2013 06-06Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission June 6, 2013
Meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission of June 6, 2013, was called
to order at 7:00 p.m. by Chairman Steven Yearsley.
Present: Commissioner Steven Yearsley, Commissioner Joe Marshall, and
Commissioner Macy Miller.
Members Absent: Commissioner Scott Freeman and Commissioner Michael Rohm.
Others Present: Machelle Hill, Ted Baird, Bruce Chatterton, Bill Parsons, Sonya Watters
and Dean Willis.
Item 1: Roll-Call Attendance:
Roll-call
Scott Freeman X Tom O'Brien
Michael Rohm X Joe Marshall
X Steven Yearsley -Chairman
Yearsley: Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. At this time I'd like to call to order the
regularly scheduled meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission of June
6, 2013. Let's begin with roll call.
Item 2: Adoption of the Agenda
Yearsley: Thank you. First item on the agenda is the adoption of the agenda and
have no changes to it, so could I get a motion to adopt the agenda.
Marshall: So moved.
Miller: Second.
Yearsley: I have a motion and a second to adopt the agenda. All in favor say aye.
Opposed? Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. TWO ABSENT.
Item 3: Consent Agenda
A. Approve Minutes of May 16, 2013 Planning and Zoning
Commission Meeting
Meridian Planning 8~ Zoning Commission
June 6, 2013
Page 2 of 34
Yearsley: Next item on the agenda is the Consent Agenda. We have the approved
meeting minutes of May 16th, 2013, Planning and Zoning Commission meeting. Can
get a motion to approve the Consent Agenda.
Miller: So moved.
Marshall: I will second that.
Yearsley: Got a motion and a second to approve the Consent Agenda. All in favor say
aye. Opposed? Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. TWO ABSENT.
Yearsley: All right. At this time we will start the public hearing process. Before we start
let me explain a little bit how this process works. We are going to open each item one
at a time. We will start off with the staff report. The staff will prepare their findings
regarding how the project adheres to our Comprehensive Plan and Uniform
Development Code, with staff recommendations. Then the applicant will have an
opportunity to come up and present their case for approval. The applicant will have 15
minutes to do so. After that we will open it up to public testimony. There is a sign-up
sheet in the back as you came in for those wishing to testify. Any person wishing to
testify 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 to represent the group, they will be
given up to ten minutes. After the public testimony is completed the applicant will have
an opportunity to come up and respond to those comments from the public and they will
be given another ten minutes. After that we will close the public hearing and we will
have an opportunity to discuss and deliberate on the project.
Item 4: Action Items
A. Public Hearing: RZ 13-004 Valenti Rezone by Jeanne Valenti
Located Northwest Corner of N. Meridian Road and W.
Washington Street Request: Rezone of 0.34 of an Acre from
the R-4 (Medium-Low-Density Residential) Zoning District to
the O-T (Old Town) Zoning District
Yearsley: So, at this time we would like to open Public Hearing RZ 13-004, Valenti
rezone and let's start off with the staff report.
Parsons: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. The first item on the
agenda this evening is the Valenti rezone. This property is situated on the northwest
corner of West Washington Street and North Meridian Road. The property consists of
0.34 acres of land. It's currently zoned R-4 in the city and is currently developed with
single family residents. To the north we have single family homes zoned R-4. To the
east we have R-15 zoned property, which are also single family homes. To the south
we have Reel Barber, zoned Old Town. And to the west we have single family homes
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
June 6, 2013
Page 3 of 34
again, zoned R-4. The applicant is here this evening to rezone this property from R-4
zoning designation to the Old Town zone. Currently this property is designated Old
Town on the Comprehensive Plan. As I mentioned to you, the existing home is
currently a residence and will remain a permitted use in that requested zoning district.
The requested zoning district is consistent with the Comp Plan designation of Old Town
as well. The applicant has submitted a very basic concept plan. Really the importance
of this plan is to just inform you that future parking and future expansion or any change
of use on the property that will occur, parking and access will be taken from the
adjacent street or alleyway and not North Meridian Road in the future. Staff will insure
that that is adhered to with a future certificate of zoning compliance application as well.
have not received any written testimony on this application. The applicant is here this
evening to answer any questions you may have. Staff is recommending approval of the
rezone and this time I stand for any questions you have.
Yearsley: Thank you. Are there any questions? All right. Would the applicant like to
come forward and, please, state your name and address for the record, please.
Gray: My name is Richard Gray and my address is 419 Madrone Circle, Nampa. I am
the land surveyor and the representative for Jeanne Valenti and as Bill stated the only
purpose she's trying to do is the potential to market this property in the future. She has
no intention at all at this time to develop, but her whole purpose is just to market it and
hope in the future it may sell better having been rezoned.
Yearsley: Thank you.
Gray: That's all I have, unless you have some questions for me.
Yearsley: Any questions? Thank you very much. We don't have anybody signed up to
testify. Is there anybody here wishing to testify on this? At this time can I get a
motion --
Marshall: Mr. Chair?
Yearsley: Yes.
Marshall: I move that we close the public hearing on RZ 13-004.
Miller: Second.
Yearsley: I have a motion and a second to close the public hearing for RZ 13-004. All
in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. TWO ABSENT.
Yearsley: Comments? Questions?
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
June 6, 2013
Page 4 of 34
Marshall: Well, Mr. Chair, I understand that this is not developing at this time. I do
believe that probably a rezone of the Old Town District probably would be helpful as far
as resale value goes and seeing those houses along Meridian being able to take some
value from the expansion of that street I think is worthwhile, so --
Yearsley: Thank you. All right. With that could I get a motion?
Marshall: Mr. Chair?
Yearsley: Commissioner Marshall.
Marshall: After hearing all -- I have got it right here. After considering all staff,
applicant, and public testimony, I move to recommend approval to City Council of file
number RZ 13-004 as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of June 6, 2013,
with no modifications.
Miller: Second.
Yearsley: I have a motion and a second to approve public hearing RZ 13-004. All in
favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries. Thank you.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. TWO ABSENT.
B. Continued Public Hearing from May 16, 2013: CPAM 12-007
Woodburn West Subdivision by Northside Management
Located North of W. Ustick Road, Approximately 1/4 Mile East
of N. Linder Road Request: Amend the Future Land Use Map
Contained in the Comprehensive Plan to Change the Land Use
Designation on 6.8 +/- Acres of Land from Mixed Use-
Community (MU-C)with a Neighborhood Center (N.C.) Overlay
to MDR (Medium Density Residential)
C. Continued Public Hearing from May 16, 2013: AZ 13-003
Woodburn West Subdivision by Northside Management
Located North of W. Ustick Road, Approximately 1/4 Mile East
of N. Linder Road Request: Annexation and Zoning of 25.8
Acres of Land with an R-8 Zoning District
D. Continued Public Hearing from May 16, 2013: PP 13-007
Woodburn West Subdivision by Northside Management
Located North of W. Ustick Road, Approximately 1/4 Mile East
of N. Linder Road Request: Preliminary Plat Approval
Consisting of 99 Single-Family Residential Building Lots and
16 Common/Other Lots on 25.75 Acres of Land in a Proposed
R-8 Zoning District
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
June 6, 2013
Page 5 of 34
Yearsley: Next item on the agenda is the continued public hearing from May 16th,
2013, of CPAM 12-00 -- or 12-007, AZ 13-003, PP 13-007 Woodburn Subdivision West.
This is being opened for the sole purpose of discussion of the building elevations and at
this point we would start with the staff report.
Watters: Thank you, Chairman Yearsley, Members of the Commission. The
applications before you tonight are a request for annexation and zoning, preliminary plat
and a Comprehensive Plan map amendment. Based on the original application
submitted by the applicant, staff did recommend denial to the Commission based on the
conceptual -- the quality of the conceptual building elevations for the future homes in the
subdivision. The concept plans only show the front elevations and no floor plans were
submitted. Staff was unable to determine the quality of development such as if
modulation existed in the wall plains, floor plans and roof lines to articulate building
mass and form. If the quality of design and detail is present on all facades and if there
was adequate windows on all elevations to provide articulation and avoid blank walls, a
variety of material and color changes to provide an interest on all facades. Since that
hearing the applicant has submitted side and rear elevation concepts. If I can get my
presentation to work here. It's not wanting to go tonight. Be just a moment. Bill, will
you put the overhead on. Thank you. So, these are the front elevations that were
presented at the last hearing by the applicant. Bill, would you forward that, please. It's
not wanting to work over here. And if Bill would just mind going through those slowly.
