Minutes for 6/20 Jacks PlaceMeridian Planning & Zoning
June 20, 2013
Page 2 of 34
B. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: CUP
13-005 Red Tail Communities by W.H. Moore Company
Located Southeast Corner of E. Victory Road and S. Meridian
Road (SH 69) Request: Conditional Use Permit Approval for a
Multi-Family Development Consisting of 220 Residential Units
in an R-15 Zoning District
Yearsley: The next item on the agenda is the Consent Agenda. We have got two items
on there today. The first one is the approval of the minutes of June 6, 2013, Planning
and Zoning Commission meeting and, then, the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of
Law of approval for CUP 13-005, Redtail Communities. Can I get a motion to adopt the
Consent Agenda.
Freeman: Move to adopt --
Yearsley: Or approve the Consent Agenda. Sorry.
Freeman: Mr. Chair, I move to adopt the Consent Agenda.
Marshall: I will second that.
Yearsley: I have a motion and a second to approve the Consent Agenda. All in favor
say aye. Opposed? Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Yearsley: Before we start the next couple items I kind of want to explain the public
hearing process. We are going to open each item one at a time. The staff is going to
start basically giving their staff report and telling how the project adheres to the
Comprehensive Plan and the Uniform Development Code with staff recommendations.
At that time when they are done the applicant will have an opportunity to come forward
to present their case for approval. The applicant will be given up to 15 minutes to
present. After that we will open the meeting to public testimony. There is a sign-up
sheet in the back for anyone wishing to testify regarding the project. Any person
wishing to testify will be allowed three minutes. If they are speaking for a larger group, if
there is a show of hands, they will be given up to ten minutes. After all testimony has
been heard the applicant will have an opportunity to respond if desired for another ten
minutes and, then, we will close the public hearing and the Commission will have an
opportunity to discuss and deliberate and, hopefully, make a decision for City Council.
Item 4: Action Items
A. Public Hearing: AZ 13-006 Jack's Place Subdivision by Jack's
and Jesse Place, LLC Located East Side of S. Meridian Road,
Approximately 1/4 Mile North of E. Victory Road Request:
Annexation of 5.34 Acres from RUT in Ada County to the L-O
Meridian Planning & Zoning
June 20, 2013
Page 3 of 34
(Limited Office) (1.71 Acres) and R-8 (Medium-Density
Residential) (3.63 Acres) Zoning Districts
B. Public Hearing: PP 13-010 Jack's Place Subdivision by Jack's
and Jesse Place, LLC Located East Side of S. Meridian Road,
Approximately 1/4 Mile North of E. Victory Road Request:
Preliminary Plat Approval Consisting of Three (3) Office Lots,
Twenty (20) Residential Lots and Three (3) Common Lots on
Approximately 4.52 Acres in the Proposed L-O and R-8 Zoning
Districts
Yearsley: So, with that I would like to open public hearing AZ 13-006 and PP 13-010,
Jack's Place Subdivision, and let's start with the staff report.
Parsons: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. First item on the
agenda tonight is Jack's Place Subdivision. It's located on the east side of South
Meridian Road, approximately a quarter mile north of East Victory Road. In 2000 -- or
2012 the Planning and Zoning Commission of the city approved a Comprehensive Plan
map amendment for this site. It changed the land use designation from low density
residential to office and medium density residential. That time -- at that time it was
discussed -- they had a concept plan that showed a small office park and a pretty small
scale residential development. Again at that time it was a conceptual plan and nothing
came forward or concurrent with that application. The applicant is here tonight to
discuss a -- again, a small office park and a 20 lot residential subdivision. To the north
of this site we have an animal vet clinic and Larkspur Subdivision No. 5, which is
currently zoned L-O and R-8. To the east we have Larkspur Subdivision No. 4, which is
zoned R-8. To the south we have partially developed commercial property, zoned C-G
and a residential subdivision, zoned R-4 and, then, to the west we have Meridian Road,
State Highway 69, and a church facility, zoned C-G. As you can see here there are
three office lots that front along Eagle -- or, excuse me, Meridian Road. This was
mostly predicated on providing a buffer for those residential uses that are more internal
to the site. At the time that the comp plan amendment came before you everyone -- the
city felt that was the appropriate designation to provide that buffer, not only for the
residential use that was planned for this portion of the property, but also with the
residential -- or the commercial property that was zoned at the south boundary as well.
