.
To add to that I would suggest that long, straight streets with houses the exact same
distance set back becomes just as boring as the same architecture. This design could
have been different and still -- and still achieve just as many lots I think in a much more
appealing way when you drive into the -- into the neighborhood, as well as seeing
maybe more alley loaded material where you can get houses very close to each other. I
know a number of people that love architecture and that kind of thing that -- where the
houses are very narrow, alley loaded, no garages in front, the houses are up against the
street, you can get a very small lot, high densities, but to be honest I look at this and it
looks so much like so many others that I have seen out of the '70s that I thought we
were trying to avoid, to be honest. That being said, we do need the diversity in what we
Meridian Planning & Zoning
February 21, 2013
Page 19 of 29
offer and I like the diversity. We do have some small lots here, we need some higher
densities. It is at a point where we have a lot of traffic flow. Ten Mile and Chinden is
going to be a high traffic order and that's where you'd want some high densities, so
people can take mass transit and we can start actually justifying paying for bus
schedules and buses to come through there where we have enough people
congregated to be able to take that. To be honest, I'm not happy with the esthetics of
this. I'm not happy with the block lengths. And I don't think it's the best we could see
for this area. I really don't. And, again, I am disappointed that we can't meet the
neighborhoods. I'm disappointed in that that we can't just say, okay, we are going to be
a good neighbor, we are going to put up the vinyl fence, everybody wants vinyl fence,
we will do a vinyl fence and be a good neighbor and, you know, try to -- try to meet
some people halfway, because they are losing out a bit and, yes, this should be
developed, it -- they have a right to develop it, but at the same time we want to be good
neighbors. Some trees and things I don't know is a huge request when you look at the
amount of money that will be going into this project just trying to be a good neighbor and
so I'm, you know, a little disappointed with this project. Those are my thoughts.
Yearsley: Thank you.
Freeman: Mr. Chair?
Yearsley: Commissioner Freeman.
Freeman: A couple of things and I have a question of staff, too. Somebody flag me
down if I forget by the time I'm done with my diatribe. I am -- I, too, feel for the
neighbors, development moving in next door. However, I would not be comfortable, nor
do I believe I have the power or the right to ask the owner to limit his -- what he
otherwise is allowed to build per the UDC as far as residential two story homes. I, too,
agree with Commissioner Marshall that I would like to see vinyl fencing on -- on all of
these boundaries, again, in the interest of being a good neighbor. You know, whether
you would like to see the flexibility or not, what fits in, if you're neighbors are requesting
vinyl and vinyl is, in fact, a good product, I would tend to favor vinyl fencing along both
of those borders. I agree with Commissioner Marshall and much of what he said about
the subdivision and there being interest. I'm also balancing with the fact that we do --
we do need developments that -- that fit this criteria. It could have been done
differently. I agree. But overall I'm -- I'm happy to see this type of development going
in. Other than some of the comments that you made. I do have a question of staff and
I'd like to step back to the modification, Bill, that you mentioned. Was it -- was it 1.1.3
condition and it needed to be modified you say or just reiterated? I actually have the
language in your report, because I saw it elsewhere. Did that not get into that
condition? I don't have it in front of me.
Parsons: Chairman, Members of the Commission, I read it into the record, so if you're
amenable to how I presented it to, then, just say and all staff and applicant comments
and I will make it happen before City Council.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
February 21, 2013
Page 20 of 29
Freeman: Thank you. That's clear enough. I think that finishes my comments.
Yearsley: Thank you very much. Commissioner Rohm?
Rohm: I don't have anything to add.
Yearsley: Thank you. Commissioner Miller?
Miller: I would like to make a comment and kind of echo some of Commissioner
Marshall's statements with the winding streets. In the third and fourth phase here it
looks like you have the community park area that's -- the front is right by the main street
and having lived in a subdivision like this I know people tend to barrel through that and
so I have some concerns about how that would work in reality. Other than that I don't
have any comments.
Yearsley: Thank you. And I don't have any comments either, so I'm open for a motion.
Freeman: All right. Mr. Chair?
Yearsley: Commissioner Freeman.
Freeman: After considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move to
recommend approval to the City Council of file number PP 12-018 as presented in the
staff report for the hearing date of February 21st, 2013, with the modification of
Condition 1.1.3, so it includes the language that staff recommends development of the
plat comply with the block length standards in effect at the time of submittal of the first
final plat application.