The rear elevations, as you can see, is right here at the bottom left corner. These are
the two side elevations. We had asked the applicant to provide some modulation on the
rear, some windows, a little bit more variety and interest and I will let the applicant go
ahead when he comes up and speak to these elevations and explain his proposal. Do
you have any questions of staff? Be happy to answer any questions.
Yearsley: Are there any questions at this time? Or do we want to go through these
really quickly before we ask any questions?
Marshall: My question, Mr. Chair, would be how have these changed? What has
changed?
Watters: The -- the applicant had only submitted front elevations at the original
application submittal --
Marshall: With no rear --
Watters: Right. No rear or sides, so while the front looked really nice we couldn't tell,
that, you know, the sides and the rear incorporated any of the same details or materials
or things like that, so -- there I might point out, too, there is no arterial streets adjacent
to this subdivision. The Mayor and Council have raised the bar pretty high lately for rear
elevations that face arterial streets. This -- a lot of these homes do back up against
pathways along the west boundary of the site. There is also a large common area kind
of central to the development that a lot of homes back up to also, so that's the main
thing on this development.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
June 6, 2013
Page 6 of 34
Parsons: Any particular slide you want me to stay focused on before you --
Marshall: Thank you.
Yearsley: Are there any other questions at this time? Would the applicant like to come
forward?
Noriyuki: Commissioners, Scott Noriyuki with Northside Management, 6810 Fairhill
Place, Boise, Idaho. As Sonya had discussed and as I'm sure you all recall, we have
come forward with a pretty nice product. Most certainly for an R-8 development. With
that there were questions -- or rather concerns as to whether or not our rear and side
elevations not only had modulation, but a blend of material types and colors. I had
aspirations to give you actual photography of the product, but considering our efforts for
the side elevations, as well as some of the rear elevations and materials, we don't have
any product that we have built. So, I really didn't have anything to photograph. So, we
have stepped up our floor plans and our modulation in our products substantially for this
particular project and this approval. Some of the other things that have changed as
well, Commissioner Marshall, is I have increased the front elevation stucco and stone
substantially. The wainscoting you will see that for the difference between some of the
original photography and what we are proposing now. We have also done a lot more
with eyebrows and roof lines, as well as different materials and orientation of the
materials and, then, the colors. I think it's going to be some beautiful product at the end
of the day. With that said I stand for any questions.
Yearsley: Are there any questions at this time? Okay. Thank you.
Noriyuki: Thank you.
Yearsley: We have one person signed up for this. Rick Wagner.
Wagner: I don't really have any comment, I just signed up to be here.
Yearsley: Okay. Is there anybody else that would like to come up and testify? At that
guess I would asked a motion to close the public hearing.
Miller: Mr. Chair, I move we close the public hearing.
Marshall: Second.
Yearsley: I have a motion and a second to close the public hearing for CPA -- CPAM
12-007, AZ 13-003, PP 13-007. All in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. TWO ABSENT.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
June 6, 2013
Page 7 of 34
Yearsley: Before we go any further I want just clarify. Commissioner Marshall was not
here last time. However, if you would just let us know that you did read the meeting
minutes from last time, just so we can make that on the record.
Marshall: Mr. Chair, I did read the minutes. Thank you.
Yearsley: Thank you.
Marshall: And try and do the best I can to get caught up and therefore the questions
and I appreciate the patience with me in going through and showing me all the
elevations. Thank you.
Yearsley: Thank you. I guess at this time is there -- are there any questions or
comments regarding this?
Miller: Mr. Chair?
Yearsley: Commissioner Miller.
Miller: I have got some comments. I'm trying to remember -- I know this is just about
the elevations. I guess a concern in seeing these side and back elevations is if they do
front the back side -- or common areas, rather, they don't seem like they take full
advantage of being interesting elevations. I can't say I would want to hang out and it
would create a space I would feel comfortable with. I do feel that they are better on
development, so -- the other concern I have is the side elevations -- there are quite a
few housing lots that you would be approaching the house from the side and I'm not
sure that these side elevations are doing it for me. There is not a lot of variation and
window openings. There is a lot of flat spaces. I see there is a comment where the
applicant is agreeing to put some stone or some sort of variation on those sides. I think
that would help considerably with those particular lots.
Yearsley: Okay.
Marshall: Mr. Chair?
Yearsley: Commissioner Marshall.
Marshall: In response a little bit, Commissioner Miller, a couple thoughts in that. A lot
of these houses are very close together and a lot of times you don't want windows
facing each other, sitting down at dinner looking at your neighbors across the way. So,
understand a lot of why there is not a lot of windows and openings on the sides, but
fully understand your rationale and what you're saying on those areas where a house
has a side yard against an open area. I absolutely agree that there should be probably
some additional modulation compared to what some of these sides are looking at. I'm --
Miller: That's my main concern.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
June 6, 2013
Page 8 of 34
Marshall: Occasionally I'm having a little difficulty in locating the sides and the rear with
some of the drawings. I can see that on this drawing specifically, but typically I'm used
to a glass box of top, front, rear -- read to the left of the side, but -- left of the left side.
But, yeah, just stacked a little differently than what I had been used to. I have to --
have to say, though, that as far as the rear facades go, they are pretty typical for what
have see in a number of neighbors. I'm not far removed. I can't say they are
exceptionally special in any way. The front facades I do like the additional rock and
things like that. The stucco and the different -- different facades that have been placed
in there, it looks very good. But I do second your concern on those side yards that are
fronting -- or that are adjacent to the side -- adjacent to open space or large open areas
and I'm not sure -- you know, for most of the houses these -- these kind of work. I think.
Miller: Uh-huh. I agree.
Marshall: When houses are next to houses. I don't know what we could do to address
those issues. Could we request some additional stone or different facades or additional
window space and things like that in those side yards that are abutting open space or
corner lots, things like that. Who could I target that question towards?
Baird: Chairman and Commission -- turn my mike on here. Members of the
Commission, I would think that the planning staff would want to be comfortable with
what is in the record and what's available when these things come in for approval. You
may need to actually request a diagram or pictures or something, but, again, I'd
probably want to get staff's -- planning staffs input on that.
Wafters: Commissioner Marshall, I could respond to that if you would like. Design
review is not typically required for single family detached homes. You could include a
provision in the development agreement that all side elevations that face common
areas, you know, include more windows if you would like.
Marshall: That's kind of a subjective term.
Watters: You could have the applicant come back with some revised side elevations for
those units that face common areas -- side on common areas.
Marshall: I hate to do that to them again, though. I wish there was some way we could
address that right now by saying some percentage. What percentage are we
requesting in the fronts -- the look of the frontage?
Watters: We don't have a percentage requirement.
Marshall: We don't have a percentage requirement --
Watters: No.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
June 6, 2013
Page 9 of 34
Marshall: -- or anything like that?
Wafters: No.
Marshall: And we don't require any percentage of the additional materials, the rock, the
brick or whatever it is that we are using, mixing --
Wafters: No. Our design standards aren't that specific. Neither are the guidelines.
Marshall: Okay.
Yearsley: You know, I -- looking at the photos I agree with you -- both of you that, you
know, they have done some, but it doesn't look like -- it looks like it's just more surface
type facing, instead of actually more articulation. So, I -- I struggle with this one and
what to do if -- do you approve it, do you deny it. I don't know what the best method
would be to do right now with this.
Watters: Chairman Yearsley, if I might add.
Yearsley: Yes.
Watters: Commissioners. That the applicant did commit to providing masonry accents
to 50 percent of the available wall length and a minimum height of 48 inches on the front
facades, excluding the garage openings. So, that is something that if you decide to
recommend approval of you could include that as a development agreement provision.
Even though staff did recommend denial of this application, staff did include
development agreement provisions and conditions in Exhibit B that could be forwarded
as such with a recommendation of approval.
Yearsley: Okay. So, what you're saying is what we would do is -- if we decided to
approve this we could say we recommend 50 percent -- would you say of the facade?
Watters: The applicant committed to providing masonry accents -- 50 percent of the
available wall length in the front facade at a minimum height at 48 inches.
Yearsley: Okay.
Watters: It's on your hearing outline there. Third paragraph from the bottom.
Millers: That's just front, though. That's --
Watters: That's just the front. Uh-huh.
Marshall: I believe the idea is that if we wanted to address that ourselves we could
suggest that requirement on the side yards that abut open property.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
June 6, 2013
Page 10 of 34
Yearsley: So, at this point do we have a -- a decision which way we want to go? If no
one wants to make a decision we just want to continue it to next -- the next one and ask
for additional elevations?
Marshall: All we are making any decision on today is about the elevations; is that
correct?
Yearsley: That's correct.
Baird: Mr. Chair?
Yearsley: Yes.