The applicant is proposing the L-O zone and the R-8 zoning designations before you
this evening with their annexation request. That requested zoning is consistent with the
land use changes that were approved a few months ago. All the lot sizes do comport to
the R-8 dimensional standards. I would mention to you that the L-O zone does not have
a minimum lot size that you see here, so, really, the only requirement for those lots
come in the form of landscape buffers, which require a 35 foot landscape buffer along
Meridian Road, ten feet along the local streets and then, basically, a land use buffer
buffering the office zoned lots from the residential lots. With this subdivision the
applicant will be extending a stub sheet that was stubbed at the east boundary with
Larkspur Subdivision No. 4. That will extend it through -- turn that 90 degrees and head
north and tie into an existing public street, East Edmonds Drive. This is currently a
Meridian Planning & Zoning
June 20, 2013
Page 4 of 34
public street that was created with the county subdivision, I don't know, sometime in the
'80s. That will be improved to city standards as well. As you can see there will be
sidewalks along that south boundary extended through the site. One of the issues with
development and one of the items we need to raise tonight is really the requirement --
or the site is impacted with a large irrigation facility on it. Currently that facility would --
would run through these common lots here, turn west, and, then, head along the south
boundary and, then, ultimately go along that residential sub that was platted back in
2006. In our staff report we had some concerns about the maintenance of that
easement, how that would impact the building footprint of these lots, who would be
responsible for the maintenance road. I would make Commission aware that we have
not received any comments from the irrigation district on this application. In working
with the applicant on these issues he has informed me that he has met with the
irrigation district and they have specified the requirements of what they would allow
within that 55 foot easement. If you look here on this exhibit that the applicant has
prepared for you this evening you can see that the proposed home plans that are
provided and that I will present to you later on, they do fit within the footprint of that
envelope that's depicted on this exhibit as well. But I think that hatch line there
represents basically the impact of that easement. It is staffs understanding that the
irrigation district will allow, through a license agreement, the use of that -- a partial use
of that easement. However, because they need -- because this is a large facility, they
are requiring that an 18 foot wide access --gravel access road be provided through the
common lots and run along that south boundary as well and that would give them
access to that pipe ditch. Currently the Trinity Lateral, which runs along this boundary,
is -- is piped along the southern boundary. The applicant is proposing to pipe this
portion with this application, so it will be enclosed, which is, typically, a safer facility for
-- for a residential subdivision. However, staff has concerns with how the esthetics of
how that would look for those homes. Staff has concerns about having the future
owners of those lots having the burden of maintaining a large easement on their
property and paying taxes on property they can't use or enhance or landscape and
that's why we raise it as an issue for you this evening. I believe in the staff report we
are recommending that Commission require a common lot along that southern
boundary to encapsulate the proposed 18 foot gravel driveway. At least that way if it's
held in common ownership there could be a note placed on the final plat that spells out
who can maintain and own that common lot and that would certainly address some of
those concerns. Because this lot is under five acres in size there really are no open
space provisions required by the UDC. However, given the impact of this facility and
the amount of open space that is generated because of that easement, staff has
recommended that a micropath be extended through these common lots and if the
Commission stands with staff's recommendation in regards to the common lot here, we
are requiring that a five foot micropath pathway run all along the south boundary to the
office portion of the development and ultimately into the ten foot pathway that is
required along Meridian Road here, which would ultimately provide connectivity to the
commercial development to the south. Here are the elevations that the applicant is
proposing this evening. Again, these homes are designed to fit within that footprint that
described to you. The office portions of the development will have stucco, stone
wainscoting, trim relief and modulation, roof forms and articulated wall plains. Staff has
Meridian Planning & Zoning
June 20, 2013
Page 5 of 34
recommended a provision in the DA of compliance with both of these separate
elevations with future development of the subdivision. I would mention to you that you
did receive written testimony from the applicant that kind of explains his situation of why
he feels it's better not to allow the common lot to happen on the south boundary. I
would -- what I failed to mention to you is if there is a common lot required as
recommended by staff, that would change the configuration and the lot sizes along that
boundary. If a common lot were to be platted there it's more than likely the plat would
have to be redesigned and the lots reconfigured in order to meet the R-8 dimensional
standards. So, please, take a moment, look at the applicant's response. Again, staff is
recommending approval to you this evening. I think these issues could be worked out.
Really, the outstanding issue is really what is the irrigation district going to allow for
those residential lots in the future. Staff is recommending approval and I would stand
for any questions Commission may have.
Yearsley: Thank you. Are there any questions?
Freeman: I have maybe one or two. Bill, could you go back to the plan. So, if
understand right, to the south of those homes -- along the south there is going to have
to be an 18 foot gravel driveway for access, plus we are recommending a five foot
micropath. I'm wondering how much room there is actually going to be left there behind
those homes and I can't envision what that's going to look like or how it's going to work
for backyards or privacy or maintenance. I guess what I'm asking you to confirm is we
are going to have an 18 foot gravel access road for irrigation, plus a five foot micropath
back there, whether it's common lot or private lots?
Parsons: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Freeman, you stated that correctly. We are --
although the irrigation district wants an 18 foot gravel road, we have recommended a 20
foot wide common lot. So, basically, you have 20 foot of landscaping, the five foot
micropath could be centered within that 18 foot access road and that way if there was
any heavy equipment or anything needed to get back there it wouldn't damage that
pathway. However, in the applicant's response to you, as I mentioned, they have met
with the irrigation district. It is their desire not to have a pathway behind homes. They
don't want anything within that access road. They merely want their access to remain
open, because of the size of the facility, they go there -- go through there very
frequently to make sure everything is operating correctly. So, they -- they need that to
be -- not have pedestrians back there getting in the way. It's a safety concern for the
irrigation district.
Freeman: Two more questions. How much distance is there between the footprints of
those proposed buildings and the property line, approximately? Thirty feet?
Parsons: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. It varies. If you look at the
exhibit, when the irrigation district went in there and piped the canal you could see they
didn't do it parallel to the -- to the lot lines and so from --from this pipe to this boundary
believe -- or from the south boundary to this line I believe is 36 feet on the plat. Maybe
the applicant could testify that, but you can see it's -- Mr. Chatterton has told me it
Meridian Planning & Zoning
June 20, 2013
Page 6 of 34
varies from 38 feet to 26 feet along that boundary there.
Freeman: Okay. And the last question for you, Bill. When that pipe extends to the
west it ends. Where does it go from there?
Parsons: Mr. -- Commissioner Freeman, are you speaking from this point on?
Freeman: Yes.
Parsons: It actually -- it turns at this point and, then, runs along this subdivision
boundary.
Freeman: Okay. Thank you. That's all.
Yearsley: Any other questions? At this time would the applicant like to come forward.
Please state your name and address for the record.
Yearsley: Which one do I talk into? I will choose this one. My name is Dave Yorgason.
I'm with Tall Timber Consulting. I'm representing the applicant here tonight, who is
Jack's and Jesse Place, LLC, as well as the owner Jack Bartlett. My address is 14254
West Battenburg Drive in Boise, Idaho. Can I proceed?
Yearsley: Absolutely.