Yearsley: Do I have a second?
Miller: Second.
Parson: Mr. Chairman, excuse me. I didn't mean to interrupt. We are wanting to strike
with the first submittal, just comply with the submittal of a final plat is how it should --
Freeman: Okay. So, as amended I would modify my motion to agree with what you just
said.
Parsons: Thank you.
Miller: Second.
Yearsley: Thank you. I have a motion and a second to approve file number PP 12-018.
All in favor say aye. Opposed?
Marshall: Aye.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
February 21, 2013
Page 21 of 29
Yearsley: Motion carries. Thank you very much.
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE NAY.
E. Public Hearing: RZ 13-002 Red Wing Subdivision by WH Moore
Company Located Southeast Corner of S. Meridian Road (SH
69) and E. Victory Road Request: Rezone of 32.87 Acres of
Land from the C-N and TN-C Zoning Districts to the R-4 (16.55
Acres) and R-15 (16.32 Acres) Zoning Districts
F. Public Hearing: PP 13-003 Red Wing Subdivision by WH Moore
Company Located Southeast Corner of S. Meridian Road (SH
69) and E. Victory Road Request: Preliminary Plat Approval
Consisting of 48 Single-Family Residential Building Lots; One
(1) Multi-Family Residential Lot; and Nine (9) Common /Open
Space Lots
Yearsley: The next item on the agenda is a public hearing for RZ 13-002 and PP 13-
003, Red Wing -- Red Wing Subdivision by W.H. Moore and start with the staff report.
Wafters: Thank you, Chairman Yearsley, Members of the Commission. The next
applications before you are a request for a rezone and preliminary plat. This site
consists of 31.11 acres of land. It's currently zoned C-N and TN-C and is located on the
southeast corner of South Meridian Road, State Highway 69, and East Victory Road.
Adjacent land and zoning. To the north is Victory Road and fuel facility, convenience
and retail store, landscape nursery, zoned C-G and residential properties zoned R-4.
To the south and east is undeveloped property, zoned R-8 and some TN-R there to the
east and to the west is Meridian Road, State Highway 69 and rural residential property
zoned RUT in Ada County. A little history. This property was annexed in 2006 with a
development agreement. The preliminary plat for Cavanaugh Subdivision was
approved in 2007. The final plat was never approved on this site. Since that time the
subject property has changed ownership. The new owner is requesting a rezone of
32.87 acres of land from the C-N, neighborhood commercial zoning district, of 13.59
acres of the site and TN-C, traditional neighborhood center at 16.49 acres of the site.
They want to change that zoning to the R-4 and R-15 zoning districts. R-4 being 16.55
acres and R-15 being 16.32 acres. This is consistent with the recent change to the
future land use map designating this property for medium density residential and
medium high density residential uses. A preliminary plat is also proposed consisting of
48 single family residential building lots, one multi-family residential building lot, and
nine common open space lots on 31 acres of land. Access to the subdivision is
proposed via two access points on Victory Road in accord UDC 11-3A-3, which limits
access to arterial streets. Staff is recommending only one access via Victory be
approved for this site, unless waived by City Council and approved by ACHD. ACHD's
draft staff report that I got this afternoon did recommend approval of the two access
points proposed and the fire department is also requiring two accesses just as a side
Meridian Planning & Zoning
February 21, 2013
Page 22 of 29
note. A stub street is shown on the plat for future extension to the east where a
collector street is planned to be constructed for access to the south across the
Ridenbaugh Canal. The Ridenbaugh Canal does run along the southern boundary of
this site. A 35 foot wide landscape buffer is required along Meridian Road, State
Highway 69, and a 25 foot wide buffer is required along Victory Road. A four foot tall
berm and six foot tall fence on top of the berm is proposed along Meridian Road for
noise abatement from the highway to the proposed residential uses. Across-section of
that berm is shown there on your right. A ten foot wide multi-use pathway is proposed
along Meridian Road in accord with the master pathways plan. A seating and picnic
area is proposed as amenities for the single family residential portion of the site. A
minimum ten percent open space is required to be provided for the subdivision. The
single family residential portion appears to be a little short on that. However, there will
be in excess of the required amount on the multi-family portion that will be shared
between the two developments, as well as several side amenities. The multi-family
portion will come in for a conditional use permit on that, so that's when we will see all
the open space and site amenities for that. Conceptual building elevations were
submitted for the single family dwellings, as well as the future apartment structures.