Baird: Actually, today's hearing -- continued hearing was for that issue, but your
decision will be based on all factors in the staff report. That's why we had you review
the minutes so that you could make a fully informed decision. While I have the floor I
would say if you are going to continue it you should be extremely specific on what your
expectations are on what you get from the applicant.
Yearsley: Okay.
Baird: I did see him try and wave his hand. If you're looking for some assistance on
some ideas he may have, you can certainly reopen the hearing and get his input before
you go further.
Yearsley: Okay. How would you like to proceed?
Miller: Mr. Chair?
Yearsley: Commissioner Miller.
Miller: I would like to hear what he has to say. Can I move to open -- reopen the public
hearing?
Yearsley: Would that be opened by a motion or can I just open it?
Baird: Motion.
Yearsley: Okay.
Marshall: I will second it.
Yearsley: I have a motion and a second to open the public hearing for Woodburn
CPAM 12-007, AZ 13-003, and PP 13-007. Could Ihave -- all in favor say aye.
Opposed?
Meridian Planning 8~ Zoning Commission
June 6, 2013
Page 11 of 34
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. TWO ABSENT.
Yearsley: Would you like to come up and comment?
Noriyuki: Thank you. For the record, Scott Noriyuki with Northside Management.
appreciate you opening it back up. I think these are valid questions. I appreciate the
fact that I'm -- I have got support for the front elevations. I think the rear elevations or --
sometimes may appear to be benign, but a backyard is a personal area that people
begin to build their own customized aspect to it. With the side elevations -- excuse me
-- I do appreciate the consideration that this is an R-8 development, so many of these
lots are going to be about 50 feet wide. With a five foot setback that gives me a 40 foot
envelope. Now, if we will start pushing modulation on the side too much what's going to
happen is we are going to compromise the overall potential square footage and the idea
is that we are able to provide high quality housing, but they need to be three and four
bedroom with two, two and a half, three bath, with potentially an office. tf we start to
squeak that down to say a 35 foot front elevation, the front elevation becomes almost
wholly garage dominated. So, all of our efforts to create this side modulation that
typically you never get to see, because we have got privacy fences between the house,
we have got trees or plantings or what have you. So, I'm just concerned that if we start
pushing those sides we are going to end up with a garage dominated streetscape. With
that I do want to point out that we took every effort we could and I realize the side
elevations appear to be somewhat flat, because they are black and white, but I have
created bay windows and what I'm doing is I'm keeping the foundation straight, so I can
hold to those five foot setbacks. But, then, I'm pushing out the areas that you're really
going to see. Once you have got a six foot fence up and somebody driving by or
looking by, they are not going to see that bottom six -- potentially seven feet, they. are
going to see the upper section where the popped out bay windows are. Also it's going
to be a nice architectural feature on the inside, because it will create seating. With that
we also minimize our windows as much as possible and place them in strategic places
for two different reasons. One, we don't want creepy people looking across at
somebody else and it's just a privacy factor. But, number two, along your sides that's a
lot of places that we are placing bathrooms or kitchens or walk-in closets, so the
opportunity for windows there don't necessarily exist and we try to capitalize on the front
and the rear predominately. As far as the side elevations that abut open spaces, I'm
open to some sort of a condition. I hope that we can craft something that is practical
considering the size and scope of this project and the efforts I have put into it and the
work I have done with the neighbors and the city from -- our open space exceeds, our
amenities exceed, our design is interesting. This is not just a typical grid. We have got
some beautiful opportunities here and I would really hate to see myself held up over -- I
believe -- I did a rough count. I believe it's 14 to 17 lots out of 99 lots across the project
and I'd really like to ultimately get in the dirt. I don't have any problem with you crafting
a recommendation that there is some sort of a -- if you will a design criteria for those
particular lots that staff has an opportunity to review them in their opinion at the time of
permit to insure that there is some interest there, I would be very much open to that.
But I would appreciate if we could craft something, rather than continuing me. Any
other questions?
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
June 6, 2013
Page 12 of 34
Yearsley: Are there any other questions?
Marshall: Mr. Chair, just a comment.
Yearsley: Commissioner Marshall.
Marshall: Mr. Noriyuki, I was just going to say that, you know, I don't think there was
any concern about those houses that were abutting other houses.
Noriyuki: Yes.
Marshall: I think the concern is simply an open space and how do those houses look to
everybody else that's out in the park, that's walking through the pathway and things like
that. And so I think that was the major point of concern as far as the elevations go.
Noriyuki: Understood. And I'm open to some sort of a condition that's going to give you
those assurances that it's not going to be a flat, blank wall that's all one color.
Marshall: Do you have any suggestions of where we could go with that?
Noriyuki: I think the suggestion would be first and foremost make sure that we do have
some sort of interest, some sort of modulation. Whether that be on the physical
foundation or if it be the use of a couple of bay windows and some pop outs and most
certainly maybe some what I would call a belly band, some sort of an architectural
separation between the first floor and the second floor, so that we can play with different
material types or something like that and different color schemes. So, I think those are
kind of the tools. To simply go in and say, well, we want to see four foot of stone or
stucco, I don't know that that's necessarily the right tool I'm looking for and the reason
why is because it's a side yard, there is going to be little berms and lots of landscaping
and at some point that's going to get buried. I think the overall picture is to sit back and
look at separation of the two stories, some bay window opportunities, some additional
window opportunities, because there is not a concern of houses looking in on one
another. Maybe a minimum of two body colors and a trim color to insure that that is
separated. Just some basic concepts like that is what I'm looking for and I think if --
could you spin back to maybe the first, second two story -- this one right here. So, if we
look at the two side elevations there, that's where I would say that's a really good
opportunity, from a planning standpoint, of what we should be required to do on those
open space areas. The way we could optimize that is to put in a belly band or a big --
you know, an architectural detail or a break between the first story and the second story.
And, then, if we have different colors on those bodies and, then, we have got some
shakes and those dormers -- those aren't just windows, those are physical two foot
popped out dormers with their own little roof and details, and we played with the trim
colors and the materials, I think that would achieve well above what would be classified
as interesting.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
June 6, 2013
Page 13 of 34
Miller: I have just a couple comments.
Yearsley: Commissioner Miller.
Miller: I like all of what you just said. I feel like it's a hard thing to put pen and paper on
what needs to happen on those 17 lots and I wouldn't want it to hold you up any either.
I think everything you just mentioned is important and I think it's some salability
standpoint, too. When I look at, you know, if I'm going to live in a neighborhood or not, if
it's non-interesting houses around the corner I don't want to be there.
Noriyuki: I agree with you.
Miller: And I think it only benefits you to do that. I don't know how we can write that into
a motion personally, but I like that you know it's important and that you see the value in
doing that.
Noriyuki: I think what I could do is I could work with Sonya between now and City
Council to craft some sort of a --first of all, identify those side lots on the plat, so that we
have got a true count and we know what the lot and block is and, then, I can work with
Sonya to create some sort of a -- I don't really want to use a physical exhibit, because
that locks me into architecture, but I think we can write up a performance standard that
discusses everything that I went through that, then, could be incorporated into the
development agreement that as those permits come through that's listed on the face of
the plat, that it has a heightened level of requirement and with that staff is -- as an
expectation that they are going to see those elevations and they need to meet these
performance standards.
Marshall: Mr. Chair --
Yearsley: Commissioner Marshall.
Marshall: -- Chairman Miller -- Commissioner Miller and Mr. Chairman, this all sounds
really wonderful and I would love to see that, but I refuse to abdicate my responsibility to
approve or deny that. That's what I'm here for and if I don't have that and we don't have
it written, I can't approve or deny -- or recommend approval or denial to the City Council
and I refuse to abdicate that.
Noriyuki: Could we recommend my comments on the minutes?
Marshall: But your comments are simply subjective. You have not sat down and
worked anything out with staff and I have no -- I hear a recommend of a belly band and
a different material and I don't know quite how that's all going to play out, to be honest
with you. And it is my responsibility to make a recommendation here.
Noriyuki: Can we require specific design review for those particular lots? Then the city
will retain their oversight and their guarantee that these particular lots, as they come
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
June 6, 2013
Page 14 of 34
through for permit, have to go through the design review process and, then, you guys
are protected that the ultimate goal is going to be achieved. It gives you that necessary
oversight to make a recommendation and it allows me to meet those commitments and
move forward.
Marshall: I would ask staff do we have that ability to do a design review for 14 specific
-- or so many lots?
Chatterton: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Marshall, let's check the UDC for just a
moment. Give us just a second here. As you probably know we typically -- we don't
design review for single family. It's not -- you know, it's not multi-family, it's not
commercial, and let's just see what -- if there is a tool available to us to do that.
Wafters: The code does not require design review for single family detached
developments, except as a provision of a development agreement.