Yorgason: Thank you. We appreciate the -- all the effort and the time in which we have
worked with staff through this process. As staff has clearly articulated, this is not an
easy tiny little site, which has many many challenges. We have pushed and pulled and
tried to find a solution. As has been stated and I will even point to the illustration on the
screen here, we are bound by developments around us. We have Edmunds Street on
our north bounty, we have an existing stub street for the existing development of a
phase of Larkspur West on our east boundary. On the south boundary, which is a few
different things going on there. There is an existing fence along our south boundary
common to the development behind us. An interesting aspect of that fence is it runs
through that irrigation easement, in conflict with the existing agreement with Nampa-
Meridian Irrigation District. I don't know how it happened, we just know it exists today
and it is a problem. But the problem is upon us to try to solve as far as access for the
Nampa-Meridian Irrigation District. They have required an 18 foot wide access- way.
spoke to Greg Curtis yesterday and we apologize that we didn't get anything in writing
to you. He's been out of town for at least a week at some conference training and in a
board meeting again tonight -- or today all day. But what he shared with me yesterday
when I spoke with him is that that access way is traveled at least once, if not twice a day
by their trucks. They do travel along this county lateral very frequently. They do not
have any interest in having -- whether it's kids on bikes or moms pushing strollers or
joggers or whatever it may be, they have no interest in a pedestrian pathway in their
access easement area. So, they would not allow that. Rather than going back and
explaining the whole history of the project, I just would acknowledge what staff has said
Meridian Planning & Zoning
June 20, 2013
Page 7 of 34
and I will just try to be a little more brief to the remaining items on concern that we have
in the staff report. I guess I will ask the question. Did you receive the couple pages of
-- that are -- that went through the different bullet points and suggested changes to the
staff report? If you did I will refer to them here in just a minute. If not I can provide you
with copies as well.
Yearsley: Can I get a copy as well?
Yorgason: Sure. Maybe a couple extras that we got -- I think staff has it, but we can
get you copies as well. In reference to the staff report, we, first of all, appreciate again
staffs efforts for this. In looking at the Ada County Highway District's portion of the staff
report we have no comments. We agree with all the conditions from the Ada County
Highway District. Regarding the conditions from the staff report, we'd like to start with
page 21, which is Exhibit B. There are -- and this really boils down to three items, but
it's kind of restated in a couple of places in the staff report. The times refer to cross-
access and, then, landscaping improvements or other improvements in the landscaping
-- excuse me -- in the easement for the irrigation district, as well as a common
easement versus a common lot. So, I will address those three items. In the staff report
on page 21, letter -- excuse me -- 1.1.1, letter D, refers to the cross-access. We have
two or three reasons why we -- we requested a portion of this condition be changed or
deleted. The topography. Along the south boundary of the site, as you look from south
to north, there is approximately a six to eight foot change in .elevation as you -- across
that short distance and much of that slope change is actually in the first hundred feet
and, then, it flattens out fairly quickly for the balance of the site. As you're going from
the -- if you can point for me, Bill -- Lot 9, the southwestern corner of the residential
area, between Lot 9 and 10 there and sloping to the west towards Meridian Road, that's
even steeper. That area there is about a ten percent slope and it's pretty consistent all
the way down to Meridian Road, that slope area. Trying to physically -- I don't know if
it's even physically feasible to put an access road through there. Certainly we know it is
not feasible between Lots 9 and 10. There may be a slightly softer slope over there on
the western side against Meridian Road between that berm and the commercial building
there. However, that raises another concern is even if it is engineering wise easier to
build, that would take out at least three of our parking stalls and about a third of our
building pad. I'm not sure it's very marketable. That building pad may not even be -- be
the right size for us to try to build something through there. So, that's another concern
in trying to provide cross-access is the hardship or the burden that is upon that lot. The
last thing if the southern lot -- excuse me -- the parcel to the south of this lot and --
already has access. Access is not needed for it to function. It's been something that
was just stated in kind of a last minute discussion with staff and we recognize that
Council had some discussion on this regarding the cross-access way back when this --
six months or so ago when the Comprehensive Plan map was changed. Again, there
was also recognition, because the topography and other challenges -- we again ask that
this portion of the conditions be changed. We do believe, of course, that we should
have cross-access within the commercial lots, but we ask that that portion be deleted.
will refer to two other items. The common area improvements, as identified in Letter E
of the development -- sure. I will stand for questions. Sure.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
June 20, 2013
Page 8 of 34
Marshall: Just a real quick question while we are going here. I'm sorry, I apologize, Mr.
Chair, if I can. You were saying that -- I'm sorry, my plat here is a little too small to read.
So, I'm assuming that the tilt of the elevation slops from south down to the north? The
high point is on the south end.
Yorgason: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Marshall, that is correct. The high side is the
southside, so the site slopes to the north and down to the west to Meridian Road.
Marshall: Thank you.
Yorgason: Were there any other questions?
Marshall: It just -- it allows me to keep up with you now.
Yorgason: That's fine. Thank you for the question. Letter E, the first -- the
improvements within the common area, Lot 3, Block 2 and Lot 2, Block 1, the irrigation
district will require us as we said before, a gravel access area through there. We just
ask for a couple things there. One refers to the allowance of gravel access. As the
condition reads it does not allow for that, which will be required by the irrigation district.