These are the apartment structures before you. And the single family dwellings. A
modification to the development agreement is also proposed to remove this property
from the overall Cavanaugh development agreement. This will be heard and decided
upon by the City Council with the subject applications. Written testimony was received
from Jonathan Seal and I'll let him go over his response with you. Staff is
recommending approval of the rezone and preliminary plat with a new development
agreement for the current owners and the conditions in the staff report. Staff will stand
for any questions.
Yearsley: Thank you very much. Is there any questions? All right. At this time we'd
like to have the applicant come forward. Please state your name and address for the
record, please.
Seal: Good evening, Chairman, Commissioners. Jonathan Seal, W.H. Moore
Company, 1940 Bonito, Meridian. I think Sonya did an excellent job and I appreciate all
her help on this. If I can what I'd like to do is kind of give you what I refer to as a little bit
of color on this project. When we first started this project we spent a great deal of time
both in design of the multi-tenant, as well as the single family development and one of
the things that we decided near the beginning of it is -- is the amenities that are over
here in this particular area for the apartment complex, we could do amenities that we
would also share with the single family residents and I will get to a list of those
amenities here in a few minutes. But one of the things we realized is that this unique
feature I think almost created this thing as a community. Typically you will see in a lot of
them you will see the single -- you will see the single family with a line down it and you
will see the multi-family and they will be separated. This way what we have done is we
have enabled people within the single family to enjoy the amenities within the multi-
family. So, we think we are getting a merging of it or what we like to refer as a
community. So, as a result of that we came up with -- added onto the name of it
community -- Red Tail community, because we think it reflects that, we think it's a very
Meridian Planning & Zoning
February 21, 2013
Page 23 of 29
unique feature of it. If I can -- and I'm not sure where that is. Can you put the amenities
on? Keep going. There we go. If you -- if you look at the amenities over here you will
see a list of them and I won't go through them, but I think you can see that the amenities
that we are planning on putting within the apartment project are extensive. We are not
putting a barbecue pit in and maybe a little tennis court or something, we are looking at
pools, workout facilities, club houses, so we are going very extensive with it. So, again,
think it creates a really unique feel for this -- for this particular project. Let's see.
think, again, staying with the apartment project -- and these right here, so you
understand are what we envisioned to look like. These are not exact. We will be
coming back for a conditional use permit, so we will be, obviously, much more detailed.
But it gives you a flavor. But one of the things that's interesting and it -- again, if you
look at the apartment complex, again, we are not coming with a project that's a huge
monolithic structure, we are not coming in for the building with 400 units in it, five stories
tall, what we are looking at here is individual buildings here, each one will have four
units on a floor, they will average two to three stories each. So, we think we will get
almost -- I don't know if this is the proper term, but give kind of an intimate type of feel to
the whole project. There will be smaller buildings that would be much more conducive.
Moving over to the single family, again, I think we are also carrying a unique character
on. One of the things that we could easily do -- and we have been contacted by major
builders and I think you can probably guess some of them out there -- is they would --
they would offer to come in and take down all 48 single family lots in one -- in one
group. We could eliminate the marketing. We don't have to have any concern, we can
take it. But what that does is that you get the cookie cutter type of subdivision that you
so often see. You will get one builder in there, he will come up with maybe two, three
designs, you put them in there, you put a little bit different lipstick on one versus the
other, but they will still be basically the same house. Again, if we go back to here, on
your right-hand side or my right-hand side, it shows you the group of builders that we
are selecting. These are all quality builders, they are not large builders, but they are
builders that they are going to be building homes anywhere from 290 to 400 thousand
dollars each. The other thing that that insures for is that each one of these is going to
be building a different type of product. It's going to have a different character, a different
type of architecture quality to it, so when you go through it it's going to have that feel
and I think Commissioner Marshall talks about, you have this house for this particular
piece and this house for another one. We think that's going to be very attractive and
very appealing. So, again, we think that that's a real plus to it. Just very briefly -- well,
and, then, going through again you can see here -- you see the example of the home
and this is, again, going to reflect the quality of the homes in here, because we think
that's a real attribute. Just very briefly going -- if this will work for me -- going back
through the project here and -- just a few other points. Sonya's talked about the
landscaping. The other thing that we think that's going to be attractive for this project is
out here on Victory Road, this area right here, we are going to enter a cooperative
agreement with ACHD, we are going to improve that to three lanes, plus curb and
gutter. I have done that on our project at EI Dorado business campus where I did at