Noriyuki: Which we will have with this project.
Chatterton: So, we are in the sort of gray area here of having comprehensive plan
policies -- policies set by you all as our citizen planners and City Council and Mayor,
with an emphasis on diversity of housing, of trying to not create this model culture of
buildings and single family. So, it is difficult to administer that. The problem is
subdivisions don't come in like multi-family, they could come in almost at a random
order and so comparing one to the other and the elevations associated with those come
in at almost a random order. It's difficult to compare them. Could we place special
attention on those particular lots? I think we probably can, but that's not exactly design
review. You know, it would be possible with an ordinance change to do design review
for single families, but that -- that would be a huge fee change for this city and not a lot
of cities actually do that. It's typically done for a district where you have regulatory
powers from a -- from an historic preservation commission and we don't have that in
Meridian.
Yearsley: Okay.
Noriyuki: As well as -- just to take that a little bit farther, we need to work together to
find some sort of a tool and I welcome to incorporate something into the development
agreement, some sort of oversight. Otherwise, the Planning Commission is, in effect,
asking me to design 17 plus different homes before I even get my approvals to build the
subdivision and in that time the market could fluctuate -- that becomes a real hardship --
afinancial hardship, a practicality hardship and also it's -- this is ear tagging particular
lots, which I may have a buyer who comes in and says and I don't like that elevation,
want something else. I want something custom or this is what I want. So, I want to find
where I can make you comfortable, but I still need that reasonable flexibility.
Marshall: Do we have anybody else that wants to testify to this, since we have
reopened it?
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
June 6, 2013
Page 15 of 34
Yearsley: Do you have anymore questions of the applicant?
Marshall: I don't.
Miller: No.
Yearsley: All right. Thank you very much.
Noriyuki: Thank you.
Yearsley: Thank you. I guess since we reopened it, is there anybody else that would
like to testify regarding what we have just talked about? With that can we get a motion
to close the public hearing?
Miller: So moved.
Marshall: Second.
Yearsley: I have a motion and a second to close the public hearing. All in favor say
aye. Opposed? Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. TWO ABSENT.
Yearsley: So, I guess trying to think of how we want to move forward with this. We
have got some options that we can do with this on these 14 lots. I guess the big
question is what are we comfortable doing to move forward with this.
Marshall: I'm still wondering, you know, about all the other issues, the application for a
wavier to, I'm, to be honest, against that.
Yearsley: Well, the application -- excuse me. The application -- the waiver is -- we
don't have to decide that one. That's City Council, if I'm not correct.
Marshall: Okay.
Yearsley: So, that's not our decision
Marshall: That's not a part of the preliminary plat?
Yearsley: The waiver would be a Council decision, not ours, is what I understand.
Marshall: Right.
Yearsley: And I know from the past meeting there was an issue of wanting to support
the adjacent residents with recommending additional stop signs to help with traffic
calming through that area as well. So, if we wanted to move forward, but we want to
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
June 6, 2013
Page 16 of 34
make sure we put that in there as a recommendation as well from the past meeting.
think that was the major issue from the adjacent residents. So, I guess with that (will --
Marshall: Any thoughts?
Yearsley: You know, I think with what we have talked about I think that the applicant
gets the understanding of what we are looking for. You know, I do understand what
he's talking about with some of the emulations with the side -- side yards looking at it, so
I guess -- I may be too trusting, but maybe, you know, with what we have talked about
and we have expressed our concerns that I think we can get the product that we would
like out of this. So, at this point I'm in favor of it with -- with those following conditions.
Miller: I tend to agree. I think it's a great development. He's obviously worked with the
neighbors quite a bit to reach agreement on the stop sign issues. To me of all of the
problems that were presented with this project, this is one of the easier ones to have,
guess. I'm not sure how to say it in a way that we can have those assurances that
those 17 lots or whatever are going to be to that standard. So, from what he mentions
up here I tend to think he's got it, like there is something there how. To get that like
incorporated solidly I'm not sure of. But I feel comfortable with -- with everything he said
and at this point I'm in favor of it as well.
Yearsley: So, I guess at this point could we get a -- entertain a motion?
Miller: I don't --
Marshall: Want me to take a stab, huh? I will take a stab at this. Okay. After
considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, move to recommend approval of file
number CPAM 12-007, AZ 13-003 and PP 13-007, as presented during the hearing on
May 16th, 2013, and the elevations and discussion as presented on 6/6/2013, with the
modifications of the additional stop signs as is discussed in the prior --
Yearsley: Recommendation for additional stop signs.
Marshall: -- recommendations.
Yearsley: To ACRD.
Marshall: Okay. To ACHD. And for the development agreement to reflect an additional
requirement of some -- for those lots that are abutting open space, because there is
only five foot of yard and it isn't going to be completely hidden, that there is to be some
additional articulation and additional windows and some additional coloring and banding
potentially could be in stone or whatever material is appropriate, but to provide some
other additional changes or differences as we did with the front elevations. As they
move forward we should have something along those sites that will be highly visible.
With that I end my motion.
Meridian Planning 8 Zoning Commission
June 6, 2013
Page 17 of 34
Miller: I second that.
Yearsley: I have a motion and a second to approve file number CPAM 12-007, AZ 13-
003, and PP 13-007. All in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries. Thank you.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. TWO ABSENT.
E. Public Hearing: CUP 13-004 Riot Cheer Force by Joseph
Moorhead Located at 200 N. Baltic Place, Ste., 103 & 104
Request: Conditional Use Permit Approval for an Indoor
Recreation Facility in an I-L Zoning District
Yearsley: All right. The next item on the agenda is public hearing CUP 13-004, Riot
Cheer Force by Joseph Moorhead. Let's begin with the staff report.
Watters: Thank you, Chairman Yearsley --
Miller: I have something I need to disclose on this one.
Yearsley: Sorry.
Miller: The gentleman in charge of this project has spoken with somebody at my firm. It
was not me. I don't feel like it will influence my decision at all, but I feel like it needs to
be known.
Yearsley: Thank you. Sorry about that.
Miller: That's okay.
Yearsley: Please continue.
Watters: Thank you, Chairman Yearsley, Members of the Commission. The next
application before you is a request for a conditional use permit. This site consists of
1.32 acres of land. It's currently zoned I-L, light industrial, and is located at 200 North
Baltic Place, Suites 103 and 104. This site is surrounded by industrial property zoned
-L. A little history. In 2001 a certificate of zoning compliance was approved for the
construction of a 16,902 square foot warehouse office building on this site. The
applicant requests approval to operate a cheerleading gym training facility in a 6,600
square foot tenant space in an existing 16,900 square foot building in an I-L district.
The facility will offer classes five days a week to kids of all ages for beginning,
intermediate, and advanced tumbling and stunting. The proposed use is classified as
indoor arts, entertainment, or recreation facility in the Unified Development Code, which
required conditional use approval in the I-L district. No exterior modifications to the
building are proposed. The Comprehensive Plan map designation for this site is
industrial. This is a copy of the site plan that you see before you here that was
submitted with a certificate of zoning compliance application. It shows the building and
the parking out front here and street buffer landscaping. Written testimony was
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
June 6, 2013
Page 18 of 34
submitted by Joseph Moorhead, the applicant, in agreement with the staff report and
staff is recommending approval of the subject conditional use permit. Staff will stand for
any questions.
Yearsley: Are there any questions? All right. Would the applicant like to come forward.
Please state your name and address for the record, please.
Moorhead: Joseph Moorhead. 16563 North Investor Loop, Nampa, Idaho. I agree with
what the staff had to say about the project and I'm open for any questions.
Yearsley: Are there any questions? No? Thank you very much.
Moorhead: Thank you.
Yearsley: I have one person signed up. A Nancy Gildersleeve. All right. Is there
anybody else that would like to testify in this public hearing? Okay. At this point I would
entertain a motion to close the public hearing.
Marshall: Mr. Chair, I move that we close the public hearing on CUP 13-004.
Miller: I second.
Marshall: Motion to close the public hearing for CUP 13-004. All in favor say aye.
Opposed? Comments? Questions? I personally think it's a great use of space. Glad
it's coming in and, personally, I wish you the best of luck. I guess with that, if there is no
other comments, I would entertain a motion.
Miller: After considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move to approve file
number CPU 13-004 as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of June 6th,
2013, with no modifications.
Marshall: I'll second that.
Yearsley: I have a motion and a second to approve CUP 13-004, Riot Cheer Force. All
in favor say aye. Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. TWO ABSENT.