And, second, is the requirement for a pedestrian pathway. Again, we don't -- and will
point to another -- another point here in just a minute, but that pathway will not go
through to anywhere and it won't be very functionally feasible. So, referring to that
second page of notes, we ask for a change that we -- excluding the gravel access road
within the said common lots, that the landscaping will comply with the staffs condition
there of lawn and a mix of shrubs and vegetative cover in those two common lots. We
do ask and request that you delete the next sentence referring to a five foot wide
common area asphalt pathway. Along the south boundary of these lots were several
requests by the staff report. It talks about the 20 foot wide common lot or an agreement
with the irrigation district to landscape across the -- and pipe across -- fence across the
pipes. The irrigation district will not allow fencing across the pipe, first of all. Second of
all, the 20 foot wide access -- call it 20 foot wide common lot -- is actually not even wide
enough as we get further to the west behind lots six, seven, eight and nine, along that
southern area, because of the diagonal installation of that pipe. It may work for a
couple of lots, Lots 3 and 4, but it would not work for five through nine. So, actually, the
area will have to be slightly larger to accommodate the irrigation district. Putting in a
common area lot, as opposed to an easement through there for access and
maintenance, that changes the setback requirements of the houses. Setbacks -- rear
setbacks are based on property line and so because of that we are forced smaller
houses or more additional configuration, which we have already pushed and pulled feet
and inches that I have shared with staff trying to find a solution to adequate building
pads for these sites. The lots are not a hundred feet deep through there, especially on
the north side, those two boundary lots there. And so that's another reason why that
would not work. We have already stated the irrigation district does not want
landscaping or a pathway through their easement to interfere with their daily
maintenance and also on the back of Lot 10, Block 1, because of the steep slope we
Meridian Planning & Zoning
June 20, 2013
Page 9 of 34
don't think it would meet ADA requirements to have a pathway through, as well as I
don't believe it's safe to have aslope -- sloping pathway for kids on bikes or
skateboards as you're headed towards the state highway to have a pathway headed out
to towards the highway. So, again, that's -- these are all reasons why we think that
condition should be deleted. However, we recognize and agree with staff that we
should impose some restrictions for weed control and maintenance to insure that it's not
a burden or a nuisance for the community, as well as for individual lot owners. One of
the developments that I have done is for Castlebury West Subdivision located on
Chinden and Meridian Road. The landscape berm on the frontage of Chinden is
entirely in an easement. It's not in a common lot. There is an irrigation line that runs
through there for access for the irrigation facilities as well and for several years that has
worked just fine to insure the individual lot owners don't have the burden of the
responsibility for maintenance, but the access and maintenance is clearly defined both
in the plat, as well as in the CC&Rs to insure that -- that the homeowners association
takes primary responsibility for those things. We think that can work here also. It's not
maybe a good application in all cases, but because of the nature of what we are faced
with with these tight restrictions, we ask for your consideration of a common area
access easement -- just call it a common easement area and we have referred to that in
our conditions here. The last thing I will state is in the Section 1.2.1 there are a couple
of bullets that refer to the same items that are in the development agreement. The first
bullet refers to the access. We ask that the same change be made to that condition.
The second bullet refers to the access easement area versus common lot, which I have
just referred to and asked for the same change be made there in that condition. In the
landscape plan section of the -- of the staff report, section 1.2.3, the fifth bullet refers to
the landscape requirements within the easement and, then, the last bullet is the seventh
bullet -- that last bullet of requested change and, again, we ask that that be deleted, so
we don't have those requirements along the south boundary. We recognize there is
kind of a lot to digest and shoot through. We also recognize that we have restrictions
put upon us by the irrigation district that we have to follow. We also recognize that we
want this to look right for the city, for the neighbors, and for the future neighbors that live
here as well. We want this to work for builders to have adequate building pads, so we
can have marketable lots. And so as we have pushed and pulled and looked at all the
different restrictions on this site, we think that what we have proposed with these
requested changes will work for us and will work for the future. Those are my
comments tonight. We request your approval for our application as submitted with the
staff report and the requested changes as I presented tonight. I will stand for any other
questions you may have.
Yearsley: Are there any questions?
Marshall: Mr. Chairman?
Yearsley: Commissioner Marshall.
Marshall: I do. So, you're saying -- go back over that. Help me understand that
common access easement. Who is going to be taking care of that property now? The
Meridian Planning & Zoning
June 20, 2013
Page 10 of 34
homeowner takes care of the common lots -- actually, the common lots, that's to be
maintained by the homeowners association. But this easement across the back, who is
supposed to be maintaining that?
Yorgason: Chairman Yearsley and Commissioner Marshall, maybe I could answer it
with two answers, if that's okay. The short answer is the homeowners association, not
the individual homeowner, but the Jack's Place homeowner association will be
responsible to maintain that common area easement, which is on the south boundary
up to a distance of where the fence would be. The second answer I want to give you,
which was not here on your exhibit, but it is presented to you and I just gave you a copy
tonight and the reason why it's not in the packet, not in the presentation here, because it
was based on a conversation I had at the end of the day yesterday with the irrigation
district and this is whether a fence would be allowed within the easement area. The
irrigation district has said that they will allow a fence ten feet -- within ten feet of the
pipeline, but no closer than ten feet to the pipeline. The exhibit I presented to you
shows that fence location to be ten feet from the pipeline. The -- here it is not. So, I'm
sorry I didn't have that available for you until just now.
Marshall: Are you showing this -- the pipeline as the -- how large a pipe are we
referring to? Forty-eight inch? Seventy-two inch?
Yorgason: Forty-eight.
Marshall: Forty-eight inch. So, are we running from center line of the pipeline?
Yorgason: Yes.
Marshall: And are they saying ten foot from the center line --
Yorgason: Yes.
Marshall: -- or ten foot from the outer edge?
Yorgason: They said ten foot from center.
Marshall: From center line. Okay. And so -- so when I look at those last lots there,
seven, eight, nine -- those lots -- how far is that fence from the back of the building pad?
Yorgason: Mr. Chairman and Commissioner Marshall, that's exactly what we have
been looking at. That's exactly the problem we are having. The tightest restriction
would be on Lots 7, 8 and 9. For clarification, just to help a little on dimensions, the
easement for the Nampa Irrigation District is 20 feet north of the pipe. The fence is ten
feet north of the pipe. So, you can see it's at least ten feet from the fence to the back --
the maximum building envelope -- that doesn't mean the home is necessarily being built
all the way to the corner, but the maximum would be -- would create a minimum,
guess, of ten feet, but our vision would be a 12 foot backyard for these houses back
there. The houses that we have presented to you in the presentation packet -- and
Meridian Planning & Zoning
June 20, 2013
Page 11 of 34
can show -- I have some exhibits, just a little bigger renderings, if you would like to see
them -- fit those two -- both the single level and the two stories fit in the building
envelopes that we are showing in this exhibit to you and so with these houses you
would have approximately -- at least ten -- it would be more likely a 12 or more foot
deep backyard. As I understand, that's what is allowed within the R-8 zone is a 12 foot
rear yard setback. So, it would be the same as if it was normally within a 12 -- excuse
me -- within an R-8 zone. The challenge, as staff has clearly articulated that, is if we
have a common lot, as opposed to a common area easement through there, that forces
these lots to be less than 5,000 square feet and less than 5,000 square feet, as staff
has explained to me, you can have lots as little as 4,000, however, the lots will have a
shared access -- shared driveway off of -- in this case off Whitehall Street. When you
do a shared driveway you typically need a little more room for the car to backup before
he can turn to hit the diagonal, if you will, the shared portion of the common lot. We
think functionally and everything will look that same, just creating it as common lot
easements, therefore, the lots can stay greater than 5,000 square feet. Therefore, they
can have the regular garage, regular driveway backup out of their house. So, that's
another reason why -- a critical reason why an easement is important to us, as opposed
to a common lot line.