Eagle Road and I also did the same thing on Center Point, Ustick, both east and west of
Eagle Road. It's a very successful project. We worked in tandem with ACRD, but we
oversee it. That project will be completed this summer and, in fact, we are getting in the
Meridian Planning & Zoning
February 21, 2013
Page 24 of 29
process of doing it. So, we think what we have got here is a very unique project. We
think one that I think will be a real asset to the community, I think will be extremely
successful. There is just one thing that we have great concern and pause on and that is
the -- get my glasses on here so I can see -- is Article 1.2.6 in the staff report, which
staff mentioned about which is restricting this to one access point. We have been
meeting with staff since November. Sonya has been extremely understanding of all the
times I have requested to do it and all those times we have always had the two access
points here on Victory. We think there is some very compelling reasons for the two
access points and I would like to go through them just very briefly here. First -- go back
here. First, you will look at this one, if you look at this particular site plan, this is your
entrance for the apartments and this is your entrance for the single family. The distance
from Meridian Road to this entrance is approximately over 660 feet. Actually, 684 feet.
The next entrance from the apartment complex to the single family is 671 feet in the
entrance from the single family to Standing Timber is 577 feet. As a developer we love
to have access points. We would like to have them every 50 feet if we could. But
think here we are being realistic. I think there is very fair separation between all these
access points and I will get into the staff report with ACRD on the one to Standing
Timber, which doesn't quite perform to code -- or to policy, rather. But, again, we think
that this -- these are very -- very suitable separation points. Number two. As
mentioned to you -- and I don't know if you have seen the staff report, but I made sure
that Meridian got it today -- you received a draft copy of the Ada County staff report for
this. In fact, I have a copy here. This approves two access points on Victory Road. It
always has. They have never deviated from that. We entrust ACHD with the design of
our streets, monitoring our traffic, the safety. If ACHD believed that two access points
on Victory Road is suitable and meets policy for this, why shouldn't the City of Meridian
be comfortable with that. So, anyways, I don't know if you have had an opportunity to
look at that. I certainly have. Number three, as I mentioned to you, we have entered
into a cooperative agreement with ACRD for improving this road to three lanes. We
think that will enhance the safety of Victory Road also. In other words, you have got a
center turn lane and your -- both east and west lanes. In prior meetings with Meridian
they were actually the one back in the very beginning that I think suggest that we would
need to have two access points off of Victory Road and, then, interestingly in Article 4.7
of the staff report it says that the fire department requires two access points for a project
with more than 50 homes. I understand we have 48, but we also have 220 potential
apartment dwellings. Now, someone might say, well, Jonathan, you got an access point
right there. Well, yes, we do. That could be the second access point. But we have no
idea when that road is going to be constructed. You know, if next year, we hope not,
but let's say the economy goes bad, down tanks, it could be years before this is
developed. So, you're looking at one access point for 48 homes and 220 apartment
buildings. I have to believe the fire department, they have great concern about that.
Also as I read it it mentions -- Sonya mentioned about UDC 11-3A-3A. That's the one
on the access point. If I can -- I don't want to bore you with it, but I'd like to read this to
you. It says the following standards apply to any property that takes direct access to
arterial or collector where access to a local road is available the applicant shall
reconfigure the site. We don't have any local roads. We never will. Okay? Where
access to a local is not available the property owner should be required to grant cross-
Meridian Planning & Zoning
February 21, 2013
Page 25 of 29
access, ingress, egress easements to adjoining property. This standard is intended to
apply primarily to nonresidential properties, but may extend to residential property
where the use and anticipated change is nonresidential. I could stand on a stack of
Bibles right here today and tell you it's not going to change. Finally, all substitutions
must provide local street access to any use that currently takes direct access from an
arterial collector. Again, we don't have any local streets, we never will have them. So,
as I read this -- and maybe I'm reading it wrong, maybe I'm biased, I don't see where
this applies to us. So, I guess the bottom line in this -- and maybe I'm spending a lot of
time on this, but this is critical -- this is a critical item to us, because if we go back here,
even though this is a community, this project, it is critical that each one of these be --
the single family, multi-family, have their own identity as far as an entrance into the
project. The success of this project hinges on it. It's important for the city to have
successful projects. It's important for us. We are in this together. We don't gain
anything if we have a project that's not successful and neither do you. So, what I would
ask you tonight is to modify that condition. The only other question I have on here --
and it's minor -- and, then, I will finish up, is in the staff report it mentions that -- requires
that all development improvements, including sewer, fencing, micropaths and irrigation,
landscaping, shall be installed and approved prior earning a certificate of occupancy.