F. Amended onto Agenda: Findings of Fact and Conclusions of
Law for Approval: CUP 13-004 Riot Cheer Force by Joseph
Moorhead Located at 200 N. Baltic Place, Ste., 103 & 104
Request: Conditional Use Permit Approval for an Indoor
Recreation Facility in an I-L Zoning District
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
June 6, 2013
Page 19 of 34
Yearsley: The next item on the agenda is the Findings of Facts and Conclusion of Law
approval for CUP 13-004 for Riot Cheer Force. Can I get a motion to approve?
Marshall: Mr. Chair, I move that we recommend -- that we approve CUP -- approve the
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for CUP 13-004 as found in the staff report for
6/6/2013.
Miller: Second.
Yearsley: I have a motion and a second to approve the Findings of Fact and
Conclusions of Law for CUP 13-004. All in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries.
Congratulations.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. TWO ABSENT.
G. Public Hearing: 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 Muli-Family Development Consisting of 220
Residential Units in an R-15 Zoning District
Yearsley: All right. The next item on the agenda is a public hearing for CUP 13-005,
Red Tail Communities by W.H. Moore Company. Let's, please, begin with the staff
report.
Wafters: Thank you. Chairman Yearsley, Members of the Commission. The next
application is a request for a conditional use permit. This site consists of 16.32 acres of
land. It's currently zoned R-15 and is located at the southeast corner of East Victory
Road and South Meridian Road. Adjacent land use and zoning. To the north is Victory
Road and a fuel facility, convenience store, and landscape nursery, zoned C-G. To the
south is undeveloped property, zoned R-8. To the east is undeveloped property
recently approved for single family residential, zoned R-4, by the same developer, and
to the west is Meridian Road, State Highway 69, and rural residential property zoned
RUT in Ada County. This property did receive -- or was amended on the future land use
map to medium high density residential, a rezoned R-15 and a preliminary plat and final
plat were recently approved. The request for a conditional use permit for amulti-family
residential development consisting of 220 units in an R-15 zoning district, a total of 20
apartment buildings, two to three stories in height, with a mix of one, two, and three
bedroom units is proposed. The gross density is 15 units per acre, consistent with the
medium high density residential future land use map designation. Access is provided
via Victory Road as approved with the plat. A connection is also proposed to the future
single family residential development to the east and a ten foot wide multi-use pathway
is proposed along South Meridian Road. Building elevations have been submitted that
substantially comply with the concept elevations, included in the development
agreement. I will just scroll through these so you can see these. These are the one
bedroom units, two bedroom units and garage elevations. Covered parking is proposed
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
June 6, 2013
Page 20 of 34
on the site in accord with the UDC standards. These are the three bedroom units.
Cabana carport and ramada elevations. And the clubhouse. Written testimony has
been submitted by Jonathan Seal and I will let him go over his comments with you.
Staff is recommending approval with the conditions of the conditional use permit. Staff
will stand for any questions.
Yearsley: Thank you. Are there any questions at this time? Would the applicant like to
come forward?
Seal:, Good evening. Jonathan Seal. W.H. Moore Company, 1940 Bonito, Meridian.
On behalf of Red Tail Community, LLC. Sonya, if you could put the site plan up for me,
please. If you may recall, back -- I believe it was March I came in front of you at that
point and I discussed the concept of this project and why we are calling it a community
and even though I understand this is not necessarily part of the CU. In our desire -- our
plan I should say is that the amenities within the multi-family project will be shared by
also the single family residential development, which is 48 lots to the east of it. We
found this -- we find this a very appealing concept and that's why we refer to it as a
community, because we think instead of having your bifurcation of a single family and a
multi-family development, we are merging this to create, essentially, acommunity --
community feel in both uses. We also feel that this multi-family project is very appealing
from the standpoint I think that we have gone well above and beyond the required
amenities for the project. As you see here on the site plan we have the -- we have the
pool and the sand volleyball. We have the ramada through -- or the ramada through
here and also the cabana in this area. We think these are very attractive. We think that
this is going to really create with this project almost a resort type feel. We think that
instead it will not be viewed necessarily as a quote, unquote, apartment project, but
more as an alternative living style to a single family type project. So, we think it's going
to be very very successful. Giving you a little bit of background on some of the things
that have happened since I was here last time with respect to the apartment and I won't
go through the -- the elevations, because I think Sonya has shown them to you. Maybe
I will stop on them for a minute. We have also put a lot of time and effort into those
elevations, not only the elevations as far as the exterior, but also the buildings as far as
the footprints. Again, we are trying to achieve something here that we think it's going to
be very functionable and very appealing to the people within this community. With
respect to the project overall, right now within the single family we are under
construction. We are currently doing sewer work and I hope to -- if it goes according to
schedule and I'm trying my best, to have the home builders in there somewhere around
the middle of August starting construction on the single family homes. All the lots have
been optioned at this point and as soon as we record the plat, get the asphalt in, they
will be moving into it. The other thing we talked about is Victory Road. When I was
here last time I talked about a cooperative agreement that we were working on with
ACHD. We have since executed that and it's been approved. The construction
drawings -- I should have stamped approved construction drawings if not this week by
the beginning of next. I anticipate getting it out to bid and starting construction on that
portion of it probably around the first of July. It will be, essentially, a half mile starting at
Meridian and Victory Road. It will be three lanes of curb, gutter, sidewalk, bike lanes. It
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
June 6, 2013
Page 21 of 34
will go down to a street called Glacier Bay, if you're familiar with that. So, again, that
think will be acceptable and my intent is that that will be completed sometime in
October, November at the latest. We don't want to go beyond that. So -- so, at this
point we would ask that you would approve our request for the conditional use permit,
but with some modifications and I would like to go through those. The first one is -- in
the staff report, item 1.1.5. Staff is -- it's requiring that the amenities be created the
earlier of the C of O for the 11th building or July 15th of 2014. The July date Iwill --
will say that we originally offered that at the time frame, but when we started to look at
the project we realized some of the challenges and if I can -- our plan is -- is that the
clubhouse and the leasing office, which is located -- oops. Did I do that or did you?
This part will be completed first. Then the desire is -- is that we would start with this
building right here, move in acounter-clockwise way and come around there. Okay.
The challenge we have with the amenities is -- is the interesting thing with apartments is
you don't simply build an apartment, one, and, then, move onto the next one and move
onto the next one. Each one of these buildings will take about four months and so
realistically you might be at this particular building right here and you're trimming out the
electrical, putting your carpeting in, and you're over here doing footings and foundation.
Well, we have very limited space, because this paving along here will be complete
beforehand and so most of our -- most of our area that we will be doing the staging and
construction is right where the amenities are. So, what we would like to do and what we
have proposed is -- is that the issuance of the C of O would be for either the 12th
building completed there or one year after the C of O is issued for the clubhouse.
Again, we are not trying to avoid doing the amenities, we want to do the amenities as
quickly as possible. It's to our benefit. It's to our detriment not to. But at the same time
trying to put the pool and the various stuff in there while you have got staging equipment
running through, workers out there and everything else is not only going to create a lack
of efficiency, it will create a safety issue, it would probably increase our costs and
guess from another realistic standpoint -- and I can say this probably because 1 was a
construction worker one time, I don't think that if I was a woman laying out by the pool I
would want to have a bunch of roofers and framers staring at me all day. So -- so,
think maybe that should be considered. So, anyway, we would ask for that flexibility
and, again, we are going to move as quickly as we can, but we just need that flexibility.
It's just the reality of a construction, a limitation of where we can store stuff and the
equipment, so -- the second one it goes to that also. It's here along Meridian Road. We
have -- we have to put up a sound attenuation wall. That's a requirement. We don't
have any objection to that. But, again, the same thing here is we have got three
buildings, apartments, that are going to be, basically, 18 feet from the sound attenuation
wall, literally from where I'm standing, potentially where Commissioner Miller is
standing. Again, you have to bring all of that equipment in, you're staging, you're
putting scaffolding up and what have you. So, it causes a real logistics challenge again.
So, what we have asked is -- is that this sound attenuation wall would be constructed.
We would not get our C of O's for these three buildings until that sound attenuation wall
was constructed. Again, if we can put it up quicker we will, but we have to -- we have to
consider logistics and safety and efficiency of trying to get these buildings built. Another
one on there is on the clubhouse. In the staff report it mentions 5,261 square feet. We
have, again, provided that. But we are still working with the interior of the clubhouse.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
June 6, 2013
Page 22 of 34
You know, are we going to reduce rooms, are we going to expand them, what have you.
And so what we would like to do is avoid being committed to a specific square footage
and saying, okay, we have got to build it that big, because that's what we agreed to.