Yearsley: But, yet, also the homeowner will have to pay property taxes on 20 some feet
of property that he cannot use; is that not correct?
Yorgason: Mr. Chairman, that is correct. I can probably envision a lot of easements
throughout the valley where the people have easements in their backyard you can't use
-- whether you can't use it exactly on how you would like or at all. We certainly know
the irrigation easements are very common throughout the valley. You're not supposed
to put sheds or trees or those kinds of things over top. In this instance we are trying to
avoid the problem by trying to put some definitions and parameters around this, all of
which will be in the license agreement with the irrigation district as well and, again, in
the CC&Rs and a note on the plat referencing so we can have clarity to the buyers as
they move there.
Freeman: Mr. Chair, I have one question, too. I want to make sure I understand again
-- the fence line -- I see that in the drawing you provided here. Ten feet off of center
line of the pipe. That fence line is going to encroach in an 18 foot gravel driveway --
access driveway; right? Have you discussed that with the irrigation district? Maybe I
missed it.
Yorgason: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Freeman, actually, that would not be correct.
There is more than 18 feet in between the south boundary of the property and the ten
foot fence. So, the 18 foot access road will be between the south fence and the
proposed fence.
Freeman: Even at Lot 3? There is 18 feet there?
Yorgason: Yes, there is.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
June 20, 2013
Page 12 of 34
Freeman: Okay.
Yorgason: Pretty right at --
Freeman: Thank you. That clarifies that.
Yorgason: Thank you.
Miller: Mr. Chair? Got a quick question for you. Am I understanding right like these
seven lots can't have trees in their backyard on that south side there? It's still in that
irrigation district, so they just don't get any landscaping or anything?
Yorgason: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Miller, trees, shrubs and, really, they don't
even want grass along the 18 foot grassway, because -- excuse me -- 18 foot access
way, because the equipment is driving there daily. On the other side of the fence in that
additional fenced in -- if that's what you're referring to in their backyard, they would be
allowed to have landscaping in there.
Miller: Okay.
Yorgason: Maybe not big sheds, but they can have some landscaping, yes.
Miller: Okay.
Marshall: So, you're saying the irrigation district has said it's okay to actually plant trees
within their easement? Because I have never heard of them doing that before.
Yorgason: They don't like them over the pipeline. There are certain species of
landscape that do well, as long as the trees are not in the drip line of the -- of the pipe.
Freeman: And, Mr. Chair, one more question.
Yearsley: Absolutely.
Freeman: I just have to. Could you, please, explain -- I understand you have got a tight
site. That's apparent. And one of my first impressions just looking at is, my goodness,
that Whitehall Street needs to move north a little bit and the other lots need to be
shortened. Could you talk to me a little bit about that option?
Yorgason: Certainly, Mr. Chairman and Commissioner Freeman. We looked at that.
Maybe if I could back up one step. As staff knows, we have had several conversations
-- not only with them, but it's more of communication with the irrigation district as well,
and we actually had -- I guess I would call it a misunderstanding with the irrigation
district, because they told us there would be an 18 foot access way through there, so
we had the impression that we could have a fence 18 feet away and they came back
Meridian Planning & Zoning
June 20, 2013
Page 13 of 34
later very recently and said, no, the fence has to be ten feet away from the pipe, in
addition to an 18 foot access way. So, the proposed -- the plat that we presented to the
staff and to you for tonight for your consideration, considered the 18 foot access way,
only not -- the additional burden is the fence further into those lots. We have taken a
look, we have pushed and pulled and, again, we want to make sure that we have
adequate site building envelopes. Over here on the eastern boundary where the stub
street comes in we are fixed there, because the road is already built. There is really not
much we can do until we cross the common lot. The other lots we have looked at and
we actually do plan on anticipating pushing the street a couple of feet -- we really feel
like 90 feet is the minimum we can have for marketable lots for this development. So, if
lots are at 93 and 95 or 92 and -- or whatever, maybe there is -- I don't have that right in
front of me, I'm sorry, but I think it was 95 and 90 would be the most. I mean there is
five feet we can move the road, to answer your question, but we cannot move it more
than five feet. And by doing that we would still not have these lots, because a common
lot, which is a common area easement, these lots are still less than 5,000 square feet.
Freeman: Do you have concern about the marketability of a ten foot backyard for these
smaller lots?
Yorgason: Again, we believe it would be closer to 12 and, no, because that's actually
standard setback in an R-8 zone.
Freeman: Okay. I think I'm out of questions.
Yearsley: All right. Is there any other questions? Thank you very much.
Yorgason: Thank you again.
Yearsley: I do have a Dave Turner signed up. Would you like to testify? Okay. Would
anybody else like to testify on this subject? With that can I get a motion to close the
public hearing. I guess we have no more -- before we do that, is there anymore
comments of the applicant, since there was no public testimony?
Freeman: I don't think so. Somebody is raising their hand in the audience.
Yearsley: Oh. Oh, sorry. I didn't see you. Please come forward and state your name
and address for the record, please.
Brown: For the record my name is Kent Brown. 3161 Springwood in Meridian, Idaho.
We live across from St. Luke's Meridian. I was just going to give examples of other
situations like Mr. Yorgason spoke to where you have an easement and it's part of your
property. Our subdivision was there way before Eagle Road went through and changed
from a two lane road to the road that it is today and the traffic that's there and so when
that went in the homeowners association actually built the berm and, then, two houses
went in behind that, but the berm is built on an easement similar to what Mr. Yorgason
spoke about on Chinden for the Castlebury Subdivision. Those people own it. They
Meridian Planning & Zoning
June 20, 2013
Page 14 of 34
pay taxes on it. But the HOA waters it, maintains the trees and takes care of it and the
city of Nampa for years -- and mostly the -- most of Nampa's area is Nampa-Meridian
Irrigation District. There is many subdivisions that are similar to the condition that Mr.