have no objection to any of these, except the landscaping. We want to do landscaping
as quickly as anyone, but we have run into situations -- and I have been up here before
and requested -- where you're trying to put landscaping in in January when you have
got a foot of snow on the ground. It's hard to lay sod down. So, in those particular
cases we would ask that this be an exception and that we would either bond for it or
provide a letter of credit, so we can continue to build, because this is a very sizeable
project. So, with that I would simply ask that you approve the rezone, that you do the
preliminary plat, and you make the modifications as I have requested. And I thank you
for your time. If you have any questions I would be glad to answer them.
Yearsley: Any questions? Thank you very much. Sorry.
Seal: Thank you.
Yearsley: Any questions
Rohm: Not at this point.
Yearsley: Thank you very much.
Seal: Thank you.
Yearsley: I do not have anybody signed up to testify, but is there anybody in the
audience that would like to come up and testify at this time? With that I --
Marshall: Mr. Chair?
Yearsley: -- need a motion to --
Meridian Planning & Zoning
February 21, 2013
Page 26 of 29
Marshall: I move we close the public hearing on RZ 13-002, PP 13-003. And did we
open MDA 13-002?
Freeman: Second. I did say second.
Yearsley: Okay.
Marshall: That was to close the public hearing on all three, then.
Yearsley: All right. I have got a motion and a second to close the public hearing. All in
favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Yearsley: Commissioner Marshall.
Marshall: Mr. Chair. I'd really like an opportunity to show a little different side of myself.
Yearsley: Please. Go for it.
Marshall: I'm really impressed. I like this project. I love the interconnectivity. I like the
idea that you have got these homes with different builders. I'm really impressed with the
project. You know, with the change in the future land use map here the other day, my
one concern was getting rid of some commercial and the fact that we have got
commercial on the drive home right across the street has been addressed. I like the --
and the fact that they are going forward and actually adding athird -- another lane out
there to Victory I think helps argue the case for the two access points as well. I also see
the need for the two access points for identity and for fire department. I would be a little
more hesitant if that other road were in, you know, because we have got another access
point there and maybe we could make a larger access to the subdivision from that side.
But minus that road -- that road's not there, I -- I'm all for that, to be honest, and I really,
really like the project.
Yearsley: Thank you. Any other --
Freeman: Mr. Chair?
Yearsley: Commissioner Freeman.
Freeman: You know, before you even got up and explained your sense of community,
had to say your design already said it. I would commend you for that. That is a great --
that is a great concept. We so often see single family dwellers very much against
neighboring apartment houses and I love that you're putting them right next together --
right next to each other and you're putting all the amenities on the apartment side.
There is a -- I suppose there is a solution off the top of my head -- and I haven't checked
Meridian Planning & Zoning
February 21, 2013
Page 27 of 29
this out -- to your two accesses off of Victory and that's just split your property into two
pieces, but I hate that. Don't do that, because that would compromise what it is you're
trying to do, which I think is fantastic. I like the architecture that you presented. I don't
think we can and perhaps I will be corrected here -- I don't think we can modify the
conditions to state that only -- that two accesses would be allowed. However, you have
my recommendation on the record that I think your project, in particular, demands that.
I think you stated your case well. I think your layout tells me plainly that two accesses
makes a lot of sense here. So, City Council would be making final decision on that.
think that's it from me. Hand it over to somebody else.
Yearsley: Anybody else?
Rohm: Mr. Chairman?
Yearsley: Commissioner Rohm.