But we would like flexibility. Maybe it's approximate -- maybe it's approximately 5,000
square feet. Again, the exterior design will not change, but the rooms may vary as we
design. This is the last one we are working on. Right now we are working on the
working drawings. So, we would ask that we have some flexibility in that. The other
one is the building elevations and, Sonya, if we can go to the -- one of the buildings.
Thank you. Staff is recommending that we add another -- another architectural siding
feature to it. We feel between the stone siding and the stucco that you're putting on --
or stucco throughout it, that we have enough architectural features that that should
satisfy it. So, we would ask that that be waived as a condition. I think these buildings,
the way they are put, is very attractive. I think adding more to it is like simply adding
more frosting to a cake people might think. Finally, just as more to simply just a
clarification, item 2.20 talks about record drawings, but it's silent on what record
drawings. I trust that records drawings are sewer water drawings and not building
drawings, because that would be incredibly expensive to be providing record drawings
for every building. So, I think that that's just a clarification, so I'd like to clarify that, so
-- with that those are my comments. So, again, I don't want you to get the sense that
we are trying to get out of anything that we have agreed to. I have been in front of this
Commission -- maybe not you personally, and the Council for almost 15 years and what
I have said we do and we will do this, we just need flexibility and timing in order to do it,
to create a good product out here that I think you will be proud of, we will be proud of,
and I think will be a real asset to the community. So, with that I will answer any
questions.
Yearsley: Are there any questions?
Miller: I got a quick clarification. You're referring to the amenities of putting those off,
but I just want to clarify you're still building the clubhouse first?
Seal: Yes. Absolutely.
Miller: I also have one more question, I guess, for you regarding the elevations. It looks
to me like they could use a little bit more variation, too, and not necessarily adding
materials, but maybe -- like some of these walls are you opposed to maybe turning the
siding where the first level has vertical board batten or something. I think that would
give it a lot more articulation without necessarily changing materials. Is that anything
you're open to or you would just prefer to keep them the same?
Seal: One thing I know is my limitations and I am not an architect, so -- and we have
the architect here, maybe I can have him speak to that particular question and so --
yeah. Because I would probably mess it up.
Yearsley: Commissioner Marshall.
Meridian Planning 8 Zoning Commission
June 6, 2013
Page 23 of 34
Marshall: Before you step away, I do have a question. What would be an approximate
minimum for your clubhouse, say 4,800 square foot would be a minimum and anything
above that is fine?
Seal: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Marshall, I think we would be fine with
approximately 5,000 square feet. Again, we are not -- we don't expect we are seeing a
substantial deviation by any means, we just don't -- we prefer not to be locked into a
specific square footage. So, if you put approximately 5,000 -- I know that's rather
vague, if you wanted to put approximately the 5,200 square feet I think we would be
comfortable with that. We would just like the word approximate or 95 percent of that or
work something like that.
Marshall: That's why Iwas -- I was kind of shooting for a minimum. I was really more
comfortable with a minimum. I was a little more comfortable with a minimum. Anything
this size or larger and trying to undershoot what you -- you would have about 5,200
square foot or so, approximately, and that's why I thought maybe I was a little more
comfortable with 4,800 square foot or larger -- anything larger. Gave you considerably
more flexibility, but at least gave us a minimum of what would be happening.
Seal: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Marshall, I can appreciate your concern. Maybe
what -- I will let the architect, because he's really designing that portion of it. My sense
is that's not an unreasonable request and, yeah, we are just striving just to get a little bit
of wiggle room in there, so --
Yearsley: Before we have the architect come up, I have a couple quick questions. I like
how you have done the covered parking. I like that more of a type of roof than one side
slope type deal. I did have one concern on your parking -- your garages, particularly
where they are abutting your -- the residents or the homes on the other side. Basically
it's just one big long roof line in front of those homes and I was wondering at least on
the back side to have some change in the roof line to give a break on those homes
between the residents and the apartments. Does that make sense?
Watters: Jonathan, can you hit the arrow and scroll back. Mine is frozen. Thank you.
Yeah. Just keep going back.
Seal: Did we have one of the back?
Yearsley: No. You're going the wrong way. There you go.
Watters: Thank you.
Yearsley: Because it looks like you have got parking garages between the homes and
the -- is that not correct what I'm seeing there?
Seal: Mr. Chairman, what I believe you're referring to is these particular ones?
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
June 6, 2013
Page 24 of 34
Yearsley: That's correct.
Seal: Yes. Yes. Those would abut up to it. In between it will be fencing, so --
Yearsley: Okay. It's just a long roof line and if we could do something to beak that roof
line up, I think it would be more advantageous to the people, you know, abutting those
homes, kind of a little bit better break, if that would be amenable.
Seal: Okay. I will let the architect --
Yearsley: Okay.
Seal: Yeah. I think it's a reasonable request, though.
Yearsley: Okay. Would the architect like to come up at this time?
Seal: Any other questions for me or I will come up afterwards.
Yearsley: That's fine.
Seal: We will put him on the hot seat.
Yearsley: All right. Please state your name and address for the record, please.
Edwards: Billy Edwards. 595 South Americana Boulevard. So, you're addressing
elevation. The architectural design we are trying to do -- accomplish is a simple design,
kind of a southwest type of an architecture and that type in our feelings is adding
material is kind of a -- not needed. We want to keep that simplicity. We were possibly
looking at different color orientations and if you look at the landscape plans as well,
which I don't think we have on here, we are heavily landscaped along the perimeters of
these buildings and with changing materials down to the ground, by the time our
landscape matures it's going to disappear. With the color we are looking at different
options, like I stated, in breaking the banding in these areas here. Another feasible
option we were considering is adjusting the reveal on the horizontal siding. Right now
we currently have around a six inch reveal and reducing say an upper section to about a
four inch reveal, it does create quit a bit of breakup, different shadow lines, and it kind of
gives you that appearance of a different material, while maintaining the complexity of
the design. And regarding the garages, they are all along -- go back to the site plan.
These here. We currently have about an eight foot plate on those and the long roof line
would be partially visible. We are doing a solid line of fence to separate the apartment
complex and the subdivision. So, we are trying to minimize the -- what the residents
visualize and while creating a buffer between the residents and the apartment complex,
utilizing the garage as a less frequent than a building on site. We could look at different
options to break the roof line up, but we feel it's probably not necessary architectural
wise. We will be hiding it with enough things. People customize their backyards. I'm
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
June 6, 2013
Page 25 of 34
sure we will have landscaping along the back anyway to help break the residents' visual
line of those roofs.
Yearsley: Well, I have just seen other areas where they actually changed the pitch a
little bit, just -- you know, just to kind of give you a break, instead of one just solid line.
Edwards: So, you're thinking of like we would add gables type to the --
Yearsley: Something like that. Just maybe one -- you know, something -- just
something to break up the monotony is --
Edwards: We could actually look at that.
Marshall: My question is seeing how everything is full hip all the way around --
Edwards: We don't have any gables on site -- I'm sorry. Yeah. We do not have any
gables on site.
Marshall: My only thought being would cupolas meet that need.
Yearsley: You will have to forgive my ignorance. I don't know what cupolas are, so --
Edwards: It's a decorative element on top of a roof. It's like a box.
Yearsley: Okay. You know -- and I think something like that would be good. Just
something to break up that solid line of shingles. Just something to kind of break on
that.
Miller: I have a comment to that. I feel like a cupola might actually be a little distracting,
because it will pop that up higher and make it kind of more visible to -- to the folks that
back that. I guess I would disagree with that one, but --
Yearsley: Okay. I'm just -- you know, it just seemed kind of long and -- for the
neighbors, so if there was something we could do to --
Edwards: We could definitely brainstorm and see if we could --
Yearsley: Okay.
Edwards: -- come up with something that's appropriate for the development.
Yearsley: That's good. Any other questions of the architect?
Miller: I have got more of a statement. This elevation actually -- the lower right is
actually the one I'm most concerned about being a little monotonous. I -- I understand
landscaping at the bottom of that breaks up a lot of it, but from a distance I have to say
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
June 6, 2013
Page 26 of 34
when I saw this in the report it looked like an office building more than a residential
building and I think it's just because particularly that lighter color -- that and it's got the
same -- it looked like stucco and that's where it looked really plain, but I think if you were
to say -- as simple as turn that -- that top layer vertical. I think that idea that you had
would help a lot, too.
Edwards: Yeah. It just creates a different style of --
Miller: Just to break up that little mass a little bit, because it looks more office use style.
Yearsley: Okay. Any other questions? Thank you.
Edwards: Thank you.
Yearsley: I have no one else signed up to testify on this one. Is there anyone who
would like to testify? Yes, please, come up. Please state your name and address for
the record, please.