Yorgason has talked about. The only criteria that Nampa put in place was that they
have a gate. If they own it, they should be able to go back there and, then, that was the
only scenario and usually those were to open ditches and this isn't to an open ditch and
I just thought I would give you an example of some other areas where they have done
this.
Yearsley: Thank you. Are there any other questions or anyone like to provide
comment? Any rebut from that comment at this point?
Yorgason: Mr. Chairman, Dave Yorgason for the record. I do not have any further
comments, I'm just available for any other questions you may have.
Yearsley: All right. I guess really quickly before you go, are there any other questions
before we close the public hearing? All right. Thank you very much.
Yorgason: Thank you.
Freeman: Mr. Chair, I move that we close the public hearing for AZ 13-006 and PP 13-
010, Jack's Place.
Miller: I second that.
Yearsley: I have a motion and a second to close the public hearing for AZ 13-006 and
PP 13-010, Jack's Place. All in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Yearsley: Who would like to go first?
Freeman: I don't know if I have questions first or comments first. I think I -- I think I still
have some questions of staff --
Yearsley: Okay.
Freeman: -- if I could. It's obvious to us all that this is a really tight site and there are
challenges. My question of staff is -- there are so many requests to change some of
your recommendations. Some of them make more sense than others. One, I'm not
sure what the impacts are, so I want to hear your opinion about this and that is
elimination of this cross-access through -- I believe it's Lot 10 to the south, to make this
little area all connectable. Can you shed more light on staff's concerns there, if that is
infeasible or as difficult for the applicant as they are stating, what are the impacts of not
putting that in there?
Meridian Planning & Zoning
June 20, 2013
Page 15 of 34
Parsons: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, Commissioner Freeman, I
apologize I didn't bring that up in the staff report, because I certainly wanted to hit on
that issue. About four months ago when this comp plan amendment came forward
Council had some concerns that that is a partially developed property with an access to
Meridian Road. Council has a very long-term memory and they remember some
restrictions on that property and so at that time I didn't have sufficient enough answers
to address all of their concerns. So, after that hearing I went back to the -- to this
condition of approval of that property to the south and researched that development
agreement and that access that's currently serving that portion of the development for
Meridian Road is a temporary access and when that nursery redevelops to the south,
that access point is supposed to close. Now, I would point out to you that there is
additional cross-access provided within the subdivision for that property to take access,
because there is a right-in, right-out only south of this entry point, this subdivision as
well that the convenience store uses. So, that parcel has a right to that -- to use that
right-in, right-out access point to Meridian Road and, of course, the access points to
Victory. But that doesn't necessarily mean that that property -- the undeveloped portion
-- the nursery property wouldn't be entitled to ask for a variance to Meridian Road. Over
the last couple months staff has gone before Council on several variance requests for
accesses to state facilities, because of ITD changing their access policies and our
concern is if we don't get cross-access with this development that kind of opens -- we
will feel at least it sets a tone that they would have the right to come and ask for an
access onto Meridian Road and as you know our development code requires us to try to
limit access to the state highways. That's how it's written today and that's why we feel
this is an important connectivity, irregardless of the cross-access already tied to the plat
through the development agreement in the recorded subdivision. So, yes, long story
short, staff is still standing with this recommendation and would like permission to still
require that cross-access with this development.
Freeman: Thank you.
Yearsley: Do you have further questions or further comments or are you --
Freeman: I'm still absorbing right now some of the requests to make sure I fully
understand the applicant's request to amend the requirements.
Yearsley: I guess with that is there any other -- anybody else have any questions or
comments?
Marshall: A couple thoughts and I'm just going to throw these out here for chewing on I
guess. One, the 18 foot wide pathway, which is not necessarily going to be entirely on
this -- these properties, but it will fall in the back of these and going to be as much as
eight to ten foot higher than the building pad? Right out here. That's what he said.
That's the argument right in here, because the path is going to drop eight to ten foot
down to Meridian. That's also, if you look at the contours, there are two foot contours
on here, it appears there is about -- on the preliminary plat there appears to be quite a
few contours going down there. Contours there. It looks like about at least eight foot
Meridian Planning & Zoning
June 20, 2013
Page 16 of 34
that you're dropping. You're going to have a gravel road just right outside your back
door. The fence, then, is going to be way down the hill and going to collect every piece
of trash that blows along and the homeowners association is supposed come through
and clean that up all the time. This is a really tough site and I understand that, but I
think that's considerably different than -- to me that's considerably different than having
an easement to a berm that goes out to the highway where the homeowners
association maintains that, that's usually landscaped, has trees and fauna and all kinds
of stuff on it. This is -- you know, the irrigation district's pretty tough. They just want
something simple and basic and don't want to rip anything out or replace anything every
time they fix something and I'm frustrated with that, I'd like to be able to landscape stuff
and, yeah, they can be torn out and put back, but they don't like that, so -- the easement
is a problem, because I am very much against multiple access points. That's the whole
-- our whole problem out at Eagle Road.
Freeman: You're talking about the cross-access easement?
Marshall: Well, the access easements to Meridian Road. That's a problem with Eagle
Road is too many access points. That's why the thing doesn't function as it's designed.
Doesn't function, you know, even close to design speed, because there is too many
accesses and everybody agreed in the first place it was all going to be through frontage
roads and you would take the access at every half mile point and, then, the one hand
wouldn't know what the other hand was just doing when the city came in and said, okay,
we are going to have to zone that is C-G, that seems appropriate, got to have a frontage
in there and ITD says, well, geez, you zoned that C-G. We have to by state code offer
access now, because that's reasonable access to C-G. Have the same problem with
Eagle going on out there on Chinden with that Fred Meyer and offered a full access -- a
full access -- they have a full access out there on Chinden and if they continue to do
that it's going to end up just like Eagle Road and is not going to operate at efficiency
and that's why we limit those accesses. That's why we are going back through on
Fairview and trying eliminate a lot of the accesses. There is too many accesses on
there, so it doesn't flow. So, I think that cross-access easement is very important -- very
important, because, then, it's the property just south of this, then, almost have to have
an access to Meridian, if they don't have the cross-access. Even if they look you have
to get of that temporary access.