Rohm: In concurrence with the two previous commissioners' comments, the two access
points I think is essential and if you were to reduce it to single access through the single
family development portion of this project all of the apartment dwellers would, then, be
going by a half a dozen lots, maybe more, to gain access back to the apartment
complex and I think that that encumbers those residents more so than the fact that we
are requesting a second access and so I think we are -- there is additional benefits to
having a second access over keeping them separate. You're just not encumbering
those residential lots to the east. End of comments.
Yearsley: Thank you. Commissioner Miller.
Miller: I think you have all the support up here. I agree also that the two entries are
critical. If you, you know, split it down the middle you're going to hurt both sides there. I
-- I look at this and I would be excited to live in either side of that development and so I
really like the development also.
Yearsley: Thank you. I actually have two questions of staff I want to clarify before we
go any further with this. The first one is with Commissioner Freeman's comment, we
cannot approve the access, we just can make recommendations to Council, is that not
correct?
Watters: That is correct, Chairman Yearsley.
Yearsley: Okay. The next one was he asked about bonding for landscaping. Is there a
provision to bond for landscaping? I know that there is a provision to bond for sewer
improvements, but I don't know if there was a provision to bond for landscaping.
Watters: Due to inclement weather conditions applicants are allowed to submit bond,
cash, or letter of credit surety.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
February 21, 2013
Page 28 of 29
Yearsley: Now, do we need to make a motion with that or can he just come in and
request that?
Watters: That's standard code.
Yearsley: Okay.
Watters: He can just come in and request it.
Yearsley: Okay. All right. I have a tendency to agree with the rest of my
commissioners that this is a great project. I was -- when I -- I talked to the staff -- or to
the staff about this earlier this morning -- or this afternoon my comment was I hope they
build the apartments first, because -- to save us a little bit of a problem, but the way you
have combined the two I don't think that that will be an issue and especially where
you're going to be marketing the amenities in the apartments to the homeowners, I think
that ties it all together and I'm very pleased with that. I think that's a nice amenity with
that subdivision. So, I'm very happy with the way this is going and I do agree that the
two accesses are -- is necessary.
Freeman: Mr. Chair, I would love to make a motion on this, but I would like
Commissioner Marshall to have the opportunity to make a motion on a project that he
really likes.
Marshall: I like that.
Yearsley: All right.
Marshall: Thank you.
Freeman: You're welcome.
Marshall: Mr. Chair, after considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move
to recommend approval of file numbers RZ 13-002 and PP 13-003 as presented in the
staff report for the hearing date of February 21st, 2013, with no modifications, but to add
in, essentially, a recommendation to City Council that both accesses be approved.
Freeman: I will second that.
Yearsley: I have a motion and a second for public hearing RZ 13-002 and PP 13-003.
All in favor say aye. All opposed? Motion carries. Thank you very much.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Yearsley: With that I have one last motion to be made.
Miller: Yeah. A motion to adjourn.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
February 21, 2013
Page 29 of 29
Rohm: Second.
Yearsley: Motion to adjourn. All in favor? Opposed. Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
MEETING ADJOURNED AT 8:26 P.M.
(AUDIO RECORDING ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS.)
APPROVED ~ ;,
. ~~ r _ /:
STEVEN YEARSLEY -CHAIRMAN =''
ATTEST:
~~.
JAY EE HOLMAN, CITY CLERK
~~ ~ ~ ~ pJ~
DATE APPROVED
O~O~,~ED AUCUSrt
1
`2G ~~+
City of
~E IDl~ IAN~-
r ~ TIDANO
~~s S r.h ~ . ~
PST 6• °~ t I t T YE S.S~~~~~~.