Fulmer: Good evening, Chairman and Commissioners. Randy Fulmer, 752 East
Trinidad, Meridian, Idaho. An owner developer. Just a couple of quick comments for
consideration. On this building that there was aconcern -- these colors are conceptual.
We haven't had our design decorator take a look at colors yet and I think you will see a
lot of relief. We had envisioned this stucco area as a different color than the siding.
Conceptually they are two colors, but there is a lot of elevation difference and reveal
between the two and I think that will make a big difference on that one concern. The
other concern relative to the garages by the single family, it's difficult to see on the site
plan, but right in this area there is nearly 17 feet between the fence and the single family
in the back of the garages, so there is a significant setback there and we could simply
break up that roof massing with landscaping. If we had a few trees along there, some
either deciduous or evergreen, it would do a terrific job of screening those garages and I
don't really think they would be visible and I think that would be probably a better
solution than changing the roof lines. It would be cleaner and nicer looking.
Yearsley: Looking at the photo it didn't look like there were trees back there, so I was --
you know, I was more concerned about that, so -- from aconceptual --
Fulmer: Well, visually conceptual -- this site plan is really close, but it's difficult to see,
because of the scale and everything, but there is --
Yearsley: Right.
Fulmer: -- a landscape area between the two. There is actually an easement there for
pressurized irrigation and other utilities. So, there is room to do some nice landscaping
between the fence and the garages and I would propose that would be a better solution
than changing the roof line.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
June 6, 2013
Page 27 of 34
Yearsley: Okay.
Fulmer: So, with that if there is any other questions.
Yearsley: Are there any questions? No.
Fulmer: Thank you.
Yearsley: Thank you. Is there anybody else that would like to testify? With that can
get a motion to close the public hearing of CUP 13-005?
Miller: So moved.
Marshall: Second.
Yearsley: I have a motion and a second to close the public hearing CUP 13-005. All in
favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. TWO ABSENT.
Yearsley: Comments? Questions? Commissioner Marshall?
Marshall: Mr. Chair, to be honest with you, I -- I'm in favor of retaining the full hip,
because everything on site is full hip roof all the way around. Again, I favor the cupolas,
but I understand not everybody would. They only add maybe two, two and a half feet to
the top side of that and if you're looking at, you know, an eight car garage -- an eight,
ten car garage, you're talking a considerable length ,and you're going to put three of
those up there, but, again, I agree, though, that with some 17 foot back there and
additionally if there were a number of trees back there and large shrubs, that would
break that back up considerably and considering we are talking a six foot vinyl fence
and only an eight foot plate on the back side of that garage, standing back a ways at
least -- unless your eyes are over six foot, you're going to miss the majority of the
backside of that garage and if you have large trees and shrubs it really would be nice to
break things up with that. I'm also pretty much in favor with the sound attenuation going
in, only after the -- before -- only before a C of O on the two most western buildings and
-- so that sound attenuation would have to be in prior to that and as well as the -- not
having the amenities finished until either the 12th building of that inside circle or one
year, which ever occurs first after the C of O for the clubhouse and I'm also in favor for
some flexibility with the clubhouse, but I would prefer a minimum square footage there,
as opposed to an approximate square footage.
Yearsley: Okay.
Miller: Mr. Chair?
Yearsley: Commissioner Miller.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
June 6, 2013
Page 28 of 34
Miller: I want to just reinforce again -- this is a very cool project. I think that this would
be a very cool place to live, either side of that. I would love to live there, but all the
things you're asking for they seem very logical, they make sense, you wouldn't want to
build something and, then, ruin it with staging or construction practicing. I guess the
garages to me aren't much of a concern, especially with the landscape barrier. I am not
opposed to cupolas, really, I have nothing against them. That could be a concern
raising that a little bit higher.
Marshall: Good point.
Miller: That's pretty much it.
Yearsley: Well, I do have to admit, architecture is not one of my strong points. I'm more
the site civil type person and looking at the site plan it didn't look like there was much
room for landscaping between the two and, I agree, I think some good trees and stuff
like that would break that up pretty well, so -- and I do agree with Commissioner
Marshall's comment. I guess with the other comment on 2.20, the record drawings, just
a clarification from staff, that is just for water and sewer; is that correct?
Chatterton: Commissioner, Mr. Chairman -- actually not sure. We need to check on
that. I would think that it would refer just the water and sewer, yes.
Yearsley: Okay.
Chatterton: In the context of it, so --
Yearsley: Okay. So, I guess with that do we need to make a motion to that or just have
them clarify that prior to City Council approval?
Chatterton: We will clarify that prior to City Council.
Yearsley: Okay. Perfect. That makes better sense. So, I guess with that -- with those
conditions I'm open for a motion.
Marshall: Okay. Mr. Chair?
Watters: Just a clarification. This is just a conditional use permit, you are the decision
makers --
Yearsley: Oh, we are the decision makers.
Watters: Yeah.
Yearsley: Okay. Sorry. So, I guess with that we will clarify that after the --
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
June 6, 2013
Page 29 of 34
Wafters: We can certainly get back with the applicant on that. We would be happy to
do that and follow up.
Yearsley: Thank you. Okay.
Marshall: Mr. Chair?
Yearsley: Commissioner Marshall.
Marshall: After considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move to approve
file number cup 13-005 as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of June 6th,
2013, with the following modifications: 1.1.5, the -- I know they are to be completed at
the completion of the -- simultaneously with the completion of the 12th building or after
one year after the C of O for the clubhouse, whichever is first, which I believe is first.
And that the sound attenuation does not have to be completed until before the C of O
on the two most westerly buildings and that flexibility with the clubhouse to requiring
minimum of 4,800 square foot at a minimum and 2.20 minimum prior to anything else.
And that's the end of my motion.
Miller: I second that.
Yearsley: I have a motion and a second to approve five number CUP 13-005. All those
in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries. Congratulations.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. TWO OBSENT.
H. Public Hearing: AZ 13-005 Paramount Northeast Subdivision
by Brighton Development, Inc. Located Southwest Corner of
Chinden Boulevard and N. Meridian Road Request: Annexation
and Zoning of 54.69 Acres of Land with C-C (17.68 Acres); TN-
C (31.27 Acres) and R-8 (5.74 Acres) Zoning Districts
I. Public Hearing: PP 13-008 Paramount Northeast Subdivision
by Brighton Development, Inc. Located South of Chinden
Boulevard on the West Side of N. Meridian Road Request:
Preliminary Plat Approval Consisting of 79 Single-Family
Residential Building Lots and Four (4) Common/Other Lots on
27.23 Acres of Land in the R-8 Zoning District
Yearsley: Next item is the public hearing for AZ 13-005 and PP 13-008 for Paramount
Northeast Subdivision. Let's begin with the staff report.
Wafters: Thank you, Chairman Yearsley, Members of the Commission. The next
applications before you are a request for annexation and zoning and preliminary plat.
This site is located at the southwest corner of Chinden Boulevard and North Meridian
Road. And we are getting there here. Thank you, Justin. Additional land use and
Meridian Planning 8~ Zoning Commission
June 6, 2013
Page 30 of 34
zoning. To the north is Chinden Boulevard and rural residential and commercial uses,
zoned R-1 and RUT and MUDA and to the east is a church, zoned RUT in Ada County.
To the south are existing and future residential properties in Paramount Subdivision,
zoned R-8 and to the west is vacant undeveloped property, zoned RUT in Ada County
and north Fox Run Way and single family residences zoned R-8. A portion of this site
that is proposed to be platted was annexed in 2003. The remainder is proposed to be
annexed with this application. The portion that was previously annexed was included in
the original preliminary plat for Paramount as one large lot for future single family
residential lots and that is largely this piece right here that was originally annexed. The
applicant has applied to annex and zone a total of 53.57 acres of land with R-8 zoning,
consisting of 5.74 acres, C-C zoning consisting of 16.55 acres and TN-C zoning
consisting of 31.27 acres. The proposed zoning is consistent with the corresponding
future land use map designations of MUC and MDR, Medium Density Residential and
Mixed Use Community. A conceptual development plan is not proposed with this
application. Prior to annexation ordinance approval staff recommends the developer
amend the existing development agreement for Paramount to include a conceptual
development plan that includes a circulation plan for the area proposed to be annexed
with C-C and TN-C zoning. With this amendment staff also recommends the provisions
in Exhibit B, number 1.1.1 be added to the development agreement. A preliminary plat
as you see here is also proposed that consists of 79 building lots and four common lots
on 27.23 acres of land in the R-8 zoning district. Access proposed on the plat via
Director Street from North Meridian Road. A stub street is proposed to the west to
extend through Paramount Subdivision No. 22 to Fox Run Way, which connects to
Chinden. The plat is supposed to be developed in two phases. A total of 11.4 percent
or 3.11 acres of common open space is proposed, consisting of landscape parkways
and common lots. A ten foot wide multi-use pathway is proposed as an amenity along
the north side of Director Street. Building elevations have been submitted for the future
homes in this development as shown, consistent with existing homes in Paramount
Subdivision. The Knight Lateral crosses the southwest corner of this site right in here
and it's proposed to be relocated along the southern boundary. The North Slough
crosses the northeast corner of this site and both of these waterways are required to be
piped. Written testimony has been received from Mike Wardle in agreement with the
staff report. He did have one notation here on 1.1.1. Staff had prior to annexation
ordinance approval. Staff recommends the developer amend the existing agreement for
Paramount to include several provisions. The applicant requested that rather than prior
to annexation ordinance approval it be changed to prior to consideration of commercial
development proposals. Staff is okay with this request. And, then, the applicant did
clarify the amenity proposed for this subdivision is the ten foot wide pathway along
Director. Staff is recommending approval of these two applications and we will stand for
any questions Commission may have.