Freeman: Mr. Chairman?
Yearsley: Commissioner Marshall -- or Freeman.
Freeman: I -- I tend to see that particular issue the same as Commissioner Marshall. I
think that that cross-access agreement is something that should remain a part of the
requirements for this project. The other items -- it looks like the irrigation issues can be
worked out technically, still really not comfortable with how it's working out on the south
boundary of the property. The situation with those houses that back up right against
that with no backyards against what's going to drain right back into their properties --
know there are ways to deal with that, but I'm very uncomfortable with that whole
Meridian Planning & Zoning
June 20, 2013
Page 17 of 34
configuration. Probably one I'm least concerned about is whether this is a common
area or a common lot. I'm actually fine with it being a common area. That seems to
solve a problem, as well as anything, other than a taxing problem, which, you know,
that's up to the -- that's up to the potential owner, whether that's a property worth
purchasing or not. But we have a long list of items here requesting some relief from
many of staffs recommendations and, you know, honestly, it's so extensive I don't think
we are quite there yet. I certainly would not be comfortable waiving all of staff's
recommendations, especially across-access agreement and still uncomfortable with the
irrigation down here. Understand the constraints for this site and what I'm kind of left
with, honestly, right now is maybe this just isn't the right solution for this site, but I'm not
willing to conclude that yet. Maybe a solution similar to this is a solution, but there
would certainly have to be some tweaks made to solve at least that cross-access issue,
which I agree with Commissioner Marshall is an issue. That's it for me for right now.
Yearsley: Thank you. I also -- and I apologize for not having a chance to look at that
sooner. I did look at it, but I didn't realize the relief on that back corner as much as it is.
From looking at this where the fence would be, the fence would be on top of that berm
and that hillside is actually where that ten feet of grass is supposed to be. So, their
backyard is a steep hill and some of that may be -- have to be cut down anywise and
will the irrigation district allow you to cut that down and those questions I don't feel for
me are actually resolved enough to make a decision on that, you know, without further
clarification from the irrigation district. So, I do have a tendency to agree to have issues
with that and I -- you know, I understand needing the 5,000 square foot minimums, but
do we put the burden on the homeowners for paying the property taxes on a piece of
property or do we put the burden on the developer developing the property. That's --
that's atough one to decide on, so --
Freeman: In my opinion -- if I may, Commissioner Yearsley -- Mr. Chair, that's a call the
developer can make. You know, if the developer feels that the homeowners are willing
to take on that burden, great, that's how we set it up. It not, he's not going to set it up
that way. I would tend to -- I would tend to be okay with acommon -- the common
easement back there.
Yearsley: Yeah.
Miller: I would also second that argument. That to me is -- if he thinks he can sell them
and it works with the irrigation district, I don't feel that that's my place to say he can't do
it. The thing that does worry me is that access point, especially considering with the
one they are currently using is designated as a temporary access, I feel like that's
something that's important to maintain here and keep an access point on this
development.
Freeman: So, Mr. Chair, if I may, I'm actually -- and I hope Commissioner Rohm will
chime in here in a second, but I'm actually wondering if I was to make a motion what my
motion would be. Would my motion be -- and I'm going to think out loud here -- would
my motion be approval, upholding all of the staff recommendations, or approval
Meridian Planning & Zoning
June 20, 2013
Page 18 of 34
modifying maybe one of the staffs recommendations or is it denial because I'm
uncomfortable actually with more than just one aspect of this. I think there is more
issues to be dealt with here still than the cross-access easement, which I think is critical.
Yearsley: My thinking the other option would be to potentially continue this to have staff
and the applicant try to work those issues out prior to coming back to --
Freeman: That is an option, too. I don't think enough of this has come to agreement
yet that I can recommend approval, unless I recommend approval per all of staff's
recommendations and I don't think that's exactly what the applicant is after either.
Yearsley: Right. And I agree.
Parsons: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, just to refresh your memory, July
4th -- if it is your desire to continue this hearing, the July 4th meeting I believe has been
canceled, so the applicant would have some time to come back, get some concrete
evidence for you from the irrigation district as to what that road section -- gravel road
section would look like as far as how it butts up to the buildable lots. As far as all the
other conditions as he's outlined in his staff report -- his rebuttal to the staff report, I
could see it happening a couple ways. You don't have to necessarily address every
condition with a modification. If you support their idea of having it just be an easement
along that, staff can take that as modify the appropriate conditions that kind of tab along
with every one of those specific changes. Also I mean they could bring back exhibits,
show you across-section of that and try to at least give you some assurances. The
other idea is maybe limiting the fencing -- the fences along the back of those lots to four
foot and make that gravel road basically a de facto pathway in the future for residents to
use and, then, have them bring back something that shows how those can be
landscaped to screen that and give some livability to those homes as well, so -- I mean
there is some options here that they have, they just -- they need to give you more
details, probably, and certainly I think the cross-section would probably answer a lot of
those questions for you.
Marshall: I was just going to say just in my past experience with the irrigation district
that when you're saying -- I really liked the idea that if you're going to make it a common
lot, make some use out of it, get that pathway through there, but he's right in that the
irrigation district doesn't want anybody touching their stuff any how, any way and that's
why I don't think that it's a good thing to be putting an easement in there and I think it
should be a common lot owned by the homeowner's association, because this is not just
a common piece of ground that's maintained, this is -- this is something that the
irrigation district tightly controls and I will tell you trying to work with the irrigation
districts on trying to create some amenities or something like that is next to impossible.