Meridian Planning Zoning Commission Meeting
DATE: February 21., 2013 ITEM NUMBER: 3A
PROJECT NUMBER:
ITEM TITLE:
Approve Minutes of February 7, 2013 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
MEETING NOTES
~-pp~ ~e~
.~~~5~
sv
CLERKS OFFICE FINAL ACTION
DATE: E-MAILED TO
STAFF SENT TO
AGENCY SENT TO
APPLICANT NOTES INITIALS
Meridia Planning Zoning Commission Meeting
DATE: February , 2013 ITEM NUMBER: 4A
PROJECT NUMBER: PP 12-019
ITEM TITLE: Rushmore
Public Hearing continued from 2/7/13: Preliminary Plat approvla of three buildable lots
and two common lots on 2.17 acres in an existing R-15 zone by Tealey's Land Surveying -
s/o W. Pine Avenue and w/o W. Broadway Avenue
MEETING NOTES
A-ppwv~ -I-o c1C
~+ -~~ G~
3~'~~ ~3
CLERKS OFFICE FINAL ACTION
DATE: E-MAILED TO
STAFF SENT TO
AGENCY SENT TO
APPLICANT NOTES INITIALS
Meridian Planning Zoning Commission Meeting
DATE: February, 2013
ITEM NUMBER:
PROJECT NUMBER: CUP 12-014
ITEM TITLE: Rushmore
Public Hearing continued from 2/7/13: Conditional Use Permit approval for amulti-family
development consisting of (3) 8-plex structures (24 dwelling units) in a proposed R-15
zoning district by Tealey's Land Surveying - s/o W. Pine Avenue and w/o W. Broadway
Avenue
MEETING NOTES
#~b vaQ -~a ~I `~
~,~-- ~~ ~1~ 3 f~ ~~ ~ 3
CLERKS OFFICE FINAL ACTION
DATE: E-MAILED TO
STAFF SENT TO
AGENCY SENT TO
APPLICANT NOTES INITIALS
Meridian Planning Zoning Commission Meeting
DATE: February 21, 2013 ITEM NUMBER: 4C
PROJECT NUMBER: RZ 13-001
ITEM TITLE: Legacy Church
Public Hearing: Rezone of approximately 3.95 acres of land from the R-4 (Medium-low
Density Residential District) zoning district to the O-T (Old Town District) zoning district by
Legacy Church -south of W. Cherry Lane, between east NW 1st Street and N. Meridian
Road and north of W. Maple Avenue
MEETING NOTES
12~.e- ~p~vv~ -fv ~) ~
~~'~vn2
3 ~~ ji3 S-C~
~- ~'r C~C
CLERKS OFFICE FINAL ACT10N
DATE: E-MAILED TO
STAFF SENT TO
AGENCY SENT TO
APPLICANT NOTES INITIALS
Meridian Planning Zoning Commission Meeting
DATE: February 21, 2013 ITEM NUMBER: 4D
PROJECT NUMBER: PP 12-018
ITEM TITLE: Irvine
Public Hearing: Preliminary Plat approval consisting of 145 residential lots and 12 common
lots on approximately 38.5 acres in an existing R-8 zone by Northside Management -SEC
of W. Chinden Boulevard and N. Ten Mile Road
MEETING NOTES
12ee A~pro /a-P -~ ~-I ~
sF~h-,m
~~ -Fov ~I~ 3~6~ 13 ~- /
CLERKS OFFICE FINAL ACTION
DATE: E-MAILED TO
STAFF SENT TO
AGENCY SENT TO
APPLICANT NOTES INITIALS
Meridian Planning Zoning Commission Meeting
DATE: February 21, 2013
ITEM NUMBER: 4E
PROJECT NUMBER: RZ 13-002
ITEM TITLE: Red Wing Subdivision
Public Hearing: Rezone of 32.87 acres of land from the C-N and TN_C zoning districts to
the R-4 (16.55 acres) and R-15 (16.32 acres) zoning districts by WH Moore Company -SEC
of S. Meridian Road (SH 69) and E. Victory Road
MEETING NOTES
~cornmevw~ ~~Ua-~ --fv ~/C-
Sew ;6v ~C 3zt h -i 3
s~,~s~-
~-b
CLERKS OFFICE FINAL ACTION
DATE: E-MAILED TO
STAFF SENT TO
AGENCY SENT TO
APPLICANT NOTES INITIALS
Meridian Planning Zoning Commission Meeting
DATE: February 21, 2013 ITEM NUMBER: 4F
PROJECT NUMBER: PP 13-003
ITEM TITLE: Red Wing Subdivision
Public Hearing: Preliminary Plat consistig of 48 single family residential building lots; 1 multi-
family reisdential lot; and 9 common/open space lots by WH Moore Co. -SEC of S.
Meridian Road (SH 69) and E. Victory Road
MEETING NOTES
12ec o mrn~t~ f1p pro va.Q --lo c~C
h~/sF
sue- ~~ ~c ~ ~ ~ -~ ~
~o
CLERKS OFFICE FINAL ACTION
DATE: E-MAILED TO
STAFF SENT TO
AGENCY SENT TO
APPLICANT NOTES INITIALS