Yearsley: Are there any questions? I actually have one, Sonya. Will you go back to
the -- the first slide or if you can. No. Right there. Do you know what -- can you tell me
what parts are going to be C-C and TN-C or at least give me a general idea?
Watters: Yes. C-C on this parcel here. C-C. TN-C. R-8. This is already R-8.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
June 6, 2013
Page 31 of 34
Yearsley: Okay. All right. Thank you. Would the applicant like to come forward?
Wardle: Mr. Chairman, Commission Members, Mike Wardle, Brighton Corporation,
12601 West Explorer Drive in Boise. I'm going to add a little bit of clarity to that
question, Mr. Chairman, if Sonya can push the magic button and give me a very brief
PowerPoint presentation that we have provided. I'm hoping that your technological
skills are better than mine.
Wafters: Apparently they aren't. I don't know why this isn't dragging over there.
Wardle: Well, I can do it the hard way. I do have hard copies of this PowerPoint
presentation that -- why don't we assume that that might need to be the case and --
Chatterton: Mike, could you try advancing it up there. We are stuck here again, so --
Wardle: Where? The --
Wafters: The next slide.
Chatterton: Yeah. Either direction. We might be able to get it --
Wardle: No. That's --
Wafters: I think it's at the bottom.
Chatterton: Down at the bottom. If you can use the stylist to move the arrow one way
or the other. Okay. Let's see if it works now.
Wardle: We will just do it the old fashioned way. I'm not necessarily as trusting of
technology, so I always have a backup.
Chatterton: Oh, there it goes. Okay. Mike, you're up.
Wardle: Well, I'm still going to -- okay. Yes, let's go to the first slide, Mr. Chairman,
Commission Members. This is a composite that shows all of the phases, including the
one that is currently before you this evening in preliminary plat form and that's
designated by the red star area. Very good. It does show the recent phases 21, 22,
and, then, down in the lower left -- near the lower left corner 23 was actually approved
by the City Council Tuesday evening. There are three blue dots -- and this is just for
your general information. The center dot almost in the center of the development is the
original clubhouse, swimming pool location. The right blue dot is a swimming pool built
several years ago and in number 23 there will be a third swimming pool added to the
community. There will be another in the future in the area that we are annexing in this
evening. So, let me show the next slide. The reason that we actually are annexing in
this ground is because of that red line and that red line is the boundary of the original
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
June 6, 2013
Page 32 of 34
annexation in 2003 and as Sonya noted, everything up to that line was actually
designated in that original annexation, even though it was not preplatted at that point in
time as single family residential in the future. But what happened was -- I don't want to
put the bad mouth on ACHD, but this shows the annexation boundary at that point in
time and, again, that area that's vacant is that that was to be delineated in the future for
single family residential use. In the meantime, ACHD -- and I have turned you now --
you're looking -- the up is looking east across Meridian Road. Our boundary for the
original annexation anticipated a street coming in just to the north of that area that's that
green lot that says Google Earth right there, our street would have come in right near
that -- that point. But that subdivision to the east, the right yellow arrow actually was
developed not in the alignment of our original approval and because, then, the Catholic
church had come in and has a major intersection, we were -- we worked with ACHD to
get us an intersection that didn't compete or conflict with either one of those and,
essentially, going right in the middle. And as a result of that -- go to the next slide. We
had to annex, then, the area designated as R-8 in order to get that street alignment
moved up from the blue line, which is where it was originally. And so in that process we
-- we were, then, required to annex that additional -- just about five and three-quarters
acres worth of ground, but it made sense to take advantage -- you pay a flat fee for an
annexation, whether it's five acres or 500, so we figured that we would go ahead and
annex the balance of that land and as Sonya has correctly noted we did not provide a
conceptual development plan for that area. We are not really quite at that point yet and
that's why we had suggested that a slight change in the wording of the condition 1.1.1 --
because we don't want to hold the 80 percent of the ground that was actually already
annexed hostage for the -- the 20 percent that has to come into this waiting for some
additional detailed planning on that commercial area. We are just not there yet. But we
will -- as noted before we submit any development proposals in that commercial area,
come up with a conceptual plan and work with staff at that point. So, just also note that
we kind of mislead Sonya originally in the staff report, 1.1.4, we didn't clearly call out -- it
was there, but we didn't call out the fact that we had the ten foot regional pathway
already constructed along the north boundary of No. 22 that's just being finished
currently and it's being extended onto Meridian Road through this phase, so the amenity
was there, we just didn't have it called out on our plans appropriately. It was only -- it
only showed up, actually, in the street sections on the preliminary plat and so we have
addressed that particular item. I would just answer any questions that you have, but let
just give you, then, the red line version of the proposed language change in 1.1.1. And,
Mr. Chairman, it is only that item that we are requesting modification of. All others will
be dealt with accordingly. Thus, we would appreciate your recommendation to the City
Council for approval both of the annexation and of the preliminary plat for this
Paramount Northeast area and we would be happy to answer your questions.
Yearsley: Thank you. Are there any questions at this time? No? Thank you.
Wardle: Thank you.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
June 6, 2013
Page 33 of 34
Yearsley: I have no one signed up to testify. Is there anybody in here that would like to
testify on this application? With that I would entertain a motion to close public hearing
AZ 13-005 and PP 13-008.
Marshall: So moved.
Miller: Second.
Yearsley: I have a motion and a second to close public hearing AZ 13-005 and PP 13-
008. All in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries. Thank you.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. TWO ABSENT.
Yearsley: Comments? Questions?
Marshall: Mr. Chair?
Yearsley: Commissioner Marshall.
Marshall: Seeing how this has developed, it seems very appropriate to see how that
goes in there. I do appreciate the stubs there on the south side of this proposal and the
north side of 21, in case that area in between over there by Meridian Road ever
develops. I do like the idea of the additional access between Fox Run and Meridian and
not having one -- not having an access to Chinden, that that should be taken off of Fox
Run and Meridian and I am very much for it.
Miller: It all seems logical to me.
Yearsley: Okay. I guess I have one question of staff. With the Commission -- with the
applicant's recommendation for changes to 1.1, did I not hear you say that you were
okay with that change?
Watters: That's correct --
Yearsley: Okay.
Watters: -- Chairman Yearsley. I am fine with that.
Yearsley: All right. No, I think it's a good application. I appreciate the clarification on
where the zoning was and everything like that, so that makes it a lot cleaner and more
understandable, so I'm good with it. At this time I would entertain a motion.
Marshall: Okay. I'll give it a shot, then. After considering all staff, applicant, and public
testimony, I move to recommend approval to City Council of file numbers AZ 13-005
and PP 13-008 as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of June 6, 2013, with
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
June 6, 2013
Page 34 of 34
the modification to 1.1.1 to strike annexation ordinance approval and instead have it
read consideration of commercial development proposals.
Miller: I second that.
Yearsley: I have a motion and a second to approve AZ 13-005 and PP 13-008. All in
favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries. Thank you.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. TWO ABSENT.
Yearsley: So, with that I don't believe there is anything else. Could I get a motion to
adjourn.
Miller: I move we adjourn.
Marshall: I will second that.
Yearsley: I have a motion and a second to adjourn. All in favor say aye.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. TWO ABSENT.
Yearsley: We are adjourned.
MEETING ADJOURNED AT 8:46 P.M.
(AUDIO RECORDING ON FILE OF THESE PROC
APPROVED
-C
ATTEST:
JAYCE HOLMAN, CITY CLERK
DINGS.)
DATE APPROVED
~4p,TED A UC~S~_
3GO r~
~~
e ~+ city of
a IDAHO
0
~' SEAL e
Fy
T6* tae
~~~le7lEASU~