They want it as simple and basic as it can be and I will tell you what, they don't want any
vegetation, they don't want anything on it, they don't want any fences and they really
came a long way to get that ten foot -- ten foot off the center line to even put a fence in
there. And what that's doing is saying, okay, we have got our 18 foot wide gravel dirt
way and, then, a foot on either side of that you have got a fence. You're just going to
Meridian Planning & Zoning
June 20, 2013
Page 19 of 34
fence our little -- our little dirt pathway here and, then, you do whatever you want
outside of that and now we are going to tell the homeowner that they have got to go in
and pay the taxes on that, I don't know as if -- I mean you say that, well, if he can sell
that -- well, I'm sorry, I'm not really big on selling snake oil either and that's what I think it
is and so I'm absolutely against the common easement, so -- the persons pay taxes on
something that they don't -- they don't own. I mean, yeah, they own it legally, but they
can't do anything with it. Not a thing. They can't put a little shed roof over it, they can't
put anything out there, they can't plant a tree, because those are south facing -- that's
the south facing and you go back to start a barbecue on your back porch, you want
barbecue for that night, the sun is going to be baking down on you and there is no way
to even stop it, except, well, you got eight foot of dirt and a fence on top, I guess, but,
then, if you have got a two story house your windows are looking straight out at that
truck that's got to go by a couple times a day. I'm not --
Freeman: So, would you be making a motion to approve with all of staffs
recommendations intact or deny and go back to the drawing table?
Marshall: Yeah. Something like that. It's got to change. I don't like just the way it is. I
know it's a really really tough situation. I feel for them. I like the idea of moving that
whole road north and give those lots a little more room and actually put that common lot
in and staff had a great idea to make some use out of it, but -- but I also understand the
irrigation district is not going to let you do it.
Yearsley: Well -- and then -- and Ihave atendency -- I still wonder about the validity of
can you still actually build homes on nine -- seven, eight and nine. I mean if you look at
the hillside coming down into that property, it's beyond the ten feet. So, are you building
your house into that wall, into that dirt and, you know -- you know, if you look at that
it's --
Marshall: Let me ask you this: What's 40 times 50?
Yearsley: Forty times fifty? Times?
Marshall: Yes.
Freeman: Two thousand.
Marshall: What's that?
Freeman: Two thousand.
Marshall: Two thousand. And this says sixty to -- sixty-two, twenty-six. So, is that a
three story home? A little extra on a 2,000 square foot pad? Each one of those says 40
times 50. That's 2,000 square foot. Yet we say 53, 53 --
Miller: Is that the lot size?
Meridian Planning & Zoning
June 20, 2013
Page 20 of 34
Yearsley: That's the lot size.
Marshall: That's the lot size, not the buildable lot size. So -- okay. So, you got a 2,000
square foot pad. So -- that's a pretty good size pad, but you start counting the garage,
too --
Rohm: Mr. Chairman?
Yearsley: Commissioner Rohm.
Rohm: I'm ready to chime in here.
Yearsley: All right. All right.
Rohm: I have been listening all evening to this and the applicant would prefer to have
an easement, as opposed to a common lot. The Commission would prefer to have a
common lot. The fact of the matter is is with a common lot the whole configuration of
this subdivision is going to have to change, because those lots will no longer conform to
the 5,000 square foot minimum for the eight. So, that being said, we either have to
approve an application with the staff report's recommendations or give the applicant an
opportunity to make adjustments to the application, so that it will conform to the zone
eight and meet the setbacks and the easement. I don't -- I don't personally care if it's an
easement or a common lot myself, but if, in fact, we have an issue with that being so
tight through there, adjustments are going to have to be made in order to make this
subdivision fly period and I don't think that there is a motion that could be made tonight
that will satisfy all of those issues that have to be resolved. So, with that being said, I
think what we need to do is send our set of specifications back to staff saying we want
the common access, one, that's a must. We have to come to some concurrence
whether or not we want an easement or a common lot and we give those directions
back to staff and the applicant and let them go back and work things out to those things
that we feel are most important for this project to move forward. If -- if we can't give
them those directions, then, short of that I think that we would have to make a motion to
either accept it or deny it based upon the existing staff report and let the chips fall where
they may.
Freeman: Which, Commissioner Rohm, is effectively going to send them back to the
drawing board with staff to work these things out anyway. Even if we approve per staffs
recommendation.
Rohm: Well, the only thing about a denial is, then, you have to make a new application
and in respect to the applicant to continue it to allow them, with directions from the
Commission, they don't have to make a new application, all they have to do is adhere to
the -- the concerns that the Commission can't live with based upon the current
application. So, it would be my recommendation to continue this application with some
directives and if -- if there is a Commissioner that has some strong feelings about the
Meridian Planning & Zoning
June 20, 2013
Page 21 of 34
common lot versus the easement, then, that needs to be articulated now. My personal
opinion is either/or is sufficient as long as it addresses the concerns of the irrigation
district, while at the same time still complies with the Comprehensive Plan and
ordinances that we currently have on the books. So, that would -- that's my position on
both of those issues.
Yearsley: Commissioner Marshall.
Marshall: Commissioner Rohm, very well said. I agree with you -- everything you said.
I thought I would point out that it appears I'm the only -- the only hold out for the
common lot. Everybody else is okay with the easement it appears at this time I'm
assuming.
Yearsley: Yeah. I'm okay with the common lot. However, I -- I still think we need to get
at least -- for me personally clarification, can they actually build on seven, eight and
nine. I still wonder if a house could actually be built based on the way the contours are
and the slope, even with the backyard and maybe show a house with the contours --
you don't have to spend a lot of time, just plot the house on, show me the footprint of a
backyard and let -- let me know that -- how the yard -- or will the irrigation district allow
us to recontour that back to make the back a little steeper, so you can actually have a
backyard. Those are the concerns that I have with that as well.
Marshall: And I would say that should contain some drainage design, because
everything is flowing right towards that house and you don't want to leave somebody
with some serious draining issues. So, it should contain some drainage design showing
how the drainage is going to get out away from the house.
Yearsley: Right. So --
Freeman: Mr. Chair?
Yearsley: Commissioner Freeman.
Freeman: I move to continue file numbers AZ 13-006 and PP 13-010 to the hearing
date of July 18th, 2013, for the following reasons: I would like to see the applicant work
with staff to work in staff's recommendations for the access cross-easement agreement
and demonstrate to us with a section following the irrigation district's recommendation
also of how Lots 7, 8 and 9 would be built with relationship to that easement.
Rohm: Second.
Yearsley: I have a motion and a second to continue file numbers AZ 13-006 and PP
13-010, to July 18th. All in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.